Camera Body Rental

[AndrewSt]

Any suggestions? Lenses seem reasonably pr De for a 3 day rental, even 70-200 but the price for camera bodies seems even higher.

Looking for a second D750 for a wedding.

 

[rob-nikon]

I would guess the cost of hiring a camera is higher as they would wear faster than a lens. Think how many shutter actuations could be put on a camera in a few days hire (especially as most would be hiring a camera to use it constantly during their hire period). A lenses on the other hand is likely to wear very little on a short hire.

If hiring is too expensive what about buying one second hand then selling it again once you don't need it. If you buy at a good price it's unlikely to drop much a few weeks later when you sell it. The price difference between buying and selling would be your 'hire' cost. I've seen a few people do this on here.

 

[AndrewSt]

Good point. Its just finding the initial £1000 for a second D750 for the short term,. Your right though, I could sell it afterwards for minimal loss.

 

[rob-nikon]

Good point. Its just finding the initial £1000 for a second D750 for the short term,. Your right though, I could sell it afterwards for minimal loss.

It all depends on the numbers on whether it worth buying rather than renting. If you haven't got the funds available then buying upfront could be a problem. As it's for a wedding is it a paid job or a favour for friends/family? Could they help with cost of renting? Do you actually need a second d750 or just a second body as a backup if case the worst happened to your d750? Could a cheaper dx camera or d600/d610 be a backup?

 

[StewartR]

I would guess the cost of hiring a camera is higher as they would wear faster than a lens. Think how many shutter actuations could be put on a camera in a few days hire (especially as most would be hiring a camera to use it constantly during their hire period). A lenses on the other hand is likely to wear very little on a short hire.

That's part of it. The other part is depreciation. Lenses stay in production for far longer than cameras, so there's a longer period over which to earn the money back. For example the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II was introduced all the way back in 2010, but it's still the state of the art in telephoto zooms and therefore it is still in demand. But the cameras which were "current" at the time (5D Mk II, 7D, 50D, 550D) are all now seen as pretty dated.

 

[rob-nikon]

That's part of it. The other part is depreciation. Lenses stay in production for far longer than cameras, so there's a longer period over which to earn the money back. For example the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II was introduced all the way back in 2010, but it's still the state of the art in telephoto zooms and therefore it is still in demand. But the cameras which were "current" at the time (5D Mk II, 7D, 50D, 550D) are all now seen as pretty dated.

Thanks Stuart, I never thought of the difference in terms of reduced 'shelf life' but it does make sense.