stevelap Posted September 10, 2012 Share #21 Posted September 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mind your own business! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Hi stevelap, Take a look here How much have you spent?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Printmaker Posted September 10, 2012 Share #22 Posted September 10, 2012 As a small business person, every year my accountant tells me how much money to spend on gear. It is usually $5-15K. Computers and printers take priority but there is often room in the budget for a camera or a lens. But understand, this is not free money. I earn every dime. But adding gear lowers my tax burden. So I either give the money to Uncle for the war machine or for a present to his Wall Street banker buddies or I get a new tool. The down-side of this arrangement is that this makes my gear a possession of my business, so there are trade-offs. During the recession (really a depression) my accountant told me to spend the money on food, but this year it looks like I'll probably add another computer and a lens or two. If the local economy stays on track, I'll add a MM in 2013. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted September 10, 2012 Share #23 Posted September 10, 2012 Guys, Gals, I don't know as my wife pays for everything. When we married she had nothing but me, she inherited money from an unexpected source. Ain't I a lucky guy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted September 10, 2012 Share #24 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)' date=' 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 [/quote'] Sorry but I fail to see the point. I've accumulated my Leica gear over 45 years. What kind of meaningful insight could I gain calculating it's cost as a % of last year's income? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share #25 Posted September 11, 2012 Sorry but I fail to see the point. I've accumulated my Leica gear over 45 years. What kind of meaningful insight could I gain calculating it's cost as a % of last year's income? Pure, perverse interest. I have zero interest in how much money (in dollar terms) people have spent. Similarly, I have zero interest in how much people earn. What stimulated this was the usual bad news about consumer spending and confidence (trying to re-inflate a burst balloon, it seems to me). I then started reflecting on traditional ideas about financial commitment - eg, a month's salary on an engagement ring, 6 months' spending on a car (that is probably a bit high), and three years' income on a house (long since left behind). I have never heard a similar approach applied to photographic gear, or any other discretionary spending (note, for professional photographers, the cost of capital expenditure, depreciation rates and returns on investment are all far more disciplined). So, what better way to ask the question than on a Leica forum. The big differences are that engagement rings are purchased usually with the intention of being one-off; houses are market entry (save for investment purposes, and I put them to one side); but cars are a big cost and depreciate probably not that much in a different way to camera gear. Camera gear is a big cost item (generally), so what does the cost of your camera equipment represent as a percentage of your income. Seems a reasonable piece of curiousity to me. If you're not interested, don't participate. For myself, I was shocked to think of the equivalent of two months' income tied up (spent, if you prefer) in camera gear. It occurred to me that others here might come to a similar conclusion. If not, who cares. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted September 11, 2012 Share #26 Posted September 11, 2012 Pure, perverse interest. I have zero interest in how much money (in dollar terms) people have spent. Similarly, I have zero interest in how much people earn... For myself, I was shocked to think of the equivalent of two months' income tied up (spent, if you prefer) in camera gear. It occurred to me that others here might come to a similar conclusion. If not, who cares. Cheers John That seems about right. I once calculated that my early Leicas (M2R, M4) cost about a month's wages each and my M8 with 2 lenses and M9 with a lens both ran about a month's profit each, so things have not changed much over the years. A month of your life in exchange for a bit of metal, wires and glass... two months for the entire kit... three months if you are an addict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercan Posted September 11, 2012 Share #27 Posted September 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) around 6 % since June 2010.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted September 11, 2012 Share #28 Posted September 11, 2012 ...waste of time. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted September 11, 2012 Share #29 Posted September 11, 2012 Mind your own business! +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share #30 Posted September 11, 2012 ...waste of time. Sorry. Love the irony - apparently not enough of a waste of time to post! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddyT Posted September 11, 2012 Share #31 Posted September 11, 2012 Ask my wife. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted September 11, 2012 Share #32 Posted September 11, 2012 IkarusJohn, if you spread the amount you have spent over your entire working career, what is the percentage and does it become much more palatable? At the same time, how much have we all spent on food that we didn't need to consume but just ate for the sake of it or to relieve boredom? This is one of those subjects probably more suited to the bar where we can chat away but don't feel our answers need to be worthy or insightful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted September 11, 2012 Share #33 Posted September 11, 2012 I then started reflecting on traditional ideas about financial commitment - eg, a month's salary on an engagement ring, 6 months' spending on a car (that is probably a bit high), and three years' income on a house (long since left behind). Camera gear is a big cost item (generally), so what does the cost of your camera equipment represent as a percentage of your income. Seems a reasonable piece of curiousity to me. If you're not interested, don't participate. No need to get pissy. If you had asked what % of last year's income I spent on camera goods last year, it would be analagous to the statistics surrounding houses, cars, engagement ring etc. My photo gear collection could represent 500% of last year's income. What do you expect to reasonably concur from that? I've accumulated it over 45 years, through periods of varying inflation. It has no bearing whatsoever on my last year's income. Is it that difficult to understand? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share #34 Posted September 11, 2012 No, not pissy in the slightest. This isn't remotely serious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 11, 2012 Share #35 Posted September 11, 2012 About £60,000. In the light of Leica's persistent failure to deliver camera bodies which push the envelope in terms of noise, resolution, processing speed - not to mention reliability, long service life and not relying on an antiquated 50 year old rangefinder and viewfinder design - it's too much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 11, 2012 Share #36 Posted September 11, 2012 About £60,000. ... it's too much. Evidently not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted September 11, 2012 Share #37 Posted September 11, 2012 About 10%, I should go shopping Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted September 11, 2012 Share #38 Posted September 11, 2012 Oh and it's a fraction of what Mark has spent by the way !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted September 12, 2012 Share #39 Posted September 12, 2012 Not answering, especially as expenditure over time isn't allowed for, nor comparison with other discretionary expenses. If I were able (and I confess, I am not) to calculate total Leica expenditure and divide that by the number of years over which it must be distributed, I am sure the dollars/year would easily ≥ than the cost of pleasure considered worthwhile/year obtained. And however much one might argue about the details, the subjective result trumps anything else. So, there! Chris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted September 13, 2012 Share #40 Posted September 13, 2012 I just don't see the correlation between total gear and one year's income. I won't even try to answer. Average per year expenditures versus average income might make more sense - and I won't answer that one either. I will say I do not buy enough gear to concern my psychiatrist wife, who believes in the mental health benefits of camera therapy. Her basic approach is "you worked hard, get what you want, don't settle for less, and enjoy it." When I had a sailboat some years ago, I once added up what it cost to buy it, moor it, outfit it,nec., and divided it by the number of times I was able to sail per year. The answer was appalling - but I didn't go out and sell the boat. There were nonmonetary benefits that outweighed the costs. Same goes for camera gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.