Comments on: Buy It Once: When More Expensive Is Cheaper

By: Matthew Morse

Matthew Morse — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:43:50 +0000

Okello Dunkley and Andreas Viklund are right on the money (pardon the pun) with their thoughts on this. Buy, for instance a $1600 telephoto lens vs. a $300 one. In one or two or three years, sell the $1600 lens for $1450 and you've got rent for three months, where you might get $100 out of the $300 lens.

Also, if you look at it from a cost-per-use standpoint, they get even cheaper. Say you purchase a 24-70 ƒ/2.8 for $1200. You then use it for 100 photo shoots. You're only looking at a cost of $12 per photo shoot. You couldn't rent the lens for that. And then, in 5 years when you sell it (assuming you've kept it in great, or even good condition) you'll likely get 75-80% of what you've paid for it. Then, it becomes a 5-year-investment for, say $300 (you buy it for $1200, sell it for $900 for a total cost of $300). Divide that by the number of photo shoots (we'll say one a week for 5 years, that's 260 photo shoots) and you've gotten a top-dollar lens of the finest quality for just over $2 per shoot and you've made well over that amount.

It's a win-win all the time.

By: Jeff Dolan

Jeff Dolan — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:13:32 +0000

Thanks for sharing. This is wise advice that only comes from experience.

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:38:40 +0000

I learned this with a cheap flash too. Luckily a local camera store was liquidating their stock and I was able to get the "real" flash for a good price. Now when I see a great deal, I do some research and found loads of negative reviews.

By: Okello Dunkley

Okello Dunkley — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:16:00 +0000

Nice post. This is the hardest thing to address at my workshops since most people are hobbyists so it's hard to tell them to spend more for a better product when they will only be using it this much. In the end I tell them that they have to look at how much use will they wring out of the equipment. If you can buy a $1000 lens, use it like crazy and get some great shots for a year and then sell it for $900, they've gotten more out of it than they've spent. It didn't cost them $1000, it only cost them $100.

By: Andreas Viklund

Andreas Viklund — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:44:49 +0000

Not only does a higher quality product last longer, it has a better second hand value. With that cash back in mind it can even be considered a bargain to go for the more expensive product:)

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:36:20 +0000

I have a similar philosophy but a slightly different way of thinking of it. I'm sure this is a quote from someone but for the life of me I can't think who:"I'm not a rich man, I can only afford to buy the best."Buy the best you can afford and that way you won't 'outgrow it' or wish you'd bought the more expensive model 3 months down the line thereby costing you more money when you do...

By: Hollie

Hollie — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:25:39 +0000

Wow, this is a wake up call, I bought a good "starter" camera 2 years ago only to have it start stalling, and coming up with an error after every few shots, now Im looking to replace, but which I still had the $600 to use towards a better one...