Sure, but I factored that in by considering 5 shoots per week "fully booked." That gives you an average of 8 hours per shoot for everything from transport, set up, shooting, take-down, editing, archiving, billing, etc.

Not unreasonable, especially considering that's a 40 hour week. Overtime exists if she needs longer, and should be billed accordingly. $1500 in one week is more than a lot of people make, even working over 40 hours.

Is the $100-$300 she mentions a flat rate or an hourly rate? Even as a flat rate that would be decent for one day's work. If it's hourly, that's pretty lucrative and leaves no room to complain, especially not about all the extra stuff that's involved.

Physical copies would of course be charged a la carte or as a bundle or whatever; it's pretty standard for those to be add-on costs, unless a certain number of items were already part of the negotiated contract. But with print-on-demand services these days, that adds very little additional work or overhead expense for the photographer.

But yeah if she wants to charge more than $300 for one shoot, then she needs to spend time building her reputation, not complaining about the cost of her equipment and acting like her cheapskate customers are to blame.

You can build a reputation with a $400 mirrorless camera, if you're a good photographer. Then invest in professional equipment when you can afford it.

Let's look at the rest of that paragraph you selectively quoted:

At $100 per shoot she can pay off her camera in one year doing one shoot a week. That's if it's a hobby.

[emphasis added]

What a bad faith attempt to stir shit up over nothing.