‘Investing’ in equipment

By strict definition, an investment is something that is expected to appreciate in value over time, or deliver some sort of tangible return that together with the underlying asset value is grater than the initial amount spent. One of my pet bugbears when it comes to photographic discussions are the two inevitable questions: “is X worth it?” and “should I invest in X?” The problem is, if you replace X with any other depreciating mid-term consumable such as, I don’t know, frozen peas, you’ll instantly realise the whole question makes no sense whatsoever. But replace X with a camera or lens model, and it seems common sense goes out of the window. You wouldn’t put your savings into something that has no hope of making any financial return. Why should this be any different? My aim is by the end of this article, you’ll suffer from far less frequent confusion and buyers’ remorse (if any at all).

The first underlying premise that’s causing problems here isn’t the fact that returns are expected: it’s that most people confuse tangible/quantitative with intangible/emotional. There’s one more layer to this: if you’re a pro, then you actually are expecting a tangible financial return. Fortunately, that simplifies things dramatically so we can dispense with this scenario completely: can you complete the job with what you’ve already got? If not, what do you need that will let you get things done in an efficient and professional manner? Do you expect to do the same kinds of jobs again? How many jobs do you need to do to pay off the equipment before it starts generating profit? If the answer to those suggests that the purchase is necessary and will be paid off by the job that requires it (or you can price the job such that it covers the cost of the hardware, be it rent or buy) – then no matter what the purchase price, you should make the ‘investment’*. In this case the value proposition is clear: return is greater than outlay.

*The only small gotcha here is you shouldn’t wait for a job to begin to familiarise yourself with new hardware, or it may well result in your not being able to do the job at all. But I’m also not advocating buying something ‘just in case’, because inevitably not only does that particular envisioned scenario never materialise, but by the time it does – your approach and skill level is so different that you need something else. Unfortunately, I happen to speak from experience here.

If you’re not a pro, then things get significantly more complicated.

Financial considerations aside – I firmly believe one should never buy a distraction they cannot fully afford as it only digs you deeper into a hole requiring ever larger distractions in turn – the place where most people get tied up is confusing what they want with what they actually need. Even the concept of ‘need’ is relative since the objective is one of personal satisfaction rather than something strictly quantitative. As they say, the first step to addressing psychiatric problems is to admit you have a problem…admitting something is a ‘want’ is perfectly fine so long as it is’t going to incur material pain later on disposal. A need happens when you encounter shooting conditions that you find your current equipment cannot deal with and lands up causing you frustration in turn. Basically: you want to do something you can’t currently do. Note: it’s also very important to separate equipment limitations from ones of personal skill.

The ‘return on investment’ in both cases is the intangible satisfaction or happiness associated with being able to produce the images you envision. Be warned, though: as with every dopamine-producing activity, you’re going to need a bigger and bigger hit to keep the same high, and if left untreated, will result in micro four thirds turning into large format scanning backs.

I tend to look at my personal equipment purchases in two ways – the professional argument is an easy one, and I have enough experience that the familiarisation time with new hardware is short enough that I can purchase something only once the assignment (and need) are confirmed. And the longer you stay in business, the less gear you need to buy year on year – inevitably, you’ve already bought that bit of hardware some time ago, and it’s already sitting in inventory. Most of this hardware is not the kind of thing I’d want to carry with me all the time, both due to liability/risk and physical weight/bulk. It also requires the kind of meticulousness that isn’t always suited to spontaneous captures when you see something but don’t happen to have photography as your primary objective at the time.

Personal purchases are much harder, and I get sucked in just as much as the next guy – I’ll freely admit there’s quite a bit of irrational want and ensuing buyers’ remorse. It still happens even now; you think your experience can overcome known limitations with the hardware, or that it’ll be somehow different to the last time you bought and soon after sold something very similar. I also very much believe that if you like your gear you’re more likely tow aunt to use it, and in turn go out and consciously make images with it, which in turn leads to more shooting opportunities and better images – even if this is only very slightly incremental. It’s probably worse because I tend to be drawn to compact things under the romantic notions of pocketability, opportunism and am inevitably reminded of the hard reality: there is no free lunch with system formats, and once you’re used to bigger – things have to be very, very much more convenient to justify keeping in the arsenal and using over the safe knowns.

There are a couple of ‘safety factors’ we can consider to try to minimise mistakes. After going through probably hundreds of cameras at this point – the ‘keeper threshold’ for me seems to reside around the 3,000-4,000 image mark. If I use a camera beyond that, it’ll stay with me until there’s a clear replacement. The number is somewhat arbitrary but seems to suggest there are repeat occasions which I took it out and decided to use it, and was happy enough with the results to do so again. If I have the chance to try a camera before buying it, and it passes this mark – I’ll buy one. If not, move on. Or you can buy a used one and take a far smaller depreciation hit on resale (especially since of late the secondary market for camera gear seems to have slumped a little). Thresholds are a little lower for specialised hardware (some lenses I’ve only used a couple of dozen times, but there’s not really a substitute for a 19mm shift lens when you really need it), but the same principle applies. Conversely: if you really like something (focal length, format, etc) – then you’ll actually do well to buy the best you can. Top level equipment tends to have a much longer usable lifespan than consumer gear – both because it’s designed with a bit more ruggedness from the beginning, and because the feature set is much beyond what 99% of situations require. At least that’s what I tell myself…MT

__________________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop videos, and the individual Email School of Photography. You can also support the site by purchasing from B&H and Amazon – thanks!

We are also on Facebook and there is a curated reader Flickr pool.

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved