Camera ‘ownership’ via subscription - Thoughts?

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,077
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I saw an ad for Volvo car subscriptions earlier today and it got me thinking if something like that will eventually make its way to camera kit.

I know many would probably be against it as the only method of ‘ownership’ but it got me thinking if like mobile phones cameras will go a similar monthly payment/subscription route.

With the high cost of modern cameras/lenses and their reduced model life (before another model appears) would it be a way for camera manufacturers to keep a market going and ensure there was a demand for the latest models?

The change of lightroom/photoshop to a monthly subscription model shows there would be people against it. If the manufacturers still kept the outright purchase available I guess there would be less people against its introduction. The manufacturers could sell the used cameras on ensuring there was still a used market.

I guess one of the reason against it would be that it highlights the actual cost of a camera/lens long term. I doubt many of us think of the depreciation that can occur (unless you buy used at a very good price and sell it on before depreciation sets in) as it’s a one off purchase.

I had a quick google found this blog post:

blog.wedio.com

Rent to own your camera gear with Wedio Subscription

Are you the kind of creator that has no problem with large upfront costs? Are you happy to shoot with the same camera for 5+ years? Can’t stand the thought of not owning the equipment yourself from day 1? Well if this is you, maybe Wedio Subscription isn’t the best choice for you, and that’s ok.
blog.wedio.com blog.wedio.com
 
Last edited:
Hire purchase started out that way. At the end of the hire period you could usually purchase the item by making a further single payment.
That was quite different to the earlier model of being given credit and paying off the debt by periodic agreed payments, but the goods were yours immediately. The change over was largely complete by the early 60's
 
Read up on the non-European cultures and it's interesting how many of the financial systems we think of as invented here were in use long ago and far away. They may have had different names but they did the same thing. That's why so many religious texts are negative about usury.
 
Interesting. I think it could work for lenses, they typically have a fairly soft depreciation curve and assuming they are kept in good condition their value over 3 years is likely to be fairly predictable.

Cameras would be tricky, do you set a shutter count limit on the agreement?

It works with cars because there is decades of data on depreciation, the rental or hire purchase agreement is carefully calculated based on a future minimum value. Manufacturers have that data because their dealerships/franchises are the ones to take the car back in. That simply doesn't exist with cameras at the moment, so the data simply doesn't exist.
 
Any such model needs to write of the original cost during the initial hire contract. It could work for Professionals as there is a tax benefit. But probably not at the amateur retail level.
 
I’ve been reading the link I posted. I can’t understand fully how it works. It seems you have the opportunity to buy out right at any point during the subscription so you don’t have to pay forever. They have insurance in place to cover repairs over general wear and tear (costs are applied).
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve been reading the link I posted.
Click to expand...
I did as well. It's just another way of offering credit. I'd get a quote from various lenders and see how they compare. My guess is that these people won't come out cheapest.
 
How many people realistically consider depreciation when buying anything? The majority buy something they want/need at a cost they can afford. You don’t talk about depreciation of TV’s, white goods, clothes, jewellery, furniture, home improvements, sports equipment even. It’s only certain photographers that get hung up on what it’s worth and probably one of the few second hand market places where a used item is valued at more than 75% of new. There will always be items that stand out due to rareity naturally. I buy a car and plan to keep it until it stops being economical to repair I don’t consider how much that will be worth 2,3,4 8 years down the line. I have my camera and lens unless I break something I won’t be trading it as it does everything I need. It’s unlikely that any new camera will do anything better that it currently does so why the need to consider depreciation. Caveat -I’m excluding business users as this is a business asset although other than wearing it out in which case it will have low value anyway there still isn’t really a need for replacement every 3! Years or what ever
 
An interesting business model!

A while back there was, it may still be operating, a company that offered to rent out your photo and video gear.

The company in the OP seems to be a blended version of:-
Hire Purchase/Personal Lease Purchase & gear rental.

What is not 100% clear is that though damage to kit when rented is insured there is an excess to be paid......and the wording in that section appears to infer that it is original subscription 'owner' not the subscriber who has rented it that pays the excess. I say appears because surely the one who has rented it out should pay for the excess fee???

Lastly, who is backing this venture.....as in should it fail what is the actual and/or implied risk to the subscribers holding gear or who have rented "their" gear out at the point the company fails.

Oh! I get the idea but wonder whether it is a bandwagon effect.......as in "this new generation pay everything by way of monthly 'subscription' so why not their tech!"
 
Last edited:
I get the model ought to work.
PCP is cheaper than HP or a loan, genuine lease is cheaper still.

I only looked at the headline, but the R6 + lens looks to be a similar price to leasing a small family car, I can’t see how that’s ‘cheap’.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
What's wrong with getting a 0% credit card and buying the camera using that?

Cheapest way possible I'd have said.
Click to expand...
Whilst that would probably be a better deal in this case*. The financial model for a lease should theoretically be less risky, as the financial commitment for the user is only to cover the cost of depreciation.

*as the finance costs look steep - though 0% interest credit cards only work well for people with exceptional self control.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
What's wrong with getting a 0% credit card and buying the camera using that?

Cheapest way possible I'd have said.
Click to expand...

I have done that, but only at 0% and only set up a repayment on DD monthly so when the 9% ends, all of it is paid off. Any interests paid would be counter productive.
 
I can see this being of interest to those people who have to have the latest piece of kit to have bragging rights, a bit like those who have to have the latest Phone when the one they have is perfectly OK.
I am not sure how it would work regarding shutter count but I suppose something along the lines of cars where there is a mileage limit when you have one of these Personal Contract hire things.
 
But wouldn't a scheme like this require millions of customers buying into it? If you look at cars, TVs, mobile phones etc, you will find a high percentage of households owning at least two cars, 2-3 TVs and God knows how many mobile phones. I can't see this being the case with cameras and lenses specially that many people our relying on their phones to take all their photos.
 
Car and phone leasing work because it appeals to those who want the newest and latest every two years or so. It means from s budgetary perspective you don't need to save a great deal of capital and you know that for £x per month you've got the use of the latest toy.

I'm not certain there is the same driver with the majority of photographers. You also need a thriving second hand market or the lessors are forced to charge high monthly rates as they are effectively depreciating down to very low values.

I'm aware mirrorless is currently stimulating demand but I would imagine that will slow over the next 3 years or so as the technology curve levels off
 
The “get the gear to finance itself” part of the model by renting it out yourself is interesting.
 
architectfadi said:
But wouldn't a scheme like this require millions of customers buying into it? If you look at cars, TVs, mobile phones etc, you will find a high percentage of households owning at least two cars, 2-3 TVs and God knows how many mobile phones. I can't see this being the case with cameras and lenses specially that many people our relying on their phones to take all their photos.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it has anything to do with large numbers. You can have subscriptions for large format printers, and in fact companies are heavily pushing this model. £8 per week I believe for some base 24" models. That's another fairly niche item.
 
taxboy said:
I'm aware mirrorless is currently stimulating demand but I would imagine that will slow over the next 3 years or so as the technology curve levels off
Click to expand...

I would hold off from such statements unless you work in R&D department of a camera manufacturer. You just don't know what is around the corner; all you can say is whether the current gear already mostly satisfy your needs or still leave something to be desired. I think for stills it is reasonably mature but for video I would very much want the every single latest release for the next few years. They have only got to a stage where you just about get 4K raw in a couple of models, but almost none of them record internally to affordable media; and all the overheating mess and still no global shutter. In 3 years time current cameras will probably look like dooorstops as video recording devices. You just don't fancy using something like 6D or even EOS R for any paid video job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top