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

[johncch]

Sigh..

I was thinking about buying a Sigma 10-20mm when I started reading this thread. Well, I thought about it, and I will still get it probably soon because I can afford it by earning some moolah here and there even though I am still a student now.

Anyway, I was just thinking, as much as some people take pride in owning $20,000 worth of equipment, there are some people who shoots in cheap equipment also have this egoistical mentality that they are more "skillful" and all that and try to take a.. uh.. "moral" higher ground in these arguments.

I don't know man, I'm still a n00b. But in photography there are many shooting things. I personally like shooting scenary alot, and I used to shoot with an old hp prosumer camera (display set :lol and it turned out badly due to exposure settings etc. I played with my friends D70s and I loved it, hence what I got recently. Of course, I would always toy with the idea of owning 70-200 VR etc etc, but realistically, it's just.. impractical lah. I mean, 3.8k can do alot more other things!!

So I guess what I want to say is that, I think that in a hobby, we invest what we can into it, different people different ruler. I don't think there is anything "special" about a person who can shoot with instant cam over a person who shoots in all the super ex camera that I've never heard about. It's just different individuals.

As much as the next equipment wrangler ticks me off, the person who proclaims that "cheaper is holier than other" does too.

 

[user111]

buy 2nd hand. buy grey. buy 1 model lower than the top end . sure can get good pix and good equipment and save $$$

 

[buckwheat]

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.

brick walls have provided more insightful conversations than this... you're right on one aspect, there ARE better things to do other than continuing with this drivel.

 

[buckwheat]

Sigh..

I was thinking about buying a Sigma 10-20mm when I started reading this thread. Well, I thought about it, and I will still get it probably soon because I can afford it by earning some moolah here and there even though I am still a student now.

Anyway, I was just thinking, as much as some people take pride in owning $20,000 worth of equipment, there are some people who shoots in cheap equipment also have this egoistical mentality that they are more "skillful" and all that and try to take a.. uh.. "moral" higher ground in these arguments.

I don't know man, I'm still a n00b. But in photography there are many shooting things. I personally like shooting scenary alot, and I used to shoot with an old hp prosumer camera (display set :lol and it turned out badly due to exposure settings etc. I played with my friends D70s and I loved it, hence what I got recently. Of course, I would always toy with the idea of owning 70-200 VR etc etc, but realistically, it's just.. impractical lah. I mean, 3.8k can do alot more other things!!

So I guess what I want to say is that, I think that in a hobby, we invest what we can into it, different people different ruler. I don't think there is anything "special" about a person who can shoot with instant cam over a person who shoots in all the super ex camera that I've never heard about. It's just different individuals.

As much as the next equipment wrangler ticks me off, the person who proclaims that "cheaper is holier than other" does too.

If you have the means to, sure - why not buy good equipment? most of would love to have the latest and greatest of everything... money doesn't grow on trees though and when resources are constrained the NEED vs WANT decision always crops up.

if you don't have the cash, can you not take photographs with cheaper equipment? Regardless of what some imbeciles on this thread have gone on with, you can still get into photography cheaply if that was the only way open to you. There are so many choices open to us in the photography world across mediums / bodies / lenses / brands, etc.

 

[lsisaxon]

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.

If only people would try shooting birds, then will they know that even a 300/4 is not sufficient. D70s is too slow, even with AF-S lenses.

I caught the photography bug from my dad more than 15 years back. He barely earned $50 a day but he was able to build a whole collection of photographic equipment. When I started working, I help to fund some of the newer acquisition. He's now retired but his passion in photography is still strong and he is still keeping abreast of new technology. (Yes, he shoots digital now). Yes, $$$ is needed but if there's a will, there's a way. It's your passion that drives it.

 

[zac08]

If I have the cash, I would fill up my dry box and mebbe get 1 or 2 more dry box...

But the fact is, we are all limited by the amount of cash we haf. So go easy and get only those we need, one at a time...

 

[jlpk007]

i think the reason why people say that photography only for people with money is because some people buy those equipment and lens just for the sake of buying....to "stock" up their inventory......can show off.....having the equipment doesnt mean u are the best,....but i do agree good equipment does help if u noe how to utilise them....

 

[black.ink]

i vote for both YES & others

becos i went thru this thought process..

If i get a compact, it is likely NOT going to be of much use in a advanced/semi-pro requirement setting, even if it is <S$600.

If i get a low end DSLR with consumer grade accessories, it might face recurring issues like not being exactly that fast enough or robust enough, capabilities just slightly above that of a advanced P&S. Its like paying extra for something thats neither here nor there. This spells the same for advanced P&S itself.

If i proceed straight into Pro Grade systems, ie Body 5k, Lens 3k/pc etc etc, then i am definitely going to come face to face with some financial brickwall very quickly. however i believe these are worth every cent if one can afford the going.

ha! yes depth of pockets is a consideration. so what if i had to borrow or take a loan or reach in future pockets to finance my hobby, end day it is still an outstanding debt that had to be top back by myself.

that said, when i voted for others, i think alot of 'hobbyist' or 'advanced amateurs' out there happen to pry out a 4th market - the one between a consumer grade and a pro grade DSLR. just like the advanced P&S market back then when DSLR are simply out of reach, this bridging section is best represented by pieces like the Nikon 18-200 VR but DX only for cropped sensor, or the Tokina 12-24 F4 at 1/3? price, or the minimalist Minolta 5D with its anti-shake, or the Olympus E330 with its anti-dust screen & live lcd. the examples are many.

regardless if it is expensive at onset, i think primarily photography IS an ONGOING-COSTS hobby, meaning incessant upgrades and add-ons. undisciplined buyers should be aware before sinking too far ahead..

 

[igpenguin]

Chess... only for those with $$$?
Cooking... only for those with $$$?
Audiophile... no comments
Reading... only for those with $$$?
Movies... only for those with $$$?
Home Theatre... only for those with $$$?
Collecting Antique... only for those with $$$?
Car Tuning?
Arcade Car Tuning?
Rearing koi?
Photography?

Photography is not ONLY for those with money. You probably know people who first started off with borrowed cameras. I did.

 

[Appleman]

I have a BENQ two-Megapixel Digital camera for my son.
It has a 512MB SD card and runs on 2 "AA" battery.
The card allows 1000 photograph to be taken.

Each time the card is full, I will download it to the computer.
Then I archive the photo to a CD-R for 30 cents.

I don't spend money to print out all the photographs.
Maybe just a couple of good ones.

You can insert the CD-R into a DVD player(with PhotoCD function) and look through the entire photo collection on a 29" televison set.


No, Photography can be cheap.
Yes, good equipment can be expensive.

 

[aaron80]

I feel its yes.. You must at least have some earning power to be able to enter photography.. Even if you buy a digital compact, a good one will cost from $500-$700, a Dslr around $900 - $1600(Entry-level one). You can buy a computer for the price of a Dslr liao leh.. And photography can be a very addictive hobby, once you are in, you will think of buying more accessories(lens, filters etc) to upgrade your system. Money will have to be pumped in continuously unless you are the type who are satisfied with what you currently owned(Haha..I am) Even if thats the case, you will have spent quite an amount liao.. The only exception is you have parents who sponsor you then thats a different case..

 

[Cliffy]

Until I get my first dslr, it will remain as a cheap hobby, $900 that last me for 3 years counting.

 

[Benosaurous]

nowadays u dont need to be really that rich to pick up photography as a hobby. S$1k is just the price of your gf LV bag, but for the more serious (infected with bbb virus) hobbist, you have to be $$$$

 

[2.8photography]

it really is dependent on your passion and skill, over equipment

to some extent, equipment does really matter. but if you really cant afford it, you can always start with a few $100 PnS compact, or by borrowing someone else's camera.

if you are really interested and skilful, someday you will somehow get hold of better equipment (by means of contests etc.)

 

[vuser]

Yes, in the extend..
Get prepare to have some minimum investment..

 

[Parka]

I have a BENQ two-Megapixel Digital camera for my son.
It has a 512MB SD card and runs on 2 "AA" battery.
The card allows 1000 photograph to be taken.

Each time the card is full, I will download it to the computer.
Then I archive the photo to a CD-R for 30 cents.

I don't spend money to print out all the photographs.
Maybe just a couple of good ones.

You can insert the CD-R into a DVD player(with PhotoCD function) and look through the entire photo collection on a 29" televison set.


No, Photography can be cheap.
Yes, good equipment can be expensive.

Very good example.

 

[chrisli]

In any type of hobby, there is a minimum investment required, how much you need depends on what level you want to achieve and only yourself can determine that, if you are happy with some snap shots then be it, but if you want to see how creative you are and explore your capability, well investment into good equipment that does the job is a must.

Nothing is expensive or cheap, it can only be measured by your own satisfaction.

 

[Simon_84]

money talks when it comes down to good equipment.
a decent compact is a cheap way to go if one doesnt wanna invest into a dslr system.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

just read an article about the guy who collects Omega watches. I think he's amassed over a million bucks worth of watches since.
My point is that there are many other more expensive hobbies out there.
I agree that if you want to take photography more seriously, and experiment with lighting, digital pp, etc, you would need to invest a fairly significant amount of money.
Really, it's an individual's preference la.
For me, I would consider it cheap, as opposed to modifying my car's exhaust, stereo, etc. In the end my car is stock standard, and I have a DSLR set-up that makes me happier

 

[dan_1337]

no, it isn't an expensive hobby.

BUT yes, it can be an expensive hobby if you always want the latest and greatest (like everything else).

then again, to put it into perspective it's cheaper than modifying your car (been there, done that, lost thousands and gained nothing).

personally, the best thing about photography is that you can keep the memories forever and those photos will never be replaced or go out of date.