Digital Cameras - asset or cost?

[Glen]

Do most users consider their camera/s an asset or a tool to enjoy photography? Just wondering after reading many different views on the subject.

[sirhc55]

Both - plus a third, a money pit

[jdear]

interesting 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

[Raskill]

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

[Mr Darcy]

If 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.

[michael_]

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

[matt-chops]

I 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.

[MHD]

A 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...

[ozimax]

Glen, after buying several Canon L lens this year, it is not only a cost but a disease.

[stubbsy]

Glen

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

[Glen]

Stubbsy, 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!