This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
glort
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #1$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
markd61 wrote:
Might want to turn this around.
How many jobs do I need to pay for a high end camera?
Not many for a T3i, A cr@p-ton for your Hasselblad H5D.
This is exactly something I look at.
My first DSLR repaid itself the first extended weekend I had it.
Bought it on a Thursday afternoon, by Monday morning had the same amount of money back in the bank.
The last camera's I bought took me a Day to repay. Had a gig, landed a couple more at short notice, thought I'm going to run short here so literally dropped into the camera shop on the way from one job to another and bought the 2 cams they had of what I wanted. Over that same weekend I bought a new laptop and lighting kit and a couple of printers if Memory serves and again had more money in the bank Monday morning than what I had when I started buying everything. Wouldn't have been the case If I was buying 1D's but as I still have not had occasion to need them, I didn't have to worry.
I did buy a 600D for some work I was doing around the same time. Same deal, repaid in a weekend by my 2nd shooter on the job which was a sports gig.
I'm sure many forumite photographers would look down on that and say you need a 5D or a 7 or a 1D but the paying clients have NEVER said anything of the sort. They said " Heres the list of pictures I'd like, do you take cash?" They don't give a rats what camera you used. They like the pic or they don't, end of story.
The thing is, that 600D replaced another older cam that I was using that was once condsidered the Ducks guts 5 years earlier and the 600 was far more capeable than it was. The work I'm doing hasn't changed a bit and if the 600 is now more capeable than what I was using before, whats the point of tying more money up in capital expenditure than I need to?
And I think thats another thing. A lot of this gearitis and Gotta have the latest and greatest is driven by people that aren't running real photo businesses and wouldn't know a balance sheet for what they do if it bit them on the arse.
I buy a new cam on it's features and ability to do the work I have. If a 600D does it, great! If it wears out in 3 months, I'll buy another one because obviously I have destroyed the thing I have made the money to buy a new one. And not being one to baby gear, I'd rather replace a cam 3 times than have the same one. That said, I do seem to get far longer out of them than I would ever expect.
The engineering from a longevity POV these days is impressive.
Might want to turn this around.
How many jobs do I need to pay for a high end camera?
Not many for a T3i, A cr@p-ton for your Hasselblad H5D.
This is exactly something I look at.
My first DSLR repaid itself the first extended weekend I had it.
Bought it on a Thursday afternoon, by Monday morning had the same amount of money back in the bank.
The last camera's I bought took me a Day to repay. Had a gig, landed a couple more at short notice, thought I'm going to run short here so literally dropped into the camera shop on the way from one job to another and bought the 2 cams they had of what I wanted. Over that same weekend I bought a new laptop and lighting kit and a couple of printers if Memory serves and again had more money in the bank Monday morning than what I had when I started buying everything. Wouldn't have been the case If I was buying 1D's but as I still have not had occasion to need them, I didn't have to worry.
I did buy a 600D for some work I was doing around the same time. Same deal, repaid in a weekend by my 2nd shooter on the job which was a sports gig.
I'm sure many forumite photographers would look down on that and say you need a 5D or a 7 or a 1D but the paying clients have NEVER said anything of the sort. They said " Heres the list of pictures I'd like, do you take cash?" They don't give a rats what camera you used. They like the pic or they don't, end of story.
The thing is, that 600D replaced another older cam that I was using that was once condsidered the Ducks guts 5 years earlier and the 600 was far more capeable than it was. The work I'm doing hasn't changed a bit and if the 600 is now more capeable than what I was using before, whats the point of tying more money up in capital expenditure than I need to?
And I think thats another thing. A lot of this gearitis and Gotta have the latest and greatest is driven by people that aren't running real photo businesses and wouldn't know a balance sheet for what they do if it bit them on the arse.
I buy a new cam on it's features and ability to do the work I have. If a 600D does it, great! If it wears out in 3 months, I'll buy another one because obviously I have destroyed the thing I have made the money to buy a new one. And not being one to baby gear, I'd rather replace a cam 3 times than have the same one. That said, I do seem to get far longer out of them than I would ever expect.
The engineering from a longevity POV these days is impressive.
Aug 14, 2014 at 07:19 PM
glort
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #2$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
AmbientMike wrote:
I'm not a big fan of buying new gear. Use what works
Couldn't agree more there.
I know a guy. I think he still uses his 35-350 for magazine shoots. If he quit it's probably been recent. Not the hottest lens, but good
I know a guy that uses a 35-350 all the time as well, ME!
I shoot weddings, glamour, sports, events... whatever with it. All the puritans that only ever shoot weddings in caves lit by one candle and think they have to have an F 0.1 lens or the thing when tested with scientific equipment beyond the abilities of the human eye would say it's not fast or sharp enough but these people are never happy anyway.
Thing looks like its been through 3 world wars. More missing paint than what's on it, the zoom lock gave up years ago, there is a screw or something rolling round inside making a distinctive rattle inside that's been going on for at least the last 3 years and it still works fine and gets me pictures that sell. One year I'll get round to having it serviced and all that dust cleaned out.
One year.
I know it's not the best lens out there but the car I drive isn't the best and the house i live in isn't the best or in the best suburb and my clothes aren't the best and that's all OK and no one gives me grief about it. Makes me wonder why then when adequate is OK for everything else, unless I have the best camera gear some people harp on that's not acceptable and I have to have their defintion of the best.
Funny though, I don't see these people driving Rolls Royces or Maybachs or living in $10M homes or wearing all designer clothing so I wonder why when acceptable is good enough for everything else they have, why only the best and most expensive is acceptable in camera equipment?
Maybe it's to compensate for less than the best skills and creativity on their part?
I'm not a big fan of buying new gear. Use what works
Couldn't agree more there.
I know a guy. I think he still uses his 35-350 for magazine shoots. If he quit it's probably been recent. Not the hottest lens, but good
I know a guy that uses a 35-350 all the time as well, ME!
I shoot weddings, glamour, sports, events... whatever with it. All the puritans that only ever shoot weddings in caves lit by one candle and think they have to have an F 0.1 lens or the thing when tested with scientific equipment beyond the abilities of the human eye would say it's not fast or sharp enough but these people are never happy anyway.
Thing looks like its been through 3 world wars. More missing paint than what's on it, the zoom lock gave up years ago, there is a screw or something rolling round inside making a distinctive rattle inside that's been going on for at least the last 3 years and it still works fine and gets me pictures that sell. One year I'll get round to having it serviced and all that dust cleaned out.
One year.
I know it's not the best lens out there but the car I drive isn't the best and the house i live in isn't the best or in the best suburb and my clothes aren't the best and that's all OK and no one gives me grief about it. Makes me wonder why then when adequate is OK for everything else, unless I have the best camera gear some people harp on that's not acceptable and I have to have their defintion of the best.
Funny though, I don't see these people driving Rolls Royces or Maybachs or living in $10M homes or wearing all designer clothing so I wonder why when acceptable is good enough for everything else they have, why only the best and most expensive is acceptable in camera equipment?
Maybe it's to compensate for less than the best skills and creativity on their part?
Aug 14, 2014 at 07:36 PM
p.3 #3$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
It's all about technique and very little to do with the gear. It also helps to corner a niche market. For example, when my son was recently born, I found out the hospital apparently has a contract with a photography company that gets notified of newborns to photograph them. It didn't seem like the photographer was a pro as she didn't know basic info about her entry level gear. It seems like they give them some basic training on the usual poses and how to bounce flash. They were using the cheapest entry level Nikon crop body (I think it was the 3200 or one of the prior iterations) and an all-in-one Tamron zoom lens with a flash that was bounced off the ceiling. Pics were decent and I'm sure they're making a decent living off of it considering that their average package was around $300 with the consistent volume of newborns to photograph minus whatever the photo company pays their employee to take the snapshots.
Aug 14, 2014 at 08:10 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #4$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
Glort that sounds like my gear. I'm pretty sure I got well over 100,000 photos on my Rebel XT. I need to send a bunch of stuff in.
I like sharp lenses, but unless you have something really bad, it doesn't seem to matter much. Flare is really important, though. Not convinced you're going to see much difference at f/8 anyway, unless you have a really bad lens or something. Maybe.
I like sharp lenses, but unless you have something really bad, it doesn't seem to matter much. Flare is really important, though. Not convinced you're going to see much difference at f/8 anyway, unless you have a really bad lens or something. Maybe.
Aug 14, 2014 at 10:18 PM
glort
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #5$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
AmbientMike wrote:
Glort that sounds like my gear. I'm pretty sure I got well over 100,000 photos on my Rebel XT.
Every camera I have owned back to film up to digital I have basicaly worn out before the warranty was up
Except my 7D's and the 600D ( and some G1X's that cop a mighty hiding). Every other thing went back before the warranty was up inevitably with a failed shutter.
My First Digital was a little Kodak P&S that I bought to figure out what the hell this digital thing was all about and ended up using for pro work. I remember that fell over before the year was out and I sent it in for repair. Kodak rang and asked what the hell I had been doing with it, had over 100K shutter actuations on the thing.
They didn't repair it, just sent me a new one because they wanted to keep the old one to examine or test it or something. Fine by me.
The G1X's are the impressive ones. They easily have over 300K actuations on them now and still they go as good as new. I would have never thought that possible. In fact when I bought them, I really expected I'd be replacing them every month or 3. Hasn't happened.
If there is ever a camera I have made money out of it's these things!
Glort that sounds like my gear. I'm pretty sure I got well over 100,000 photos on my Rebel XT.
Every camera I have owned back to film up to digital I have basicaly worn out before the warranty was up
Except my 7D's and the 600D ( and some G1X's that cop a mighty hiding). Every other thing went back before the warranty was up inevitably with a failed shutter.
My First Digital was a little Kodak P&S that I bought to figure out what the hell this digital thing was all about and ended up using for pro work. I remember that fell over before the year was out and I sent it in for repair. Kodak rang and asked what the hell I had been doing with it, had over 100K shutter actuations on the thing.
They didn't repair it, just sent me a new one because they wanted to keep the old one to examine or test it or something. Fine by me.
The G1X's are the impressive ones. They easily have over 300K actuations on them now and still they go as good as new. I would have never thought that possible. In fact when I bought them, I really expected I'd be replacing them every month or 3. Hasn't happened.
If there is ever a camera I have made money out of it's these things!
Aug 15, 2014 at 09:20 PM
p.3 #6$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
Liberal: You deserve a 5D III/1Dx
Conservative: You don't need a 5D III/1Dx
I'm going into hiding after this response.No no no, liberal is "You deserve a PhaseOne IQ280." 
And, the guy doing really well should be penalized and forced to buy it for you........................ because, after all, "he didn't build that business!" This would be funny if it wasn't real!
tuantran wrote
This guys sounds like you Greg. Do you want a liberal response or conservative response?Liberal: You deserve a 5D III/1Dx
Conservative: You don't need a 5D III/1Dx
I'm going into hiding after this response.
And, the guy doing really well should be penalized and forced to buy it for you........................ because, after all, "he didn't build that business!" This would be funny if it wasn't real!
Aug 18, 2014 at 10:10 PM
p.3 #7$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
scottiet wrote:
Not the camera the makes the money it's the photographer!
+1
Not the camera the makes the money it's the photographer!
+1
Sep 09, 2014 at 05:57 PM
p.3 #8$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
curious80 wrote:
. And they charge something like $30 a pop out of that setup for 2 prints. I wonder how much money they make from that "equipment" considering that in the 10 minutes I was there, 2-3 more people came in for the same job.
I trained our receptionist to do passport and ID photos. We used a Polaroid camera that took 4 images for the passports and a Polaroid back for the BB67 for the B&W ID photos. We charged $10.00 for two photos back in the early '80's. We generated $1,800 - $2,000 month from them!
Lots of folks are excited about the $10k-$12k a month gross revenue. Here's some perspective. In the early '80's (1980-1982), with one full time photographer and a receptionist working for me, we were grossing $165k-$180k annually. That's a tick over 1/2 mil in today's money. This was working out of a standalone building. I can't imagine being able to do that in today's market. All our big industrial customers - Brown and Williamson, Keebler, Insurance Company of North America, J.M. Huber, Englehart, and Georgia Kaolin have all closed down or been sold.
. And they charge something like $30 a pop out of that setup for 2 prints. I wonder how much money they make from that "equipment" considering that in the 10 minutes I was there, 2-3 more people came in for the same job.
I trained our receptionist to do passport and ID photos. We used a Polaroid camera that took 4 images for the passports and a Polaroid back for the BB67 for the B&W ID photos. We charged $10.00 for two photos back in the early '80's. We generated $1,800 - $2,000 month from them!
Lots of folks are excited about the $10k-$12k a month gross revenue. Here's some perspective. In the early '80's (1980-1982), with one full time photographer and a receptionist working for me, we were grossing $165k-$180k annually. That's a tick over 1/2 mil in today's money. This was working out of a standalone building. I can't imagine being able to do that in today's market. All our big industrial customers - Brown and Williamson, Keebler, Insurance Company of North America, J.M. Huber, Englehart, and Georgia Kaolin have all closed down or been sold.
Sep 10, 2014 at 06:53 AM
p.3 #9$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
Camera does matter to clients who require large advertising media. For example, I work in entertainment advertising and only the hi-end Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras are acceptable to meet the clients needs in terms of file size. Occasionally, I have to rent a medium format digital camera if their advertising is being repurposed for billboards, bus sides, building sides, banners, duratrans and other large format advertising materials.
Sep 10, 2014 at 08:32 AM
p.3 #10$10K - $12K / Month, what camera?
tcphoto wrote:
Perhaps your friend like the feel of the 5D, the files they produce or the video capabilities of the cameras.
__________
Careful, you're treading on treacherous waters. You may be castigated for your inadvertent description of that camera model. I know, I know what you mean.
Perhaps your friend like the feel of the 5D, the files they produce or the video capabilities of the cameras.
__________
Careful, you're treading on treacherous waters. You may be castigated for your inadvertent description of that camera model. I know, I know what you mean.
Sep 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM