Cost of ownership

[David Kilpatrick]

I had to spend some time doing accounts and found I'd spent over £14,000 on equipment in the year.

The good news is that I'd also sold equipment for £14,000 - so having owned a couple of medium format digital kits to try, bought and sold a wide range of Sony gear, I managed to do most of it with some losses (almost all on Sony) and some gains (on s/h, MF and odd stuff).

David

[pakodominguez]

you might take in account how much the equipment produce for you... some cameras and/or lenses pay for itself, and other are just a caprice

[artington]

I imagine this ismore of a consideration for a professional. For serious, competitive amateurs like me it is a hobby which carries a cost like any other. As such it is cheaper than many hobbies. Also, I have found over the years that, digital bodies excepted, I have made money on most of my equipment sales. This includes MF film bodies and accessories but it is the lenses where the real gains can be made. Indeed, my last two lens sales (a Minolta 200/2.8 and Leica 50 Summicron M) grossed twice their cost price. Can't think of many ways todo that elsewhere!

I guess an issue today for both ams and pros is the sheer pace of technological advance, particularly in sensors and compact cameras, which creates temptation. I am thinking particularly here of the Nex breed and the RX100 which have changed the game for travellers. And if the former get more viable lenses I can see the SLR kit going.