I paid $3800 for my two Fuji rangefinders and still had enough left over to buy a fully equipped Fuji TX-1 system (all 3 lenses). And I still go to Starbucks 3-4 times a week.
No need to buy a Hasselblad. I didnt even consider it actually.
For those kind of prices you could out fit yourself with a very nice Hasselblad and a good selection of lenses and film backs, and still have money for coffee at $tarbucks.
For those kind of prices you could out fit yourself with a very nice Hasselblad
Perhaps a better way to phrase it is if you are a working professional making money with the tool, then the price of the tool is less of a concern when you know you will more than recoup the cost.
By the same token, Livery drivers use Cadillacs or Lincolns, not Fords. Or Mercedes or even Rolls Royce. It's a flawed analogy all the way around. There are multiple pieces to the equation - there is the monetary cost, and there is the monetary profit, and then there is the emotional profit - will I enjoy using this camera more than the other one? Will it's way of framing the world enable me to take more of the pictures I want to take, and will I feel better about those pictures when I look at them later because I enjoyed taking them? Did the camera get out of the way so I could concentrate on making pictures instead of operating the camera? Good cameras do that (get out of your way). And as someone who takes a LOT of pictures, some of them occasionally for profit, I value very highly the cameras that get out of my way, and the price of them is, within reason, not a factor in the decision to buy them. If it were an issue, I'd be using a Lubitel instead of a Rolleiflex.The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...
The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...
Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's durable ... What happens when Lamborghini hits a tree?
The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...
They were cheaper than the Hassy/Rollei cameras, certainly. But even when they were industry standard (vs. digital), they were not an order of magnitude cheaper than a Hassy or Rollei, and coming from 35mm, both tiers of medium format were equally out of reach for a long time.The cost benefit trade off point made above must be true, it explains why so many wedding photographers used Bronica or Mamiya SLR/TLR systems rather than the more expensive Hasselblad/Rollei options.
For those kind of prices you could out fit yourself with a very nice Hasselblad and a good selection of lenses and film backs, and still have money for coffee at $tarbucks.
...I enjoy a good cup of coffee, so I never go to Starbucks for coffee....
I'm not sure why people complain about the cost. Pro oriented medium format cameras are really expensive, and have always been so. Heck the Nikon F6 is nearly the same cost brand new. It's expensive, and not a toy.
Pro oriented medium format cameras used to be expensive, now the are much less expensive. For the cost of the top of the line Canon or Nikon DSLR on can buy a Rollei 6xxx or Hasselblad with prisms, multiple backs, filters and lenses.
As to why? The only real reason someone waffles over the price of a camera (unless it's a specific example of a camera that is out of the normal range for that item) is that it's a fanciful purchase and not a serious tool. If you have a serious project for it and it is the right tool for the job, then the price is irrelevant (within reason...).
I paid $1600 for my GF670. 1/6th of that is $266. You got a Texas Leica for that cheap?
In business the price is never irrelevant. I shot sports for a living with an 7D and a 6D not a 1DX because my clients were happy with the results. Certainly the 1DX was a more powerful tool but there was no reason for me to spend the extra money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?