IkarusJohn Posted September 10, 2012 Share #1 Posted September 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is a bit of a shocker. Add up your entire Leica gear (including non-Leica M lenses and any R and other equipment etc), let's say at cost, and then calculate what proportion of your income this represents (take last year's taxable income, if it helps). Don't need to know what your gear costs, don't need to know what you earn - this issue is, what does your camera kit represent as a proportion of your last year's earnings (before tax, but after depreciation and amortisation). It's the simplest way to do it, and it is indicative, if not accurate. It looks like I have accumulated what amounts to gear costing the equivalent of 2 months of last year's gross income Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted September 10, 2012 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2012 i'm a noob. i only got my secondhand M8.1 (M8u) a few weeks ago. with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 lens and accessories i've bought thus far....it adds up to less than 1 week gross income. Ask me again in a year and i'm guessing this proportion will change...unfortunately! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 10, 2012 Share #3 Posted September 10, 2012 Over two years less than 5%. That's the only way you can do it fairly. All years of purchases against one year base salary would be incorrect and misleading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted September 10, 2012 Hi John, You can always find inaccuracies, misleading conclusions and all you like. The point is, older lenses at cost will be worth a bit more, and newer gear will be more expensive, so if you've spent more in 2 years, the figure will be higher. This in not intended to be science, just a snapshot of what you hold in your collection measured against your most recent income. It is worth picking up the entire collection, regardless of when it was acquired. Very old lenses, like my 1960 Elmar 135/4 don't make much of an impact, whereas some of my more recent purchases do It's blunt, but interesting. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 10, 2012 Share #5 Posted September 10, 2012 It's not about the money. I'm not John by the way. What percentage of last years income was spent on food, clothing, rent, mortgage, autos, alcoholic beverages, sex, drugs, rock and roll? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted September 10, 2012 Share #6 Posted September 10, 2012 As a popular credit card advertisement goes, it's not the price but the experience, and the latter is priceless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 10, 2012 Share #7 Posted September 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) what does your camera kit represent as a proportion of your last year's earnings (before tax, but after depreciation and amortisation). Zero percent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share #8 Posted September 10, 2012 Ugh ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdsheepdog Posted September 10, 2012 Share #9 Posted September 10, 2012 This is a bit of a shocker. Add up your entire Leica gear (including non-Leica M lenses and any R and other equipment etc), let's say at cost, and then calculate what proportion of your income this represents (take last year's taxable income, if it helps). Don't need to know what your gear costs, don't need to know what you earn - this issue is, what does your camera kit represent as a proportion of your last year's earnings (before tax, but after depreciation and amortisation). It's the simplest way to do it, and it is indicative, if not accurate. It looks like I have accumulated what amounts to gear costing the equivalent of 2 months of last year's gross income Why ever would I want to do that, when I am sure that my wife has it on her finger tips already, to the cent! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Morte Posted September 10, 2012 Share #10 Posted September 10, 2012 Not enough! Streamlight Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2012 Share #11 Posted September 10, 2012 You cannot seriously think I would answer this. My wife might see the post!:eek: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted September 10, 2012 Share #12 Posted September 10, 2012 It's not about the money. The pleasure continues for years after the cost is forgotten. For that reason, although I could answer this question, as I keep all receipts, I'm not going to. (And my wife knows about everything I've bought. Her line is, if you want it, and you are really going to use it, then get it.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 10, 2012 Share #13 Posted September 10, 2012 It's discretionary spend; it doesn't matter. Once I buy something it is "valueless" unless or until I come to sell it, it is broken or stolen. I am not obsessed by money - it is simply a tool. YMMV. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 10, 2012 Share #14 Posted September 10, 2012 Way too much SWMBO says. The last LCD problem should help to calm down my Leica GAS in favor of some Zeiss lenses for my 5D. Won't be easy to resist the M10 though i suspect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted September 10, 2012 Share #15 Posted September 10, 2012 I inherited all of my Leica kit so ... zero. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayewing Posted September 10, 2012 Share #16 Posted September 10, 2012 The timing of purchases makes a big difference to the calculation. I bought my first Leica, a second hand M2 in the 1970s for about £200 and used it for thirty years so the cost in relation to recent income was trivial. However I sold my M2 and squandered the £500 I got for it on non Leica digital cameras. Eighteen months ago I returned to the Leica fold buying a new M9, Summilux 50 Asph and a couple of older lenses. When added up this comes to an alarmingly significant percentage of last year's income. I do not intend to upgrade any time soon but expect the lenses to hold their value while the M9 depreciates at about the same rate as my car. I enjoy both driving and photography so the cost is worthwhile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleskin Posted September 10, 2012 Share #17 Posted September 10, 2012 $25,000 since getting into the m system back in 1991. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 10, 2012 Share #18 Posted September 10, 2012 I bought into a new M9 and lenses kit in January. The amount was enough to cause vertigo when handing over. However, it's my primary source of income, a tax offset and my business model is such that each job I do the client pays for the hire of my gear as well as the hire of me. It's already paid for and making me money. GAS and tax offset compliment each other wonderfully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 10, 2012 Share #19 Posted September 10, 2012 Once I buy something it is "valueless" Here, here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted September 10, 2012 Share #20 Posted September 10, 2012 This is a bit of a shocker. Add up your entire Leica gear (including non-Leica M lenses and any R and other equipment etc), let's say at cost, and then calculate what proportion of your income this represents (take last year's taxable income, if it helps). Don't need to know what your gear costs, don't need to know what you earn - this issue is, what does your camera kit represent as a proportion of your last year's earnings (before tax, but after depreciation and amortisation). It's the simplest way to do it, and it is indicative, if not accurate. It looks like I have accumulated what amounts to gear costing the equivalent of 2 months of last year's gross income Maybe $15,000, but its very liquid, unlike a car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.