as I said, "if you're not local to a rental house, but use something regularly, buy it."
otherwise, most top rental houses(even those that rent digitars, maybe not in electronic shutters<don't the hi-end backs have like 1million stops of latitude anyhow, so what's the big deal if your 1s on your copal 0 shutter is actually 1.1s? just stop down a tad more to compensate, or use your software to compensate for the overexposure.>) are willing to ship orders out Fedex or UPS.
all I was saying was that I am NOT arguing that spending $40k, even $2.5k(5dII) on a camera that you will use, if it pays you back over time, even 2-3 years, or longer, is a bad thing. Just something to think about, seriously I hope.
what I am saying is that I find it hard(for me at least personally) to spend $40k, even 2.5k(5DII) if I'm not going to use it day in and day out. My RZ is with me WHEREVER I shoot, even if I know I won't use it. But its the camera that I use the most, and was happy to spend $1800 for my kit(3 lenses, and a Pro II body, and 5 backs) 2 years ago. Its paid for itself in the first 6 months I owned it easily, and I'm a student.
CBarrett(Chris) is the example I'm trying to use here(sorry Chris, you're a working pro, who's getting jobs easily). He purchased a P65+. This along with his digital LF lenses and Arca M2 give HIM(and his clients) the best image possible. Period. We all know that. His system is paying for itself. Easy peasy. He can justify spending that kind of serious cash, because its a tool he uses for his business.
Somehow though, I think that most of us can agree that most equipment these days IS overpriced, especially given the turnover rate.
but there will ALWAYS be the people that buy something just for the name, and the prestige. we all know that, I'd venture to guess that many here might not have ever bought a P1 or Sinar, or Leaf, or P1/Mamiya camera had they not gotten the taste of the 'forbidden fruit' on this forum