The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is buying a 55K camera justifiable... in the name of hobby?

ajoyroy

Member
Going along this line of thinking for a second....
- a used P65+ costs the same as IQ140 which would you choose.

I'm smack in the middle of deciding that now. If I was a tech cam shooter all the time than the IQ in any flavor


- The difference of either of the above to IQ180 is about $17-20K - a small extra(??) considering the doubling of resolution

MPX are not everything

- If I get IQ140 (or P65+) now and upgrade, my then used IQ140 would have depreciated in value, making the upgrade more costly in the future, unless perhaps upgrade to IQ180 when they have a 100MP back - in what.... 3 years?

Certainly tougher money wise going from the 40 sensors to the bigger ones. Need to remember also upgrade programs are designed to get you to upgrade so the depreciation value on the street is different than the upgrade programs. The upgrade programs always offer less depreciation on your current gear. The basic idea here is keep you in the system.

Another idea -
- Wait for the influx of traded up P65+ to 'flood' the market (haha?) and pick them up at a much cheaper (??) price

How many P65+'s were they selling in 2008-2010?

A lot don't have those numbers but most backs wind up in education programs and rental houses. Think about this for a second Phase really does not want a lot of used backs on the market since they could lose new sales instead. Not a Phase thing overall but all manufactures do not want to flood the market with used product so they will off load them for other things. This is very normal.

I'm not sure why people would go with IQ160 over IQ180 when the difference is not that much.

On the upgrade path no doubt and for resale value the 180 will have more value so yes this is a tough call and Phase as you can see by there pricing are pushing the 180 and that will reflect in there units sold.

Tough choice!
Just a thought. You have no experience in digital MF. There is a lot more to it than shooting a DSLR. If you go through some threads, the complexities of the system, the software and time spent in learning MF is explained. So if you want to go the MF way, why not

1. Rent out a system for say one month. Use it thoroughly.

OR

2. If you must have a NEW System, get an inexpensive 40 MPIX system - Pentax, Hasselblad, Phase. The price of acquisition will be 10K - 24K max.

If MF works for you you can buy/upgrade, if not you have lost much less than the depreciation on a 55K system.

One more word of caution, there was a thread where the steep learning curve of Digital Technical Camera was discussed. The reason being an unsatisfied new comer to MFDB world.

I would do a thorough research followed by real life experience via a rental route, even if money was of no consequence, just to ensure that MFBD on a Tech camera was my scene. Though all of us welcome converts from DSLR to MFDB, none want to see a disillusioned and/or disgruntled user.
 
J

Jim2

Guest
One more word of caution, there was a thread where the steep learning curve of Digital Technical Camera was discussed. The reason being an unsatisfied new comer to MFDB world.
Thanks for this. Can you please point me to this thread? Thanks! I'm curious as to what others might be dissatisfied about.
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
FYI ..... I'm not retired, in fact, not even close, still got a good 25 years in front of me. Prudent does not mean dull! Spend 15 years overseas as an expat, and that put me on a pretty solid footing. Did grad school while working, and came out with no debt!

Dave
 
Is buying a 55k camera justifiable.. in the name of hobby?

Most definitely - if you can afford it. I do agree with others which recommend you try the digital MF options before you buy. It is more technically demanding than a typical dSLR, but good technique is rewarded.

You probably wouldn't even ask yourself this question if you were thinking of buying a boat, airplane, vehicle, etc. It's all a matter of perspective.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
I only use a technical camera and sold my DF body/lenses.
For the landscape shooter, to get the very best IQ off of MF tech/view is the way to go what Terry got is my "DREAM" camera, Phase DF is a nice system, but it's more of a oversized DSLR so it more versatile, Great for Fashion, Studio work, etc. Sure you can shot landscape to, but have to be aware of the limitations, I guess it all gets down to what you like to shoot.
If Phase ever gets around to releasing some more T/S lenses then it would be a very good all around system and I would for sure probably sell my Pentax 645D, which is all I could afford and have to work around all the limitations of MF, shallow DOF, Soft corners when shooting wide angle, etc. Yet at the same time what a camera for 10K, Now if they would only release some more digital optimized lenses, which I am starting to believe is that is a "marketing term" Manufacturers should really call them, Lens tested and verified to work with Digital, "Tested" meaning each lens tested before it gets shipped out to dealers and avoid the "bad copy" syndrome.

Steven
 

Mike M

New member
Some hobbyists will prefer a camera which is the easiest to get an ok image. But to me that's like saying a hobby runner should forgo actually running the miles and just jump in their car and drive to the finish line.
Doug is right...I never understood the mentality of doing things half-assed. If something is worth doing then it's worth doing right IMHO

For whatever it's worth, my understanding is that Steiglitz didn't really differentiate between hobbyists and professionals. He considered that their primary motivations and intentions towards the medium were similar and that led them to make compromises. He felt that they tended to make photographic decisions based on practical aspects like money, convenience (today we might call it workflow) status, or leisure. The fine arts could certainly influence them in some way but were not considered their primary influence, therefore, they could not claim that producing art was their true motivation. He considered the photographers that were attempting to become Fine Artists as being motivated by factors that were different from the "kodakers" or "camera clubs" or commercial photographers.

The point I'm trying to get at is if money is a motivating factor then it's not practical for a hobbyist to spend a small fortune on a camera system. However, if working to the highest level of craftsmanship in an effort to become a better artist is the primary motivating factor, then there is no limit to the resources that could justifiably be spent to achieve the goal.
 

Nubi

New member
The way I see it is that if you are agonizing over it, and if you are needing justification, then you probably should not buy it.

From what I have seen, people who buy big ticket items such as this for pure enjoyment usually don't care how much it really cost. The price of it is nothing more than an afterthought. These guys will laugh about losing 50k on a single bet in Vegas. They will lit up numerous 100 dollar bills just for amusement. I know it is sickening, but that is how much money they happen to have.

Now, if you think that investing that 50k is a possible option, then you need this money. You should invest it. I am almost certain that you will have a buyer's remorse.

Sorry to be a buzzkil, but trying to be a devil's advocate here for a change.
 
Last edited:
J

Jim2

Guest
Ha! I was reading Wikipedia on "Buyer's Remorse" and Cognitive Dissonance. This one came from the latter:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[2] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it.
And this one is also interesting, on the other side of the coin:
Post-purchase rationalization is a phenomenon whereby someone who purchases an expensive product or service overlooks any faults or defects in order to justify their purchase. Expensive purchases often involve a lot of careful research and deliberation, and many consumers will often refuse to admit that their decision was made in poor judgement. Many purchasing decisions are made emotionally, based on factors such as brand-loyalty and advertising, and so are often rationalized retrospectively in an attempt to justify the choice.
 

Jaime R

New member
I'm 25 myself and could not have jumped to MF had it not been for a used h3dii-39.... Image quality alone is amazing when jumping from a 1ds III or 5d II.... Although I didn't have 55k to spend, it would have been spent buying the lesser of the backs i.e IQ140 and just building up the lens arsenal, as I can personally say from experience that lenses retain value while the price of a sensor keeps going down and down.
 
J

Jim2

Guest
I'm 25 myself and could not have jumped to MF had it not been for a used h3dii-39.... Image quality alone is amazing when jumping from a 1ds III or 5d II.... Although I didn't have 55k to spend, it would have been spent buying the lesser of the backs i.e IQ140 and just building up the lens arsenal, as I can personally say from experience that lenses retain value while the price of a sensor keeps going down and down.
I keep thinking about one of these
- not buying anything (might also regret this decision)
- get the ultimate IQ180
- get the P65+
- get the IQ140 (same price as P65+ but the IQ seems to be more pleasurable to use - heck how often would one need to check focus... every time? film ppl didn't use to be able to check focus / exposure / anything)
 

Mike M

New member
Ha! I was reading Wikipedia on "Buyer's Remorse" and Cognitive Dissonance. This one came from the latter:
The danger in using psychology to assess the behavior of other people is that the person making the observation is often projecting his own feelings onto others. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't. For example, those that have gone through buyer's remorse could be more likely to assume that others will experience the same. Those that console themselves in the presence of unattainable items by criticizing them (sour grapes) could be quicker to assume that others offer criticism for similar reasons.
 

gazwas

Active member
Doug is right...I never understood the mentality of doing things half-assed. If something is worth doing then it's worth doing right IMHO.
You fell for the oldest sales line in the business. Gosh, you must be a sales persons dream when you roll up to the showroom. :p

However, if working to the highest level of craftsmanship in an effort to become a better artist is the primary motivating factor, then there is no limit to the resources that could justifiably be spent to achieve the goal.
Come on.....the quality of the camera equipment makes ZERO difference to the ability to be a better artist. It might overcome some technical boundaries but if you believe it will make you a better artist spending more and more money on the latest kit then I'd give up photography now. However your comment may be a result of your statement above........ (said in a salesman's voice) "you really gotta have the best, sir $$$$$"

I keep thinking about one of these
- not buying anything (might also regret this decision)
- get the ultimate IQ180
- get the P65+
- get the IQ140 (same price as P65+ but the IQ seems to be more pleasurable to use - heck how often would one need to check focus... every time? film ppl didn't use to be able to check focus / exposure / anything)
I think you have missed one important back off your list, if not the most relevant and may possibly be the best one to start you off.

-P45+. 1:1 crop with 39MP and tech camera friendly and can be picked up as cheap a chips now. Many using P45's on here for landscape with tech cameras.

And while you considering P backs you should also check out used P40+ now the IQ140's have been launched. There should be quite a few turning up shortly and they use the latest Dalsa chips as in the IQ140. Just have a look in the "Fun with MF images" topic on this forum at some of the shots Guy has taken with his P40+ and Alpa to see how stunning this combo can be.
 

jbaxendell

New member
If you have not done so already, reckon on spending a substantial amount on a workstation, monitor, printer, colour management system, tripod + head etc. This forum and the Mac Performance Guide will show you how to drop a lot of money on the peripherals ;-)
 

hcubell

Well-known member
I
To me part of the joy of shooting landscape with a tech camera is the WAY you shoot. The slower, more methodical, more mechanical, older school, precise and tactile shooting that comes with a tech camera is part of the fun for me. As a profession it would be a point-of-question: you can't produce as many shots/day with a tech camera as a dSLR - so is the increased quality and flexibility and decreased time in front of the computer later worth it to your business? But as a hobby it's a very different question - in many ways who cares how many shots you can accomplish per day. The greater question is how good will those shots be (to you) and how much will you enjoy creating them at the time, and viewing/sharing them after the fact.

Another way of saying this is that in professional photography the capture of the image is often reduced to a means to an end - the delivery of an image to a client who will pay for it. In hobby photography the journey - the process of capturing the image - is just as important as the process.

Some hobbyists will prefer a camera which is the easiest to get an ok image. But to me that's like saying a hobby runner should forgo actually running the miles and just jump in their car and drive to the finish line. I prefer a camera which is more an extension of my body and allows me to interact with the landscape rather than just frame it up and snap a shot. I feel more involved in the making of the image with a tech camera than I do looking through a live-view on a 5DII and doing things like pan-and-stitch and focus stacking on the computer later on. Getting a great image on a tech camera is more challenging, more engaging, and is slower than with more automatic and general-purpose cameras, but that makes it very satisfying to me - the fact that it produces the best possible quality is just a bonus.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Here is another opinion. For the OP, at least, before acquiring an Alpa and a set of lenses to go with it, I would urge him to try out the experience of shooting with a tech camera by taping off the viewfinder in his Canon 1ds and turning off the autofocus and the Live View. Take some photographs and ask yourself, would these photographs have been exceptional if only I had used sharper lenses? The answer to me is clear.
An untethered tech camera suffers from a number of disadvantages as a platform for landscape work. No ability to precisely frame the composition, no ability to "see" the perspective of the lens by looking through the lens(and the wider the lens, the more difficult it is to "see" that way), no ability to focus through the lens, no autofocus, no internal metering. What do you gain? The use of slightly sharper lenses that give you the theoretical possibility of slightly sharper images, which is very difficult to achieve in the field, particularly if you want to shoot multiple frames for focus stacking. And really, how many images would you take with a Phase DF where you would say that one of your images would really have been compelling if only you had a bit more sharpness?
 
Top