ChrisMak
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences" | |
osv2 wrote:
molson wrote:
osv2 wrote:
timgangloff wrote:
osv2 wrote:
timgangloff wrote:
Yes and No. See, not everyone buys sports gear to make a profit.
that's not a business, it's a hobby, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the lenses are either for sale or they aren't, and in this case they aren't, there just isn't a profitable market for companies to sell niche sports glass.
timgangloff wrote:Sports are still a great venue for the 3 and all 3 try to make a big splash at the biggest events like the Olympics and Superbowls, etc.
yeah sony was there, without a native 300/2.8 and the other niche lenses that you claimed are a requirement for shooting sports... i shoot action sports and motorsports, i can't use any of those lenses because the focal lengths are wrong.
the tokyo olympics added baseball, softball, skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing, karate, 3x3 basketball and freestyle BMX, for the most part you don't need expensive oddball lenses to cover those sports.
i'm glad that guys like you and lee woolery are able to carve out an income with youth sports and whatnot, even if it takes the rest of eternity to pay for the gear  he summed up the reality of it pretty well: "But glad I don't have to make that decision today because I would look at start-up costs and find another line of work." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725899/0#lastmessage
Like I said, with the right business model, you can make mid five figures working a few days a week, maybe 20 hours or so. My gear paid for itself very quickly. November is a pretty slow month for me and I'll probably invoice $3 to $4k. I'm not the smartest guy around, so if I can figure it out, I'm sure a lot more shooters can too. If you are taking a long to pay for your gear, you are not truly a professional but more of a hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that though. It can still be a lot of fun. I'm not bragging, but just trying to give some insight into what is possible, even for a sole proprietor in a small market.
I am curious as to what lenses you use for "action sports", motorsports, baseball, softball and surfing or think are appropriate. Those all seem like long glass sports to me. And I never said the 300 was a requirement. Perhaps more careful reading is appropriate. I said that for a company who wants to compete in the sports market, a 300 would be helpful in luring new shooters to your brand or for hobbyists/pros starting out.
I do find it interesting that Sony thought it important enough to develop a 400 and 600. I'd surmise it is because if you want to make and sell sports bodies like the a9 and a1, you need sports glass to go with them.
400mm/600mm is quite different from your insistence that e-mount can't possibly be good enough for sports shooting because it doesn't have a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or a 500/4... that's just plain nonsense, the long glass sports are 600mm/800mm+, did you for instance see the 200-600 and 800mm lenses in the z-mount roadmap? gosh, why don't they list any of those lenses that you told us we must have :-0
the fact that no company is making those lenses for milc says it all... will that upcoming rf 500/4 will be another dslr re-pop, like they did with their rf 600/4.
congrats on your success with youth sports and whatever sports you are shooting, i'd tell you to clone the format for sale to other photogs, but then it may only work in places like tennesse, and it'll be really slow to build up momentum... i suppose that shooters could sign up for maxpreps, where you only get paid a percentage if a photo sells after the event? it'll be hard to pay for gear like that.
There's little point in debating with you - if the Sigma is the best telephoto you've ever used, that's fine.
i think that post was for chrismak.
If that post wás indeed for me, then there I can only agree with Molsen: there is little point in debating, we simply disagree.
|
