[robgski]

Cars are a bad example, in the US at least, most people outside of major cities can't rely on mass transit, they NEED a car to get to work.

Very few people NEED a camera for their livelihood, but photographers just WANT a camera, and lenses, or want to try gear out.

The better comparison might like this. I have owned a Mustang for 9 years, because I WANTED to own one, but I drive it less than once a month for a lot of reasons, it is not my daily driver. For what I paid for it, I could rent a Mustang when I felt the need for speed once a month for 9 years and not spent the amount of money I paid for this car. I don't really regret the purchase, but economically, it was not the best expense I ever took on. I could have rented it and spent the money on a 645Z and a few lenses, for example. I've never rented a car to have it sit in my garage.

Most of us purchase books, music, exotic cars, musical instruments, etc, not for the thing itself, but for the belief that the purchase goes beyond the item, we thing think we are purchasing the time, and the commitment,, to experience that thing and to use it to its utmost value. I have a took of things collecting dust to disprove that belief to myself at least.

I've rented some nice gear, and will do so in the future, because I know I won't have more than a week to make best use of it, and having spent the rental fee, I will make time to make the best use of it.

[photoptimist]

The way I see it, the money problem with cars (and cameras and lenses) is 23 hours a day most of our cars sit in a garage, whether ours or our employer’s. The monthly lease/finance payment/depreciation expense is horribly magnified by the idle time, so the cost per hour of use is just ridiculous. I shudder to think what my cost per hour of use is for camera gear.

In both cases we’re actually paying big bucks for on-demand usage when our on-demand need is somewhat rare.

Indeed! Asset ownership is more about paying for on-demand availability than paying for usage.

One of the dreams of the self-driving car industry is that the car would never be idle. After dropping the owner off at work or home, the car could drive off looking for gig work and return to pick up the owner for lunch or to go home. With a pool of these kinds of cars in a given area, the owner could even order a car at any time and either get their car or the next available one for impromptu trips.

[Skewed]

Indeed! Asset ownership is more about paying for on-demand availability than paying for usage.

Very true. I still have a little sports car (Triumph Spitfire) but that's a toy that sits in the garage most of the time. My wife and I both own and drive SUVs, because we often drive in snow and on rough gravel roads. I'm a volunteer photographer/docent for a land trust in the High Sierra, and I set up car pools for people who drive sedans to the meeting place.

My hiking rig is a K-1 with D-FA 28-105, but for planned landscape shoots I use the K-1 with the D-FA 15-30. For wildlife I use my Nikon D500 with Tamron 100-400. Given the vagaries of weather and wildlife behavior, I never know very far in advance when a particular equipment combo will be needed, so renting wouldn't work for me.

[normhead]

I decided to look at what it would cost to rent a Fuji system, to satisfy my curiosity about mirrorless and EVFs and modern autofocusing systems. This is what it would take for a week's rental from LensRentals.com:

Fuji X-T4 body: $104 + $16 coverage (insurance), total of $120
XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS WR lens: $111 + $18
XF 16-55mm f/2.8 WR: $74 +$12
Shipping: $35

Grand Total: $370

While obviously a lot less than buying that whole setup, $370 is pretty steep for a week's worth of satisfying my curiosity. I could potentially rent a lower-spec body and lesser lens(es), but that defeats the purpose of really exercising a kit in the ways I normally shoot.

Some of us look at that and think, "Could replace my Option W90 with a new WG for that."

[ThorSanchez]

Some of us look at that and think, "Could replace my Option W90 with a new WG for that."

I had to look up what an Option W90 is. I know you shoot a lot of landscapes and still life, and do things like canoeing, but for me I don't really have much use for a waterproof camera. I'll shoot in the rain sometimes, but that's what a K-3ii and a WR lens is for. Or if it's really coming down the K-30 and the WR kit lens, just because that's less to lose if the weather sealing fails.

But for me $300-400 is better served trying to get a higher keeper rate with my kids' sports. At least when live sports were still a thing...

[normhead]

The Optio W90 (or in this case the waste of money Nikon AW 130) is the always ready in your pocket camera.



I'm about to pile everything from that boat onto the beaver dam, lift the boat over the dam and put it back in and any wasted time will make a long day even longer. We won't even be at place we can camp for another couple hours. But ya, not everyone does that. We probably take 5 "out of pocket" images each day on a canoe trip then don't touch the camera again until the next canoe trip.

[ThorSanchez]

For me the always in my pocket camera is a Google Pixel phone. Takes more than decent photos in good light when a 28mm equivalent lens is fine. And surprisingly usable photos when the light is bad with night sight mode.

The second one of my boys was in light that probably would have required ISO 6400 or better with a K-3ii, but the phone did a very reasonable job. And this is a four-year-old first generation Pixel. So for my purposes I really see little reason to invest in a point-and-shoot pocket camera.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[rogerstg]

Another way to look at it would be to adopt Paul Getty's maxim, “If it appreciates, buy it. If it depreciates, lease it.”

That quote relates to minimizing business risk and preserving capital, especially in the areas of investments pertaining to mineral and oil extraction. Do you buy the land that you intend to mine/drill or lease it? It's not really applicable to this topic.