[ElJamoquio]

Yes. With Canon and Nikon you only have one mount to worry about and there isn't the risk factor of it being discontinued any time soon.

Both Canon and Nikon have two mounts. You could argue Canon has three.

[monochrome]

I profitably bought and sold manual focus Pentax lenses and camera bodies from 1999 - 2004. Then for some reason the market just . . . . . . changed.

[mecrox]

Both Canon and Nikon have two mounts. You could argue Canon has three.

If you go back to the original post you will see that we are talking about upgrade paths, and mainly from APS-C to FF. So my comment stands, as it would for Pentax if they issue a conventional K-mount FF camera. There is just the one mount to worry about on APS-C -> FF and it isn't prey to being discontinued because the company is also offering another mount covering the same formats. Of course, if you widen it to mean other mounts for other formats, then sure. Maybe one could say Canon are now at the one and a half stage because of the fledgling EOS M series.

[Nicolas06]

Actually it is, and I have made money on lenses. The 31mm LTD is selling for more now on the used market than I paid for it new. I have used it all this time and can still sell it for a profit. I am selling my Contax 645 system. I bought all but one of my lenses after Contax was discontinued in 2005. Because I bought it so cheap, I can sell my entire system today for more than I paid for it almost 10 years ago. These hipsters are nuts about old film cameras and everyone in my market seems to want a Contax 645. I love the camera, but its time to move on and get my money back out of it. My MF film scanner died last year and I don't want to "invest" in another one. By this time next year I plan to be all digital.

These are tools that I use in my business. Any money I spend on equipment for my business I consider an investment.

You have every right to not look at lenses as an investment. Many of us do look at it that way whether you like it or not.

The tools that you use for your business are cost. If you can achieve the same for less, buying more just decrease your business return on investment. That's all. If even you make a small profit with it but money is frozen on this, it is not good.


No, apparently your business is different and it just happen to need some photographic gear. So you have to decide if this Fuji thing (or whatever other thing you buy) increase your job revenue in practice or not.

Just the time spend to check it and discuss it is wasted if you consider this from a work perspective. You could instead look for new clients, improve your visibility... Or work less. If we still stay in the investement/work and so own logic and just not say it is for pleasure. And I mean there nothing bad with pleasure. We have only one life!

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 02:25 AM ----------

I profitably bought and sold manual focus Pentax lenses and camera bodies from 1999 - 2004. Then for some reason the market just . . . . . . changed.

For how many $ ? 100 000$ ? 10 000$ or 1000$ ? I mean if it is 1000$ it may not be even worth the time spent to sell it over the years!

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 02:27 AM ----------

Yes. With Canon and Nikon you only have one mount to worry about and there isn't the risk factor of it being discontinued any time soon.

+1. Sony strategy is strange. They like try everything, and is far from sure they'll continue for long on all the systems they introduce.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-03-2014 at 05:35 PM.

[monochrome]

For how many $ ? 100 000$ ? 10 000$ or 1000$ ? I mean if it is 1000$ it may not be even worth the time spent to sell it over the years!

Not enough to support myself - but enough to feed this habit. Perhaps $10,000 over the five years, with only $1,000 at risk the entire time. Maybe 20 or 25 items a year. Generally I bought a complete K-mount kit and sold the pieces separately. Good grief, I could get $10 for an OEM lens cap!!

I know a member here who has been doing it for years and years - estimates he has sold 15,000 lenses just online, not counting his physical sales. Another counts 600 in three years but that was buy, try and sell, like I did.

[Quicksand]

I keep waiting for the next round of price increases! Come on, Pentax!

Hey Adam, where's the "dislike this post" button?

[Winder]

The tools that you use for your business are cost.

Only if they are consumed in the process. Film is a cost. A piece of equipment used for production is not a "cost".


"The traditional definition of capital investment is an investment in property, plant or equipment. Such investments are the essential means by which businesses provide the goods and services to customers. Capital investments are not sold in the course of business but are necessary for ongoing business activities. Companies may sell capital equipment for different reasons, including sheer necessity or to acquire new fixed assets to replace old ones. However, these examples are not among the daily operations of the business. Capital investments usually remain in use for a number of years."

For a photographer, all of your equipment is an investment. Examples of Capital Investment | Chron.com

I really don't care how you view it and I know you want to argue about it, but it not going to change.

---

Last edited by Winder; 10-03-2014 at 06:30 PM.

[monochrome]

For a photographer, all of your equipment is an investment.

Of course you are correct - but - A Capital Investment in income-producing tools is depreciated over time. A capital investment is generally is not made with the intent to resell at a profit.

Happy coincidence sometimes allows a corporate raider to acquire the assets of a company at a price lower than the liquidation value of the assets when sold or replacement value when redeployed (vis. Pentax Corp factory in a park), but that kind of transaction is more of a trade than an investment.

Likewise happy coincidence might allow a capital item to be resold for a higher nominal price later than it cost when new - but typically that is the result of inflation, which renders the value of the nominal sellling price lower than the purchase price.

[Winder]

Of course you are correct - but - A Capital Investment in income-producing tools is depreciated over time. A capital investment is generally is not made with the intent to resell at a profit.

No, but just like my wife's car, I buy equipment knowing that I'm not keeping it forever. I'm using for an express purpose over a period of time and I will eventually sell it. The expected resale value is an important consideration on an expensive item.

I'm not a gear collector. They are simply tools that serve a purpose over an unknown period of time. I can't take them with me when I die.

[XMACHINA]

Yes. With Canon and Nikon you only have one mount to worry about and there isn't the risk factor of it being discontinued any time soon.

Who takes the greater risk: the one who puts all the money on one horse, or the one who spreads the money around? I'm well aware of the FUD about Sony's A-Mount, and I find it a peculiar spin to put on a company supporting current technology while it pushes the market forward with innovations. I find nothing mysterious or incomprehensible about Sony's strategy: it seems to me that they perceive this to be a transitional stage in the photographic imaging industry and they want to have matured product lines to cover multiple eventualities; they have product to cover everything from cellphone cameras to a rumored medium-format fixed-lens RX-series model. Pretty straightforward to me: cover all bases; and it inspires no less confidence in this photographer than the paint-ourselves-into-a-corner strategy that Pentax seems to have been committed to for years.

According to the gear list in your signature, you're still shooting with a K-5, and there's no reason why you shouldn't: it's a great camera and nothing I own today comes close to being as much of a pleasure to use as was my K-5. It serves as proof, as if any was needed, that people can keep using a camera body for years. Sony has yet to even develop a Full-Frame sensor that will outresolve my Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 or Sonnar 135mm f/1.8; If Sony abandoned Alpha-Mount tomorrow, I'd still be using the a900 and a99 with the aforementioned lenses, as well as the 70-200mm f/2.8 G (which isn't stellar but still better than the equivalent K-Mount Sigma I once used), and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART for years to come. And even that "risk factor" is mitigated by the rumors of an A-Mount/E-Mount hybrid body that one hears every now and again.

Had I been too "worried" about the future of A-Mount to buy into the Sony system, I'd have missed two years of shooting with the system that suits my needs. And I'd still be jumping with anticipation at every rumor that Pentax was finally going to release a full-frame body.

I don't get paid to be a market analyst, and market analysis just not something I care to do for recreation. After a while, I was no longer appeased by armchair analysis meant to explain why Pentax can't/won't/mustn't make the products I need, or the ones I want. I stopped wishing that Pentax would make the advanced compact/mirrorless ILC body/full-frame camera I wanted and started choosing among what already existed. So, I found my full-frame needs satisfied elsewhere, and had my desire for compact, lightweight ASP-C format cameras satisfied by Fuji (in the form of the X-E1) and the Ricoh GR. I decided to place the priority on getting what will suit my needs today instead of sitting back and speculating on its eventual obsolescence.

And besides, are you really going to characterize investment in the Sony system as risky when you are [perhaps exclusively] invested in a system made by a company whose parent ownership has changed twice in 5 years and which now exists only as a brand? Pick your cliche: glass houses and stones; pots and kettles...

-XM

[mecrox]

Who takes the greater risk: the one who puts all the money on one horse, or the one who spreads the money around? I'm well aware of the FUD about Sony's A-Mount, and I find it a peculiar spin to put on a company supporting current technology while it pushes the market forward with innovations. I find nothing mysterious or incomprehensible about Sony's strategy: it seems to me that they perceive this to be a transitional stage in the photographic imaging industry and they want to have matured product lines to cover multiple eventualities; they have product to cover everything from cellphone cameras to a rumored medium-format fixed-lens RX-series model. Pretty straightforward to me: cover all bases; and it inspires no less confidence in this photographer than the paint-ourselves-into-a-corner strategy that Pentax seems to have been committed to for years.

According to the gear list in your signature, you're still shooting with a K-5, and there's no reason why you shouldn't: it's a great camera and nothing I own today comes close to being as much of a pleasure to use as was my K-5. It serves as proof, as if any was needed, that people can keep using a camera body for years. Sony has yet to even develop a Full-Frame sensor that will outresolve my Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 or Sonnar 135mm f/1.8; If Sony abandoned Alpha-Mount tomorrow, I'd still be using the a900 and a99 with the aforementioned lenses, as well as the 70-200mm f/2.8 G (which isn't stellar but still better than the equivalent K-Mount Sigma I once used), and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART for years to come. And even that "risk factor" is mitigated by the rumors of an A-Mount/E-Mount hybrid body that one hears every now and again.

Had I been too "worried" about the future of A-Mount to buy into the Sony system, I'd have missed two years of shooting with the system that suits my needs. And I'd still be jumping with anticipation at every rumor that Pentax was finally going to release a full-frame body.

I don't get paid to be a market analyst, and market analysis just not something I care to do for recreation. After a while, I was no longer appeased by armchair analysis meant to explain why Pentax can't/won't/mustn't make the products I need, or the ones I want. I stopped wishing that Pentax would make the advanced compact/mirrorless ILC body/full-frame camera I wanted and started choosing among what already existed. So, I found my full-frame needs satisfied elsewhere, and had my desire for compact, lightweight ASP-C format cameras satisfied by Fuji (in the form of the X-E1) and the Ricoh GR. I decided to place the priority on getting what will suit my needs today instead of sitting back and speculating on its eventual obsolescence.

And besides, are you really going to characterize investment in the Sony system as risky when you are [perhaps exclusively] invested in a system made by a company whose parent ownership has changed twice in 5 years and which now exists only as a brand? Pick your cliche: glass houses and stones; pots and kettles...

-XM

I think you may have missed /rant over/ at the end. Good for you if you think Sony's A mount is just the ticket. It's not for me. That's life, isn't it?

[Kunzite]

Of course you are correct - but - A Capital Investment in income-producing tools is depreciated over time. A capital investment is generally is not made with the intent to resell at a profit.

And that's where people are getting this wrong - unless they are in the business of selling lenses. If we see camera and tools as an investment - in a photographic business - what needs to generate ROI is the photographic business.

Who takes the greater risk: the one who puts all the money on one horse, or the one who spreads the money around?

IMHO Canon EF and Nikon F are much "safer" than Sony Alpha.

And besides, are you really going to characterize investment in the Sony system as risky when you are [perhaps exclusively] invested in a system made by a company whose parent ownership has changed twice in 5 years and which now exists only as a brand? Pick your cliche: glass houses and stones; pots and kettles...

Similar words were said by Olympus 4/3 owners It's a bit funny though hearing them from a Sony fan, you know, Minolta and Konica-Minolta merging, then Konica-Minolta selling their camera division to Sony - all in less than 3 years...

Yes, I would characterize the K-mount - essential for Ricoh Imaging - as "safer" than one for which development was slowed down to make room for its replacement. Take it as a gut feeling, it's "4/3 reloaded" for me; but then, I might be wrong.

[Digitalis]

Canon EF and Nikon F are much "safer" than Sony Alpha.

I agree - look at all the third party manufacturers who support them.

[monochrome]

No, but just like my wife's car, I buy equipment knowing that I'm not keeping it forever. I'm using for an express purpose over a period of time and I will eventually sell it. The expected resale value is an important consideration on an expensive item.

OK - then a camera to you is the same as a truck to the guy who owns a Frito-Lay Potato Chip route. You should probably lease.

[Rondec]

Over time, good quality glass does tend to keep or increase its value. On the other hand, camera bodies tend to decrease in value.

There is a difference in the term "investment" when referring to a business. When you invest in your business, you buy equipment, not generally so you can resell it and make money, but so that you can fulfill your business ends better. If you can sell it eventually without a lot of loss, that is nice, but it is really unimportant in whether or not you buy the equipment.

On the other hand, if you have a personal investment, you would like to have a relatively stable rate of return, knowledge of the risk involved with the investment and the ability to invest as much (or little) money as you desire. From this standpoint, glass does not seem to fit the bill at all. I certainly would not take my kids college funds and buy telephoto lenses on the off chance that I could sell them in ten years for enough to pay for them to enroll in a four year institution. It might work, but it feels pretty risky.