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 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 289

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

  1. #41
    Senior Member wrx_sti_22b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Compassvale Lane
    Posts
    4,952

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FiveIronFrenzy
    No. I started photography back when I was getting $2 a day for lunch.
    Save money to buy film, shoot the roll, save money to develope and print.
    poor thing... admire your patience & determinations. Makes shooting of every photo valuable.
    From Pentax to 4/3, back to Pentax and then back to M4/3 !?!?

  2. #42

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

    Maybe some answers can be found here:
    You do not need expensive gear
    Curing Envy

    Enjoy

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Jurong
    Posts
    524

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

    This thread say no need $$$. There is another thread where one member asking for petition to know nikon direction so that he can invest 'correctly!

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

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

    No lah, not true.

    See, I am perpetually broke, and yet I still enjoy photography!

    (Hmm, wait a minute. Or is it because I enjoy photography that's why I am perpetually broke?)
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kevyan
    As a hobby, is photography only for those who has $$$?
    Those who earn little "$$$" and have to work very hard just to survive, do they have the time to pursue a hobby like photography? And those without "$$$", could they afford the time and money to pursue both photography and surf the web to participate in this poll?

    It's easy to say money/time is not important if you are short of neither.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

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

    Quote Originally Posted by benny
    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.

    Cheers,
    Haha,look around more and interact..this will show you that there are some who love buying equipment and there are those who rather concentrate on perfecting their craft.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  7. #47

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

    Yes, it's for those with $$. Either you spend $$ on your equipment, or you spend $$ on film & processing or memory cards and software, printing, models, studio rentals, lighting, courses, overseas trips to get pictures of a lifetime, etc. Or sometimes, both...
    Last edited by waileong; 12th September 2005 at 07:19 AM.

  8. #48

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

    To a certain extent yes.

    No doubt a simple PnS can produce award winning photos. But at the same time, the winning photos are often well within the parameters of the PnS.

    Take a sports event for example. If the contest requirement is 'action' photos, is the PnS up to mark? On other hand, if the contest's theme is say 'day to day life' or 'landscape' for example, is the PnS up to mark?

    Ultimately whether you need $$ depends a lot on your style of shooting. Normal day to day shooting e.g. blogging style. Ok.

    If you are into fashion show, exhibitions, concerts then how to survive w/o decent telephoto lens and body?

  9. #49

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

    As a hobbyist, it is possible to make fantastic pictures with a cheap camera. To illustrate, I just saw one such picture yesterday at my cardiac doctor office. The pic shows golden evening light on a huge grouper he caught off Mersing. Five people were holding it, staggering under its weight, smiling, in a boat. Everything was beautiful - mood, exposure, compostition, details, moment sharpness, dof etc.

    He whispered that he shot it with a 'cheapo' $175 film camera bought 12 years ago. But he has 'upgraded' to an expensive Panasonic FZ something something that I missed hearing. My attention was on the mounted photo - wishing that I shot that.....

    I agree with Topgun. If you are a pro, your clients may not be shooting a beautiful grouper in golden light.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,350

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

    Well, yes and no. Photography, like almost any other hobby, requires at least some money to get started. Unless an old camera falls off the back of a truck and comes to you FOC, but in working condition, and film is also easily nicked off some generous person, FOC.

    Or unless you wish to collect bottle caps, matchboxes and seashells, something which I tried to do when I was younger.

    That's not to say that photography is very expensive and only meant for the richest of folks. Even a cheap, fixed lens compact film camera will take good photos in good light conditions.

    Now with the advent of digital, there's probably plenty of older film cameras out there that sell for very little, and represent remarkable value.

  11. #51

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

    Quote Originally Posted by redstone
    I shoot with a 'cheap' $500 camera...
    mine even cheaper. a $350 camera...

  12. #52
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

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

    Before the conversion to dslr for many years I was using a second-hand less than $150 Canon AE1 bought from a pawn shop. The film counter didn't work and I had to reach the end of the roll to know it. It had a bulge at the bottom making it unsteady when mounted on a tripod. I stuck a piece of circular rubber on it.

    You could buy an el cheapo if your budget is limited and your passion is greater than the depth of your pocket and learn to live within the limitations of your equipments or use the limitions to your creative advantage. There are people spending money to import a toy lens to produce blurry vignetted effect on their dslr.

    And there are ways to make photography pay for itself turning it into a less expensive or even profitable hobby without having to starve to buy a CF card.

    Cameras are getting better, easier to use and cheaper. Because of digital photography and internet technology the world could be now your market. Such democratisation of photography has made a small-timer amature like me who turns his home into a virtual small business possible.
    Last edited by Sion; 25th December 2005 at 01:51 PM.

  13. #53
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,901

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sion
    Before the conversion to dslr for many years I was using a second-hand less than $150 Canon AE1 bought from a pawn shop. The film counter didn't work and I had to reach the end of the roll to know it. It had a bulge at the bottom making it unsteady when mounted on a tripod. I stuck a piece of circular rubber on it.
    I started photography with a $35.00 Kodak instantmatic, when I was primary three.
    My first SLR is a hand me down Pentax Sportmatic F with 35mm, 50mm and a 105mm.
    I bought my first SLR is a Nikon FM, only $350, and a 105mm for $280.

    If anyone think that you need to own a lot of equitment, and need to buy the best type of gears, nothing wrong with this. But if a simple piece of camera can let you enjoy photography, have great fun of producing pictures them you like and happy about it, why not just be it this way?

  14. #54

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

    anything can be expensive or cheap if you want it to be

  15. #55

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

    for a DSLR user -> can be very expensive hobby
    for a pro-consumer & PNS camera user -> not a expensive hobby

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Jurong East
    Posts
    361

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

    I guess it comes down to what you need compared to what you want.

    I started photography a few months ago, got an FM2n 2nd hand that came along with a 50 f1.8 with help from parents. And it was only recently that I got myself a zoom lens.

    Between that timeframe, and even now, occasional bouts of 'I want this!' and 'I want that!' surfaced. I wanted stuff like a tripod, MD-12, more lenses, stuff like that. But do I really need these? Can I still improve myself without them? Yes, of course I can.

    I guess my next purchase would be an auto-focus SLR like the F4 or F5. 2nd hand, of course. And that would be ONLY when I can't proceed into the field of photography which I love because of limitations of what my camera can do.

  17. #57
    Senior Member afbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Planet SG™
    Posts
    483

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

    My 1st camera came FOC. Built into my skull - 1 pair of eyes and brain. Nowadays, my lens degrade a bit, got to wear specs.

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    1.45N 103.83E
    Posts
    3,202

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

    To some extend yes. About 12++ years ago, I saved almost a year to get my first Nikon601. Use it to shoot mostly casual shots and potraits. months later a few cheap Tokina and sigma zoom lens come in. Used it for happily for about 2 years until it was stolen during a break-in to my house. Since then, I cant afford another camera so my photography skill goes down the drain. 2 years back got a FOC minolta 7000 set from a friend and use it along with a P&S digital camera. Then this year with some extra $$$ from sgpools, manage to get the 350D to restart, I mean getting more serious in my hobby again. Now every additional equipment I need to buy have to be sure I need it and will go the cost effective ones.


    However with todays compact P&S cameras, one can take very goosd pictures already.

  19. #59

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

    If you are talking about people who make photography a hobby it does not need to be expensive... The majority of people who have answered yes to this poll are probably making "keeping up with technology" a hobby... they are normally the ones who put there equipment in their signature!!

  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    209

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

    I do not agree, when you enjoy the photo more than the equipment, I agree when you are a camera collector. Just like my late father buy so many camera and accessories now past down nobody border to make use, wasted all the money.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345813 ... 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
  •