Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Considering that the lenses often cost significantly more than the body, why does it cost more to rent a body than the lens?
For instance, a local rental place in Toronto has the Nikon D7000 body for rent for $105/day, and the body costs just over $1000.
The same place rents the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8G VRII lens for only $40/day, but the lens costs well over $2000.
I think renting the lens has value, but renting a body seems expensive.
All speculation:
Bodies go out of date more quickly, so the store will be renting it out for a shorter time period. In order to get an equal return on investment they charge more per rental.
Lenses are more reliable (less likely to break) assuming that the renter handles each with care.
And perhaps there is more demand for renting lenses.
It's the same here in Montreal too. I have no inside knowledge yet but my guess has to do with risk.
A body is more fragile and expensive to repair than a lens. Bodies have more maintenance between each rental, reseting the camera, checking for sensor dust, cleaning dust, etc.
