Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>> Obsolescence for a business is based on the ability to get the job done, not
>> what's latest. So many pieces of equipment in many businesses are productive
>> long after they are out-dated and written off. Some can be
>> extraordinarily profitable at that point.
>>
>
> No kidding! My photography equipment story follows that very thinking. I
> might be using what some people deem "obsolete", but with some
> feature/capability sacrifice I'm able to achieve an ROI that is terrifyingly
> high. It pains me to have had to spend $1000+ twice on digital cameras, but
> not nearly as much as buying replacement computers pains me.
>
In a way, I feel for you. Having your beloved avocation as part of your
income earning vocation must be nice in some ways. On the other hand,
you sometimes don't seem to separate the enjoyable, soul satisfying part
of photography from the business side as well as you might.
Heaven knows I've spent a significant portion of my life doing often
sophisticated, highly complex business capital expenditure analyses and
designing analytical tools for others to use - covering in the
expenditure of at least a few hundred million dollars. I bought the 5D
for love, and found it paid off in non-monetary ways.
One of your more ... uh ... endearing qualities on the list is an
occasional tendency to disparage, sometimes almost mock, some equipment
choices of hobbyists.
How about you go mad, and buy a piece of photographic equipment just for
fun, without any thought of making money from it? Something to make you
smile picking it out, buying it and using it. Like this => :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|