Investment in your photographic equipment and other expenses

[robertwsimpson]

if you think this is bad, you should try playing guitar, or scuba diving, or racing cars... my other hobbies are more expensive than photography. I have like $10k invested in scuba diving alone. The cool thing is that I get to do photography while I dive

although I have a completely different camera rig for underwater shots.

 

[Hardrock]

It doesn't matter the hobby all hobbies are very expensive! With all hobbies you can get by with minimal and do great or you can get crazy and buy the best. Neither person is wrong or right it has to do with what you like and want to do. For instance paintball , golf ,cars, mountain biking, etc...etc. You can spend a little and have great results or you can go all out and break the bank. To me it doesn't matter as long as you are happy , and of course your family isn't starving or freezing!! Everyones budget ,know how , and priorities are different. I would think that every photographer wants or dreams of the top of the line equipment. At least I do , I can't wait to buy the 70-200 f2.8L is usm and 300mm f4L is usm!

 

[NateWagner]

Exactly, all hobbies are or at least can be expensive.

Secondly, there was a statement earlier that most amateurs have more expensive equipment than professionals. I definitely disagree with this. I do think that there are amateurs that have more expensive equipment, but I in no way think that this is common. Particularly among wedding photographers where they typically have back-ups for everything and quite often use only full frame bodies.

They need to get a return on investment, and because of this they usually get top of the line stuff because it lasts a long time (~200k shots on a 1dIII). And their lenses (at the focal lengths they need) are typically top of the line, because they can always resell them at about the same price they paid for them if they need to, and if it helps the shot and is more sturdy they are more likely to choose it.

yes the working pro will be focused on ROI, and because of that, they will not choose consumer level equipment.

 

[jensgt]

Hobbyists are what drive the photo equipment industry's big sales numbers--there are far,far,far more wealthy hobbyists than there are professional photographers. Hobbyists are what helps the big camera companies make and sell so many expensive lenses.

I think that is right - the hobbyists are the major buyers, not the professionals. The professionals want to maximize the ROI and hence their cameras are beat up and well used. The hobbyists look at camera equipment as toys. So as soon as a new model comes out, they are in line to buy it. The hobbyists' cameras are in tip top condition and many are hardly used.

wow how can you generalize like that? I am sure there are plenty of people out there with more money than they know what to do with, or the people who spend more than they should to have something better than their friends or whatever....but with the huge number or people who do photography as a hobby...I am pretty sure the majority are using their cameras, and buying what they feel they need to feed their hobby.

Of all the hobbies I have had in the last 10 years...this one has been the cheapest so far. I have a little between $1000-$1500 in camera equipment. Back when the hobby was cars I could drop that much on exhaust parts. A few years ago when i was with my ex we got into saltwater tanks...I think we probably lost $1000 worth of fish before we figured out how to handle Ich! Over all it was like 15k spent in 2 years on that damn tank. The photography has been the most rewarding hobby. I lost my job over a year ago and am about to start going to college to get me a degree...so once I am back to working again I am sure there will be more spending on camera stuff. For now I am kinda limited...but I have a nice husband...so that helps.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Exactly, all hobbies are or at least can be expensive.

Secondly, there was a statement earlier that most amateurs have more expensive equipment than professionals. I definitely disagree with this. I do think that there are amateurs that have more expensive equipment, but I in no way think that this is common. Particularly among wedding photographers where they typically have back-ups for everything and quite often use only full frame bodies.

They need to get a return on investment, and because of this they usually get top of the line stuff because it lasts a long time (~200k shots on a 1dIII). And their lenses (at the focal lengths they need) are typically top of the line, because they can always resell them at about the same price they paid for them if they need to, and if it helps the shot and is more sturdy they are more likely to choose it.

yes the working pro will be focused on ROI, and because of that, they will not choose consumer level equipment.

Not to mention that a lot of studios are shooting MF (or larger) and having just ordered a digital Hassy I have a hard time imagining too many hobbyists spending $30,000 + on just one camera.

 

[usayit]

Secondly, there was a statement earlier that most amateurs have more expensive equipment than professionals. I definitely disagree with this.

Trust me.... There are way more amateurs out there with $$$ in the bank to spend on equipment than professionals. I know this for a fact from past experience dealing with equipment and friends currently working in some high end camera shops. If you take all the amateurs out there in various professions (bankers, lawyers, celebs, doctors, ... CEOs, etc...) most will have way deeper pockets than the typical independent photographer. Most independent photogs don't see their equipment as toys/enjoyment, they see them as investments and they MUST see a ROI or go out of business.

The photographers you see in media with expensive equipment might give you the wrong sense of reality. Those are the photographers that don't buy their equipment... the corporation or media outlet provides them with equipment. I'm talking about magazines, fashion, journalists working for major outlets .etc... Even then the sheer number of amateurs vastly outweigh their sales.

Remember.... Amateur versus independent photographer. Comparison of an amateur photographer to a corporation isn't a apples to apples.


Go to any lifetouch studio.... look at their equipment... (the last one I saw had Fuji SLRs with Tamron lenses).

Go to any sears studio.... look at their equipment

Look at the typical photog doing school pictures.


[edit] And yes.. I've seen at least a couple MF digitals (one was used...) sold to amateurs

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Go to any lifetouch studio.... look at their equipment... (the last one I saw had Fuji SLRs with Tamron lenses).

Go to any sears studio.... look at their equipment

Look at the typical photog doing school pictures.


[edit] And yes.. I've seen at least a couple MF digitals (one was used...) sold to amateurs

I don't know that anyone would call those photographers pros The studios may be (kind of !?!) but not the photogs. Having six hours of training telling you not to ever change the light set up and where exactly to sit your subject does not make you a pro even if they earn their income from photography.

And of course there are amateurs who have digital MF cameras. There will always be people with more money then they know what to do with. Those are the people I like to buy used gear from

I just saw a 500CM kit with not a scratch on it. I mean you look at this camera and you know it was never used. Never.

But I seriously doubt that you will find to many of those MF digitals in the hands of amateurs. They can make themselves feel better more easily with a Ferrari and they can actually do something with it... even if at only 50 miles per hour.


Edit = Btw, this is not a competition. I bought my first Hassy when I was told I couldn't shoot a wedding in my area with a 35 mm camera and the Hassy was the best deal I found that day. If I can get away with getting the cheapest gear, I will!

 

[usayit]

So a person working a studio is not a pro?

Hahhaha... sheesh... didn't we just have this thread somewhere?

Just because one company makes $30k camera doesn't mean you ignore the rest of the market. I bet most of those cameras are purchased by the company not by the photographers themselves.

Lets take the other side... You can easily spend $15-20k on Leica (each Summilux is between 4-5k and M9 is 7k). How many of those shooters are professional? The local camera shop I referred to sold a crap load of Leica.

The white house photographer shoots with a 5D while I see many more 1ds bodies sold to amateurs. On any given weekend, I guarantee 90% of the sales at BH are from amateurs.

I'm telling you from direct experience.

 

[usayit]

Let's take TPF as a very small sample:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...89279-do-you-make-money-your-photography.html

Most are in the $0 and under $10k


Now if ignore everyone but the studios that own Hassy's then yes... it could be argued that pros are better equipped. But then again you are ignoring 99% of the rest of the market.


face it... Its tough to make money from photography... that's the reason why the sales of equipment are driven primarily by amateurs. Amateurs with more available income.

 

[usayit]

Edit = Btw, this is not a competition. I bought my first Hassy when I was told I couldn't shoot a wedding in my area with a 35 mm camera and the Hassy was the best deal I found that day. If I can get away with getting the cheapest gear, I will!

Sorry.. If you mean digital Hassy, that makes absolutely no sense. In fact, Hassy digital is about the worst camera I would choose for a reception.

 

[JohnMF]

as the saying goes... A fool and his money are soon parted.

I know it's not up to me or anybody else to tell someone else how to spend their money, but, Look around the forums (here and other places) and you'll see people flashing photos of his/her brand new, space age, solid gold camera worth thousands. Then you look at their work, and there's nothing more than hideously over photoshoped snap-shots.

Everybody wants the right tools for the job, but some people seem to think because it costs a fortune, it's going to make them a better photographer, or that it gives them status.

That sounds a bit more 'ranty' than I intend it to but you get the picture

 

[Josh66]

This is a tough one...

I can see good arguments for both sides. I personally do not have as much invested in photo gear as most pros probably do, but I have to agree that hobbyists probably do have more disposable income than most pros...

On the other hand - I am a professional mechanic (aviation). I have at least $20,000 invested in tools. Hell, my toolbox (empty) costs about $5000. I can't see a hobbyist spending that much on tools.

If I can spend that much on tools that I need for my profession, I can see how the same could apply to a photographer. $20,000 isn't as much as it sounds like. I have been doing this for about 10 years - that's $2000 a year. I probably spend close to that on beer, lol.

Maybe it's not the same, but I think it's at least close.

 

[usayit]

If I can spend that much on tools that I need for my profession, I can see how the same could apply to a photographer. $20,000 isn't as much as it sounds like. I have been doing this for about 10 years - that's $2000 a year. I probably spend close to that on beer, lol.

Maybe it's not the same, but I think it's at least close.

Not the same.... the difference is your skill set is much more profitable. Your ROI is more favorable than the typical photographer.

PayScale - Aerospace Engineer Salary, Average Salaries

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Photographer/Salary

Also, I would surmise that much of your equipment is specialized with no cheaper options. Photographers have many options.. many photographers can still deliver a good product even with middle level prosumer equipment (see sears, lifetouch studios).

 

[Derrel]

Going back to the Original Poster and his closing statement,which was "Over the past 20+ years I have spent much money on this hobby of mine ... though I have never spent more than $2000.00 on a single item (Bronica SQ-A, back + 80mm lens)."

I find it interesting--in 1991, I too bought a Bronica SQ-AM, with 80mm f/2.8 Zenzanon, 150mm f/4 PS lens, and 65mm PS lens + multiple film backs in 120 and 645. The cost was well over $2k, for mostly used equipment. In mid-2008, I bought a MINT outfit consisting of SQ-Ai body, waist level finder, 120 back, 80mm lens and 65mm Pro Series wide angle--for $299. Less than 1/10th of the cost of what I payed for almost identical equipment in 1991! I could tell the SQ-Ai had been amateur-owned, just by its condition. What once was expensive, pro-level wedding/portait/studio gear was rendered basically value-less, at less than three hundred dollars for a body,back, and two good lenses!

These days, as far as spending $2,000, that will not buy even a medium-high level body like a D700 or 5D Mark II, nor will it buy a 300/2.8 lens, or any number of higher-end lenses like the "new" 70-200 VR-II from Nikon. The pro-level Canon bodies are priced at $4999,and I know a lot of hobbyists and serious amateurs are buying 1-series Canons and the Nikon D3 body,also priced at $4999. Digital cameras are film and processing, rolled into one thing: a $4999 body has within it,easily, the equivalent of $70,000 worth of film and processing, with the basis being E-6 36-exposure rolls developed at $8.99 per roll, and a bulk purchase price on the film of $5.99 per 36-exposure roll. That does not include trips to and from the developing lab,either, nor trips to buy film.

Considering the price of E6 film and decent lab processing of it, even a $4999 Nikon or Canon is an absolute *bargain* in terms of the number of shots it will deliver,and the convenience of in-camera previewing and rapid turn-around; no more 4-hour E-6 processing time. Complicated lighting set-ups that used to require Polaroid proofing? Nope---you shoot with the *actual* camera and lens combo that will be making the final shot. The "average" price of a medium-range d-slr body is now $1,700 from Nikon or Canon, so spending $2k on a camera/lens combo now is,today, sadly, "nothing out of the ordinary". So, as to amateurs spending a lot of money on photo gear and lenses, I see the tradeoff of digital capture being much greater ability to shoot photos,with less hassle and expense of disposables like film,proofing, and printing. More work at the computer, but that is faster and easier than darkroom work,and more repeatable.

Honestly, the abilities of a modern mid-level $1700 d-slr run circles around the Bronica SQ-Ai for event work; I remember medium format SLR work,and think that d-slr work is easier,faster,and actually of higher quality under more situations than manual focusing with a MF film body.

 

[dxqcanada]

So ... today's norm is not unusual.

I just do not remember that many amateur photographers spending $2000.00 - $5000.00.
Yes, I knew of those that would spend that (20+ years ago) ... but I did not know that many ... and I knew many photographers as I worked in the Photo industry.

I think mentally that I am back in the old days of cost.

How many of you are OK on spending more than $1000.00 on your photographic equipment ? I can see those that posted ... have.

Thanks for the feedback ... it makes me feel better (or at least less alone) as I spend more money on building my Digital equipment.

Hmm, I just bought a used Minolta Maxxum 9000 for $30.00 ... I remember selling this camera body for $800.00 when it was new.