How does one justify a 40 grand camera?

[javimm]

Haha. Yeah, and I'd really like to have our office server at home to do some processing but it would be a bit cost-inefficient 🙂

At my father's work they have a huge building where a complete floor is dedicated to a server. It costs millions of euros (really not exaggerating. It's HUGE). That server is one of the few servers that manages all of the savings banks transactions in Spain. For home use?. A bit overkill, but what a pleasure it'd be to use that power for personal number crunching 🙂

 

[PKR]

I dunno, javimm. My dad, until he died, lusted after a bulldozer for his five acres of land. 🙂

I have friends who own ranches who own back-hoes and things other than tractors. The big issue with most of these things is repair and maintenance.

 

[thomob]

simple. its all about the output. to most photographers, its overkill. to photographers shooting for large scale reproduction, its essential.

 

[jsrockit]

It's all relative. Sure, most of us can't afford it. However, there are plenty who can or Hassleblad wouldn't make them. Photography is a very wide genre with many different requirements.

 

[jljohn]

It may be no different than how some justify an M9. 40,000 is to some as 7,000 is to another.

That said, it is clearly designed for high-end critical application working professionals.

Jeremy

 

[bigeye]

Business.

An acquaintance makes $50k a day shooting fashion. He is all about speed and accuracy delivering quality goods to his clients.

The 'system' today goes far beyond bodies and lenses. The Hassie is just a sensor at the end of a long data stream to a bunch of computers. Check out Chase Jarvis' 'simple' field operation. (Great IT practices!)

...which is why, as an amateur, I shoot film.

.

 

[djonesii]

from a MFDB and RF owner .....

from a MFDB and RF owner .....

I own a Epson RD-1 and an Mamiya ZD back. That is, I'm at the bottom of both food chains .....

If I wanted to, I could upgrade to a M8, an M9 is just out of my reach for the moment, but the fact is, neither of those things would change my shooting experience, and for what I do, with my hobby, I could justify 1.5K for the RF experience, but not 2.5K, ( the 2K leicia is getting much more tempting)

I shoot a lot in the studio, and no matter how you slice it, MF looks different than 35mm, and I like that look. When I got the Mamiya, I had just gotten a nice bonus, and 4.5K was within what I could spending on my hobby. Could have just as easily taken the D300 to Africa with the money, but I made an active choice, that the money was better spent on a studio rig. The back itself is full of compromises, but it got me in the game.

Now to the OP's question, lets say I hit the IPO lottery, I probably still would not get a Porsche, or current model Hassled. Anything more than fixing the ZD issues is just a waste, and that will cost about 8K, add a lens or two, and my MFDB dream rig is still only at about 12K.

A well known old saw "The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys" If someone wants to drop 30K on a camera and use it to putz around on the weekend, more power to them. Men do it all the time, sports cars, boats, custom shot guns, trophy wifes, watches, stereos, stamps, paintings etc ...there is a luxury goods market.

Dave

 

[JohnnyT]

It's a chick magnet.

Good call.

You just need a 50 cents sticker with a Porsche Logo. This part is not tax deductible...

 

[Jamie123]

Consider the price of Polaroids, film, bikes (couriers), and labs and a $40K camera pays for itself surprisingly fast.

Exactly. Especially if the photographer shoots 4x5.

And as Sevo mentioned, the camera is a small part of a studio outfit. Simple things like a FOBA studio camera stand cost $9k. An amateur might think that's unreasonable for a tripod but it's a precision tool.

 

[PKR]

Exactly. Especially if the photographer shoots 4x5.

And as Sevo mentioned, the camera is a small part of a studio outfit. Simple things like a FOBA studio camera stand cost $9k. An amateur might think that's unreasonable for a tripod but it's a precision tool.

The biggest expense beyond the digital back and lenses, is lighting. If you do food photography, you need a quality kitchen big enough for several food stylists to work in at the same time. It can be costly.

 

[Andy Kibber]

I wonder how many hobbiests have a current digital Hasselblad. I expect it's a tiny percentage of overall sales. As others said, people buy them to make money, not vacation snaps.

 

[bigeye]

There was a question on flickr about how to set the aperature for maximum depth of field from a new H3 owner. Zowie.

 

[user237428934]

There was a question on flickr about how to set the aperature for maximum depth of field from a new H3 owner. Zowie.

You can buy a H3 with 31 MP back and 80mm lens for 8999 EUR. If you buy it used then you may get it for the price of a new M9. I assume that some people will buy an M9 without knowing much about aperture/exposure.

 

[cmogi10]

Most pro's don't buy them, they rent them. The rental houses are buying them.
At least that's the impressions I get. That and rich amateurs.

Edit: But speaking of digital backs, if anyone wants to trade one that will fit on my contax 645 for an M8 let me know.

 

[Andy Kibber]

There was a question on flickr about how to set the aperature for maximum depth of field from a new H3 owner. Zowie.

Yeesh!

...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Most pro's don't buy them, they rent them. The rental houses are buying them.
At least that's the impressions I get. That and rich amateurs.

Edit: But speaking of digital backs, if anyone wants to trade one that will fit on my contax 645 for an M8 let me know.

I know three people that have them, all advertising photographers. Those that use them daily do buy them, its a lot cheaper than renting.

 

[Steve_F]

what justifies this sort of an outlay ?

Shooting centerfolds.

Yep...I'll go with that 😀

 

[pixelatedscraps]

30 to 40 grand for a Hasselblad digital. Self indulgence aside, what justifies this sort of an outlay? Is it good advertising for certain high end photographers or perhaps worthwhile for particular type of photography?

I just have a hard time figuring out an economic incentive for that expensive a camera.

The same way I justify spending $2200 on a 70-200mm VRII when I don't shoot professionally: I want it and I can afford it.

At the end of the day, there is a spectrum of professional gear being bought and used by people who are not professionals yet they can afford it. It's all relative to your needs and wealth. I can't afford a digital Hasselblad or a car, so I don't think about them.

 

[Frank Petronio]

The funny thing is that at the level of work where you need a $30-$40 digital camera, you should really be investing in a second redundant set plus a seriously high-end Mac workstation with all the trimmings plus a location computer kit plus a nice Pro-Foto (not White Lightening) light kit plus some Euro-HMIs plus full Liteware cases and.... Plus you pretty much have at least one full-time assistant/techy if not an office/rep person too.

That's for a successful commercial shooter with good regional clients who might gross $300K per year in the USA, only 2-3 people in a city like Rochester, NY, several hundred in NYC.

At the highest end of the food chain you don't need to own anything... you just pop into Milan, Paris, NY or LA and rent a studio. Those guys gross a lot more, $1M plus, take away $10K a day profit. I think there are less than 200 people in the world doing it at that level.

I'm wondering how many Blads and Leica S2s sell? If Leica sells 1000 S2s this year, that is still $30M, for what, $5 to 8M profit maybe?

 

[bigeye]

You can buy a H3 with 31 MP back and 80mm lens for 8999 EUR. If you buy it used then you may get it for the price of a new M9. I assume that some people will buy an M9 without knowing much about aperture/exposure.

It's a lot of clay for a picture of the cat on the sofa and a self-portrait in the bathroom mirror.