What is with all these beginners with $1000+ cameras?

[JIP]

WhenI used to work at Ritz I used to resent the lkind of gear that some people could afford and not me but I realised it was just that resentment and nothing else. I say if you can afford a D3 to take the first picture you have ever taken in your life more power to you why should expensive cameras be restricted to the pros??. Besides, if it wasn't for the amatuers that can afford pro cameras I think there would be alot less advancement in the tech. In my opinion (and that don't mean much) there is not that big a pro market for all the pro cameras that are made so someone has to buy them to keep the tech moving.

 

[mrodgers]

The average newbie will not need to shoot 12MP pictures. The average newbie will not take any better pictures with a 1200 dollar lens. The average newbie will not snap better shots with a higher tier camera period.

The average newbie does not yet know the true meaning of megapixels. The average newbie knows only what the marketing says, and that is more megapixels equal better pictures.

The average newbie only understands that better equipment means better photos which those into this hobby understands that is not the case.

The average newbie knows nothing about photography. Most just want better pictures of their kid's birthdays and think that the more you spend, the better the kid's birthday party pictures will be.

I have a $200 Fuji non-dSLR camera. I am only 2.5 months into this hobby and don't plan on taking it to the extreme that many others do. I want better photos and want to do more than the kid's birthdays, but I am not so engrossed that I have to go out specifically shooting for the hobby.

In the summers, we take the kids to many places on day trips. I will be interested in the hobby side of photography while I am at these places as well as family shots when there. I am on this forum and another seeking knowledge of photography to improve those photos I wish to take with my $200 camera. I am visiting every recommended link that someone posts here to gain knowledge of how a camera works, how to compose better photos, and photography in general.

A buddy of mine bought a camera the same time I did. He wants better snapshots of his kids. He spent $1500 on a kit on e-bay for an XTi. He claims his photos are fantastic because the camera does everything for him. He shoots in automatic mode only. He thinks it is great.

His photos are simply snapshots of his kids. No thought of composition, no thought of exposure, no thought of creativity. They are taken full automatic with $1500 worth of camera equipment. His camera is better than mine because of what it costs and the fact that his is 10 mp and mine is only 7 mp. His thoughts, not mine.

I take snapshots of my kids as well with my $200 camera. I also take photographs and think about exposure, think about composition, and think about creativity. No, I understand that I am not very good about it, but I do think about these things when I turn the camera on. I do know that, my photos with my $200 "only 7 mp" camera are much better than his $1500 "it's 10 mp!" camera.

 

[patrickt]

Why do people who surf the net and do a little email have top-of-the-line PCs? Why would anyone wear a Rolex or use a Mont Blanc fountain pen? Why isn't everyone driving a Nissan?

I met a gentleman with a DSLR and the kit lens. He was only vaguely aware that you could change lenses and had never taken the camera off fully automatic. He didn't know what a raw file was. But, he was enjoying himself and it was his money. I realize some don't believe in the concept of earning and then spending money but it still exists in a limited fashion.

So, if you want to drive a Maserati and take family snapshots with a D300, go for it.

 

[usayit]

During the early film SRL days, there was not a single feature or "functionality measure" that set cameras apart from each other in a concise manner for all consumers to judge. The same film shot by a professional can just as easily be loaded in a bargain basement Spotmatic find. The focus during this time was the glass but the typical consumer either could not see the difference nor was the difference clearly stated on the package by a simply number (it was subjective). In other words, it was difficult to sell the idea that a high end professional camera SLR body was worth several times the cost of a low to mid-level camera body to the typical consumer.

Fast forward to autofocus. This is when we saw the first real feature that can be easily marketable to the typical consumer. Camera's either had it or not. Minolta and then Canon really cashed in at this time. Again... easily marketable feature via demonstration in the store. My father was immediately sold on AutoFocus from the time he demo'd his Minolta 7000.

Fast forward to Digital. Now we have a clear a concise measure of performance by which consumers can be sold. Consumers are told that higher mp count the higher the quality of the final print. All other difficult to understand terminologies, features, and subjective measures are pushed aside.

The ENTIRE market moved on this.... and RAN with it.

MEGAPIXELS is to Camera what HORSEPOWER is to Cars. Car consumers don't look at other important factors such as curb weight, suspension setup, transmission, and TORQUE. They are sold on the idea that horsepower = performance because it is a clear and concise way to compare two vehicles without busting a brain cell. This is exactly what is happening in camera sales.

My political/economics junkie coworker would also argue that the availability of excess cash and credit in the US also contributes to consumers willng to by into the higher more expensive camera equipment. Of course this is beginning to change as the economy takes a downturn for the worst. I tend to agree with him.


My loose opinion from being on both sides of the counter.... The typical camera consumer is LESS knowledgeable than the typical consumer of the past.

 

[domromer]

Just to add my .2 , I've got a friend at school. She's only been shooting for a year or so. She first bought the D80 then upgraded to the d300 as soon as it came out. SHe buys all the most expensive pro lenses. She can't take photos to save her life. When she see a nice photo the fist thing she asks is "what lens? "what camera" She doesn't even know the basics of photography yet own all the most expensive gear. All she talks about is upgrading gear. Yet she still can't use what she has. It drives me crazy. I want to give her a k100 100 rolls of film and tell her to come back in a year when she understands photography. Maybe it's good marketing that drives beginners to want the very best camera gear. Either way it irritates the hell out of me. When ever I'm in class all you hear is people talking about how they need this pro lens or the D3. Yet most of these people have a hard time even exposing a photo correctly. I think beginners are much are better off with a more basic camera to learn the fundamentals of photography. Ok I'm done with my rant now.

 

[Jermz_01]

just to compliment Dom's comments:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

 

[usayit]

Just to add my .2 , I've got a friend at school

I've got a few friends like that.... part of their G.A.S. is my fault. I've been shooting for most of my life and they see me with old, new, high end, low end cameras and I guess they are just trying to follow suit. From what I can tell, all the nice equipment seems to simply distract from understanding core concepts.

(the good news... is that they buy all their used stuff from me )

The other day, a couple co-workers asked how I was able to obtain the nice shallow DOF in some of my photographs I have on display. I brought a DSLR with a couple screwmounts the next day to demonstrate. They couldn't believe that I could create good quality photos using a low end ebayfind DSLR with a couple 60s vintage ebayfind screwmounts.

In the end... they still want the 5D with the 24-70L. oh well... They didn't even want a Pentax because it is not a highly recognizable name..

 

[nicfargo]

When I bought my first camera I knew I wanted complete control. I knew I wanted quality shots and not just "snap shots". I was passionate about learning photography. I bought a $1000 DSLR. Before this I had a $300 P&S. I still have the point and shoot, but my wife uses it mostly. I knew shortly after buying the P&S that it wasn't what I wanted...I couldn't be creative enough with it.

 

[Antithesis]

My cousin has a d80 with an 18-200 VR and an SB-800 on top and never takes it off auto mode and wonders why his images look like crap. I know it's not the best setup, but it's still like $1700 worth of camera equipment that he won't bother to learn how to use even though I offer all the time to teach him.

I feel I went the slightly smarter route, starting with a d40 and then moving up to a d80 when I was being limited by my POS kit lenses.

 

[Mystwalker]

This is from a newb

Getting an expensive camera, while it will not allow newbs to take better pictures, it sure will not hurt them either.

In fact, I believe the more expensive cameras have features that are more forgiving - 40D handles noise better then my 30D so newbs can up the ISO without having to worry about getting other things right.

For some of us "newbs", it's about getting results and if we have the money to "waste" - it's our money. Not like we (me at least) will ever compete with a pro for job in future. If anything, we help drive the manufacturers to come out with bigger and better toys.

The more people interested in photography the better it gets for everyone - price goes down, technology goes up, etc ... look at the computer industry as an example - 20 years ago, the 750GB external Seagate Drive did not exist, today you can find it on pallets @ Frys.

Too bad I can't go to Frys and just pick up an "L" lens for under $200 ... maybe in 20 years?

As to why newbs can spend so much money ... like pro photographers, we also have jobs.

 

[cdnjeepin]

I am a total 100% newb when it comes to DSLR..I don't know a whole lot about it, nothing about filters, lens, etc..I did know about shutter control, aperture and manual settings..since for the last 10 years I have been shooting with an old Nikon Coolpix 950. I have well over 5000 pics on my puter with this camera...and not 1 have ever been editied with any programs, never had the desire to try and learn one..

Now i have a D50 with 18-70mm lens and will be getting a 70-300mm VR and a 60mm macro for it..

I got lucking in finding a used D50 with 10K shutter clicks on it, and got it for a smokin cheap price.. I was about to drop over a grand on new stuff..till my buddy found the camera I have now..

Not every newb that goes and drops big coin will be a total newb, maybe they shot for years with a simple PS, but now want to go a bit farther in there pics and want a DSLR now..so they drop the cash for something they hope to not upgrade for a few years..

I still have my 950, but now it just sits there, collecting dust, as I learn how to use my D50, and learn everything about it...

I do it just for fun, nothing more, nothing less

edit - this issue happens with everything today, I have a highly modified jeep..yet I see people who will never ever go offroad, driving a brand new Jeep Rubicon, with all the extras, which in reality, will never ever get used..makes it good for the die hards in the sports, means down the road you can pick up top of the line stuff for cheap, when they get bored of it

 

[mrodgers]

I posted above, but I spoke more about newbies to cameras than newbies to the actual hobby of photography. In the sense of this hobby, it's all relative to what you can afford.

As I stated, I have a $200 camera. It's what I can afford, or actually quite more than what I can afford really.

If you have a job, you need transportation to get to work. The country I live in is a vast place and there is not public transportation everywhere. Thus you need a car. What is the difference in transportation sense between a Chevy Cobalt and a BMW 3 series? In strictly the sense of transportation, the biggest difference is cost. Why would someone pay $50,000 for a BMW when they can cover the same need for transportation with a $15,000 Chevy?

I have a $200 camera. Do I wish I had a $1000 camera? Yes I do. I wish I could get myself a simple D40x with a wide lens and a long lens. But, this will go back to my first post, being new to photography, I read plenty of info about both cameras and photography when I was wanting to purchase. I originally wanted a nice camera for "snapshots" of the kid's birthdays and such. After diving in deeper and reading about photography, I decided I may like to be more creative and interested towards the photography side of "taking pictures". At that point, if I had the money, I would have gone with a $500 camera with a kit lens and an extra 200 mm or so zoom lens along with tripod, carry case, etc. That's not the case though, I could only afford $150 and spending $200 was extremely stretching for me.

Fact is, someone just interested in just taking "better pictures" is wasting their money with an expensive dSLR camera. But someone who is wanting to put thought into taking "pictures" and want to actually do the photography hobby side, will have better results with a more expensive dSLR camera. They are definitely of better quality than mine and if you put thought into your photos and are willing and able to learn about it, you will get better results. I know I certainly would get better results with a D40 than my S700. In my eyes and my situation, a D40 along with the minimal necessary extras needed, is extremely expensive. But to others, even the other cameras you all have and talk about here are cheap. Cheap and expensive are all relative to the situation of the individual.

 

[Antithesis]

Also, I think people will pay the $1000 for a nice camera, because digital photography is a whole lot easier to learn now then it was with film. Rather than using a $50 old film SLR, where it takes a few days to find out what that aperture setting looked like, or if you even exposed correctly, now it's instantaneous. That, in itself, is worth the extra expense of the dSLR. The accessability of photography has fueled the new market, as well as the flooded professional sector. For better or worse, it will continue.

The trend is nothing new. Camera companies have been playing the "Better camera = better pictures" card for a long time. I just compare my old Nikon FG20 (completely manual with not a single bell or whistle) to my Nikon FA. The differences to me aren't even really apparent to me, but at the time it was enough to have the FA be far more expensive. Does one take better pictures? No, I actually prefer to use the FG20.

 

[LaFoto]

I think, it really depends on what you want to do and what you buy the camera for. If you really feel you would like to delve into photography as your top priority hobby, and if you have the means, then why not invest in something good from the start?

But when I have been asked (by friends) what kind of camera to get for their teenage kids who have never so far done any photography, I usually suggested cameras of the Powershot kind: small and compact, lightweight, not too expensive, and to be used in all possible functions: fully automatic, programme mode, creative modes, AV mode, TV mode, fully manual, up to manual focussing. Thus the young newbie can test out everything possible with the camera, grow with it, find out if this new hobby is really going to become his passion ... and later maybe move on.

At least that is how I was lead towards photography, only was my first camera no digital done, but a Rollei 35. That was a nice little camera ... but I always had to GUESS how far away I was from things, there was no help in the viewfinder and certainly no auto focus .

 

[TheOtherBob]

Because I had a very specific idea of what I wanted the shots to look like, and didn't think it could be done with a cheap PnS. The good PnS's I looked at might have gotten me close -- but they were $400-500. For $1000 (at the time) I could get a 20D with a kit lens -- if I loved it I could add on from there, and if I hated it...well, the resell market seemed strong. (Whereas if I hated the PnS, it was pretty much just going to live in my closet.) So at the end of the day, if I hated photography and wasn't using the camera, I might end up reselling the 20D for, say, $650 -- but it still made more financial sense than (a) sinking $400 into something I couldn't resell or (b) buying something for $150 that I wouldn't enjoy.

By the way, who cares if people who can afford nice cameras but don't need them buy them anyways? Frankly, the more people who buy that 40D, the cheaper Canon can make it -- supply here isn't really limited for most of these cameras, so increased demand will only drive up economies of scale, encourage continued innovation, and allow for cheaper, better cameras.