At 11:22 AM 4/25/2005, Winsor Crosby wrote:
>It seems that the real cost would be the short lifetime of the camera
>because of technical advance. No chance for that 20 year relationship with
>your picture making tool.
I don't believe the manufacturers want anyone to have a long relationship
either . . . being for-profit businesses with the goal of maximizing profit
they want revenue from selling new stuff and deliberately work to shorten
product life cycles. It's always been that way. Not making a judgement
about that . . . simply calling it as I see it (as it appears to be playing
out in the marketplace).
I worked up the capital investment cost some time ago to put together a
minimalist small sole-proprietor studio . . . it was into the $30-50k range
depending on definition of "minimalist," desired capabilities and how
"image conscious" one wanted to be with brand name. Replacing major camera
components with new ones every 5-7 years to stay abreast with a moving
technology breaks the business case. It's either unprofitible (takes a
continuous loss) or is non-competitive with market pricing to support that
frequency of capital replacement with new gear. I concluded that only the
top end studios in high-cost regions that can command premium pricing can
afford to do that. Manufacturers seem more aggressive at forcing
obsolescence than they were in the past.
Among the CWMNBN, the 1DS is $8k, the 1D it's replacing is $4k, and the D2X
is $5k . . . and that's just the body . . . batteries not included, some
lenses and computer hardware required. A studio *will* have backup for
critical equipment. Add lenses, high powered flash, flash brackets, studio
lights, light modifiers, backdrops, props, etc., and the capital required
mounts up quite fast.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|