General thoughts on taking out loans for equipment?

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Long story short, I need to upgrade my XTI as its started to make some "creeking" noises while the shutter is held down, its also used (&4 years old) and any repairs would probably cost more than its worth, so I've decided to upgrade to the 60D ($900) until I can afford the 5kM2 & also want to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens ($1100) as its fantastic in low light which is when I like to shoot landscapes.</p>

<p>While I could take $2k from my limited savings, with the economy and an unknown future, I'd like to keep any savings "liquid" for emergency use, so I was thinking of taking out a personal loan to cover the cost of the mentioned gear + a few filters which is all the equipment I really need.</p>

<p>I could of course save up, but that would mean a few months of not shooting anything which I figure is the least alternative option. While I can afford the repayments without much issue, just having a moment where I am wondering is this a completely stupid thing to do :-)</p>

<p>Has anyone been in this position before, any thoughts?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am wondering is this a completely stupid thing to do</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! It is. <em>Buy used</em>, or cut down on some other expenses. Hobby debt is a bad, bad thing. <br /><br />And, re-consider the need for a super-duper-low-light camera when it's landscapes you're shooting. A tripod is a much less expensive way to solve that problem.<br /><br />I say all of this while in complete sympathy and understanding with the position you're in, believe me. And that's<em> why</em> I'm saying it. I'm a Secret Grand High Pismerink Of The Most Serious Order Of The Buzzkill, but I came by it honestly.</p>

<p>I think it's a bad idea. I have borrow money for toys before but it was a bad thing to do.<br>

Also I think it's not a good idea to buy the 60D until you can afford the 5D. If you want the 5D then get the 5D. If you don't have money yet don't get any thing. It's a toy, don't settle for anything less and yet don't have to have it if you can't afford it.</p>

<p>I agree with Matt and BeBu, 100%...</p>

<p>This is a question for Clark Howard but there is a photography related issue where you say "<em>I could of course save up, but that would mean a few months of not shooting anything</em>", That's not so. There's plenty of cheap cameras including prosumer set ups with manual controls that get great results when the user knows how to use the cameras properly. There are many choices of different kinds of gear, new and used, to get you by in the interim.</p>

it is just a hobby? never put yourslef in financial danger if its the case. the best move for know will be to get a tripod,

shoot at a higher ISO, get your camera repair or get a new Rebel without the lens.

 

when you start selling your print or makin extra money and you dont know what to do with it... search further or ask

your wife... she will show you a lot of things you could make with your extra $ : )

 

seriously, when you will have enough money aside, get a better lens if you must, then get another camera after... best

to have a f2.8 lens first since it seem to be the *problem* before getting a 5dmkIIIIIIIIIII.

<p>I rented expensive equipment until I was generating enough income to justify purchase. If you live in a major market, there will be rental shops; if not, there are some mail order equipment rental businesses. I still rent one lens, I only need it six times a year. $28/weekend to rent, or $1600 to buy. That's not a difficult decision, especially since I expense the rental to the magazine that the shoots are for, but purchased equipment is not reimbursed.</p>

I think you have the gear bug. It makes one act a bit irrationally. A 60D and a pro lens that's only for crop sensors,

when you don't have the money for it and you really want a full frame camera, so you can use high ISO, but you're

shooting landscapes? That doesn't make sense.

 

Keh.com will sell you a Japanese XSi for $400 or a T1i for $600 (when they say EX condition they do mean excellent,

and they're very helpful if you have a problem). Use your existing lenses and throw in a couple hundred for a

respectable tripod from Keh (or if you backpack when you shoot landscape, some small folding travel tripod - I have a

Tiltall Traveler from Adorama and it's an excellent value) and you're just as well off as if you'd bought the expensive

stuff. (Those 2.8 zooms are barely, if at all, better than variable aperture zooms when stopped down for landscape

shooting.)

<p>Well I do hobby landscapes. Don't earn a cent doing it, nor do I want to. </p>

<p>I shoot with my first SLR, a Nikon D70. Bought in 2003, it's a 2003 model. It really does all I need. My camera club requires 11x16 prints matted up to 16x20. I use a tripod, lowest ISO, cable release. Others have also told me that quality wise I won't be seeing any. But the viewfinder etc .. might be a bit easier to use. </p>

<p>I sold my 80-200/2.8 lens and not upgraded yet. My other main lens is a Sigma 10-20mm and that's it really, as I still shoot film, I have a 50 prime and a 85 and a digital 35 cropped sensor lens for travel stuff walk about in low light. Galen Rowell used some v cheap lenses like the Nikon 28-70/3.5-4.5 and the 80-200/4-5.6. </p>

<p>Just yesterday I went out with my film camera and I didn't even shoot one frame. Along the coast. Why? B/c the light was avg and it was a waste of money to shoot, even if it was digital it would be a waste of time to download and store it on the HD for something I know that just won't be printed and displayed for myself or for others. Think Large Format. For each shoot you really just need 12 shots.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Got to agree with the consensus here, which is most unlike me :-)<br>

Money-tripod: money-body: money-lens.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, what lens do you rent? Seriously, I'm just curious, I don't often have the ability to rent.</p>

<p>70-200/2.8. </p>

<p>Thanks, I know from your posting, and images, you are a shorter focal length user. Appreciate the follow up.</p>

<p>Scott.</p>

<p>Buying used is no good IMHO - most of the time the used gear is just as expensive or only $100 bucks less than brand new equipment with a warranty, unless buying an older / different model to the one desired.</p>

<p>I already have a fantastic tripod. I might hold off on the lens alright as that is not super urgent or important as many have stated.....still need to have a think about the 60D, I do some (limited) product photography for local craftsmen & a few of them have asked about large prints, still might not be worth it...need to chew it over some more.....wish I took up golf, would be cheaper ;-)</p>

<p>I shoot almost every day after work so renting is not viable long term, but can live with the kit lens for now.</p>

<p>Thanks all!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was about to suggest renting as well but this sounds like a long term thing so it won't be worth it.</p>

<p>As the others say, going into debt for a 'toy' isn't a great idea. The 60D is a very good camera and slots in price wise between the T3i and 7D and a loan or line of credit would be better than what credit cards will rip you off for.</p>

<p>Just for fun I might check out the cost of fixing your current camera as it sounds like it might be a lubrication issue if it's just making that sound but your exposures are ok.</p>

<p>John of course, if you want the latest and greatest. But you can get the older 70-200mm f/2.8 for example or you can get other lenses like prime lenses that might be less demand.</p>

<p>Not sure why people borrow money when they have some already. I knew someone who had a mortgage on his house but had enough savings to pay it off. I would have paid it off immediately but he didn't want to for some reason.</p>

<p>The large prints, don't be fooled too much by the 18 Megapixels there.... Calculate at 300 dpi how much inches you really gain over 12-15 megapixels; it's not all that big a difference. And, if you're otherwise happy with a Canon rebel now, why not consider the T3 or T2i, for example?</p>

<p>No debts for toys - been there, done that, never again.</p>

<p>Don't borrow, do as the others say, buy used or refurbished when you can afford it.</p>

<p>If you get any EF-S lenses, then they won't work when and if you "upgrade" to a 35mm-sensor camera like the 5D. You need to look at what you really "need" in more details before you buy anything, new or used.</p>

<p><em>I knew someone who had a mortgage on his house but had enough savings to pay it off. I would have paid it off immediately but he didn't want to for some reason.</em><br /><em></em><br />Lots of reasons you might want do this. (However, if you substitute 'credit card debt' for 'mortgage', then your statement is always correct.)</p>

<p>Back on topic, I agree with Ray-- if you're a landscaper, you can get extreme bang for the buck by shooting film for a while. You can get a used 120 film camera with an excellent lens for a couple of hundred bucks, although each shot will cost you close to $2, so you'll want to be selective. At the same time, get the XTi CLAed, or buy a used replacement, 'coz everyone needs the versatility of a regular SLR.</p>

<p>That will buy you time to save up for the 5D2 (or 3), along with a kickass lens or two. Just MHO-- your priorities may vary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure why people borrow money when they have some already.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't always get a loan when you want to. When I got my original mortgage on my house 10 years ago the process was a breeze. I refinanced 6 months ago and despite my job, >800 credit rating, and significant savings, the process took 3 months and every other week they asked for more and more financial documents. If I used all my savings to pay off the house and then lost my job where would I get any money? The mortgage companies are being sticklers even on home equity loans. I doubt I could get one without a job.</p>

<p>You also have to look at the interest rate you are borrowing at what you could get from investing that money elsewhere. I financed my new car at 0.5% interest. I'm getting 1.1% interest on the money I would have given the dealer.</p>

<p>I can get the 60d without taking any loans, I have a $350 credit with a local photography store, would of needed the loan for the lens, but as most people have stated - just not worth it, right now at least. XTI problem is being investigated today, will know what is wrong & how much it will cost to fix in the morning, the 60D is $900 so if the fix is going to cost more than $350 will get the 60D, any less and will just get it fixed.</p>

<p>On reflection, I am not sure I would spend the kind of money a 5DM2 costs even if I had it just yet, need to wait a while and really prove that this is what I want to do, not just a "flavor of the month" type desire. $2.5k is a massive amount of money, heck I could have a great vacation in Hawaii for that as my wife keeps telling me! However I would still like to eventually be good enough to potentially sell some landscape prints....keeping that dream alive, but got to work on my technique for a long time before that ever happens, guess I don't need a 5D for that :-)</p>

<p>Good points about using a film camera, might hold off on it until I get more "cheap" practice in, get better at understanding light / composition etc.. first.</p>

<p>@Steve - the reason why I was considering a loan vs buying using my savings is because I did not want all my money tied up in equipment, need to have some "liquid" cash avaliable for any of life's emergencies.</p>

<p> </p>

OP: > also want to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens ($1100) as its fantastic in low light which is when I like to shoot landscapes.

 

 

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. This lens might be more effective in lower light than some slower lenses, but that's only if

you are shooting with a handheld camera, e.g. sports or events. Most landscape work is done on a tripod. An f/5.6 kit lens would

work fine in low light when shot from a tripod. A faster lens isn't necessary (or even necessarily desirable) for this type of

photography.

 

 

Further, why spend money on crop format lenses if you are eventually going to move to full frame cameras?