hmmmmmmmm, I'm still into shooting film on my lomo toy cameras, even as i own my entry level dslr.
lomo cameras are cheap(er) if you consider them as one time payments. Its when you start owning a few of them, thats when it starts getting expensive, exponentially.
To me, even buying a toy camera and a roll of the cheapest film is consider $. Imagine those family with total household income of on less then $1200 (consider low income family by the government), do you think they can even afford those "no too expensive equipment"?
So my personal take is, Yes, Photography as a hobby are for those with $$$.
Disclaimer: Unless you got a free digital camera, shoot and just view on the LCD.
I voted NO.
The reason is that you do not really need to start with an expensive cam but a 2nd hand one and with the basic set up, you can still enjoy photography as a hobby.
For my foray in to the DSLR realm, I got my K10D from an old friend and my kit lens of Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 and a 50mm F1.4 from HK. Even my battery grip is from HK.
I will now play with what i have and when I find that the lenses do not suit what i want to shoot then I will so call upgrade my lens. The K10D shall be my only body until it gives up the ghost.
Last edited by felixcat8888; 31st July 2008 at 11:43 AM.
Pentaxian for Life
K1, K3, FA*28-70/2.8, FA31, 43 & FA77 Limiteds, K85/1.8, FA*200/2.8, A50/1.2
How many hobbies can you think of that don't require any spending?
A family (2 adults + 2 kids) with household income of around $1200 would unlikely be interested in pursuing a hobby. They'd be more concerned with making ends meet.
So back to my point, which is that photography is a hobby that requires a fairly substantial spending if you're a bit serious, but yet I wouldn't consider it as a hobby solely for the rich.
nowaday compact and PnS so cheap... canon, nikon, olympus, sony, etc entry level DSLR mainly selling <1500 most of them come with kit lens which give decent IQ....
if lucky enough, most of them will come with tripod,memory card, bag, cleaning kit blah blah blah to start with...
Life is like Photography, to improve, you have to keep shooting!
I guess a honest survey of how much each of us in clubsnap spent on equipments would give a reasonable hint to the question if photography is for those with $$$
NO & YES
no - because when i 1st strated photography, im only using Canon Powershot A410 & im very satisfied with it. i know that when you have a digicam(pns), you're already in photography. i even dont have an idea that dslr's exist that time (2006).
yes - but when i lost the manual of my A410 & searched the net, i came across DPreview & whalah! "holly cow, look at those dslr's!"
now, im only eating grass to save & buy 70-200/2.8 IS.
Not really for only those with $$$ BUT for those who have the TIME...
Well, kit lens still rocks if you know how to use its power.. hehe
...must cure the BBB and learn and understand photography more...
...i am always a newbie..cos learning is always an S-curve...
I think the point of this thread wasn't defined or quantified properly, "those with $$$" is very subjective, some earning $20k a month is saying they are poor, some earning $2k a month thought they are high income earner....
Hobbies that doesn't need $:
Use re-cycled paper to do Origami.
Swimming at the seaside
Reading in a library
and more and more....you will know only when you have been thru those days.
But, I do beg to defer in the point that even poor people needs to have a time of leisure, a hobby is needed to balance one's life. And having hobbies doesn't means doing it very regularly. Hobbies they can have are those I have listed above.
So the main reason why we cannot see eye-to-eye is because our viewpoints and perspective of "rich" is at different level.
PS. This is not to defend my viewpoint, but just to introduce another viewpoint to everyone here who are more fortunate. So be happy with the equipment you have and keep shooting and enjoy photography....not BBB. Better skill is more important than better equipment.
Last edited by lastboltnut; 1st August 2008 at 08:58 AM.
Hmm how to define rich is a very good question. If rich means above the average income group in Singapore, then no, photography is not for the rich. Considering everyone has a compact, even those in the average income group has them, and a DSLR this days if you actually into it and hunt a nice second hand one cost no more then a Compact, I cant really say its for the rich. Problem why it seems that its for the rich is how much a person is willing to pour into it. Some people like photography so much that they are willing to pay thousands to obtain the lens that can best bring out their style. If you call that person rich, it may not be true as he may have been saving for months before it. If you are on a budget, just a cheap second hand with kit lens can take you a long way in photography. Sometime there are limitations to them (example you want a kit lens to go into macro will require add ons or even purchasing a macro lens) but almost everytime theres a problem with a photo, its not the camera or the lens but the person behind that causes it.
now, im only eating grass to save & buy 70-200/2.8 IS.
me too but I am eating grassto buy a 70-200mm VR
no because if you take picture of a man with a 10k setup or 1k or $500 digicam setup it still looks like the same man in the picture.
yes because deep down inside..... admit it, we are gearheads.
life may be tough here but i suppose as long as u have a roof over your head, a handphone, surf on broadband, not owing loanshark money and still have at least a bit to leftover cash to splurge on stuff like Toto/4D or save up on nice cam gears to pamper yourself then you are doing pretty fine.
mai hiam eh sai ai hiam kanasai just use your 1.4-3mp average camera phone la
sidenote, if someone is really trying to support a family of 4 alone with 1.2k per month i doubt he will even have the mood to venture into a hobby if he knew he will be burning more than 1 month's income in a shot for a decent kit or half his salary for a 2nd hand kit. he'll be happy with his old 3 or 5 mp digital cam he brought back when the times were better.
Family > Hobby always
Last edited by keast; 2nd August 2008 at 01:43 PM.
yeah i guess with earnings of 1.2K per month (ie 15-16K p.a.) to support 4 people, a photography hobby would be furthest from their minds. So in that sense, this point answers the TS's question.
However, it sounds like '$$$' = 'rich' = top 15% of income earners. That's what I inferred from his initial post.
If husband + wife both work, and bring home about 50K p.a. in total, photography as a hobby should be a possibility.
The question is: "is 50K p.a. considered rich??"
hahah true... 50K can get platinum card...
but what if 1 earns 30 and the other earns 20?
Considering that HDB income ceiling is around 8K per month (ie 96K p.a.) and that so many people live in condos... I kinda think that 50K p.a. is not considered RICH la...
So if 50% of the population could theoretically afford photography as a hobby, it's not purely for the rich. That's my point, that's all
i vote yes.
really use $$$ to full equip.
for me, just start with a all in one 'slr-like' camera, everyday pray that one day after i wakeup it can like slr.
I vote for both yes and no.
Yes if you want to get better equipment
No if you are contented with a normal PnS cameran.
i read a story long long ago about how one famous photographer got started in photography.
1. take a old biscuit tin, poke the smallest hole u can.
2. seal it up w masking tape.
3. in darkness, put in a piece of photographic paper.
4. write NIKON on the discuit tin, and go shooting.