Am I wrong for buying the A99 and Zeiss Lenses with this investment theory?

You are correct.. with some caveats.

While you own the equipment you will have the pleasure of using the best and

getting the best results your talent can obtain. But changes

in technology can wipe out any monetary advantage or investment plan:

Consider how quickly the value of our wonderful darkroom equipment

was wiped out by the inkjet revolution.

My wonderful Jobo processor.

My incomparable Leica Focomat

My superb Sinars.

Linhof roll film backs.

Gitzo tripods made out of aluminum.

8x10 Polaroid

etc etc etc ----

alll that value destroyed in such a short time.

On the other hand, I bought a Zeiss 24-70 off ebay for $1200 --

anyone think I couldn't resell it for the same or more?

I picked up a Sony 70-300 when Circuit City went bust for $500 --

I doubt it would sell for any less now.

Another ebay purchase, 17-35G for $1K -- great lens, selling for the same or more now.

The once ubiquitous Minolta 135mm f2.8 -- selling for $400!!

And as for investing the savings generated by buying less prestigious equipment,

here in the US fixed return instruments pay next to nothing (or less

than nothing if inflation is factored in) and stocks are subject to the whims of the speculators.

The only item I bought that might not get me 100%+ is

a back-up a900 body. Cost me $2300 and I've yet to need it.

Now that the a99 is out and costing more, how long might I have

to wait until I can get $2300 or more for an unused a900?

Maybe until us OVF lovers realize there's nothing out there for us anymore!

As with many other things, timing is important.

If you have income from the equipment, you can shelter it

somewhat by depreciating the equipment --

though when sold, the income above the depreciated value counts

as a taxable capital gain. And don't forget the 'greater fool' theory.

From experience, the greatest shots are generally NOT equipment dependent.

F8 and be there -- so if you're not rich or an equipment collector -- you can

get great results with the modern equivalent of a Pentax K 1000.

But those who invested in Leica, Apo-Lanthars, 75 Biogons etc are still

doing better than the rest of us who bought F5s and 500CMs... or Pentax K1000s.

ps: I find both the Zeiss and the 70-300 much too heavy or big to walk around with --

but there's no denying that the results are superior. Even if 99% of the audience

can't see the difference.