View Poll Results: Hobby - Photography: Is it ONLY for those with $$$?

Voters
1094. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    415 37.93%
  • No

    647 59.14%
  • Others

    73 6.67%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 271011121314 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 289

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

  1. #221

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catalyst View Post
    Back in the flim era, I would say it is for those with spare $$.
    Yes. However "expensive" photography may be, it has become far far cheaper today than in the film era. Back then, it was for people with $$$$$

    Even compared with the early digital era, photography has become a lot cheaper today compared with as recently as two or three years ago. For a long time, I avoided buying dslr because they were costly and not that great in terms of quality.

    Finally I bought in Nov 2007 because by then I felt that digital technology has improved tremendously while prices have become more reasonable. I bought a Fuji S5 Pro for about $2300 body only. I thought it was worth the money, given the quality.

    Guess what? Today you can buy the Fuji S5 Pro, new, for only $1100.

    And today you can get P&S cameras that cost a few hundred, yet the image quality is better than that of "high end" dlsr cameras a few years ago.

    In a few years time, cost of pursuing photography as a (serious) hobby will drop even further.

  2. #222
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

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

    For a start, any hobby cost money. Unless you do nothing. Stay at home, rot and die.

    Secondly, it depends how serious you are in the hobby. PnS, Prosumer, entry level DSLRs are affordable and provide manual controls.

    Thirdly, if it got too serious to become a paying job. Then the job funds for the camera.

    There are different ways to enjoy a hobby. Enjoy it within your means. Unless you are the ultra rich, else there is always a budget for everything.

  3. #223

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

    Photography is not a hobby for those with $$$..

    Coz i started out with $15 film cameras (the boxy type), then film cameras with lens(SLR fim cameras) then cheap DSLR with lens.. and now i upgraded to exp. DLSR with lens..

    And all this i bought with my own money.. and i'm still a student, studying in a local polytechnic.. So i dun quite agree, but i have to agree with the rest.. As you progress in photography, the photos you take will need special lenses (Meaning you want to take the photos in special ways, be it fisheye or whatsoever.) And that means, you will buy more and more lens to suit your needs..

    But what i can say is, it can be quite subjective to each person's perspective and views.
    EOS 30D+50mm MKII+18-55mm IS.. What I use do not define me.. Its the photos that I take that will..

  4. #224

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

    I think if you're don't have extra $$$, then a used entry level camera with kid lens can still shoot a number of nice pics, while for those have plenty of $$ to burn with, a high end model like 1Ds mark III, Nikon D3X coupled with some high end lens.
    So that's depends.

  5. #225

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

    no much $$$ still can shoot good pix, but more money can get better results ie: the photos are not constrained by ur lack of equipment. dat said, this is my most expensive hobby by far. even competitive archery came in a distant second.
    おれのflickrださ

  6. #226
    Member thenomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    448

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

    You need $$$ to go into photography, but you don't need a lot of $$$. There're lots of cheaper cameras - there isn't any real need to buy expensive models if you don't want to.

    Picture quality may improve somewhat with better models, but ultimately it is the person behind the camera that is most responsible for the images produced.

    Talking about DSRLs, one can definitely create nice images on a D40/D60 or EOS400D/1000D. As long as they don't use a crap lens, but use a good one, which isn't always expensive, e.g. the Nikkor 18-55 VR and Canon EF-S 18-55 IS.

  7. #227
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bukit Batok, Singapore
    Posts
    314

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

    How much money you spend is inversely related to how much time you are willing to invest into studying photography. My D80 with MF primes and a SB-24 can be used to get the same result as a guy using a D80 with a 24-70 f/2.8 and a SB-900 at a fraction of the cost. Of course I have nothing against those using expensive equipment because the time I spent learning to calculate exposure could have been spent on improving composition, but if you treat it purely as a hobby, you don't have time constrains so you don't need a lot of money.

    If you think about it even further you don't even need money to start photography. You can start by reading free online articles and get the basics right before buying a camera. I think it only costs a lot when hobbyists get overcome by specs and the need for automation and start changing bodies every product cycle when all it takes is a body that works and a few good lens to enjoy photography.

  8. #228

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

    There is no fixed answer to the question, and it depends on the individual.

    Yes it is an expensive hobby if you want high standards and are driven by technology. There is nothing very wrong with this. We are humans after all.

    Although some argue than digital is cheaper than films, I can present another perspective to show it is not. It may be cheaper if you are talking about price per image. You can shoot like crazy with digital and erase images at will. In the past, with films, every time you press that shutter, it's money. So in that sense digital is cheaper.

    But if you think hard enough, you will realize many of us are changing cameras often, be it DSLR or digital compacts. You can't help it. Digital technology is not quite settled now. If you have a digital cam that was made say 5 years or older, you will know how slow the auto focus can be, how noisy images are even at ISO400-800, and the LCD screens are super small. It is this constant chase after better cams that will eventually make this hobby expensive. Even more expensive than using films I suspect.

    Also with film cameras, you can get a mid ranged semi-pro SLR packed with many advanced features for about S$1300. Today, that same cam in digital equivalent costs at least S$3500 or more. Strangely, maybe we have become more affluent or are more willing to spend in the digital age for us to dare splurge a few grand on just a cam body. In the past, this would have been unthinkable. And the depreciation of digital cams is way too fast. Your "solid" $3500 cam today will probably worth much less than $2000 in a mere 3-5 years' time.

    Another problem with digital is that, you can't help upgrading because like I said above, the technology is still developing. The heart of the digital cam lies in the sensor used and cam manufacturers are constantly improving them. Sorry for those who argue their old equipment can take better pics than the newer cams. I disagree with that. Photographer skills being equivalent, newer digital cams can produce better images because they have the edge over older cams in producing better tones, less noise, etc.

    Amazingly, even before newer models are released, people are already enjoying the process of speculating in the forums what is to come and of course, planning which cam to buy once it is released. How can it not be an expensive hobby if this is what you do?

    With films, quality of your images is in the films you use. So you can use a 1970 cam or a 1990 cam, assuming your lenses are in good condition, the 1970 cam can produce equivalently nice pics than the 1990 one.

    The only way digital photography need not be too expensive if we can curb our desire to constantly upgrade. That is, if you can stand not keeping up with the latest technology. Think about why people change computers or mobile phones every few months or years and you get the picture. It's difficult not to change, but can be done. If that is the case, photography is affordable. My solution is to stay away from the banal talks in photography forums (CS forum included) about buying this and that as far as possible and simply enjoy the process of taking pics.
    Last edited by kiwi2; 8th June 2009 at 09:52 AM.

  9. #229

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

    importantly, how do you define $$$?

    there are some people who 1k is nothing and for others is a lot of money. even some people can spend 10k without flinching.

    for me, i can get by with less than 2k invested in a 30mm and a consumer DSLR for standard focal length photography. at a 2k amount, its not a lot to me.

    ofc i spent a lot more dough than that... its a bit painful when you think about it, so i try not to and just enjoy the shooting.

  10. #230
    Deregistered shaoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Clementi/West Coast
    Posts
    2,115

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

    Even my <$200 Samsung S1070 compact P&S camera can give me nice images.

    So I think it is up to the person on how much he/she wants to spend on photography.

  11. #231
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    72

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

    Quote Originally Posted by idor View Post
    heheheh When I started.... very often dun even have $$$ to develop the Film... Thats when school photographic club comes in handy...
    haha yeahs school photo club is where im at right now. Its good to be able to play with the wide range of photographic equipment. But my photo club quite poor lol. Most of our cams are D70s and D60. But got lot lot of lenses hahas.

  12. #232
    Deregistered wootsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Small Island
    Posts
    1,689

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWhites View Post
    haha yeahs school photo club is where im at right now. Its good to be able to play with the wide range of photographic equipment. But my photo club quite poor lol. Most of our cams are D70s and D60. But got lot lot of lenses hahas.
    This is from my POV,
    Good photographer do not need good equipment to shoot photos. But without good equipment, there are limiitation to the type of photos he can produce. Example is without long zoom lens and a stable tripod, it is impossible to shoot flying planes that are very far away, like air show. Without good macro lens with very close up focus distance, it is impossible to capture the face of a ant clearly. Both photographer and equipment need to work together, so my answer to the question is how far and what type of photos does the photographer wants to produce. If you are a sport shooter who shoots soccer, without fast shutters and long zoom lens and a stable base, how can you shoot the action on the field well when you are at the side of the field. To certain degree such equipment are quite costly...

    Btw it is good that your school( Interested to know which school so rich) photo club has a lot of lenses for you to try on. But do take care of such lens are they are quite delicated optical equipment. Master the basic well before venturing into better equipments, thats my advice for you.

  13. #233

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

    Today digital photography is much cheaper then old day film camera which need cost to develop the result,
    In the market, many good piece at good deal from new & used so got ahead with what u think is comfortable for u.
    Is very much depend on what u like to have?

  14. #234
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    611

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

    frankly i find DSLR photography is a money "saving" hobby... all you need is a body with Kit lens (or specialized lens like Macro)... and a few memory cards then you could spend a whole day walking around... taking photos... normally just take short breaks in between for some quick meals... the only pain is setting up the equipment to fit your preferences...

    i personally think this saved some money for me as i skipped expensive restaurants that i ate and spent few hours mere talking... also saved some beer money when i got nothing to do but to "relax" myself...

  15. #235
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Jakarta
    Posts
    91

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

    As in all hobbies, it cost money. Buy only equipments that suit your budget and your monetary threshold. The only thing is that you must enjoy what you are doing. In all hobbies there are always the mediocre, the good and the best. Keeping up with the Joneses will not help. Buy what you can afford and have fun.

  16. #236
    Deregistered wootsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Small Island
    Posts
    1,689

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

    Those who choose no, pls touch ur heart and ask yourself how much you spent on photography. No is ony eligble for those spent lessser than 1k including films, servicing etc etc. Muhahahahahahahahaha

  17. #237

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wootsk View Post
    Those who choose no, pls touch ur heart and ask yourself how much you spent on photography. No is ony eligble for those spent lessser than 1k including films, servicing etc etc. Muhahahahahahahahaha
    Why would you think < 1k is not possible? Many entry level dSLR cost < 1k and some include more than 1 lens. Unless the user is very critical about the lenses, he can be happy with such setup for a very long time.

  18. #238
    Deregistered wootsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Small Island
    Posts
    1,689

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lenrek View Post
    Why would you think < 1k is not possible? Many entry level dSLR cost < 1k and some include more than 1 lens. Unless the user is very critical about the lenses, he can be happy with such setup for a very long time.
    So after a long time what happens next? He upgraded right. The problem with photography as a hobby is like car lovers. It might seems cheap at start for a kit and a body with a dry cabinet. But after long usage, you find limitation, you find the feel to get better equipment, longer reach or a external flash or a prime low-stop lens and most of the time you are so poison and GAS that you can even dream of how it is like to have that equipment in your hand. Someday you have the spare cash to get the equipment, then the next thing you realised is that equipment is on your hand heading home. Face the fact pls, why is canon marketing on the lens more expensive and body cheaper so sucessful. Cause if you are a human, you will commit the sin call GREED!!!

  19. #239
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sembawang
    Posts
    505

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gazkw View Post
    importantly, how do you define $$$?

    there are some people who 1k is nothing and for others is a lot of money. even some people can spend 10k without flinching.

    for me, i can get by with less than 2k invested in a 30mm and a consumer DSLR for standard focal length photography. at a 2k amount, its not a lot to me.

    ofc i spent a lot more dough than that... its a bit painful when you think about it, so i try not to and just enjoy the shooting.
    If you really love photography, the cost will not matter to you, since you will find ways to save, borrow, steal or rob just to get it

    I'm 16 and i spent 1.5k on my whole DSLR set already thats quite alot for a full time student

  20. #240
    Deregistered wootsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Small Island
    Posts
    1,689

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

    Quote Originally Posted by agentxq49 View Post
    If you really love photography, the cost will not matter to you, since you will find ways to save, borrow, steal or rob just to get it

    I'm 16 and i spent 1.5k on my whole DSLR set already thats quite alot for a full time student
    Ya ur going beyond cure, can see that you are quite heavily poisoned.

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 271011121314 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •