As a hobby, is photography only for those who has $$$?
As a hobby, is photography only for those who has $$$?
When I started photography as "hobby", I had only 1 manual focus Minolta and the 50mm lens, no zoom, no auto winder, no flash, no tripod, no nothing...
you don't need to buy the best to get good pictures
P&S also able to get good results
You just need to spend time to get to know your equipment
in fact some award winning images are captured by Prosumer digicams
and I am not talking locally (international awards)
no, although the extra money to buy good equipments help.
Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist
I started with a cheap and full manual camera.Forgotten what is the name but it was made in germany.
heheheh When I started.... very often dun even have $$$ to develop the Film... Thats when school photographic club comes in handy...Originally Posted by joe
yeah. remember those days. And we shoot B&W too, becasue the school photolab can only develop and print B&W. Good old days.Originally Posted by idor
Still remembered the time I scratched enough money together to buy my first brand new camera, a Canon AE1, but had to settle with a 2nd hand lens, a Canon FD 35mm f2, and then it was one with a breech lock also. Strange enough, that camera and lens are still in pristine condition.
Last edited by Deadpoet; 31st August 2005 at 10:28 AM.
Photography will always be an expensive hobby.
True to a certain extent.
When I just started out, I just had a old 2nd hand manual SLR with a couple of lens that i got off a cheap deal from ebay.
I can always just shoot shoot shoot and not get new equipments.
It is when you wanna make advancements, wanna open new windows for yourself, then you go out , make a whole lot of purchases and thus the increased cost.
How expensive photography turns out to be ? It seriously depends on what the hobbyist want.
Panasonic G3 | Minolta X700 | Minolta X370 | Pentax Asahi Spotmatic | Pratika MTL 3 | Panasonic Lx3
As far as I am concerned, the answer is a definite no. The same for music hifi system.
To me life is fun with music and photography. Although expensive equipment do help to a certain extend but it is the man/woman behind the equipment that is the most important. I strongly believe photography should not be just rich men toy.
In those good old days with $650 you can get a Praktica BC1, 50/1.8, 28/2.8 and 135/2.8. This set up u can take very good photos already once u understand the system characteristics. Today on used market u can probably get used mechanical film system for lower price. Not forgetting the Russian systems.
Of course for those who get hooked and start spending a lot on equipment that is a different story. But for those who have a strong interest in photography but limited budget I do not see $$ as a reason to stop him from venturing into photography. Worst case a M42 mechanical body with TTL metering and a lens like 50/2 or 35/2.8 can do wonders already.
yah lor... at that time i still have to fork out 300 dollars for a yashica FX3 and lens... hehehe My school photolab is under the stairccase somemore... Those were the days manOriginally Posted by Deadpoet
Photography is generally NOT only for ppl with $$. But its when u meet ppl that changes ur perspective of photography and u begin to buy more then u need, thats when its expensive. No offences
I started off with Kodak Brownie....no money for processing & printing
Things got better, I got a Kodak Instantmatic.....flash bulbs were very expensive
Broke piggy bank and asked help from father....got $50 for a 2nd hand Canonett RF f1.8.
School event.....classmates brought Minolta SLR and Canon 7 with f0.95
I only got "Cannot-net", I got my images as sharp as the expensive camera and I am still enjoying photography.
I don't agree " Photography: Only for those with $$$?"
It is the desire of some photographers to have the best camera & lenses, therefore more $$$.
No $$$ !....get 2nd hand well used camera & lenses, moderately priced, the ones you can afford, now 2 - 4mp Cam still give you great images and you still enjoy photography.
You can shoot with Hasselblad, Leica, Linhof, or Alpa if you have money, lots of it.
You also can shoot with Holga Lomo, or even pinhole.
It all depends on you, you decide which way you will enjoy more as a hobby.
Go to an astronomy forum site, similar qns like do you need to spend$$ to enjoy astronomy. Bet that the std answer from 'old bird' is NO, they will say that what you need is your pair of eyes or maybe with a starting grade bino is enough... True? Of course.. but really statisfying???
I remember reading from one website (cannot remember the name, but still can recall that it is some famous popular photographers, at least from the web), that he said he used to demonstrate to his student how he can take a good picture from an old, low tech camera to demonstrate his point..... But you may wish to look deeper and see his arsenal of equipment....
I think the qn is: to what degree of interest will one then consider it as a hobby? Taking photographs - then no need $$$ (do a google search on one jap website - I think is call Weekend Photogenic, and see - but note that he is already an accomplised photographer!). But to put your passion in and exploit the world of photography - no need $$$?
I was at Jurong East National Celebration on 9 Aug. There was an old man with a Nikon D1 or D2 series camera (from the shape I think) + a 70-200 or 80-200 lens and also a father (30+) with a Canon ISUS V series type. Both happily shooting away. Guess when they go back, from what angle will they look at the shots they have taken?? I bet photography is one of the old man's hobbies. And I also believe the father will be enjoying the photos taken and the memories he had recorded.
Photography as a hobby (my own definition) - YES - you NEED $$$ - much more that you expected when you got started!
Taking good pictures, enjoying taking photo, recording memories - then dun need much $$$. Like watching meteor shower with your gf, or looking at the moon or Orion,etc with your family/kids
I donít see how your reasoning the needs of spending lot of money to stay in the hobby stage is valid, does spending less imply of inferior enjoyment?Originally Posted by swhyge
i bought a tokina 80-200 f2.8 more than 10 years ago and I am still using it.
If i throw it away now, it would have cost me $80 a year to use it.
if i throw it away next year it would have cost me $72 a year and so on and so forth
not really expansive what?
just don't get sucked into the buy buy buy virus
take photos with your eyes and memory, that is free!
Seriously there r alot more costly hobbies, ie. cars and gambling (if u always lose)......
photography is not expensive, keeping up with the latest toys is.
No. I don't think so. But all hobbies will need some money.
However, I'll say that over here at clubsnap, a lot of folks into photography as a hobby certainly seems to have $$$. They are alway buying the latest gear and also dumping them at a fraction of the price.
Originally Posted by joeU mean Leica or Lecia? if Leica, it's cheap meh during then??Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain
Last edited by destiny_star; 31st August 2005 at 07:09 PM.