Good read
@gryphonslair99, I think I'll go-ahead and grab the Land Rover and McLaren while I'm at it. My mid range SUV is really just a waste if time when the right vehicle for the race of life is obvious.
Basically your telling me theough that article is that unless I spend 1300$ ( more maybe the article is old) I wont get a good product, and am wasting money.
Perhaps its true, but I'll be a statistic too then.
What the article fails to mention is that the said typical photographer gets to use their gear as they " move up", they learn, they take some good photos, some bad, have a time at a waterfall getting "" silky smooth"", see a sunset they might not have etc etc..
.
Also failed to mention if they sell the gear as they move through then they realize less loss or cost. If they bought second hand and are serious about re selling stuff they can lose no money.
I still have 2-300 dollars to spend, my old POS 40$ tripod did me great and I'll keep it too, perhaps to put OCF on it? I wont add it to the cost of my new one, because that would be kinda silly economics wise.
I also wont add the cost of my old Pontiac, Toyota and Hyundai to the McLaren and Land Rover. Might not be able to afford the McLaren then, must have the Rover is.
Opportunity cost is opportunity lost? I need a dang tripod or I'll miss the waterfall.
I can have a 250 dollar one now or a 1500 one in a year. Or both perhaps
Both. Perhaps.
Time will tell.
Funny, or ironic thing is that the expensive tripod to me, aquiring it, is actually dependant on the cheaper one being good!! I'll have to like good tripods. Just as the 70-200 was dependant on me liking the 18-135, just like the FF ( 5D Mark iv probably)is dependant on likeing the 70D.
Just like the McLaren is dependant on the Pontiac.
