| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Rising equipment cost in a declining industry
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:52 AM on 08.26.10 |
->> I've just got to say that I just don't understand the current pricing of new photo equipment these days or for whom it really makes practical sense to upgrade.
For example, I just saw Canon is coming out with updated versions of all their superteles (weren't the old ones as about good as it got already ?)
300 2.8 with a street price of $7,000
400 2.8 with a street price of $11,000!!!!
I remember when I bought my first 300 2.8 VR, I paid $3400 new and that felt like a good deal of money. It was worth more than the car I drove at the time!
Given the state of this industry, not to mention the economy as a whole, how many people are really going to be upgrading ? Sell your old 400 for what, $5000 and what real gains are you going to see with the $6000 it will cost you to upgrade ? Is that new lens going to get you twice as many images sold ?
For new photographers entering the field its just as crazy. Last advice I'd give anyone out of school is to go buy a $7k lens much less one that cost $11k. Thats going to be fun for one month until your Mastercard statement comes, along with your student loans and the cost of living and you find out that shooting on spec isn't going to pay for any of it.
How did the sheer amount of equipment cost get at such odds with the return ? Maybe if you can move a double truck per week during the entire football season it would work out, but realistically how many of us can hope to have more than one or maybe two and thats if we are lucky ? Last one I had was 2 years ago.
It just doesn't make any sense to me. Show up to a game with $30K of gear and maybe move a few web images to SI for $8 each or whatever they are paying these days because there are 100 other guys with $30k worth of gear trying to do the same thing.
Its sort of like paying $50 a day to park while you work a job that pays $5/hr
It really is going to be nothing but weekend warriors on the sidelines in coming years because the only people who are going to be able to afford any equipment are those who have a fulltime job during the week. |
|
Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 2:06 AM on 08.26.10 |
| ->> 11k?! that thing better do my taxes and clean my house too. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 12:19 PM on 08.26.10 |
->> Jeff,
Very well put. I was very surprised to see those prices as well.
11,000 for a lens, yikes. I just can't imagine a lens being better then the "old" 400mm to be honest. Hell or even the "old" 300mm lens.
Both are money when it comes to shooting, can those two lenses really be that much better? I doubt it |
|
Louis Brems, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Moline | IL | United States | Posted: 12:32 PM on 08.26.10 |
->> Guys those prices are Retail List prices. The true price of those Lenses when they Hit BH, Samys etc will be 2000 to 3000 less.
Having worked in a Apple store that sold Canon gear too the book we order from shows list price not what the item sells for. List prices have always been inflated.
Truth be told the price most lenses sell for the store your buying them from often make little or no money.
For example a 70-200 2.8 Canon Is lens would cost us 1589 and the most we could sell it for to stay competitive with Samy's and BH would be 1699 by the time you factor in the shipping we paid were not making much.
Which is why most often companies push filters and the other crap. Because that stuff is little to no cost and huge mark-ups meaning more profit.
I understand in BH's case its somewhat different cause our Canon rep told us how much per year they buy and their price break is better then any camera store in the world. But most of the others out there run in the same price breaks as we were in. |
|
Michael P. King, Photographer
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 1:28 PM on 08.26.10 |
| ->> Next time you get something from CPS, take note of the value listed on the insurance sheet that (should be) in the box with the item that you received. I borrowed a 400/2.8 and the value listed was around $10,000. Obviously that wasn't accurate when compared to the cost that I would have payed had I gone at that very moment to B&H and purchased the lens. Retail prices don't mean anything anymore. |
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 1:40 PM on 08.26.10 |
->> From Canon's current Web site:
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_400mm...
"EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Estimated Retail Price: $7,999.00 - Prices and specifications subject to change without notice. Actual prices are determined by individual dealers and may vary."
I seem to recall the current generation Canon EF 400 lens was announced somewhere around $9,000 when it came out 11 years or so ago:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/179
"The new 400's aren't expected out till around November/December and might be priced around 10%-15% higher than the current models, although no one is quite sure what they might run." Dated: 1999-07-21 |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 11:03 PM on 08.26.10 |
->> Jeff, if you think that is bad, check out the Leica prices sometime. Many used Leica lenses sell for more than what they retailed for years ago.
Leica recently announced a 35 mm f 1.4 lens for about 5 grand. A 50 mm f.95 Noctilux is $10,500.
You can't buy either one, because there's a waiting list! Someone out there has cash. It's just not us. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:11 PM on 08.26.10 |
->> I bought my first 400 2.8 new in 1993. It cost over $9000 CAD. Converted to USD at that time it was about $7300. Adjusted for inflation, that $7300 is now about $10700 - pretty close to the apparent street price of the new lens. When the Mark II was released in 1997, it was similarly priced. When the IS was released in 1999, the price on the Canon museum site indicates it would have been around $9500 (though not sure if that was the actual street price). Those lenses, back in the 90s, were always expensive and not that many people had them. I feel back then, if you had one, it really did give an edge over those who couldn't afford one, but we were also shooting film and trying to stick to as low an ISO stock as possible.
Something changed in the 2000s so that by about 2005 the 400 was down to about $6500 and seemed to be stuck there for many years. Maybe Canon had paid off the initial R&D costs and had gained efficiencies in production to justify the lower prices? Or they wanted to open the high end of the market to more people getting into photography thanks to the eased learning process afforded by digital. Get people 'hooked' and deeply invested in the system and it will be more difficult for them to justify switching brands later. Then came the financial crisis and Canon, just like all other companies, got a bit of a wake up call. Maybe the prices were unsustainable, or maybe they just decided to change their priority from high volumes at low margins to high margins at lower volumes. Unfortunately, as has been written here for quite a long time, the market for photographers generally has not had a similar change... Rates have been stagnant or falling for a long time. When equipment prices were stable and dropping slightly it wasn't as dire, but now, it's kind of like being caught holding a sub-prime mortgage.
I agree with you Jeff. I also wonder who will be buying the new lenses.. Certainly someone will. But the market is much different than it was in the 90s and for me, I'm not shooting nearly as much sports as I used to. It's kind of ironic that sports photography requires investment in some of the biggest ticket items yet pays poorly. The paper I work at part time has a couple Nikon 400 2.8s. If they had to replace those now, for whatever reason, it would be a very difficult sell to get the bean counters to release their iron grips from the purse strings. It's already a battle to replace 10+ year old staple lenses deemed uneconomical to repair by Nikon. Lenses like 80-200 2.8s, 17-35s, etc.
Prices for the recently introduced lenses will likely drop 10%, maybe 15% a year or so from now, but I doubt the 400 will ever be down to what it cost in 2006-2007. |
|
Thomas Oed, Photographer
 |
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 11:20 PM on 08.26.10 |
->> Regardless of whether the final selling price of the 400 is 11,000 or 'only' 8000, Jeff's point is still every bit as valid.
I wouldn't buy one at 5000, because I know I would never make that money back with it, and I'm one of those weekend warriors working TWO non-photography jobs to keep the bills paid these days, not even just one.
Fortunately, for gear that's THAT specialized, there's rental places around, which is what I've done for the handful of times I've 'needed' to use such a beast. Rented it for 80 bucks for the day. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 1:51 AM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> I was told the current 400 also has a 11,000 dollar price from canon but actual street price is much lower. I am sure the new lens will come in much lower then 11 grand if it comes in around 7500t o 8 grand and my old lens brings me 6 grand or so well that is not bad. Espicailly for a when you consider it is 3 1/2 pounds lighter. |
|
Ray Anderson, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 7:11 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> The biggest rip off when buying a lens from nikon or canon that may cost over 7500.00 is that both nikon and canon will only repair and make parts for these lens for 7 years after a new lens upgrade is introduced.
What will drive me to switch to Nikon or Canon is a policy that they will have parts and repair any high cost lens for the lifetime of the owner at a fair price. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 7:46 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> From a personal standpoint, I'd view purchasing a telephoto as a very long-term investment and I'd be very, very selective about what I'd pick up.
Currently I own nothing longer than 200mm. If I needed 300mm+ in reach, I'd have to rent... but then I run into the issue of whether I'll recoup the rental cost on what the job is paying.
Here's an example: a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 can be rented for about £135 per weekend (Friday delivery, Monday collection).
The retail cost of that 400mm f/2.8 is £6500 or so - or 48 weekend rentals.
Most freelance sports assignments in the UK attract day rates of around £90 - £110, with even the best stringer rates (which I know of) topping out at £150 plus M&I expenses.
If you really *need* a 400mm lens - instances where it forms the cornerstone of your ability to capture the shots your clients expect - then purchasing it makes the most long-term financial sense.
For many of us whom are still in the infancy of our shooting careers whom aren't wealthy and don't have (or want) lines of credit, it seems that we'll be turning to the pre-owned marketplace and gradually working our way up to owning brand-new gear, passing each piece back into the pre-owned market as and when we upgrade. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 8:38 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> Who buys the upper end gear ... well when I sold off my 400f2.8 because I no longer shoot pro & NCAA sports (the money dried up and I didn't feel like chasing work that didn't pay) the person
Who buys the expensive upper end gear? Well when I stopped covering the NFL & NCAA D1 because the money dried up and teh work wasn't worth chasing any longer I sold my 400f2.8. The person who bought it was someone who wanted a "bigger lens" to photograph his son's high school football games.
He had a prosumer body and little experience, but thought the 400f2.8 would give him what he wanted.
I recently encountered a woman who decided she wanted to be a travel photographer ... she came to this realization back in May of 2010 (yes 4 months ago and I met her in July). She said she spend a few days looking around online, including SportsShooter and Galbraith's site and decided to go buy her kit. She promptly went out and bought a pair of Nikon D3x and D3s bodies with a 14-24f2.8, 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 200-400f4, 1.4x, 24f1.4 and 85f1.4.
I asked her how long she'd been shooting, she told me since May when she bought her gear and she is 'learning as she goes." I asked her why she got a 200-400f4 for travel, she told me that she hopes to get to the Galapagos Islands (yet she was trekking with it around Europe). She admitted to not using the 200-400f4 because it was to heavy (she was maybe 5'2")...I suggested she buy a monopod.
I asked her how she afforded such a huge purchase on a whim ... turns out she cashed in on a nice divorce settlement.
At the Farnborough Air Show, outside London in late July I encountered an industrial engineer with a passion for planes. His kit included two 1D Mk IV bodies with a 16-35f2.8, 24-105f4, 70-200f2.8, 500f4. He shoots for fun and has no plans to ever sell the images he creates.
So, there is a market for this upper end gear, it just may not be professional photographers. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:51 AM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> Another thing to consider. If you buy one of these super priced, super sized, super telephotos there is another parameter to include. if getting back your investment involves a personal time line (say you think it will take five years to make back the $7000 price tag) you should be aware that in all probability that although you spent $7000 on a lens it will a)probably be obsolete but more importantly b) not be repairable by either nikon or canon since they have a disturbing habit of not repairing high end lenses after only five years....I have a 400 2.8 paperweight that was only five years old when it was damaged and was deemed unrepairable by nikon because no parts were available. although the lens was in mint condition (except for the mount which was damaged) it now sits in my garage. but fish is right, there are a lot of hobbyists out there with lens envy who will pony up the dough for this stuff. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:34 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> Gear
You should encourage amateurs to buy more pro gear for two reasons. First, prices usually drop when volume goes up, which means everyone gets cheaper gear. Second, amateurs sometimes don't stick with their hobby. When they grow tired of photography or their life priorities shift, they sell their almost mint-condition equipment at great prices.
So instead of turning your nose up at the soccer mom with a 300/2.8, get to know them and provide encouragement: "You would have had that shot if you had a 400." "Did you pick up that 2nd body we talked about?" "It's a shame you don't have a set of Aquatech covers for that setup." "You ABSOLUTELY need a carbon fiber monopod." "I know it's a little expensive, but your son is in the semifinals and an 85/1.2 is THE basketball lens."
You'll be helping out the photo community as a whole, and one day they might sell you their kit for half price. :-) |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 10:04 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> How many people truly in the business full time can afford, on their own, to buy long 2.8 glass? And we all know that most, if not all,newspapers are not springing for 5 digit glass! And with ISO 4000 bodies, why buy 2.8's?
David, we get calls from GWC's more and more. Usually their kids have graduated from HS or college, and the stuff is just sitting in the closet. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 10:19 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> Sam,
As a self employed photog, with 100% of my income coming from shooting I used to have the 300f2.8, 400f2.8 and briefly 600f4. I got rid of the 600f4 fairly quickly, I just didn't use it enough and was happy with the 400f2.8 with 1.4x.
When I switched to Canon from Nikon I just went with the 400f2.8, and had a 500f4.5 for a while, but while I absolutely loved the lens, I couldn't justify it and shed it.
Now with no sports or politics I use a Sigma 120-300f2.8, which works excellently with a 1.4x as a 168-420f4. The lens is lighter than the Nikkor 300f2.8, focuses a bit closer than the Nikkor 300f2.8 I compared it to and its 'affordable.'
In the current economy...since I stopped covering the NFL and NCAA D1 sports a little over 3 years ago ... there is no way I'd be able to cover my gear.
A contract I had an NCAA D1 Univ covering 22 sports now only has I think 18 sports and the contract is less than half of what I was paid. Another college I shot for regularly was generally a significant portion of my annul income, now it is 0% part of my income.
A wire service that used to pay me quite well and send me fun places to shoot has had no work in my area in nearly 2 years since they stripped out their photo department and reorganized what they shoot. The wire I used to cover the NFL and MLB for now uses photogs who "split the sales" with them, while I was paid a day rate plus expenses.
A major newspaper I shot for regularly is now struggling along, had some buy outs, retirements, layoffs and there is no work. Another major paper I used to shoot for somewhat often, well often enough to be a decent part of my income changed its rate that used to pay me $400 a day now pays between $180-$220 for jobs in my area, won't cover expenses and is Work for Hire, while I used to retain my copyright.
So...who can afford the long glass? It used to be affordable and easy to justify. Now...no way. |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 10:47 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> It's not just the new long glass that is expensive either. it seems like every new piece of glass or version "II" is really expensive. When canon updated their 24 f/1.4 the price jumped around four or five-hundred dollars. When canon updated their 70-200 recently the price jumped to 2500. Wasn't nikon's version 2 of the same lens a bit more also?
Why is this glass so costly now? Has production costs really gone up that much? Has sand gotten more expensive and I just missed it? |
|
Joseph Brymer, Photographer
|
Lincolnton | NC | usa | Posted: 10:56 AM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> There's always the used market! |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:06 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> I think the used market is really the only place to go these days.
How does a version II of a lens take it from 1700 I believe for the Canon 70-200 to over 2500, not realistic. |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
|
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> I think you might want to check your prices again the 70-200 IS is going for $1,900. You cna find the new version II for $2,300 from some of our sponsors. From what I have heard of this lens it may be a replacement for the 400 f/2.8. For myself I want to get a loaner from CPS and try it out myself.
But back to the original post, if you have a 300 or 400 now why would you need the new version and would that be worth what you would have to spend for it. That's all you need to ask. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 11:36 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> Phillip
Someone with an older version of a lens may need a new one if Nikon and Canon are no longer stocking repair parts. My 70-200f2.8L (the original one) has been doing OK, but parts are hard to find for this lens.
I know a few photogs (Chuck Liddy mentioned this before) that have big glass as paper weights because Canon or Nikon says the lens is 5 to 7 years out of production and parts are no longer available.
There are some places that can make some repairs, or make parts work from other stripped out lenses, but it is a cost issue and if a lens is "beyond economical repair" you may be forced into buying a new lens for a part that should have only cost $300.
...for me, Midstate Camera Repair fixed up my 70-200f2.8 "enough" that it works about a year ago, but I know I am looking at having to buy a new lens shortly because parts are not available...luckily I have no interest in an IS lens. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 11:39 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> "How does a version II of a lens take it from 1700 I believe for the Canon 70-200 to over 2500, not realistic."
Well, part of that is US$ losing value in the global economy ... but ... as with any product line ... pricing is whatever a particular market can handle ... if demand for items drops ... and the manufacturers want to sell ... we could see substantial price reductions and or rebates .... or they could choose to drop or reduce production and R&D for some specialty items like long, fast glass .... we'll have to wait and see ...
For me ... I'm hanging onto what I have and driving it until it drops ... then I'll hit the used market .... the latest and greatest is always desirable ... but we all have to live within our means ....
With the saturation of the photography marketplace and declining earning potential ... this is a problem for large newspaper and magazine chains as well as the individual freelancer .... everyone is cutting back on equipment purchases and upgrades .... it's going to take some time to see how the economy is going to level off and what the market will be like in the near future. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:44 AM on 08.27.10 |
->> I just recently purchased camera gear again. I went used market almost all the way this time.
The reason why, I could get them new for only a few hundred more with the instant rebate adorama was offering.
D700 and 70-200 VR II for 4100.
That way if I sell my equipment it has already seen the value drop that new stuff sees. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 1:09 PM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> I've never owned a piece of glass longer than a 200 (70-200). It's never made financial sense to me. If I did need a longer reach, I either got it from CPS, NPS or rented it. When you shoot high school football like I do mostly now, a 300 or 400 is too much glass. An 80-200 2.8 AFS is my go to lens for most all sports and the $1,000 investment has paid for itself. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 1:46 PM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> Jeff, I agree with you 99.99999% of the time. (Here comes the but)But, a 300/2.8 for HS football is alot better than an 80-200/2.8. The extra reach and being able to be away from the pack of parents, wanna be's, and jock sniffers is important too. That way your stuff looks different from the pack. Of course, in Indiana, the sun goes down alot later than WV, so you get better light for a Friday evening game than me. |
|
Jayne Oncea, Photographer
|
Saugus | CA | USA | Posted: 2:04 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> With increased lens pricing and electronics...the price of repairs is also very high. I bought a new nikkor 300 2.8 VR II in March and hadn't used it since basketball season. I took it out of the case, removed all lens caps and used it about 3 weeks ago for youth swim meet and the auto focus didn't work. I did manual focus and only got black frames. So I drove it to El Segundo and was told it would be covered under warranty. Then I get a letter saying the lens mount pin was bent! I have NO idea how that could happen. So, of course, no warranty repair, a $500 bill! Last time I used it there was nothing wrong with it. I never dropped it..
Although I did drop a new 70-200 2.8 and that was also $500 repair! :( |
|
Mark Buffalo, Photographer
|
Lonoke | AR | USA | Posted: 2:14 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> I consider myself to be professional photographer and my newspaper doesn't supply me with the big gear but I feel like I can get very good shots at the high school level using my 70-200 2.8L and occasionally the 1.4 on it. I have used a 300 2.8L a few times and love it but I'm with Jeff on this. The 70-200 will do me well.
I'd love to get one of those big lenses myself but it is out of the question, financially, especially in the last year when I went to China to adopt my daughter.
And when I'm on the sidelines for numerous Arkansas Razorback games this fall, I hope the guys with the "Big guns" won't look down on me and think I shouldn't be there because I don't have a 300 or 400. |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 2:20 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> There will always be well heeled people who buy the top of the line gear because they love it. Isn't it long been said that the bulk of the people who own Leicas don't actually take pictures with them? I got my first 300mm f/2.8 from a dentist who only put 5 rolls of film through it before selling it to me for half it's price so that he could by the new version and presumably not use it. I got my current 400mm f/2.8 because the owner who didn't use it that much sent it in for a clean and check only to find that the new version was coming out so he sold it to me for, again, half of new. Their loss - my gain.
But if you look at current prices and inflation new gear is the same price or cheaper than the older versions. Still it's a lot of money. But if anything it's the bodies that we mainly turn around because that technology changes much faster than lens tech does. My old 400mm may be heavier and not quite as fast focusing as the new model but it's long since been paid off with the work that it's brought in. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> One thing I am not doing because of the new lenses is buying the new 1ds mk1v. I know not announced yet, but I will make money from the new lenses and with the mk 1v being 16 megapixels that is enough, I might look for a cheap 1ds mk111 when the new 1ds is announced. The 5d mk11 autofocus sucks so for me that is not a full frame af answer. |
|
Dan Routh, Photographer
|
Greensboro | NC | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 08.27.10 |
| ->> I have been following this thread and the one on "Why send an Email", and they both demonstrate how this business is spiraling down out of control. Something is wrong with a business model when income can't cover the cost of the equipment that it takes to produce a product or service. I don't see the cost of equipment as being a problem. What I see is the prices the market is wanting to pay has sunk to a point that a professional can't even meet his costs. I say "wanting", because there is a difference between that and "willing" or "able". I've been a full time professional photographer for 34 years. I am better at what I do than I have ever been, and I offer more to potential clients. I also am beginning to wonder if can continue to make a living doing it. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 4:49 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> My experience with lenses is that they're like an interest free loan. A 15 year old 400 still costs about 3 grand. I don't have any reservations about dropping 5k for something I can use for a few years and resell for nearly as much as my purchase price.
I'm still trying to understand why the professional journalists would be concerned about the price of the latest and greatest equipment...doesn't print quality of a newspaper, or web sizing photos negate most of the advantages of upgrading to a 50 megapixel camera with a 4th generation prototype 400 IS? Just a couple weeks ago I listened to a times pic guy talk to a group about his Pulitzer, and he mentioned that he doesn't shoot sports in full resolution jpg...Somehow I doubt my purchase of a mkIV or a new 400 will threaten his livelihood any time soon. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 5:36 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> Perhaps part of the problem is the reduced demand for lenses. Yes, reduced demand usually means lower prices (didn't wall all learn supply&demand pricing in Econ 1010 but look at it this way:
Manufacturers still must pay a lot of money for R&D, even for just updating an existing lens. The lenses are no longer about just making better glass or shifting the elements a bit like in the "old" manual-focus days. It's improving electronics, ultrasonic motors etc.
Doing a very simple demonstration let's say a decade ago there were 5,000 papers shooting with Canon (or Nikon) equipment. Each paper replaced its gear every 5 years, and each paper owned 3 of these lenses in its pool. That means on average 3,000 sales of a particular piece of glass each year.
(I said this was a simplistic example)
Now, with closings, smaller staffs, equipment budget cuts etc. there may now only be 1,000 sales -- or less -- of a particular piece of glass to the newspaper industry.
The only way to recover the R&D costs with reduced sales is to increase the cost.
What do you do? Take the best care of your gear as you can and make it last as long as it can. A lens that takes sharp photos that is 10 years old is as good as a brand new one. You just need to have sharp, nicely color-saturated images to give to a client and they are happy.
Don't keep chasing the latest & greatest if you don't have to. If you have to buy something then you have to make the call of "is the expense worth it" in the amount of sales and length you will own the lens.
Also, as mentioned before, now that cameras are better, see if you can get by with the f4 version of a lens just by going from ISO800 to ISO1600 and still getting the same quality (or better) because last year you spent $4K on a new camera to give you that lower noise and better AF under low light. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> John,
Realize that a 15 year old 400mm that you paid $3k for could die at any moment and if it does, say the AF motor goes out, well then you've got a $3000 paperweight overnight. As such, few really want to gamble their money like that. Sure you can buy a new lens and use it for a while, and then sell it and get a decent amount for it, but its still going to cost you a fair bit.
I switched to Nikon 2 years ago and had to buy a new 400 2.8 and I got one of the last non VR models for $7000 I think it was. I bought a 200-400 last year and found I'm using that for 90% of my work so I didn't see the point to keep the 400. I think I was able to get about 5300 for it used and it was less than a year old and in perfect shape.
Cost me $1700 basically to have a 400 2.8 for a year so I don't think that would be considered the same as an interest free loan.
To address your other question about why someone would be concerned about the latest and greatest ? Well, at least when it comes to camera bodies, clients grow to expect certain results, such as in the area of high ISO.
When I got my D3, which was noticeably better at high ISO over the field at the time, my clients noticed.
If I'm doing gymnastics indoors at I'm shooting a D3 at ISO6400 and my competition is still using a 1D mkII and the client views both of our files, I'm getting the rest of the work for the season from them.
Now a 400 2.8 mk3 vs mk2 or whatever isn't going to have noticeable differences I highly doubt, and I wouldn't expect people to upgrade for that reason, but at times you really do have to remain on the edge of technology to remain relevant in this industry.
Think anyone is going to get work if they are shooting low light sports with a 1D which looked horrible at ISO1250 when 90% or more of the competition has D3's, 5D mkII's and other great high ISO bodies ?
The catch to all this though is that we as photographers have created our own double edged swords in doing this.
I feel the need to upgrade because the guys on my left and right have, so I can have a shot at landing that same client we are all going after, but of course that client knows they've got at 3 least photogs so they can offer as little as possible.
Thats the nature of this industry right now, keep pouring more and more money into it just so we can keep working for less and less income.
Other areas might not be hurting as bad. I just did some corporate headshots for Mitsubishi and the only expense I needed was I had to buy a backdrop in the exact color they wanted and I billed them at cost for the supply.
To get a client they type of action shot they want at a football game though it often does require a 400mm lens, and to really give the coverage many expect, factor in a second body with a 70-200 etc.
Can we bill the client for that gear though ? Not hardly, and we really can't factor that gear into our rates either.
We should. We should say that since it too $30k worth of equipment to produce a given photo it should be worth $800 for a web shot.
Whats SI pay though when they use a shot online ? I think I get $8 after the wire service gets their fee. Who can guess how low thats going to end up as well in coming years.
Its just doesn't make any sense at all when you stop and think about it. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 8:24 PM on 08.27.10 |
->> Jeff, in chasing the latest and greatest I did mention in the end of my post about having a newer camera that handles low light better.
I think you do have to upgrade cameras regularly to keep up with the demands of quality, noise etc.
However, glass can last and last and should be well taken care of. I used a manual-focus 400 f2.8 for a long time after AF became the norm because it was sharp as can be and I still have a Nikon 24 f2.8 manual that is sharp (if I had a Nikon digital body to put it on) |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:33 AM on 08.28.10 |
->> Gear
Just stick an Apple logo on your next lens purchase and you'll suddenly feel okay with paying more than you should... :-) |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:44 AM on 08.28.10 |
->> Hey, there you go Butch...you've got the idea.
News flash: Nikon & Canon aren't pricing their products for "us"; they're pricing them for the rest of the world. And what do you think those dentists and investment brokers who are taking freelance jobs for free are shooting with? "Ooh, a new lens, it will take even better pictures for me!"
Nikon and Canon are making money hand over foot and they are cutting back on NPS/CPS services...duh. We aren't their most important customers any more.
On the other hand...when I compare prices on my bodies, I feel like it's a wash: $5,000 for a D1, $2,000 for a D2H, $1,800 for a D300s...I can't complain. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:18 AM on 08.28.10 |
| ->> When you purchase something like a 300 or 400 that is A. a large $$$ expenditure and B. has a serviceable life of as little as 5 years. Over what period of time are you looking to recoup that cost? |
|
Jim Pierce, Photographer
|
Waltham | MA | USA | Posted: 10:14 AM on 08.28.10 |
->> Eric,
Great question and I asked this within another thread on another board regarding the 600mm, might have been the 800mm but the same probably would apply. I don't remember the exact repsonse but in general it was not relative to years but more to the tune of "you won't".
This is what I expected and why I buy used and rent!!
As far as my plan on the "lower" cost gear and the 300 would be the upper end of what I consider lower cost, it took less than 6 months, probably much less but I want to recoup the costs quickly.
With lenseprotogo around the corner it is hard for me to justify buying the long glass, still get the urge though.
The 6 months is based on images sold that were shot with this lense only.
Would love to hear others thoughts as well.
Jim |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 08.28.10 |
->> I can only speak about lenses for the Nikon that I use. I have noticed that the newer lenses with the N coating are sharper and better color from my experience. Sooner of later you will have to replace your gear, so I am glad they are improving it.
I love the f/1/4, f/2 and f/2.8 silky smooth look for backgrounds. If your customer values this and others are not using that glass you might get those jobs over them.
As already stated above and all through the forums this past year, Sports Photography is taking a real economic punch to the gut.
I think there are a few factors many of us will have a hard time to justify the fast long lenses--the cameras and lenses are incredible as compared to years ago. They are so much better that a person with little experience can shoot and get pretty average work the very first time they shoot.
From the book "Exceptional Service, Exceptional Profit: The Secrets of Building a Five-Star Customer Service Organization" the authors define value. "Value = Personal Benefit minus Cost and Inconvenience."
I believe in Sports Photography we have a lot more Walmart Shoppers than the Nordstrom shoppers.
Therefore, it is important that we focus on the personal benefit we provide for our customers in return for the price we charge.
The key to success here is first handling all aspects of your business like a Nordstroms and marketing to those types of customers.
I personally believe most of the customers in the Sports market will most likely not benefit enough from a photo shot at f/2.8 verses f/5.6 if the photo will cost more. However, the biggest exception in my book is Sports Illustrated.
If I have already seen My local paper's coverage of the Atlanta Falcons as well as say USA Today's coverage, I better have something different to make me want to continue to pay for Sports Illustrated.
In summary, I believe Sports Illustrated, Doctors, Engineers and those who have disposable income are the ones primarily purchasing the fast long lens glass that their primary market is sports. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:22 PM on 08.30.10 |
->> We forget that other segments use this type of equipment. For example, nature and wildlife shooters use 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses.
Over the past few months, I have seen a decidedly stronger response to GWCs. More and more times a willingness to help by answering a question builds a relationship which turns into long term sales.
It's all about people. Understand that and you're 90% of the way home.
M |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:23 PM on 08.31.10 |
->> Nothing wrong with doing nature or wildlife photography as a hobby if its something someone enjoys, but I'd have to say dropping $11k on lens to shoot birds is just as crazy, or maybe even crazier than for sports.
The sports market is brutal right now but I can only imagine what its like trying to earn a living as a wildlife/stock photo photographer. If $3+/gal fuel cost don't kill, nor the unlimited download microstock markets, $11k for a new lens certainly will.
Not really sure what your getting at in terms of GWC post Michael as I don't think anyone was addressing that in this thread, but at a pro/ncaa level I don't see how a willingness to answer questions is going to equate to long term sales. If anything its going to increase the competition and saturation.
Or you might make a friend out of it, or maybe find a new dentist/lawyer/doctor but I'd have to think that's about it as far as personal benefit goes lol.
In all seriousness, I've simply never bought into that thing where if you teach the well to do parent who's sitting there clueless with their new 300 2.8 how to shoot that they'll then start buying from you. Rather what happens is you show them how to shoot, they improve, and then they don't need you anymore. If they just wanted to buy photos from someone else why are they there on the sidelines shooting little Timmy with their new gear anyways ?
I don't do the youth sales market anymore (thank god), but back when I used to do that I lost count of the number of guys I gave advice to only to see them come back with their own business going after my same clients.
It was like, "seriously now guy, I helped you along all last season, taught you your gear, reviewed your shots and helped you improve, all for free, because I'm a nice guy, and then you come back and undercut my same clients?" Couldn't you at least go after a different school or league or district, right ? |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 5:28 PM on 08.31.10 |
| ->> I bought my 400mm 2.8 for a dentist/wildlife photographer, she had only used the lens mounted on a tri-pod and wanted a longer 600mm lens, I bought the lens almost brand new condition for $4800 last year. Been quite happy with the purchase. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|