How Do You Afford This Addiction/Affliction?

ferider said:
For me it's not just the backup, Roger, but avoiding changing lenses all the time.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world, of course you're right, but I can't help feeling that this falls into the old sin of 'luxury', which I believe antedated 'lust'.

Also, when I shot only film, I'd have two lenses on two bodies, colour & B+W, and switch lenses. I'm now perfectly happy with digi colour, but for B+W, I regard digital as against the order of nature, aso it ain't that different: M9 and MP.

Cheers,

R.
 
Whilst I don't have the kit quite yet, I always take the 'I'm only renting it' approach. You can afford ANYTHING if you take this approach.

Cost of lens = price when selling - cost when buying

Same with film bodies, but there's a different method with digital.

With digital, I look at the cost of buying film, developing and scanning X amount of frames. I worked out that a used M6 vs a used M8 is around 1,700-2,200 frames. Or 47 to 61 rolls of film.

So, let's say you bought the used M8 at £1,400 when the M6 was £800, you make enough photos to burn through 100 rolls of film (3,600 - so not a lot) and sell the M8 for £800 a few years later.

Boom, you've earn't your cash back and then some. AND you've got some cracking photos, the memories, and the enjoyment as part of the bargain! heck, maybe even sell a few frames too.
 
Life is full of choices!

If you are a two pack a day smoker in OZ currently, you have a ten thousand dollar a year habit ... so there's the M9-P with change!

I met someone the other day who has gone from being a three pack a day chain smoker to quitting cold turkey ... he'd have an M9 with 35mm and 50mm Summilux's in his first year! :eek:
 
Adam_M said:
Cost of lens = price when selling - cost when buying

Same with film bodies, but there's a different method with digital.

With digital, I look at the cost of buying film, developing and scanning X amount of frames.
Click to expand...

There is also the oppertunity cost : the time to develop then scan or darkroom print needs to be factored in.
The digital camera is inordinately cheaper to run if you never have enough time in a day to get everything done.

The time to close the feedback loop is also in digital's favor - you can see that lens flare, exposure problem or frame line error within seconds rather than days or weeks. That ultimately saves time and possibly money.

A family member joked to another, who was reluctant to be photographed at christmas:
'don't worry we will never see that - it's on film' - that was the moment of epiphany.

I really like the film M6s that I've used for the last 15 years, but have so many unprinted negatives, I felt I was loosing out too much by not going digital.
 
So many "no kids" answers! What do you photograph then? :p

.. i guess there's always cats and old men walking past giant billboards.
 
My wife and both work and make $160k total. Have two kids in a texas state college that were are paying in cash. Own our home, own both cars (10+ years old), have a lot of money in the bank, iPad, iPhones, Hd TVs , a great home. I have about 4k sitting in a paypal account waiting for a deal, but right now i dont need any more gear. Ironically, when I was a freelance photojournalist money was very tight but I had Nikons, Leicas and a refrigerator full of Tri-x and k-64. I can afford a number of m9s but my current kit is an m9, 35mm summicron bokeh king(used $1400), 50 lux pre-asph( used $1,300) 90 summarit (used $1200), 24 f2.8 pre-asph (used $1300). We take expensive trips so I can take photos and because we need a break from hard work. Hard work, hard play and a practical kit for taking photos. I hope everyone who wants this kind of life gets a chance to enjoy it. I sure am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom