RichL
Well-known
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.
I just have a hard time figuring out an economic incentive for that expensive a camera.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
It is designed for professionals.
Mephiloco
Well-known
Fashion photography is one application where a hasselblad just makes sense.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
By making $100,000 a year with it?
That is assuming the same money could not be made with a lesser camera.
That is assuming the same money could not be made with a lesser camera.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
A Hasselblad digital or two are a fairly modest part of the entire studio outfit. And with the right target size you will need it (or at any rate your art directors or editors will demand it, to have more flexibility in the post production cycle).
I've spent not that much less on digital MF and LF backs, and they paid for themselves and generated at least as much profit as a film/scan setup before they were obsoleted, usually within a mere two years - nowadays, with the pixel race slowed down significantly and the back being good for three to five years, it will be even more profitable.
I've spent not that much less on digital MF and LF backs, and they paid for themselves and generated at least as much profit as a film/scan setup before they were obsoleted, usually within a mere two years - nowadays, with the pixel race slowed down significantly and the back being good for three to five years, it will be even more profitable.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
In our industry (aerial imaging), digital cameras start at $1 million++...even "old" film cameras was $500k.
The justification was simple: mandatory in project specifications.
The digital premium was argued away in sales promotions with "no film/procession cost", plus many other [technical] advantages.
Considering a frame of B/W plus processing cost ~$10, and an average season is ~20,000 frames, does that mean one can recover the premium in a couple of good seasons?
Yes and no. Yes in terms of simple arithmetics; no, if other new costs were also accounted for.
BUT, the fear that Kodak or Agfa would pull the plug [more real than you think] and new project requirements better served via digital-direct imaging soon compel practitioners to re-invest...or retire.
The justification was simple: mandatory in project specifications.
The digital premium was argued away in sales promotions with "no film/procession cost", plus many other [technical] advantages.
Considering a frame of B/W plus processing cost ~$10, and an average season is ~20,000 frames, does that mean one can recover the premium in a couple of good seasons?
Yes and no. Yes in terms of simple arithmetics; no, if other new costs were also accounted for.
BUT, the fear that Kodak or Agfa would pull the plug [more real than you think] and new project requirements better served via digital-direct imaging soon compel practitioners to re-invest...or retire.
robbeiflex
Well-known
It's tax deductible.
EDIT: For professionals in the USA, not for me.
EDIT: For professionals in the USA, not for me.
ChrisN
Striving
Presumably the same way one justifies a Leica M9 and lenses - if one can afford it and wants it, that is sufficient.
RichL
Well-known
Sevo
Makes sense and thanks. I got so fixated on the price that I neglected to consider the rest, that it's just a part of the set up. Nor had I considered the cost of a high end scanner.
Makes sense and thanks. I got so fixated on the price that I neglected to consider the rest, that it's just a part of the set up. Nor had I considered the cost of a high end scanner.
Darshan
Well-known
If they are selling them, that's cuz someone's buying them.
Dan.
Dan.
A Kodak DCS460 used to cost $28,000 for a 6MPixel camera, 15 years ago. People bought them. I saw one of them made into a Color-IR camera, that one cost more. The project required it.
A professional buys equipment when it is required for the job. Big job, big budget.
A professional buys equipment when it is required for the job. Big job, big budget.
Steve M.
Veteran
I always bristle when I hear the word professional. Nothing personal. That's not at all who it's for. It's for commercial photographers. A professional photographer is someone who gets professional results. If you're good you can do it w/ a $100 camera. If you need something for a paying client, and you need it fast, you need a big 'ol digital camera.
BillBingham2
Registered User
How much money will you make with it that you can not with any other system? Either additional gigs, gigs you can not get any other way, tangible things like that. It's a hard approach but it's pure business.
Oh, then you need to look at alternatives and judge them and the jobs you can get with them (or have gotten). Then you need to compare against the big gun.
Sorry.
B2 (;->
Oh, then you need to look at alternatives and judge them and the jobs you can get with them (or have gotten). Then you need to compare against the big gun.
Sorry.
B2 (;->
Okay... I get a mental image of a professional photographer getting paid for a job, acquiring the correct tools for the job, and trying to make a profit off of the job.
For scientific/technical photography the cost of the equipment is part of accomplishing the project goals. The most expensive Digital Sensor that I've used was $1M. The computer to process the data was $500K.
For scientific/technical photography the cost of the equipment is part of accomplishing the project goals. The most expensive Digital Sensor that I've used was $1M. The computer to process the data was $500K.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
what justifies this sort of an outlay ?
Shooting centerfolds.
Shooting centerfolds.
Roland!
I was going to say Aerial Mapping. The Phase I back does Monochrome Visible+Infrared. I spent over $12K for a 1.6MPixel camera to do that, and $25K for a Sensors Unlimited camera that did 2um.
I was going to say Aerial Mapping. The Phase I back does Monochrome Visible+Infrared. I spent over $12K for a 1.6MPixel camera to do that, and $25K for a Sensors Unlimited camera that did 2um.
Last edited:
maggieo
More Deadly
"Professional" only means that someone pays them. As any fan of the Oakland Raiders can tell you, just because someone is paid to do something, it doesn't mean they're any good at their job.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Twenty years ago I worked with a company that paid 125K for a camera. It all depends what your charge the customer.
back alley
IMAGES
if you can afford it then you don't NEED to justify it.
I had some friends that paid that much for a PDP-11 computer, thought they would make money doing consulting with it. They were wrong. Another friend bought a PDP-11 for the same money, built a whole business around it, and left his longtime job as a steadily employed computer scientist to do consulting. He more than doubled his income.
How does anyone justify spending that much money on anything? At least someone will get paid to use it. A number of people spend that much on a car, and very few get paid to drive them.
How does anyone justify spending that much money on anything? At least someone will get paid to use it. A number of people spend that much on a car, and very few get paid to drive them.