>
> > x-amount of weddings per year.
>
You just want to stir the leica pot... :P
>
LOL. Didn't even think of that. :)
When we get moved and settled in, I'm back in the wedding game with a
vengeance. Of course, I'll have some lovely E-Beast, but I've been
seriously thinking about the marketability of being a little different--as
in a good kind of different. There is enough money in that business to
justify SOME investment. How much is the question. But I could probably
afford a pretty decent film setup and pay a team of monkeys to do the
scanning for me and still come out ahead. I just have to run the numbers to
see what works. At $800-1200 net profit per wedding, it doesn't take long
to pay off some equipment--depending on what other income is also rolling in
either from me or my wife.
The fixed costs for shooting a wedding, considering depreciation and
replacement of equipment, for most professional photographers is in the
neighborhood of $200-250. If you double the cost of the camera and lenses,
that'll raise the fixed costs only a little amount considering that Leica
lenses don't depreciate much and the camera will have a likely price floor
which it won't fall below. I consider an 18 month ROI to be a proper
calculation. Here's some scratches:
New E-3 (or E-3x or E-4): $2000
New 50-200 for E-x: $1000
New flash for E-x: $500
New M9: $9000
New 35 F1.4 for M9: $4200
Round up to $17000. Combined with my existing equipment I've got the
wedding covered. Consider that I'd have to get a second E-X and another
hunk of glass instead, I'm looking at a $11,000 premium to get this
"uber-camera". Of course, I had to pick the brightest 35mm lens made... But
if I'm going to dream, I'm not going to fuss over it.
OK, so I have to cover a $11,000 premium. To get this back in 18 months,
let's assume 30 weddings. (20 per year). $11,000 / 30 is $367 per wedding.
Could I charge an average of $367 per wedding more JUST because I'm a Leica
shooter? This is the $11,000 question. I believe the answer is yes--not
just in a higher charge across the board, but potentially because of the
sales of the premium price package. Another factor is the marketability of
the fact that I'd be shooting Leica. It would also help get me out of the
shotgun wedding business which yields zilch picture sales and you have to
photograph a lot of less than beautiful people.
In a crowded marketplace where everybody and their dog has a Canon or Nikon
wonder-widget to shoot weddings with, different can be good.
I obviously stacked the deck against the Leica price-wise. I could pick up
an M8 or M8.2 with a lesser lens for a whole lot less money and still have
the marketability of the brand name to push on the unsuspecting masses. But
it wouldn't be full-frame 35mm. Nathan has proven that this doesn't mean
much, though. :) The camera is more than capable of meeting and exceeding
the demands of most mere mortals.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|