Why are camera bodies relatively more expensive to rent than lenses?

Question

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.

Answer

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Bodies go out of date more quickly, so the store will be renting it out for a shorter time period.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.

Check more discussion of this question.