Hobby - Photography: Only for those with $$$?

[lsisaxon]

not really. until now i still depends on friends for equipment.

I rather say it's only for those with TIME =)

What hobby doesn't need time and money?

 

[buckwheat]

of course photography is only for those with $$$.. imagine students like me that only get arnd $400-500 per month thru hard earn tution money, and somemore need to buy textbooks and upkeep ownself, in the end, if i squeeze maybe can get $100 out. Can u imagine how long it took to save up for a D50?
And can u imagine how long i have to wait if i want a 70-200vr? in my dreams probably..

but why does a student earning so little money NEED a D50 and a 70-200VR lens? :dunno:

Photography is an art. That is where the hobby lies - being artisitc. D50, D200, blah, blah or get some ancient fully manual SLR that is 10yrs old for $100. Then go and be artisitic. Worried about cost of negatives? do it yourself - again, its part of the art. Get the negatives scanned onto CD for $5.

Pros who need a fast workflow NEED a digital SLR. The rest of us buy them because we can afford to.

 

[blive]

but why does a student earning so little money NEED a D50 and a 70-200VR lens? :dunno:

Photography is an art. That is where the hobby lies - being artisitc. D50, D200, blah, blah or get some ancient fully manual SLR that is 10yrs old for $100. Then go and be artisitic. Worried about cost of negatives? do it yourself - again, its part of the art. Get the negatives scanned onto CD for $5.

Pros who need a fast workflow NEED a digital SLR. The rest of us buy them because we can afford to.

I am not a student, and I don't need a 70-200VR lens.

I generally agree with what you say:thumbsup: . But I need a DSLR, cause I want digital images for my photos and I don't want a scanner/scan my photos...:sweatsm: plus all the other advantages of digital format.

Probably young generation do not even think that film is standard. now digital std, and everyone else got it, so must have what...;p

 

[buckwheat]

Probably young generation do not even think that film is standard. now digital std, and everyone else got it, so must have what...;p

I think this is why there are so many people here saying you need money to get involvd in photography as a hobby. Nothing to do with NEED... just WANT.

 

[shadowmoses]

of course photography is only for those with $$$.. imagine students like me that only get arnd $400-500 per month thru hard earn tution money, and somemore need to buy textbooks and upkeep ownself, in the end, if i squeeze maybe can get $100 out. Can u imagine how long it took to save up for a D50?
And can u imagine how long i have to wait if i want a 70-200vr? in my dreams probably..

The fact is that photography is expensive. don't complain that how long it takes to save for ur d50 lar, the fact that u saved for one means that u willingly wanted to buy one. as for 70-200 VR, if u really think u want one u'll save again for it no matter how long it takes. No other way around it unless strike TOTO....

Literally half of my 2 yrs worth of NS pay was used to pay for my camera equipment. Was it worth it? absolutely. just buy smart and don't buy things u'll regret can already.

 

[redstone]

In my opinion, it's the artistic sense of a photo that matter most.

So what if you've got the latest, most expensive and impressive DSLR when you don't have an artistic sense of photography?

 

[metallilan]

but why does a student earning so little money NEED a D50 and a 70-200VR lens? :dunno:

Photography is an art. That is where the hobby lies - being artisitc. D50, D200, blah, blah or get some ancient fully manual SLR that is 10yrs old for $100. Then go and be artisitic. Worried about cost of negatives? do it yourself - again, its part of the art. Get the negatives scanned onto CD for $5.

Pros who need a fast workflow NEED a digital SLR. The rest of us buy them because we can afford to.

i agree with you. i'm still a student, and i dont think i will need a dslr, or think of getting one, probably the reason is im not ready to jump into the professional bandwagon yet. wanna maximize the potential of my fz5.

but then again, if you look at it from a different view...there are students who own dslr and plenty of lenses... but hey, imo, thats more like 'its cool to have an ipod, so i must get one too' kind of attitude...makes them look more 'into the scene' than a prosumer guy like me..

imagine me with my fz5 sitting right in the middle of a few guys with long lenses..kinda paiseh leh...:sweat:

 

[Spectrum]

i agree with you. i'm still a student, and i dont think i will need a dslr, or think of getting one, probably the reason is im not ready to jump into the professional bandwagon yet. wanna maximize the potential of my fz5.

but then again, if you look at it from a different view...there are students who own dslr and plenty of lenses... but hey, imo, thats more like 'its cool to have an ipod, so i must get one too' kind of attitude...makes them look more 'into the scene' than a prosumer guy like me..

imagine me with my fz5 sitting right in the middle of a few guys with long lenses..kinda paiseh leh...:sweat:

I believed this students come from a rich family background. I do bump into one indonesian student selling his manual camera to me & after chating further, he told me he have those pro series AF-D/AF-S lenses & camera bodies like F5/F100.:sweat: I think total cost not less than 20k... So what you think?:sweat:

 

[STEV]

oh... remember my first camera was a 2bd hand pns camera sold $50 to my mum and hand down to me...
then was recommend yashica fx 3 because of budget. but still have fun with what i had,
start whatever u have and build up, takes time.

 

[STEV]

2nd hand i meant

 

[metallilan]

I believed this students come from a rich family background. I do bump into one indonesian student selling his manual camera to me & after chating further, he told me he have those pro series AF-D/AF-S lenses & camera bodies like F5/F100.:sweat: I think total cost not less than 20k... So what you think?:sweat:

hmm..means i'm a minority... :sweat: well, at least im motivated to learn despite being just a prosumer...

 

[Spectrum]

Something to ask off the topic. Do anyone know how much does a MB-D200 cost at the present moment? A rough guide will do. TIA.

 

[Ben1223]

Yes, to a certain point. Even if you use a simple digital point and shoot you still have to fork out some money for your initial investment (camera, pc, editing software). Not really fun if just have a camera and you're unable to explore the wonders of digital manipulation.

 

[lsisaxon]

Something to ask off the topic. Do anyone know how much does a MB-D200 cost at the present moment? A rough guide will do. TIA.

Something like $250.

 

[UandMe]

In my opinion, it's the artistic sense of a photo that matter most.

So what if you've got the latest, most expensive and impressive DSLR when you don't have an artistic sense of photography?

i do feel that the equipment is also a major part that makes photography interesting. i dun mean u need the latest and most expensive equipment to be good, but discussing and reading about them is already quite fun. and it's only natural if u're attracted by a certain model and intend to buy after reading about it, even though u might not have the skills to fully utilize it yet.

 

[buckwheat]

i do feel that the equipment is also a major part that makes photography interesting. i dun mean u need the latest and most expensive equipment to be good, but discussing and reading about them is already quite fun. and it's only natural if u're attracted by a certain model and intend to buy after reading about it, even though u might not have the skills to fully utilize it yet.

this is fine... but the point remains, you don't need to spend huge amounts of money on equipment to enjoy the hobby of photography.

the hobby of equipment collection is a different story...

 

[Ah_Seng]

this is fine... but the point remains, you don't need to spend huge amounts of money on equipment to enjoy the hobby of photography.

the hobby of equipment collection is a different story...

Totally agree on this.

i do feel that the equipment is also a major part that makes photography interesting. i dun mean u need the latest and most expensive equipment to be good, but discussing and reading about them is already quite fun. and it's only natural if u're attracted by a certain model and intend to buy after reading about it, even though u might not have the skills to fully utilize it yet.

I think it's more fun to read abt how others create their images and the thoughts behind it.

 

[kcuf2]

but why does a student earning so little money NEED a D50 and a 70-200VR lens? :dunno:

Photography is an art. That is where the hobby lies - being artisitc. D50, D200, blah, blah or get some ancient fully manual SLR that is 10yrs old for $100. Then go and be artisitic. Worried about cost of negatives? do it yourself - again, its part of the art. Get the negatives scanned onto CD for $5.

Pros who need a fast workflow NEED a digital SLR. The rest of us buy them because we can afford to.

I am not a student, and I don't need a 70-200VR lens.

I generally agree with what you say . But I need a DSLR, cause I want digital images for my photos and I don't want a scanner/scan my photos... plus all the other advantages of digital format.

Probably young generation do not even think that film is standard. now digital std, and everyone else got it, so must have what...

i really doubt if my english is that complicated for people to understood wat i said above? :dunno: And i m particularly disturbed by the need vs want.
Can't u see that the thread is mentioning "Hobby - Photography: Only for those with $$$?" and can't u see what i m highlighting is that photography is an expensive hobby?
And do u think film is really that cheap? try imagine a person that is able to shoot 300-400[more than 10 rolls] pictures on a single saturday. If add in sunday, it will be 600-800 pics on a weekend. How much film would that cost, and add in the processing fees to get the prints out. And oh...maybe also need to pay $5 to burn the pics into cd like u mentioned. Calculate for me how much it will cost in 3 months? and oh ya, did i mention that if ur pics colours are wrong, u cant edit them & u got to go down to shoot again and redevelop.

ok la my maths not tat bad, 600-800 pics = maybe 20 rolls x about $5each = $100 on a weekend
4r printouts for each photo at $0.25 = 800 x 0.25 = $200
and maybe a few $5 = 10 x $5 = $50
Total for a week = $350
ok la maybe i dun want to print out, so maybe about $150 a week
Maybe for a month = $150 x 4 = $600
3 months = $1800 i can easily buy a D70s, perhaps in a year i can buy D2hs loh..
(i dun think my maths that bad to miscalculate the above rite?)

mm..maybe u are one that dont maximise ur camera usage so perhaps 300 shots on a single saturday is impossible, if lets say u are the kind that just use the camera to shoot when ur sister birthday or ur mother bring u go holiday and then 99% of the time the camera is kept in the drybox, maybe u can give me ur camera so i can save my worries about no money to buy camera to use? and now, who is the want and need?

And erm lastly i think my english is too complicated again, i think u cant catch the drift of me highlighting how ex camera equipments(70-200vr) can be.

And lastly, if u wan to know y dun i get a dcompact instead. all i can say is "it will be too complicated to be understood, i will save my energy" Maybe just a small hint, i love photography
*praying hard nobody ask y dun i use film and dcompacts and hopefully by now u know its a need or want?*

 

[buckwheat]

i really doubt if my english is that complicated for people to understood wat i said above? :dunno: And i m particularly disturbed by the need vs want.
Can't u see that the thread is mentioning "Hobby - Photography: Only for those with $$$?" and can't u see what i m highlighting is that photography is an expensive hobby?
And do u think film is really that cheap? try imagine a person that is able to shoot 300-400[more than 10 rolls] pictures on a single saturday. If add in sunday, it will be 600-800 pics on a weekend. How much film would that cost, and add in the processing fees to get the prints out. And oh...maybe also need to pay $5 to burn the pics into cd like u mentioned. Calculate for me how much it will cost in 3 months? and oh ya, did i mention that if ur pics colours are wrong, u cant edit them & u got to go down to shoot again and redevelop.

ok la my maths not tat bad, 600-800 pics = maybe 20 rolls x about $5each = $100 on a weekend
4r printouts for each photo at $0.25 = 800 x 0.25 = $200
and maybe a few $5 = 10 x $5 = $50
Total for a week = $350
ok la maybe i dun want to print out, so maybe about $150 a week
Maybe for a month = $150 x 4 = $600
3 months = $1800 i can easily buy a D70s, perhaps in a year i can buy D2hs loh..
(i dun think my maths that bad to miscalculate the above rite?)

mm..maybe u are one that dont maximise ur camera usage so perhaps 300 shots on a single saturday is impossible, if lets say u are the kind that just use the camera to shoot when ur sister birthday or ur mother bring u go holiday and then 99% of the time the camera is kept in the drybox, maybe u can give me ur camera so i can save my worries about no money to buy camera to use? and now, who is the want and need?

And erm lastly i think my english is too complicated again, i think u cant catch the drift of me highlighting how ex camera equipments(70-200vr) can be.

And lastly, if u wan to know y dun i get a dcompact instead. all i can say is "it will be too complicated to be understood, i will save my energy" Maybe just a small hint, i love photography
*praying hard nobody ask y dun i use film and dcompacts and hopefully by now u know its a need or want?*

I'll touch on your last comment first - if you have no money, why wouldn't you settle on a compact? It is still going to give you the ability to take photographs - isn't that what photography is? Or am I missing something?

And don't make assumptions on my shooting habits to justify your inadequate argument.

If you want to collect expensive equipment and call it photography, that's fine - but don't say that just because you WANT a DSLR and great lenses, photography is only for those with $$$ to support it.

 

[kcuf2]

I'll touch on your last comment first - if you have no money, why wouldn't you settle on a compact? It is still going to give you the ability to take photographs - isn't that what photography is? Or am I missing something?

And don't make assumptions on my shooting habits to justify your inadequate argument.

If you want to collect expensive equipment and call it photography, that's fine - but don't say that just because you WANT a DSLR and great lenses, photography is only for those with $$$ to support it.

and dun use ur shooting habits to justify MY shooting habits. yes maybe i misunderstood ur shooting habits, u only shoot once a year. ok fine period. Maybe i will just explicitly say wat i shoot. I shoot wildlife and birds , if only dcompact can shoot birds then i will consider dcompact.. maybe again, u simply dun understand wat i typed. my english level and urs are too completely different.
i think u are the one who think that keeping great lenses and dslr is great? to me, its just a camera for me to indulge in my love for photography.
Nevermind, i will just rest my case here and use my time on more constructive uses. Anyway, finally all the beat around the bush, u finally managed to reply to the threadstarter question and say
"photography is only for those with $$$ to support it" This is wat the thread starter wanted. go and vote for it.