6 ms·

Just because someone can afford to rent a $30,000 camera doesn't necessarily mean they have unlimited cash to burn on other things.

by mcbits 10y ago

arjie 10y ago
Rent an Azure G5 and remote in perhaps?
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
No, but the difference between i7 and Xeon is significantly less than what you'd have to pay for that extra RAM. We're talking O($100).
- pvg 10y ago
  So O($1)?
dpark 10y ago
It's about $2000/week to rent an IQ180. If you can afford the rental price, you can afford a computer to process the images.
- mcbits 10y ago
  That still doesn't follow. Having a certain amount of money doesn't imply that you have even more money, nor that you want to spend more than is truly necessary.
  - haikuginger 10y ago
    Diminishing returns on increasingly exponentially-priced cameras means that if you're paying for the very top tier, value is no longer a consideration. Your average flagship smartphone camera is a Toyota Camry. It gets the job done. Upgrade to a high-end bridge camera or entry-level DSLR (phones have killed the bargain point-and-shoot market), and you're looking at something like a basic 328i; already more car than most people will ever need. Upgrading to the top end of the 35mm DSLR market is a bit like an AMG Mercedes; no one is going to make eyes at it unless they're looking for it, but it can competently handle pretty much any situation that you might normally encounter. Going to medium format is like buying a supercar. Yes, it is better than every other option, but it's also an exercise in vanity- you don't buy a supercar because you need to accelerate the way a supercar does on a regular basis, but because there might be a situation where you need one, maybe two, of its advantages over the Mercedes. So where does that leave the IQ180? It's a Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Vitesse- a $2M exercise in masturbation that can only be used to its full capacity if you're willing to pay $42,000 for a set of tires that will burn through after 10 minutes at top speed. No one buying a Veyron will hesitate to pay for the tires, because if you're buying a Veyron, there's no cost/benefit analysis that would keep you from it. No one buying an IQ180 will shy away from a computer to take advantage of its capabilities.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Sure it does. If someone can't afford the machine necessary to process the images that they got from the camera they spent thousands to rent, the problem isn't actually money. It's that they're an idiot. You don't buy/rent a camera you can't afford to process images from just like you don't buy a car you can't afford to service and you don't buy a house you can't afford taxes for. Or if you do, I have little to no sympathy.
    - mcbits 10y ago
      Having >64GB is far from necessary to edit any kind of multimedia, but it would be helpful to have. If your goal is to capture high-quality imagery on a $2,500 budget, the camera is more import than the RAM. It's just that you might end up with $500 unspent if you can't afford a $500 RAM upgrade and a whole new computer to use it. There are far more photographers and indy filmmakers in a situation where they have to make these kinds of tradeoffs than the tiny minority making tons of money.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - qume 10y ago
      The specifications from the client are quite particular, and usually only one or a few cameras meets the spec. The computers often are owned by the company renting the gear, where the end customer pays for the camera rental. So it's not so simple. And one thing - go easy on using the word idiot... I work with some very smart people who fit your description of idiot on a regular basis.
      - dpark 10y ago
        You're a professional that clients are paying multiple thousands of dollars for photography and you cannot afford the hardware to process their images? Color me skeptical. If it's really true, then your pricing is clearly wrong.
- abdulmuhaimin 10y ago
  thats not how money works. Just because you can afford one expensive luxury, doesnt mean you can afford all the other expensive stuff. Sometimes you do sacrifice all the other thing to get that one important expensive stuff
  - mozumder 10y ago
    Pro photographers don't do that.
  - dpark 10y ago
    "I can't afford the premium gasoline my Ferrari needs."
  - qume 10y ago
    Also the camera rental cost goes to the client. The computers to process are generally owned by the company doing the work. Big difference. I will regularily spend $1-2k for cameras for ~1 week, and pass that on, but still use our own gear for processing.
dragonwriter 10y ago
If you are buying that level of professional gear, it's probably for a profession. The rates you are charging ought to include the necessary costs of all necessary equipment.

Just because someone can afford to rent a $30,000 camera doesn't necessarily mean they have unlimited cash to burn on other things.

by mcbits 10y ago

Just because someone can afford to rent a $30,000 camera doesn't necessarily mean they have unlimited cash to burn on other things.

arjie 10y ago

Rent an Azure G5 and remote in perhaps?

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

No, but the difference between i7 and Xeon is significantly less than what you'd have to pay for that extra RAM. We're talking O($100).

pvg 10y ago
So O($1)?

dpark 10y ago

It's about $2000/week to rent an IQ180. If you can afford the rental price, you can afford a computer to process the images.

mcbits 10y ago
That still doesn't follow. Having a certain amount of money doesn't imply that you have even more money, nor that you want to spend more than is truly necessary.
- haikuginger 10y ago
  Diminishing returns on increasingly exponentially-priced cameras means that if you're paying for the very top tier, value is no longer a consideration. Your average flagship smartphone camera is a Toyota Camry. It gets the job done. Upgrade to a high-end bridge camera or entry-level DSLR (phones have killed the bargain point-and-shoot market), and you're looking at something like a basic 328i; already more car than most people will ever need. Upgrading to the top end of the 35mm DSLR market is a bit like an AMG Mercedes; no one is going to make eyes at it unless they're looking for it, but it can competently handle pretty much any situation that you might normally encounter. Going to medium format is like buying a supercar. Yes, it is better than every other option, but it's also an exercise in vanity- you don't buy a supercar because you need to accelerate the way a supercar does on a regular basis, but because there might be a situation where you need one, maybe two, of its advantages over the Mercedes. So where does that leave the IQ180? It's a Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Vitesse- a $2M exercise in masturbation that can only be used to its full capacity if you're willing to pay $42,000 for a set of tires that will burn through after 10 minutes at top speed. No one buying a Veyron will hesitate to pay for the tires, because if you're buying a Veyron, there's no cost/benefit analysis that would keep you from it. No one buying an IQ180 will shy away from a computer to take advantage of its capabilities.
- dpark 10y ago
  Sure it does. If someone can't afford the machine necessary to process the images that they got from the camera they spent thousands to rent, the problem isn't actually money. It's that they're an idiot. You don't buy/rent a camera you can't afford to process images from just like you don't buy a car you can't afford to service and you don't buy a house you can't afford taxes for. Or if you do, I have little to no sympathy.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    Having >64GB is far from necessary to edit any kind of multimedia, but it would be helpful to have. If your goal is to capture high-quality imagery on a $2,500 budget, the camera is more import than the RAM. It's just that you might end up with $500 unspent if you can't afford a $500 RAM upgrade and a whole new computer to use it. There are far more photographers and indy filmmakers in a situation where they have to make these kinds of tradeoffs than the tiny minority making tons of money.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - qume 10y ago
    The specifications from the client are quite particular, and usually only one or a few cameras meets the spec. The computers often are owned by the company renting the gear, where the end customer pays for the camera rental. So it's not so simple. And one thing - go easy on using the word idiot... I work with some very smart people who fit your description of idiot on a regular basis.
    - dpark 10y ago
      You're a professional that clients are paying multiple thousands of dollars for photography and you cannot afford the hardware to process their images? Color me skeptical. If it's really true, then your pricing is clearly wrong.
abdulmuhaimin 10y ago
thats not how money works. Just because you can afford one expensive luxury, doesnt mean you can afford all the other expensive stuff. Sometimes you do sacrifice all the other thing to get that one important expensive stuff
- mozumder 10y ago
  Pro photographers don't do that.
- dpark 10y ago
  "I can't afford the premium gasoline my Ferrari needs."
- qume 10y ago
  Also the camera rental cost goes to the client. The computers to process are generally owned by the company doing the work. Big difference. I will regularily spend $1-2k for cameras for ~1 week, and pass that on, but still use our own gear for processing.

dragonwriter 10y ago

If you are buying that level of professional gear, it's probably for a profession. The rates you are charging ought to include the necessary costs of all necessary equipment.