How does one justify a 40 grand camera?

[robklurfield]

good answer

It's tax deductible.

EDIT: For professionals in the USA, not for me. 😉

 

[retro]

It's a chick magnet.

 

[NIKON KIU]

You know there are studios out there that cost millions of Dollars, they make big $ too, what's 30~40 grand?

Some of those Hassy lenses cost $10k if bought new...

Kiu

 

[Keith]

No worse than buying a Porsche Cayenne or similar for driving to the shops or picking the kids up ... plenty of those types of vehicles out there and they're not even getting commercial use!

 

[charjohncarter]

No worse than buying a Porsche Cayenne or similar for driving to the shops or picking the kids up ... plenty of those types of vehicles out there and they're not even getting commercial use!

Right, but I'm still skeptical that it couldn't be done (just as well) with say a Pentax digital 645.

 

[gavinlg]

Don't get me wrong, I love the pentax 645d but just remember they're pro cameras for high end commercial photographers. Ones that use them every day, day in and day out, and get paid massive amounts of money to do so.

Pentax has near no pro support for the 645d outside of japan. Hasselblad is comprehensive in their pro support.

Some of the invoices dished out by the big time commercial guys are upwards of 500-800k US each assignment - usually about 80-120K of that pure profit. The big ass sensor definitely makes a big difference in image quality, not to mention that the latest blad - the h4d 60 is 60 megapixel, which allow massive cropping and printing, all the while remaining basically noiseless at base ISO.

 

[rpsawin]

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.

A pro can use it to make several $100k. Sure, if I lived in that world I would jump in a heartbeat. But to plonk around out in the woods, or in the street....no!

Best,

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

Also, clients normally want it yesterday ("If I wanted it today, I'd ask for it tomorrow"). Digital is faster. This is one area where pro and amateur mind-sets are very different.

As remarked elsewhere, "professional results" is meaningless when applied to the images themselves. The only "professional result" is when you get paid for your pics, and to fantasize about earning a living with a $100 camera is, well, pure fantasy. One or two 'fine art' photographers may do it, but genenerally, pros use pro gear because it's fast, reliable, easy to use...

Oh, yeah: and high-megapixel large-sensor cameras with top-end lenses DO deliver better quality than fewer megapixels and lesser lenses, to say nothing of reliability, availability of hire bodies/lenses, etc.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PKR]

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.

You must understand that there are photographers working today who's day rates are in the $10K - 30K range. Many own this kind of gear, often including a back-up unit. Look at the current offerings by Phase One. Their new b+w back is $42K. you supply the camera.

 

[Keith]

This gets back to the 'tradesman and tools' scenario IMO.

The guys at the top of the food chain will buy this stuff in a heartbeat ... it's what they need and use to maintain that level!

 

[Doug]

Right, but I'm still skeptical that it couldn't be done (just as well) with say a Pentax digital 645.

I would think so, for the most part, and I expect that's just what Pentax is hoping for!

When I saw the thread title I immediately thought of the Leica S2, since I figure a kit with body and three lenses would add up to around $40k...

 

[PKR]

This gets back to the 'tradesman and tools' scenario IMO.

The guys at the top of the food chain will buy this stuff in a heartbeat ... it's what they need and use to maintain that level!

This kind of gear is more commonly used than you might think. I see in in use fairly often. Many who can't afford the ownership, rent the gear by the day for a project. When the rental fees for a year are high, they buy,often an older unit and then will get a later model as $ permits. It's a tool. Many on this form don't see cameras as tools. To many photographers, cameras are tools. They perform a function on the way to producing an image. Nothing more. If one tool is better and easier to use, you will want it if you can afford it.

 

[Keith]

A friend of mine in the signwriting business outlaid $60,000.00 AUD on a computerised vinyl cutting machine when they first started to take over from conventional signwriting methods ... ie paint brushes and a good eye!

Everyone told him he had rocks in his head ... like Liberace, he cried all the way to the bank when that expensive piece of gear was running flat out eighteen hours a day! 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

This kind of gear is more commonly used than you might think. I see in in use fairly often. Many who can't afford the ownership, rent the gear by the day for a project. When the rental fees for a year are high, they buy,often an older unit and then will get a later model as $ permits. It's a tool. Many on this form don't see cameras as tools. To many photographers, cameras are tools. They perform a function on the way to producing an image. Nothing more. If one tool is better and easier to use, you will want it if you can afford it.

Though in all fairness, plenty of professionals also have a weakness for interesting gear. They just don't let it stand in the way of gear they can earn money with, where different rules apply.

Cheers,

R.

 

[amateriat]

You must understand that there are photographers working today who's day rates are in the $10K - 30K range. Many own this kind of gear, often including a back-up unit. Look at the current offerings by Phase One. Their new b+w back is $42K. you supply the camera.

I definitely get that. Trouble is, the ranks of these photographers are thinning, particularly as the landscape of advertising (particularly in print) evolves/devolves. This is happening at just the point when lots of high-end, high-priced digital gear is hitting the scene. The next five years should be interesting.


- Barrett

 

[PKR]

Though in all fairness, plenty of professionals also have a weakness for interesting gear. They just don't let it stand in the way of gear they can earn money with, where different rules apply.

Cheers,

R.

Oh, I know, but it's much easier to get a thrill from a new M series than a digital back, that looks like a hasselblad back connected to a sinar P and wired to a computer sitting on a cart. The Sinar is cool, the back is just a square blob, with a firewire cable coming out the side.. that cost $40K

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/P65/P65-Info.aspx

The older backs don't all have an LCD screen.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, I know, but it's much easier to get a thrill from a new M series than a digital back, that looks like a hasselblad back connected to a sinar P and wired to a computer sitting on a cart. The Sinar is cool, the back is just a square blob, with a firewire cable coming out the side.. that cost $40K

MUCH easier.

But these backs have benefited Alpa massively. Their cameras look inexpensive next to the backs people put on 'em.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

As many have mentioned, cameras are tools. I don't fondle my 1D Mk IV (a $5,000 camera) or 5D Mk II like I do a nice Leica M, but that Canon will bang out 2,000 frames at 10 fps at a football game without even working hard. The Leica? Nah. 🙂

If you need the tools, you buy them. As much as I lust after the Paslode cordless framing nail gun the pro was using on a project at my house, it's a bit of overkill for driving tacks to hang photos, so hard to justify the cost! (But, man, what a cool tool). But the pro got his $435 back many times over on the project he did for me alone!

 

[javimm]

I don't see the problem. It's a tool for a very specific job. If a comercial photographer needs the IQ that the camera provides, it's a no-brainer. And those digital backs DO delive the best IQ. The camera is going to pay for itself.

I don't understand why so much debate about a tool for a job when a lot of people has very expensive tools at work (computer servers, software, machinery, etc.), way more expensive than this cameras.

I'm a civil engineer and we have scavengers and other machinery in our company that are WAY more expensive than a Hasselblad, but nobody argues that they are too expensive. Whatever they cost, they are the tools to use for the job. Maybe there are no arguments as there are in the photography world because nobody is going to buy a scavenger that big for personal garden use 🙂

 

[Pickett Wilson]

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