Future Proof Equipment Purchasing by the Professional?

Over on another forum, a correspondent posted that a professional should always purchase the top-ot-the-line equipment for "future proofing." The specific issue in that conversation was whether a professional photographer should purchase a Canon EOS R today rather than an EOS R5. I've owned EOS R bodies for nearly two years for my retail portraiture, and I don't feel any need to upgrade to the R5.

That sounded specious to me, because my experience is that technology is too quickly evolving to do much "future proofing" by buying more capability today than you really need today. Too often, by the time you really need that capability (if you ever do), it will be cheaper and/or even better by then.

Most significantly, a professional has more boats in the upgrade cash flow to consider than the camera body: Lenses, lighting, insurance, marketing costs, studio costs, et cetera.

My considerations for upgrading anything is: Will this save me more money or make me more money? I'm photographing people who are sitting relatively still at f/5.6 or smaller apertures, tethered to a computer, nearly 100% of the time. I can't see that replacing my EOS R camera bodies with EOS R5 camera bodies would save money or earn more money in what I do.

RDKirk wrote in post #19234085
Over on another forum, a correspondent posted that a professional should always purchase the top-ot-the-line equipment for "future proofing." The specific issue in that conversation was whether a professional photographer should purchase a Canon EOS R today rather than an EOS R5. I've owned EOS R bodies for nearly two years for my retail portraiture, and I don't feel any need to upgrade to the R5.

That sounded specious to me, because my experience is that technology is too quickly evolving to do much "future proofing" by buying more capability today than you really need today. Too often, by the time you really need that capability (if you ever do), it will be cheaper and/or even better by then.

Most significantly, a professional has more boats in the upgrade cash flow to consider than the camera body: Lenses, lighting, insurance, marketing costs, studio costs, et cetera.

My considerations for upgrading anything is: Will this save me more money or make me more money? I'm photographing people who are sitting relatively still at f/5.6 or smaller apertures, tethered to a computer, nearly 100% of the time. I can't see that replacing my EOS R camera bodies with EOS R5 camera bodies would save money or earn more money in what I do.

To me it doesn't make sense, if the equipment I have is serving me properly and well, why do I need to upgrade it?

What a true professional photographer need to future proof is their marketing plan.

I see cameras as tools, if taken care of and not beat to death can last for quite some time, yes new tools provide bragging rights, but bragging doesn't put cash in the bank.

And there is also another factor with the latest and greatest, a learning curve, which can get in the way of a well honed method of doing something which comes with knowing how your tools will react to what you expect them to do.

RDKirk wrote in post #19234085
Over on another forum, a correspondent posted that a professional should always purchase the top-ot-the-line equipment for "future proofing." The specific issue in that conversation was whether a professional photographer should purchase a Canon EOS R today rather than an EOS R5. I've owned EOS R bodies for nearly two years for my retail portraiture, and I don't feel any need to upgrade to the R5.

That sounded specious to me, because my experience is that technology is too quickly evolving to do much "future proofing" by buying more capability today than you really need today. Too often, by the time you really need that capability (if you ever do), it will be cheaper and/or even better by then.

Most significantly, a professional has more boats in the upgrade cash flow to consider than the camera body: Lenses, lighting, insurance, marketing costs, studio costs, et cetera.

My considerations for upgrading anything is: Will this save me more money or make me more money? I'm photographing people who are sitting relatively still at f/5.6 or smaller apertures, tethered to a computer, nearly 100% of the time. I can't see that replacing my EOS R camera bodies with EOS R5 camera bodies would save money or earn more money in what I do.

Agreed. A significatn part of the consideration should be "Will the new equipment do for me what the OLD equipmen CANNOT, thereby increasing my opportunties to generate more income?"
If you chosen line of work is portraiture, of what benefit would the R5 be over even a 'dated' 5DIV, for example?
Let's look at some of the most obvious gains in upgrade to R5, in the context of portraiture...

• Eye focus, well some value but not a game changer
  
• 30 fps does not truly matter in portraiture
  
• Silent shutter...the flash goes off, the portrait sitter KNOWS when the shutter fired!
  
• 4k video...not shooting continuously for portrait (yes, there is some value of shooting a dancer going thru a routine to pick one frame)
  

Wilt wrote in post #19234322
Agreed. A significant part of the consideration should be "Will the new equipment do for me what the OLD equipment CANNOT, thereby increasing my opportunities to generate more income?"
If you chosen line of work is portraiture, of what benefit would the R5 be over even a 'dated' 5DIV, for example?
Let's look at some of the most obvious gains in upgrade to R5, in the context of portraiture...

If I had just bought two (always at least two) 5DIV bodies immediately before the EOS R was announced, I'd still be using them today. I'd probably be looking at replacing them in 2023 (given the light use they'd have gotten last year).

The EOS R does have human eye focus. It's not the best in the lineup, but for retail portraiture, I'm almost never shooting wider than f/5.6. Yes, I know a lot of people are deep into "model photography" out on the streets, so they glom onto the very fastest lenses they can find. But my retail clients don't appreciate having only one eye in focus, much less only one person in a group. So, yeah, are they going to pay me more for a capability they don't actually want me to use?

In my bookkeeping, my own wages and the cost of maintenance (direct repair and replacement of equipment and facilities) are expenses; that's one bucket. "Upgrading" (which means expanding capabilities) are paid for by business "profit." That bucket of money that is what it is. If I empty that bucket to gain a new capability, that capability must refill that bucket itself.