>>4344170>and you can sell whatever you don't use for 80% of your buy-in.If he buys used otherwise it's more like 40℅ loss
>>4344158The truth is, if the camera is the most expensive part of your photography then it will be bland. Most low end cameras nowadays obliterate the quality of what was pro gear in 2007. And people already used digital cameras back then and even earlier to make stuff still revered and/or commanding a high premium in the fine arts world to this day.
If you want to stand out what you need isn't a $7000 camera with a $10000 lens unless you're doing the few types of photography that would benefit from it (low light, far wildlife) and even then the gear guarantees nothing. It's the shoot itself where you need to spend time and possibly money on. Being where you can get outstanding pictures, at the right time. Or getting the set, props, talent, whatever you need to get outstanding pictures. Ansel Adams' "The Camera" is a more effective investment than the most expensive PhaseOne setup unless you already know what the book has to say. Cameras are like guns, you have the guys with the super expensive gun who can't hit a stationary paper target even with a scope and then you have Cleetus shooting his old hunting rifle with iron sights and hitting varmint from 100 meters away because he knows how to use it and how vantage points work.
The lesson here is proficiency beats gear. Also the gear tends to get more specialized as price goes up meaning the chances of fucking up and picking something useless for what you want to do increase with price. A full PhaseOne system can cost over $100k. If you want to shoot action, such a system may well prevent you from getting the shot you want because it's goal is maximum image quality, speed be damned. It doesn't even have autofocus. Simply the wrong tool for the job and unironically inferior in that application to a $1200 DSLR like the EOS E90 which can basically act as a telescope that takes photos.
