Topic: Rent versus Buy. (Read 9319 times)

Sean Reginald Knight · « **on:** March 30, 2008, 03:00:37 pm »

I presume that everybody considering the MFDB solution is a person who makes the bulk of his yearly income and living (> 75% arbitrarily) from photography. I am also assuming that you do not fetch a USD100 000.00 a day shooting fee.

For those of us with some modicum of financial responsibility and whose accountant demand a certain Return on Investment, how has buying versus renting worked out?

How long did it take before the original purchase price of the MFDB was paid off? Did you take out a loan to buy it? And if you did, how much interest did you pay on the loan?

For how long was the MFDB solution viable before the urgency to upgrade to the latest model sets in or perish?

What about the economics of renting? Would it be possible to rent and still look respectable the morning after? At what point does it make more sense to buy than to rent?

How many rent instead of buy their own MFDB? For those who buy, how viable can upgrading and buying be as a business model?

The new business model for photographers seems to be to rent. Many have given up on their own studios and rent them when they need them. Would it be kosher to apply the same rent model to using equipment, MFDB in particular, these days?

Let's talk about numbers here. Intangibles like file quality, etc., I presume, each can decide for himself.

marcwilson · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2008, 03:28:58 pm »

it will also be interesting to see who owns their own body and lenses and rents just the digital back as I have always felt there is a lot to be said for owning at least your core bodies and lenses and having the certainly of them doing what they should by being able to check them each evening before a shoot, etc.
And as the up and down camera and lens side of the medium format field starts to pan out this may be a good option.

Marc

snickgrr · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2008, 03:30:59 pm »

My decision to buy the A75 was more or less an impulse buy. I didn't need it, was shooting with a smaller Leaf CMost since 2001 and never had a client intimate to me that the equipment was not up to snuff.

Called my salesman, got a quote, told him I would get back to him in a few days, called him back and wrote out a check.

I know from a numbers standpoint buying the A75 probably wasn't too prudent but as I told my salesman.."This should take me to retirement". I am not a gotta have the latest bestest sort of person. I am not an equipment junkie.

The renting thing I just don't personally see. Too slow and cumbersome trying to get something at the last minute which is often the case or a job gets moved around which is often the case. And rental gear gets thrashed by people. I do the odd lens when I need something I don't have but would just not be able to function without owning the main gear. I often get a hair up my ass to shoot something at ten o'clock.

Studio rental to me would feel like camping out. I'm used to my equipment. I want my NorthLight. I know my C stands aren't going to have tape on the arms, the threads on the screws will turn easily. I know where all my flags are etc etc.

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2008, 04:45:37 pm »

Some thoughts

I can see rental as attractive

" You want your stuf shot on ths stupid kit - you pay for it"

Very sensible.

Why did I buy..

I am in the sticks

I shoot stock which I want to be of a high standard

I enjoy having it to play with

Could I feel confident with gear I didnt know

Chatting to a mate the other day who is thingking MFDB we decided that 22mp was a good point

Learn on it, shoot stock on it and have it as backup on jobs where the clients wil pay for the latest and greatest

In a studio or good lights I cant really see the current generation (mine is three years old) bewcoming obsolete - the pictures are lovely up to the size of a wall - who needs more

SMM

amsp · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2008, 06:10:05 pm »

My reasons for buying were pretty much the same as Morgan's. The price of a used P25 + Mamiya wasn't that much more than a canon kit, but the quality is far superior, the 3/4 format much more useful and I would have the body to mount a rental 39Mp back if the client wanted it. I do have a 1Ds MkI too though, but I use it mostly for travel and personal stuff.

AndreNapier · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2008, 08:39:50 pm »

At some point renting equipment becomes like renting a car every time you need a ride.
If you consider the time needed to arrange the rental and return which always falls during traffic hours you are adding lots of lost unproductive time for you or your assistant.
Cost of renting is very high if you have any volume of work. You are dealing with abused equipment that you do not really know well. It takes lots of time to get a feel for DB and its creative abilities.
Unless you are willing to pay $500/day to play with it for several off days you will be force to improvise when the real heat of work comes.
I personally can not imagine renting staff that my reputation lays on. I treat my equipment very personally. I go through a process of of hand picking and selecting each piece and getting to know it well. Each lens is different, each back is different. I even hate renting lighting as I always feel that something is not going to work and I am going to look like an idiot.
http://AndreNapier.com

TMARK · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2008, 10:55:05 pm »

I agree with Andre, AMSP, Snickgrr, and SMM.

I was a big proponent of renting backs for commercial jobs and shooting film and scanning for personal work and editorial. What always bothered me about not owning was not having a back on hand to shoot something, as Snikgrr says, at 10pm; and never really knowing the equipment as you do when you have the 24/7 access that comes with ownership. This always bothered me. I was spending $1,200 a month on film and processing (most is billed to a client). I decided that was stupid so I bought a P30+ and decided to sell the Canon kit and no longer shoot film.

That was January. I still have the 1ds2, and I'm still shooting lots of film.

I would rather own my lights and modifiers than my back, if I had to choose. Lighting is much more important than what camera you use, and much more difficult to master, thus better to own.

Don Libby · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2008, 11:04:53 pm »

Quote

At some point renting equipment becomes like renting a car every time you need a ride.

Very true!

Right around this time last year I got to thinking that I wanted to take my landscape/panorama images to the next step and began a serious search. I never considered renting as I like to have my own “stuff” and I wanted equipment that I could depend on especially if I was in a location where I was hours from a cell site or days from UPS. Bought the body and back and lens and haven’t looked back, I’ve almost covered the cost of the 28mm lens I got in December in just one shoot.

don

Pete Ferling · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2008, 11:16:27 pm »

Renting vs. buying (and this goes for any equipment), is that renting allows you to try out something before full commitment (marriage should be that way...)

Anyway, what is the cost of convenience? If you have a ton of work, then your rental fees may exceed the cost of purchase (even if at a used price -because that's what you are doing, is renting a used item). On the other hand, you face the certainty of technological errosion. A $7000 tool today will hardly earn $1000 on ebay next year. I know this, I still have my old EOS 1Ds. But it has paid many times over it's original price, and it's just cheaper to keep it than to sell.

What matters to you is how you feel about it. I don't care if you rent or own the unit, just don't reserve it on the day that I need to use it

I usually rent a few jobs to get a feel for the device, and then make a purchase once I'm convinced it's the right tool. Rental just helps in the justification department.

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2008, 12:45:03 am »

Quote

you have a ton of work, then your rental fees may exceed the cost of purchase [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Does that matter - if the client is paying rental fees ?

Rental gives you the latest and greatest and cashflow flexibility etc

I would have no worries renting kti I already own or have owned if I got a foriegn etc

SMM

NBP · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2008, 04:03:28 am »

Quote

At some point renting equipment becomes like renting a car every time you need a ride.

http://AndreNapier.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good analogy.

I took the plunge after spending a year renting backs as I familiarized myself with the world of digital and trying out all the different systems.

What became increasingly frustrating about renting the more that I got used to using digital, was having to hand the gear back at the end of the shoot and wait until the next job that it was possible to foot the rental on.

I also shoot a lot of stock & I'd pretty much ground to a halt shooting that on film due to the financial balance of that being tilted in such a negative way. The same with a lot of personal work.

I was also feeling creatively frustrated by clients who were constantly tightening their costs & dictating how much film & [particuarly]polaroid they could afford (scanning costs as well) = less room to move on shoots.

For a loan, I released some equity from a property I own to buy an A65 which therefore has a very low amount of interest on the loan & I charge a flat rate digital capture fee per day & that fee has almost paid off the back just over a year on.

Personally I've had my most enjoyable & creative year for a while shooting both professionally & personally & I'm getting more work as well, which I'm sure is part due to buying the back & it's reflection on the quality & flexibiity of the work I provide.
It's worked out well for me & I'm very glad i did it.

E2A: re sale value was not a concern for me personally. As long as I've covered it's initial cost in 2 years I'm not bothered.
I fully intend and expect it to perform for that period and hopefully well beyond (I've been fortunate enough to have had a free upgrade to a 65s in January) Although the technology is very fast moving, in reality I personally believe that for the sort of work I do, the current quality of the 80mb 8 bit file should be more than good enough for a good while longer.

Pete Ferling · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2008, 09:12:28 pm »

Quote

Does that matter - if the client is paying rental fees ?

Rental gives you the latest and greatest and cashflow flexibility etc

I would have no worries renting kti I already own or have owned if I got a foriegn etc

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you can pay up front and get that back. Then in terms of business economics, it's a no-brainer. Still, you'll get that one time when you gotta have it, and it's reserved, or in the shop, or...

Then there's the down times and times you want to stretch and be creative and shoot stuff for yourself, or maybe to sell as fine art, or break out into other avenues of business. If you love the craft, and you own, you're gonna experiment or go out and shoot stuff. If it's just a 9-5, then don't let you client find out.

In any case, it's always smart to rent first. The only difference is when you are ready to take the plunge and make a purchase.

Pete Ferling · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2008, 09:41:30 pm »

Oh yeah, my first post here. Very nice and informative forum, (gonna spend a couple of beers, I mean hours, reading up)! -Pete

kingsize · « **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2008, 11:20:18 pm »

I own a rental company which manages the rentals of 35mm Digital through to MFD.

When you rent MFD you should be getting more than just a piece of kit: you should be getting experienced backup and pre & post production support from the hire company.

We rent MFD 90% with a qualified operator with a pre-configured computer. The idea being that a photographer who has little or no experience with MFD can step into a job, and shoot it, concentrating on the essentials: creativity and fulfilling the brief: NOT technical issues.

This is where the value of renting should be.

There are many photographers who shoot stock, catalogue, or live remotely etc, who must own gear, and this makes sense. A simple calculation of the true cost of capital will establish if it is better to own or rent.

ESTIMATED DAYS GEAR USE P/ANNUM

X

ESTIMATED USEFUL YEARS USE

= TOTAL SHOOT DAYS

------------------------------------

PURCHASE PRICE DIVIDED BY TOTAL SHOOT DAYS = ANSWER

Commercial shooters generally need to use the latest, best equipment, because the client is demanding it or the brief requires it. Therefore renting makes sense for these jobs.

Even though I own a rental company, I encourage my clients to own a basic kit, and use us to support that kit when required. The industry has changed such that equipment is no longer "for life" but rather a very specific tool for a very specific time period. You are better to own a simple 35mm digital kit, and rent the MFD when you need it if this will suffice.

I am a bit shocked at the general impression posters here have of the rental industry. The opposite should be true here: you should receive first class equipment, in first class condition. The gear should not be thrashed: it should be impeccably maintained where possible. The gear should be presented as best as possible so that you the photographer look amazing in front of your clients.

Adam Custins
www.kingsize.co.nz

AndreNapier · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2008, 12:09:03 am »

Quote

I own a rental company which manages the rentals of 35mm Digital through to MFD.

When you rent MFD you should be getting more than just a piece of kit: you should be getting experienced backup and pre & post production support from the hire company.

We rent MFD 90% with a qualified operator with a pre-configured computer. The idea being that a photographer who has little or no experience with MFD can step into a job, and shoot it, concentrating on the essentials: creativity and fulfilling the brief: NOT technical issues.

This is where the value of renting should be.

There are many photographers who shoot stock, catalogue, or live remotely etc, who must own gear, and this makes sense. A simple calculation of the true cost of capital will establish if it is better to own or rent.

ESTIMATED DAYS GEAR USE P/ANNUM

X

ESTIMATED USEFUL YEARS USE

= TOTAL SHOOT DAYS

------------------------------------

PURCHASE PRICE DIVIDED BY TOTAL SHOOT DAYS = ANSWER

Commercial shooters generally need to use the latest, best equipment, because the client is demanding it or the brief requires it. Therefore renting makes sense for these jobs.

Even though I own a rental company, I encourage my clients to own a basic kit, and use us to support that kit when required. The industry has changed such that equipment is no longer "for life" but rather a very specific tool for a very specific time period. You are better to own a simple 35mm digital kit, and rent the MFD when you need it if this will suffice.

I am a bit shocked at the general impression posters here have of the rental industry. The opposite should be true here: you should receive first class equipment, in first class condition. The gear should not be thrashed: it should be impeccably maintained where possible. The gear should be presented as best as possible so that you the photographer look amazing in front of your clients.

Adam Custins
www.kingsize.co.nz
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, nice but lets be honest here and tell us how much is a day rental with qualify tech, computer etc. for P45+ or A75S.
Most of my work takes a minimum 3 day shoot. I just came back from Brazil where we needed to shoot for 6 days straight. We were renting lighting gear locally but I checked also DB's. I could not get anybody to talk to me for less than $1000/day with the tech. NYC it could be as high as $2,000/day. Sure the customer pays for it, but in my case he pays the rental fee to my "sister" company that I am renting from. I am not against renting, I am just against bad business strategies. An A75S can be purchased on Ebay for $20,000 and sold back in two years for $12,000. 8K for two years of use of DB sounds just right to me.
[a href=\"http://AndreNapier.com]http://AndreNapier.com[/url]

paul_jones · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2008, 12:44:39 am »

Quote

I own a rental company which manages the rentals of 35mm Digital through to MFD.

When you rent MFD you should be getting more than just a piece of kit: you should be getting experienced backup and pre & post production support from the hire company.

We rent MFD 90% with a qualified operator with a pre-configured computer. The idea being that a photographer who has little or no experience with MFD can step into a job, and shoot it, concentrating on the essentials: creativity and fulfilling the brief: NOT technical issues.

This is where the value of renting should be.

There are many photographers who shoot stock, catalogue, or live remotely etc, who must own gear, and this makes sense. A simple calculation of the true cost of capital will establish if it is better to own or rent.

ESTIMATED DAYS GEAR USE P/ANNUM

X

ESTIMATED USEFUL YEARS USE

= TOTAL SHOOT DAYS

------------------------------------

PURCHASE PRICE DIVIDED BY TOTAL SHOOT DAYS = ANSWER

Commercial shooters generally need to use the latest, best equipment, because the client is demanding it or the brief requires it. Therefore renting makes sense for these jobs.

Even though I own a rental company, I encourage my clients to own a basic kit, and use us to support that kit when required. The industry has changed such that equipment is no longer "for life" but rather a very specific tool for a very specific time period. You are better to own a simple 35mm digital kit, and rent the MFD when you need it if this will suffice.

I am a bit shocked at the general impression posters here have of the rental industry. The opposite should be true here: you should receive first class equipment, in first class condition. The gear should not be thrashed: it should be impeccably maintained where possible. The gear should be presented as best as possible so that you the photographer look amazing in front of your clients.

Adam Custins
www.kingsize.co.nz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hi adam,
i know that you have your gear in pretty good condition, but many rental places dont.
buying gear is more than just a rental/price/ accounting issue, you really need to know your gear.
many times i have have had assistants that really dont know the software as well as me, or the backs or how to get the best file. the only way to be completely professional (in my opinion) is to know all your gear inside out.
my camera gear is mint, like brand new, the kind of condition that you couldnt get from rental gear getting rented out many times more than i would use it.

the other problem with renting, and maybe its just a problem with new zealand, is every time the industry gets busy, the backs arnt available. its a small market and everyone gets busy at the same time.
there must be a dozen times i have meant to hire a piece of equipment, and its just not available. it wastes my time and adds stress. i couldnt even hire a 20 foot butterfly last week, in a city with a strong film industry!

the trick is to rent it back to the clients. ive done that since my first digital camera (1ds). i remember i paid that off by renting it to myself in two months, and i still sold it for 4k 2 years later.

paul

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2008, 02:12:06 am »

Quote

The industry has changed such that equipment is no longer "for life" but rather a very specific tool for a very specific time period.

You are better to own a simple 35mm digital kit, and rent the MFD when you need it if this will suffice

Adam Custins
www.kingsize.co.nz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I dont see why the eqipment is not 'for life'

Tell me what will be wrong with my 22mp in five years time - I shoot for glossy magazines/brochures

The concept that kit needs to be turned over is now a myth IMO

Ok with nikon I have turned over the D1, D100 SLRn - Because they were all crap compared to my F5 with a roll of film

The D3x* will be as good as my f5 with a roll of film - I was happy with a F5 and a roll of film 'for life' and dont see why I wouldnt be happy with a D3x 'for life'

My Proback was crap compared to my 645 and tranny (no wide) - so I moved that on too but my E22/H1 is way better than 645 ProTL and tranny - happy as

Ok a 12000 ISO 50mp waterproof 'point and shoot' will open intersting possibilities that are worth considering but my current kit does what has been done with photography in the last hundred years very well - unlike previous generations of digital

The very reason I was happy to splash my cash on 22mp is that I think it wont become obselete ie it is 'for life'

Valueless maybe - unfashionable definitly - but not a bad picture taking device

Ok I will probably trade it for a 39mp when I can pick up an 'old' P45 used for $3000

My concern is that still photography is becoming commercially obsolete faster than the kit

SMM

*D3x - I have no knowledge - just assuming that it will come and be 18-22mp and good for 1000 ISO

Dustbak · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2008, 03:18:53 am »

Good argument from Sam. I have been turning over DSLR's because none of them came close to my F5. With the D300 it is the first time I do have that feeling (still some thing I would like to have different).

I started MFDB with second hand C-Most, sold that for about the same price. Upgraded to second hand Valeo11, sold that for more or less the same price.

Bought a new refurbed A17, sold that for more or less the same price. Bought an upgraded CF39 which I probably sell for a 4K loss to be able to upgrade a 384 towards a CF39MS which by than will only have cost me about 16K euros (in total) which I can probably sell for about the same price later on

I also bought and sold several other backs most I sold for about the same fairly soon.

IMO with a bit of thinking you can also use MFDB and not go bankrupt for it. I am pretty sure I lost more on DSLR's than on MFDB. Sure MFDB has cost me money as well but not nearly as much as it could have cost me. Yes, it does take more effort to keep it cheaper but for every choice you will pay a price is my experience.

I own all of my equipment. I have a smal studio in house to do smaller stuff. When I need bigger I rent somebodies studio. I don't own a car, if I need one I rent one which is invoiced to my customers (I have a so-called greenwheels subscription). Many of my work is send to me via UPS/FEDEX/DHL/TNT. I do the work and send it back.

I never finance anything. I make the money and then buy the stuff. The CF39 took me about 1 year to gather the money.

I pay myself a reasonable salary (according to my standards, my friends that are all high-level employees in large companies think it is hoovering on the border of poverty).

geesbert · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2008, 03:46:51 am »

i spent the last few months in testing and contemplating whether to buy a back. i didn't and went for a 1dsmk3 instead. i know that buying a smaller MFB wouldn't have costed me much more. i love to own my own equipment, but whenever a client needs MF files, the production is usually so big that i need to rent additional equipment. so i talk to the rental place anyway.

my rental here in Munich is fabulous, (haedler) the best i have ever worked with, here and abroad. their stuff is perfectly kept and always the most recent stuff. the back is cleaned and seald in a plastic wrap, all batteries are charged and whenever something brakes, a replacement is send by courier immediately. as i rent there a lot, i get good prices.

although i accept that MF makes better files, shooting with it is such a hassle, that i only do it when the client asks for it.

i am very happy with this arrangement.

NBP · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2008, 04:34:41 am »

Another issues in terms of renting the gear is the clients response to the cost.

They are all different and whilst some clients either don't care or are happy to green light the cost, there are just as many who will brake your balls about every last cent and (very worryingly) in some of the more competitive markets such as London, some who are refusing to foot the bill for digital capture full stop & have the clout to pull it knowing that the suppy/demand for photographers in such markets means they can often get away with it.

Author Topic: Rent versus Buy. (Read 9319 times)

Pete Ferling

Pete Ferling

Pete Ferling