Assessing Per-Frame Cost

adbsgicom

Sorry if this is a really dumb question but I was thinking about my Cost-of-Creation equation and the whole D700/800/4 series of discussions. Ignoring that the D800 and D4 are geared at very different types of shots, I was looking at the shutter validation on the two. The D700/800 are tested to 200,000 actuations and the D4 is 400,000. This makes the per-click cost of the cameras about par with each other.

So on average, a D4 will out-last a D700/800 by 2x (at a little under 2x cost if you add in the battery grip). Yes, it means you actually need to use those extra 200,000 actuations, but I was wondering if there were some factor that I'm missing in this little bit of analysis. I also realize there is an investment cost aspect here meaning that were one starting at zero and wanted two bodies, you would be in for $12K on the D4's and $7K on the pair of D800+grips, but for this little analysis I'm just thinking about the amortization of equipment over a shoot.

divamum

What it misses out is that "wildcard" factor. The lower-rated camera could run for more actuations; the higher-rated one could need repair sooner. It also assumes you keep them until they die, like a car, but given the speed of camera technology, it's more likely that you would upgrade to a new generation - and sell the existing one - before that, so the resale value might be a factor as well.

I hasten to add that my mind doesn't work quite this scientifically, so take with a grain of salt!!

adbsgicom

Yeah, I get all those factors, I'm just looking at the equation for amortizing the unit over some number of sessions. You can get mired in the potential resale costs or that having a camera the 'only' lasts 200K actuations allows for getting a new $3K camera sooner than having to use up the actuations on the $6K camera (and then mix in a whole pile of resale theories -- such as is the value of a 200K actuation D4 worth more than 50% of the original cost, which would definitely depend on what D4s/x or D5 products are out there).

ziggy53

adbsgicom wrote: »

Yeah, I get all those factors, I'm just looking at the equation for amortizing the unit over some number of sessions. You can get mired in the potential resale costs or that having a camera the 'only' lasts 200K actuations allows for getting a new $3K camera sooner than having to use up the actuations on the $6K camera (and then mix in a whole pile of resale theories -- such as is the value of a 200K actuation D4 worth more than 50% of the original cost, which would definitely depend on what D4s/x or D5 products are out there).

Also remember that you can get a camera's shutter box or mirror box replaced (those are the components with the greatest moving parts), for much less than the initial cost of the camera. That gets your TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) down to very reasonable amount.

divamum

So I have to ask: is this one of those, "How do I justify to myself going for the higher-end model?" kinds of question?

adbsgicom

Sort of... But really just looking at the biz model numbers in a more serious manner than I have in the past. Ziggy's comment about the shutter box, though really made the thought-experiment pretty much moot....

r3t1awr3yd

ziggy53 wrote: »

Also remember that you can get a camera's shutter box or mirror box replaced (those are the components with the greatest moving parts), for much less than the initial cost of the camera. That gets your TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) down to very reasonable amount.

This always reminds me of cars. Keeping an older car and replacing the engine if it dies is almost always cheaper than buying a new car.

fjcvisual

What you might consider is the actual ROI over the TCO (discounted cash flows not necessary, but just a cost benefit analysis). Assuming that you are generating revenue you would also have to ask 'how efficient am I with my cost for the revenue I receive' Part of that is the TCO the other part is, of the 400k actuations, what proportion of them actually generate revenue, or put another way, how many actuations per dollar earned? If you are a portrait photographer, you most likely have fewer clicks of the shutter than a sports photographer who is firing off 12 fps in a fast moving sport trying to get the best shot.

adbsgicom

fjcvisual wrote: »

What you might consider is the actual ROI over the TCO (discounted cash flows not necessary, but just a cost benefit analysis). Assuming that you are generating revenue you would also have to ask 'how efficient am I with my cost for the revenue I receive' Part of that is the TCO the other part is, of the 400k actuations, what proportion of them actually generate revenue, or put another way, how many actuations per dollar earned? If you are a portrait photographer, you most likely have fewer clicks of the shutter than a sports photographer who is firing off 12 fps in a fast moving sport trying to get the best shot.

That was where I was ultimately headed. The $/actuation still factors in the MTBF of the device (and the associated repair costs). That then figures into the cost of a type of shoot, as you've pointed out.

eoren1

Andrew, I just did a similar analysis in deciding between the 5D mk II and III. I looked back at how many images I took and kept with my current camera over the past 3 years. Turns out that number was 25,000 kept (85,000 taken - I delete pretty aggressively).

Assuming I would shoot the same number with the next camera over 3 years (a conservative estimate as I imagine I would keep either at least 4-5 and have been shooting more year over year), the cost per image kept for the $3500 5DmkIII was $0.14 and the 5DmkII was $0.07.

That does not take into account residual value at the end of 4-5 years - which pushes them much closer together - or the newer AF system of the mk III which should push the keeper rate higher.

It's fun to look at these numbers but, at the end of the day, the upfront capital cost of $3500 vs $1800 is fairly big...