Hang on to your car buy a new camera kit

R

Robert

Guest
Have you ever thought about the camera kits we could afford if we kept our cars for a couple more years or run them into the ground.

Just think of the money we lose in the first couple of years with depreciation.

I was talking to a photographer who runs an old Landrover Discovery asking him if he was thinking of getting the new model. His answer no, he would rather put the money into his business.
 
I do keep my cars and run them into the ground, or almost -- and it doesn't help.

I had my last car, a Ford Escort, for 14 years/127,000 miles and the one before, a Mazda 323, for 11 years/119,000 miles. The only reasons I gave up the Escort were that (1) my sister needed a car and (2) I finally became convinced airbags were worth having. (I like saving money, but I'd rather save my life.)

In spite of that, I still can't afford any of the photo gear I'd really like to have (and which would be of genuine benefit to my photography) such as a Leica M8 or a 75/2 Summicron.

Incidentally, cars don't really depreciate that badly if you hang onto them long enough. Yes, you lose a lot the first two or three years. But on average, after about seven years, you get back to straight-line depreciation, and after that it's all gravy.


PS -- If you really want to be able to afford camera stuff, try to get a job as a corporate CEO. I was reading today about the boss of Home Depot, who's finally being ousted by the board for the company's subpar performance while he spent six years pulling down a salary and bonuses averaging $40 million a year. (That's $769,000 a week, or $109,890 per day, including weekends -- $4,579 per hour, working or not.)

He must have done a really lousy job. They're so glad to get rid of him that they're paying him an additional $210 million to quit.
 
Last edited:
1994 Fiat Panda, 95.000 km on the odo. Stil in marvelous condition as it is kept in a garage, although there are some nicks and dents. Not replacing it saves me money to spend on stuff that really matters (did I say GAS?)...
 
I agree ... I think if I had car payments alot of my photographical purchases would not be possible

Actually this coming October I will have owned my Eagle Summit for 10 years at which I originally paid $1500 dollars for (I was a junior in highschool)... and since I have maybe put a total of less than $2000 worth of parts and paint over the past 9 years back into it. I do my own mechanical/body work so my cars always tend to cost less in the long run. I plan to keep that Eagle for at least another 2 years.

Also it helps that it still gets 33 average mpg... so that car has saved me so much money over the years.
 
Vehicles.

Vehicles.

2004 Blazer 60k miles
1995 Cadillac 130k
1973 Jaguar XJ6 150k
1988 S10 pickup 155k
1984 motorhome 90K
1993 Harley 60K

Govenator Arnold sends me a personal tax thank you,
----------------Priceless-------------------------
 
Last 6 years driving corporate car (leasing) and owing a tiny private car worth of my just acquired (used) M6 + Summicron 50mm/2. So far doesn't seem to help to gain enough cash to round up my future Leica set (most certainly will be wiling 90mm/2 and one the wide side somehting like 28mm/2 or 28mm/2.8).
Family expenses gets mote priority...
 
I ride a bicycle for transportation, and I have lots of beautiful cameras...more than I need or can use at any one time. That's okay...I like having options. If I had unlimited funds would I buy more photo equipment? Hell yeah!
 
Last edited:
Haha, I remember this situation:

"Hey man, why you smoke? Do you know how much money one can spend in 20 years no smoking? This house can be yours, if you stop smoking, you know?"

"My son, this house is also mine..."
 
I guess not having a car at all is the biggest reason i can afford to have nice cameras, and nice equipment for other hobbies too.

I have never had my own car, i always thought i didn´t need it enough... I can ride a bicycle. On the other hand, somewhere deep (so far deep enough, it seems) inside i´m lazy enough that if the funds were unlimited, i surely would have a car even though i don´t really need one.

I also am kind of happy that i am in the situation where i can make the choice. I know everyone can´t, but they need a car for real. But there´s also many who could do without a car, like me, if they had chosen differently. It must be almost impossible thought to get rid of your own car, if you´re used to doing all your transportation with one for years...

Niko
 
I have a Landrover Freelander TD4 with 180,000 miles on it. I was thinking of changing until I did the maths. Buying a similar car new I would lose around £9000 of hard earned money in the first year covering 30,000 miles.

I think I will run it for as long as I can then buy a Citroen Picasso which will give me over 50 MPG compared to the Landrover at 33MPG.
 
Robert I had been doign that until someone wrote my civic off last August, so I had to splash out on a nice shiny new Citroen C4 VTR but it doesn't ice skate or dance like advertised 🙁
 
Reading this reminds me of all the cool cars from my youth that are no longer sold in the U.S.. I remember walking thru a Citroen dealership as a youth sometime during the mid-70's and seeing whatever Citroen it was that had the headlights that turned with the steering. Had a Maserati engine, I think.

Fiat, Alfa, Peugeot all gone, and all we have to replace them is an indistiguishable herd of Oriental blobs that are so dull-witted that they get you to work on time. 🙄 😀
 
I spend about 4GBP a month on papers, filters and pipe tobacco (I roll).

The problem with most savings arguments is that they assume that prices remain stable. It's hard enough finding some sort of savings option these days that will protect you from inflation. My solution is to spend the money now.

Clarence

lZr said:
Haha, I remember this situation:

"Hey man, why you smoke? Do you know how much money one can spend in 20 years no smoking? This house can be yours, if you stop smoking, you know?"

"My son, this house is also mine..."
 
Back
Top Bottom