Don’t Go into Debt For Your Photography

[Highway 61]

They're still small, light and unobtrusive.

Yes they are but they don't last for a long time any longer.

The topic of this thread is about the concept of debt caused by a daily photo practice, not about the size or the obtrusiveness of the gear purchased with either cash or credit.

And there is no 'anti-Leica brigade' which I am aware of, too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes they are but they don't last for a long time any longer.

The topic of this thread is about the concept of debt caused by a daily photo practice, not about the size or the obtrusiveness of the gear purchased with either cash or credit.

And there is no 'anti-Leica brigade' which I am aware of, too.

Sentence 1: And?

Sentence 2: Yet it immediately provoked a snipe specifically at Leicas. Not Linhofs, Alpas or Gandolfis. This leads directly to

Sentence 3: There are certainly those who miss no opportunity to snipe and cavil, whether they see themselves as part of a brigade or not.

There are also those who suggest that you can actually compare a bleakly utilitarian auto-everything tub of lard like a D700 with an M9. Do they really fail to understand the differences?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Highway 61]

Sentence 1: And?

Sentence 2: Yet it immediately provoked a snipe specifically at Leicas. Not Linhofs, Alpas or Gandolfis. This leads directly to

Sentence 3: There are certainly those who miss no opportunity to snipe and cavil, whether they see themselves as part of a brigade or not.

There are also those who suggest that you can actually compare a bleakly utilitarian auto-everything tub of lard like a D700 with an M9. Do they really fail to understand the differences?

Cheers,

R.

Sentence 4 : there are always those who are obsessed with their own "tub of lard" expression, which they don't miss to serve others at any occasion, especially to illustrate totally off-topic arguments. You may want to have it TM registered sooner or later.

As for Linhof, Alpa or Gandolfi : you're right, many young wannabe-photographers dreaming of prestigious gear because they think it will help them to become good and famous, at the risk of getting themselves and their families into deep debt to afford it, think of those very reknown brands first.

After a few hours of hard brain-storming, and a few beers and smokes, comes only the Leica name to their mind.

Sentence 5 : 😛

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sentence 4 : there are always those who are obsessed with their own "tub of lard" expression, which they don't miss to serve others at any occasion, especially to illustrate totally off-topic arguments. . . .

Have you a better phrase to describe overweight, me-too DSLRs? Most people understand what I mean. I can only assume that those who object to the phrase find that it is uncomfortably close to the truth.

Love,

Kettle.

 

[Highway 61]

Have you a better phrase to describe overweight, me-too DSLRs? Most people understand what I mean. I can only assume that those who object to the phrase find that it is uncomfortably close to the truth.

You might want to be the last living figment of Hadrian's Wall. Who knows. 😀

 

[fergus]

Well, on the topic of 'debt' and 'wealth'... I give tax and financial advice (business structures). So I get to meet all types, from the top 1% to the rest of us.

The richest people I have met have no debt, and never had debt apart from their first house to live in (there's a good lesson here, and they never had fancy cars either).

I have a different client right now, with $9,649 net (after income tax) income per fortnight (2 weeks). He is BROKE, it all goes in interest payments on various debts. Now let's be serious - that amount of net-after-tax income is ridiculous to most of us, and he pre-spent it all. His power got cut off at their house (that's why they contacted me initially).

Long story short - if you are a saver, then you will be ok. If you borrow, well then here we are. 🙂

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Debt is a loss of freedom. Might be the right trade-off and it might not, depends you circumstances and on your preferences.

But, there's another danger: Debt is addictive, as in @fergus example just above. So, taking that route requires care.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I have gone into debt to acquire equipment for my business many times. Not unlike any other business that uses debt as a tool. I, like KM 25, have leased equipment, Hasselblad 500 C/M and some lenses in the early 1990s (recommended by our accountant) at a very low rate and $1.00 payout at the end.

I bought my M Monochrom and 35 Summilux FLE 18 months no interest and paid it off so I used their money for a year and a half to finance a camera. Also when I first bought my 5Ds in 2005 I did a no interest credit for 18 months.

When I switched to all Leica M late last year I sold all of my Canon gear and that paid for most of the Leica equipment. So for business debt can be a useful tool to use but for hobbyists I wouldn't recommend going into debt to buy equipment.

My work pays for it all and sometimes there are good reasons when you are in business to take on debt but you need to do it responsibly and have the work to support the amount of debt you acquire.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The richest people I have met have no debt, and never had debt apart from their first house to live in . . .

Dear Fergus,

How many of them started out (and possibly continued) with at least a little financial help from the family? That, and going to the right school, university, etc. And luck, of course.

Sure, we've all met completely self-made, up-from-the-streets millionaires, and more power to them, but I've met a damn' sight more extremely rich people who started out with significant advantages. Most of them are more than happy to attribute their success to their own brilliance, hard work, etc., but considerably less willing to admit that anything else at all might have had anything whatsoever to do with it; they dismiss luck and a few million from Daddy as entirely incidental to their success. Trump, for example, did not start out in the gutter.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book are well worth reading (Fooled by Randomnness, The Black Swan, etc.) He's an extremely rich man, so he's not whining, but his analysis is not the same as that of the average rich man.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sc_rufctr]

After my divorce of 14 years ago... I got into dept because it was just me and my three kids. (Long story)

I worked full time but it just wasn't enough so to put food on the table I got a $5,000 credit card and started from there.
Within 4 years I had over $20,000 on credit cards and another $20,000 on a personal loan and a huge mortgage.

In the end I had to get my taxi licence and drive on the weekends just to get ahead. It took 7 years to get back on track and clear all of my dept except for the house.

What did I learn? Avoid debt! Go without until you can buy it cash but you have to eat so just eat and do the best you can afterwards.

My kids are grown and we're OK now and through all of this I also learned what is truly valuable in life.
.......... Most divorced fathers never have the time I've had with their own children. I'm a lucky guy! 🙂

 

[x-ray]

If my accountant recommended leasing equipment I'd fire him. Leasing is just another word for financing. So what if you only pay a dollar for your equipment at the end of the lease. At the end of any finance period you own the equipment. Finance or lease there's interest on that you're paying.

A partner in one of my business ventures is married to a CPA that owns a large accounting firm. She recommends leasing everything for the business. She always argues you can write off the lease amount. Why pay the bank $4000 for a $750 savings is my thought? Not very smart economics IMO. Money spent on interest is money lost no matter who it goes to. That interest paid would better serve me if I spent it on a new piece of equipment not lining the pocket of my banker. I would never take her advice or let her touch my books.

Roger I know plenty of folks that made a lot of money that came from nothing. The above friends wife was the daughter of a very poor West Virginia farmer. I personally never received any inheritance, trust money or financial assistance from anyone. My parents were quite poor when I was young and couldn't even afford a car. Fortunately my dad had vision and saw the need to get an education and gave us a better life but we were never wealthy. What I have I did totally by myself. I took risk and was rewarded. I have a talent in photography and a good business sense. I don't throw money away and I save. There's nothing other than essentials that I can't wait on so I can pay cash.

My partner in one of my ventures is a self made millionaire. He came from an average income Alabama family. He never received any sizable inheritance or trust money. He too made his through his writing talent and keen business sense. He took the risk and opened an ad agency and motion picture production house and made a load of money. He was single until he was in his 60's and lived in a two room cabin for many years. Now he has a nice home on a lake and a large cabin in the mountains.

Plenty of folks made their money totally on their own.

The only debt in my business I ever took on was in the mid 80's when I expanded my studio and added broadcast video equipment and produced industrial videos and commercials. In this case I paid the debt off in half the loan period.

 

[fergus]

Dear Fergus,

How many of them started out (and possibly continued) with at least a little financial help from the family?

Hello Roger,

Yes you're right many might have had such an advantage. Your example of Trump is a good one in the current public eye.

However at least in my experience the really well-off ones were entirely self-made, in one case starting out as a ward of the state. The common shared characteristics were (1) never borrowing, and (2) avoiding waste, both as strong principles.

However, and linking somewhat to your thoughts about getting a head-start; when that ex orphan self-made multi-squillionaire finally passed away, his children and grandchildren spent it like it grew on trees. Scary to watch. They still own a business but the entire wealth is far diminished.

Cheers...
Fergus

 

[Ibramr]

Greetings All. Of course, it pays to be prudent with money--and avoid debt whenever possible. Leica equipment, if bought and used carefully, is very fungible. That is, it can be liquidated to cash within a relatively short period of time at prices similar, or close, to their original cost. The difference between the buy and sell price is the rent you pay for using the equipment. The interest you pay over your credit balance, is the price of not having the money in the first place. I think that if credit is managed carefully, very carefully, it can increase the welfare of all parties involved. Enjoy in good health.

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . However at least in my experience the really well-off ones were entirely self-made, in one case starting out as a ward of the state. The common shared characteristics were (1) never borrowing, and (2) avoiding waste, both as strong principles.

However, and linking somewhat to your thoughts about getting a head-start; when that ex orphan self-made multi-squillionaire finally passed away, his children and grandchildren spent it like it grew on trees. Scary to watch. They still own a business but the entire wealth is far diminished.

Cheers...
Fergus

Dear Fergus,

There's also the point that the self-made rich are the ones who shout loudest about it -- and whose children lose it fastest. I know some of them, too, or more accurately, their children. Quite often (as you know well) their riches are only a veneer, sustained by debt.

There are very large numbers of "quiet" millionaires, especially to my knowledge in the UK and France, with enough family money behind them that they have never really had to worry much about anything financial. As long as they aren't downright silly, they can pass on to their children much the same as they received themselves: sometimes a little more, something a little less, but almost never rags-to-riches or riches-to-rags. Not being downright silly is how family wealth is maintained.

Also, even the unbelievably rich sometimes have to borrow in the early stages of their enterprises, for example to buy a new hot-dog stand: yes, I actually did meet someone who started his first million with a hot-dog stand in New York. Many prefer to gloss over it, as if they're almost ashamed of admitting that they ever had to borrow such paltry sums.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mackinaw]

.... a bleakly utilitarian auto-everything tub of lard like a D700.........

Nice one Roger, this made me laugh out loud.

Jim B.

 

[tunalegs]

I personally found this comment in line with my own thinking:

Jack B. Siegel • 2 days ago
I suggest you stick to photography, allowing each person to make his or her own life and financial decisions.​

Raised not to borrow, by stern Methodists, I missed out on some important purchases.

I suggest Jack stick to shutting up and letting a writer write about a topic they have obviously have experience with. 😀

There are so many articles out there telling young, broke, people that they need to buy pointlessly expensive gear - obviously written by rich old people who have no clue what it is like to be college aged these days, or how reckless and stupid it is for broke, young people to be making such purchases.

A camera is just a camera. Buy the the status symbol once you've got status. Until then, take pictures and disregard needless conspicuous consumption.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do you really think that a Leica is conspicuous? My guess is few people even recognize one when they see it carried, or think it is an old flea market camera.

I personally think of it as inconspicuous consumption.

Then again I may not be the one to judge such things, since I have no idea what "a camera is just a camera" means.

Quite. But it's quite hard to convince some of this.

As for "a camera is just a camera", those who say it should be forced to work with a Box Brownie. Unless of course they like Holgas, in which case something like a Contaflex Super BC might be more appropriate.

The meaning of "a camera is just a camera" varies, but given that some people appear to be able to equate a big, fat Nikon D700 with a Leica, it must have some pretty strange meanings.


Cheers,

R

 

[KM-25]

That was all true during the film era (although the Leica film cameras never were as reliable as their marketing hype told they were, but this is another story).

Now at the digital age, a Nikon D700 with a good Nikkor lens would be a way better choice for the modest photographer ready to drop $1000 in a second hand kit which will take picture after picture without any problem and may virtually last forever without any maintenance or repair. The D700 was marketed long ago enough now so we all can know how highly reliable it is.

Someone I know just sent his M8 to Wetzlar because that camera (which he had bought from new and always used as a careful amateur) suddenly ceased to work. The camera came back and the invoice for the repair was 1,075 euros. And if you consider what happened to almost all the M9 units... well.

I don't belong to any "anti-Leica brigade" but we all have to acknowledge that, today, the digital Leica Ms are everything but reliable cameras which will be used for taking pictures for a lifetime without forcing their owners to spend top dollars on them for repair on quite a regular basis. So, buying a new digital Leica today means, nolens volens, continuously spending money on it even long after the purchase day. Another kind of debt...

I bought my M240 used from the classifieds on here over a year ago, use it strictly for paid shoots ( prefer M6, M3 for personal work ) and knock on wood, tens of thousands of frames later it has been faultless. Not all of them are money pits and 4K was not a painful amount to pay for a tool I get to write off.

 

[KM-25]

There are also those who suggest that you can actually compare a bleakly utilitarian auto-everything tub of lard like a D700 with an M9. Do they really fail to understand the differences?

Oh for goodness sake, they are all great tools, I must have put 400,000 frames through a pair of D700's in the time I had them. Why take the below the belt approach on this folks? We are pretty lucky to have the choices we have, going into debt for it or not.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh for goodness sake, they are all great tools, I must have put 400,000 frames through a pair of D700's in the time I had them. Why take the below the belt approach on this folks? We are pretty lucky to have the choices we have, going into debt for it or not.

And? I don't think anyone denies that the D700 is a perfectly good camera. But next to a digital Leica pretty much any DSLR is big, fat and ugly (the Nikon Df isn't too bad). There's nothing "below the belt" in pointing that out.

Cheers,

R.