Does photography have to be a huge money Pit?

No it doesn't,but again its up to each of us to spent what we like in terms of equipment,having a lot stuff doesn't make you an any better photographer,nor does having a small amount :)
 
Interesting question. The simple answer is no. It doesn't have to be, but quite often it turns out that way as we often crave the next best thing. It's all about reaching a point where you are happy with your images. There are no rubbish DSLR's on the market. They will all capture great images with the kit lenses, and outstanding images with better glass, so no need in my opinion to keep up with the latest body, unless that is you are restricted by the one you have, and this is where the snowballing starts. I have a D5100. I chose it for it's low light performance and although things have moved on significantly since I bought it, it still has the features that made me buy it in the first place, and it's no worse a camera just because a D5200 and D5300 arrived on the scene. so no need for an upgrade. I chose to buy decent glass, and am now happy with my three primes and one zoom. That is the end of shopping for me, until that is I need to replace the body when it dies.
The temptation is always there for the next best thing, and hey, if you can afford it, why not, but far better to get yourself a body you're comfortable with, coupled with a lens or two you're happy with, and learn to take great photographs and ignore the shiny new toys. As I said earlier, all that matters is that you are happy and enjoying your hobby. You've heard the phrase "All the gear and no idea";)
 
photojournalism said:
Well does it?

Or is it more about what people want instead of need, in terms of equipment
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't have to be a money pit :D

If you're shooting film there are oodles of bargains to be had and if even you shoot digital you can still get bargains for example my Panasonic G1 cost £125 second hand and these days you can get them for under £100 and you can then shoot happily with some old manual lenses as shooting manual is easy with CSC's. You should be able to find a 50mm f1.8 for under £20 and a 28mm f2.8 for under £30. Add a £10 adapter and you've got an interchangeable digital camera and lenses for well under £200 :D
 
It dosn't but nearly always does, you will always have that little gadget that will make you a better photographer or the new model of the camera you only just bought.

I dread to think how many thousands I have spent on this little hobby in the last 40 years.

Still got all the gear and no idea though.

Paul
 
Last edited:
ive used leica stuff on a demo day, and its really special, other stuff isnt the same
 
Nope. If you look carefully, don't buy the latest shiny toyand concentrate on taking pics, it doesn't have to cost a bomb.

Some of my fave pics were taken with a d90 and tamron 17-50 using a strobe. That kit cost over £1000 new. I sold it (together with a tripod, photoshop elements, lightstand and umbrella) for well under half of that to a mate. He is now concentrating on learning to improve with a plentiful beginners kit which should last him a fair while!

I however have a D800, recent got a couple of lencarta lights and have a number of lenses. It's my hobby however and I like having those things!
 
Last edited:
lots of old Nikon MF glass around for not much money - really good and cost a fortune when new - took great images in film days

a used D300 is great value

a used Gitzo metal tripod for under £150

buy used and at 25% of current new stuff you will have a set up (almost) as good as the latest on the market
 
As most of said, it doesn't have to be a money pit at all, but for many us it's our main hobby, so if we have the disposal income available then why not...

I think it's easy for many people to believe they've hit a ceiling and think that 'better' equipment will improve their photography, I find this especially so in the areas I enjoy (motorsport, aviation) where costs can quickly escalate into many thousands just for a lens.

To keep those thoughts grounded I follow a guy on Flickr with a D7000 and 300mm f4 (not exactly cheap, but at sub-£1000 all in it's much, much cheaper than most you will see at airshows using) who takes the most impressive aviation shots I've ever seen.

I also bought a Canon 1100D and 70-300 for motorsport as an experiment, at less than £300 I surprisingly discovered that the photos were not noticeably inferior to much, much more expensive kit I also use. Years of practice trumps throwing money at better kit.
 
Last edited:
photojournalism said:
Well does it?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Many people make far more from photography than they spend on it. Others who make no money from it, spend very little on it.

photojournalism said:
Or is it more about what people want instead of need, in terms of equipment
Click to expand...

If you need it, then presumably you need it to do a job. Therefore you're going to make more money than you spend.

If it's not for a job, then it's a want - pretty much by definition. So, spend what you like.
 
Everything is relative, even as a 'cheap' hobby it's out of the reach of many.

Most learners though believe that better gear will get them better photos. That's a nonsense. Once you stop reading the gear sections though you might have to spend fortunes on decent photo opportunities. Of course that depends entirely on what you like shooting.

You can get a lot out of some quite modest gear, again though, it depends what you want to shoot.
 
Depends what you shoot - you can get a D90 or D300 and a MF 28mm for landscapes - no AF or VR needed

same with Macros - reverse a 50mm on a D300 or D90 and you will get great shots with practise

Portraits - similar considerations if you buy used stuff

Birds and Sports are expensive as we all know
 
happygolucky said:
No, shoot film and dev and scan yourself. Little lay out and more fun than digi.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My favourite of all of my cameras is a Rolleicord V which cost me £34. A scan from a 6x6 negative will beat any digital file into submission.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Agreed. My favourite of all of my cameras is a Rolleicord V which cost me £34. A scan from a 6x6 negative will beat any digital file into submission.


Steve.
Click to expand...

with my "keeper" rate shooting film would get quite expensive (versus Digital)

e.g. I took 150 shots of one Dragonfly yesterday and less than 10 shots
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
with my "keeper" rate shooting film would get quite expensive (versus Digital)

e.g. I took 150 shots of one Dragonfly yesterday and less than 10 shots
Click to expand...

But with film your keeper rate will improve way beyond 15:1 and you might start thinking about the shot rather than just machine gunning it.

How much was the drum scan?
Click to expand...

Oh go on then, i'll bite. My 6x6 scans from an Epson V750 look better than my shots off my D800, some portrait shoots i did on 6x6 are some of the best looking portraits ive ever shot, and they would look even better still from a Drum, but the starting point, for me, is still better than digital.
 
Last edited:
Plus at the end of the day,it is an consumer product the more consumer who buy,hopefully keeps the prices down :)
 
It doesn't have to be but it can be if you want it to be!

GAS rools!
 
Gear doesn't make you a better photographer but it does help you get better IQ photographs .
Rob.
 
Not at all, even a low end dSLR is going to take good picture if all you're used to is a cheap P&S or a phone.

In fact if someone was wanting to do landscapes now and didn't want to spend much money then I could think of several good setups on a Nikon system that would cost under £1,000 - not alot of money when you consider some would spend 3 or 4 times more that.
 
stumeech said:
I could think of several good setups on a Nikon system that would cost under £1,000 - not alot of money when you consider some would spend 3 or 4 times more that.
Click to expand...

It's all relative. £1,000 is small change to some people and an absolute fortune to others.


Steve.
 
You can buy a Nikon D50 and 50mm 1.8 for £160 used (MPB for prices), there really isn't much you couldn't shoot with that combo, it would be a massive, massive step up from a compact. Add £64 for a Sigma 70-300mm if you want to shoot wildlife, planes, motorsport etc, job done.

It would take something to genuinely outgrow that set-up for many subjects.
 
Last edited:
No.

Some of my own personal favourite shots were taken with an old Sony A200 and a cheap as chips minolta lens, or my old D90 and a 50mm ... until I was lucky enough to be able to fund the D800E plus some fancy lenses, I was buying cheap used gear, and that gear did the job almost as good. I didn't 'need' to upgrade, I wanted to. As I was getting more paid jobs I thought it was worth it, plus I felt I did 'need' the upgrade improvements from Dx to FX, and well, why not buy the newest and best while I'm at it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top