Digital Cameras - asset or cost?
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:01 pmDo most users consider their camera/s an asset or a tool to enjoy photography? Just wondering after reading many different views on the subject.
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
https://d70users.net/
Digital Cameras - asset or cost?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:01 pmPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:08 pmBoth - plus a third, a money pit
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:17 pminteresting question!
When I was shooting as a hobby, my camera was a tool to enjoy and learn, now that Im running a photography business, it has become more of an asset. - (i.e I no longer tuck my camera into bed with me)
I try and shoot as much for myself as I can - which means trying out creative ideas when I have the safe shots shot.
Sometimes my camera simply doesn't come out with me just because I need a break from it - something that would never have happened when I was shooting as a hobby.
Jonathan
When I was shooting as a hobby, my camera was a tool to enjoy and learn, now that Im running a photography business, it has become more of an asset. - (i.e I no longer tuck my camera into bed with me)
I try and shoot as much for myself as I can - which means trying out creative ideas when I have the safe shots shot.
Sometimes my camera simply doesn't come out with me just because I need a break from it - something that would never have happened when I was shooting as a hobby.
Jonathan
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:58 pmI think of my cameras as a tool. The get knocked around and I know they have a finite life as far as being upgraded after a couple of years.
I treat my lenses more as assets, taking more care of them, trying to extend their lifes.
Makes sense. To me anyway
I treat my lenses more as assets, taking more care of them, trying to extend their lifes.
Makes sense. To me anyway
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:02 pmIf we are talking economics, definitely a cost. It won't appreciate in value. In fact it will depreciate alarmingly quickly. However, I don't think in money terms, so for me, it is definitely an asset.
After all had I been in Sydney, it would have been the entrée to meeting the gorgeous Bindii. Shame I was stuck in the nations capital instead.
After all had I been in Sydney, it would have been the entrée to meeting the gorgeous Bindii. Shame I was stuck in the nations capital instead.
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:28 pmRaskill wrote:I think of my cameras as a tool. The get knocked around and I know they have a finite life as far as being upgraded after a couple of years.
I treat my lenses more as assets, taking more care of them, trying to extend their lifes.
Makes sense. To me anyway
what he said.
big lenses are also chick magnets, well have been for me
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:51 amI can see how initially a camera for a hobbyist could be viewed as a cost, but for me personally, I use photography as a creative outlet, and a fairly healthy pastime. Its the hundreds of hours it has kept me eagerly occupied in pursuit of brilliant photos, time I would have otherwise spent (and before I purchased a camera, did frequently) going to a pub or sitting around getting pissed with mates. I think if anything, while I am yet to earn a cent from it, my camera is an asset. Its more than taking photos, its something to be passionate about, and I know thats what drives me. 
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:43 amA cost...
I have made ~40% of the cost of my gear back... but expendature continues to outway income...
Moreso since I got a real job and didnt need to moonlight doing photojobs...
I have made ~40% of the cost of my gear back... but expendature continues to outway income...
Moreso since I got a real job and didnt need to moonlight doing photojobs...
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:37 pmGlen, after buying several Canon L lens this year, it is not only a cost but a disease.
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:48 pmGlen
That's like saying is having a regular sex partner an asset or a cost!
I'm saying no more or my D2x may get jealous
That's like saying is having a regular sex partner an asset or a cost!
I'm saying no more or my D2x may get jealous
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:13 pmStubbsy, great response! Raskill, I like your way of thinking. I tend to think the same way.
I view a lens as a slowly depreciating asset, whilst I view the DSLR camera as a cost, which in my mind I divide between the likely life I will use it for ie D70 cost $2100 divide by 3 years means $700 a year. After 3 yrs while I may still have it, it is unlikely to be in regular use. I value the camera as just above nothing at the end, so would keep it rather than get the modest return from selling it.
I asked the question as I note the perception by many of a higher retained value in certain cameras, which I personally found surprising. I say this after noticing there are 3 x D1 on Ebay US selling for A$338 when they were originally $16-18k here. If you are keen on a Pro Nikon 2.7mp body I also just noticed a D1 in Sydney where the bidding has already reached the giddy heights of $45!
I view a lens as a slowly depreciating asset, whilst I view the DSLR camera as a cost, which in my mind I divide between the likely life I will use it for ie D70 cost $2100 divide by 3 years means $700 a year. After 3 yrs while I may still have it, it is unlikely to be in regular use. I value the camera as just above nothing at the end, so would keep it rather than get the modest return from selling it.
I asked the question as I note the perception by many of a higher retained value in certain cameras, which I personally found surprising. I say this after noticing there are 3 x D1 on Ebay US selling for A$338 when they were originally $16-18k here. If you are keen on a Pro Nikon 2.7mp body I also just noticed a D1 in Sydney where the bidding has already reached the giddy heights of $45!