Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.74 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 | |
Holger wrote:
That is a comparison based on unrealistic numbers in my opinion. In Germany only very very few photographers make 100k$+. the majority are doing it part time. The average salary is 29kEuros for photographers, here. In the US, statistics (BLM) show a $28,860 median income (https://work.chron.com/photography-career-income-range-1175.html). The top 10% earn 65k and up. In addition you have to pay a lot of taxes etc for your business in Germany. Approximately half of your money is gone in taxes, social security etc., less if you have family of course. If you have a business you need to save for your retirement, too and health care isn't cheap either. Subtracting all your regular expenses, the amount spend for new gear makes up a much bigger chunk of your cash.
Given these realistic numbers switching gear or paying 5k$ more for a kit is a big deal for many, as you don't usually spread it but need to pay it *now* (however more and more photographers we know pay in monthly rates).
My opinion, too: The a9ii/A7riv is not comparable to the R5/R6 kit in addition, as Canon doesn't have a sports oriented body yet leading to a 1dxiii/5d4 or 1dxiii/5dsr-type combination of cameras. The 1dxiii alone is 7100 Euros, here.
The R6 is in addition an A7iii type camera. I could go with the A9 instead of a A9ii easily and A7r2 or A7r3 instead of A7riv if only comparable resolution is important, increasing the difference. For photographers in the top quartile I tend to agree that a 5k difference wouldn't be a big decisive factor, but I still would think about that. Like you I am a full professor, my wife's photography business runs very well, so for us it wouldn't e a big deal. Nevertheless, I wouldn't spend 5k$ more for a kit if I can get similar quality from both. Kids go to college, the house needs improvements, you want to go for vacation, etc.
...Show more →
Keep in mind that the $100,000 was gross revenues not net. The number your are describing are net income and not gross revenues and at least in the US would have social security already subtracted. Also the US number you gave was for 2011 and are not the latest numbers. The most recent numbers from 2016 has the median income at $34,070. The top 25% make more than $52,220 in 2016. So your point is well taken, but let's redo the numbers with a gross income of not $100,000 but $50,000 (and remember that is gross income or the amount of money taken in not net income or the money you keep after expenses). Now the hypothetical difference in take home money with $5,000 extra for the kit for the $50 print is 82 cents and still nowhere even in the vicinity of the $20 vdo1 described. This analysis doesn't include the tax savings from depreciation of the more expensive kit, so it would be even less than the 81 cents difference. The bottom line is that adjusting the gross salary downward does nothing to change the basic point I was making which is that vdo1's hypothetical was wildly unrepresentative of what differences in gear would do to profits and so much so that the example was well outside of anything that would be possible.
I also agree that an R5, R6 kit is not the same as A7r IV, A9 II kit, and I even made a nod to that in my post and by making the cost difference $5,000 more than accounted for that. We can try hard to get closer to equivalent prices on kits. Here is my best attempt:
Sony: A7r III (used $1,800) and A9 (used $2,200); Sony FE 35 f/1.8 ($750), Sony 85 f/1.4 GM ($1,800), Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM ($2,400) total: $8,950
Canon: R5 ($3,900) R6 ($2,500); Canon RF 35 f/1.8 ($450), Canon RF 85 f/1.2 ($2,600), Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 ($2,600) total: $12,050
So in a closer kit that even allows less expensive used Sony cameras the difference isn't $5,000, but $3,100. Now if we extend that gear over three years and resell it for half price we are talking a difference in net income of $518 dollars a year and that doesn't include the slight tax savings the Canon kit would have for greater depreciation and reduced net income. I agree that might make a difference to some photographers, but one would already have to be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for that to make a difference between becoming bankrupt and making a go of the business. You could of course play more with differences in the kits, but no reasonable analysis is going change that basic conclusion.
|
