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

[CanadianMe]

Well being new to the hobby for me it was quality ,weight and options that determined why I bought a better than entry level Camera. I spoke with people here, the camera store and read tons on the different Cameras. I had considered a Rebel, but after handling it, it felt light and off balance in my hands. I also knew that it would last me for a while. I tried to buy the best glass my budget would allow, although from when I first thought of going DSLR to what the final cost was, it almost doubled. Outside of One Lens I am now set for several years and no more out of pocket costs. I also have worked all my life and hard so I felt I deserved better than entry level if I could justify the cost and see the need and both of those ended up being answered yes too.

 

[Heck]

I got a D40x with a big fancy lens cuz it makes me look like im good. It just makes me feel better about myself thinking people think im taking better photos then them cuz I look bad azz with my gear!

 

[usayit]

Ok so the 1D is blowing it a little out of proportion but...

Actually, Battou, don't sell yourself short. You are exactly right... In hands of most photographers, the 350D will produce just as good of a photo as the 1D markII. The features that place a premium on the 1D are not features that make a better photographer.

(A large portion of the cost of the 1D is built into the camera's ability to survive the rigors of professional use. Dropped, banged, rained on, long battery life, weather sealing, long life shutter, etc).

 

[CanAm]

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.

Someone doesn't remember high school economics

I really don't care if someone goes out and spends 2000 or more dollars on all their stuff. What I DO care about is who has been feeding this misinformation BS to them and told them they couldn't get by with anything cheaper.

I've noticed that some of you guys posting aren't what I'd call newbies. By newbie, I mean someone who has never taken their Point and Shoot off of full automatic mode. I've been noticing some people on this forum and others that have no idea what they're doing and still have some 1000 dollar camera and another 1200+ bucks in lenses.

If you can utilize it, by all means utilize it. If you want a higher end camera, by all means get it. I completely understand the whole "grow in" mentality. If you buy higher than pricepoint, you will spend less money in the long run and you will learn quicker. I believe that only works to a point though. Give a newbie a 1D Mk.3 and watch him get intimidated.

All in all, I spent roughly 800 dollars on everything I have- camera, lenses, bag, tripod, flash memory, filters, cleaning supplies, etc. I've been a hobbyist photographer for about 2 years. I used to play with my dad's SLR when I was really little and he would develop the pictures for me.

Even if I had the cash to get a 20D, 30D, or 40D, I would have still gotten my 10D. We'll see in the next few weeks what I can do with it, when I have the time to go out and take photos again.

I got a D40x with a big fancy lens cuz it makes me look like im good. It just makes me feel better about myself thinking people think im taking better photos then them cuz I look bad azz with my gear!

Looking through your gallery, your photos are pretty good. A testament to what you can do with a "lower end" DSLR.

EDIT- also clarified the OP.

 

[usayit]

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

Oh yes it can. What it does is distract the learning photographer from the core fundamentals. This is the same old reason why past photography professors preferred students to use cameras that were fully manual without the temptation of AF and auto-metering (Pentax K1000 for example).

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?

Yes your are right.. but I think the OP was referring to the "why"? The lower prices are a result not the cause.

I really doubt you'll find L lenses drop in price... the techniques to produce high quality optics has been around for centuries (albeit improved on). Price hasn't really dropped and the manufacturing has not gotten cheaper (unlike in computers). In fact, some lenses have increased in price due to materials being more difficult to locate.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

it shocked me when the salesman actually talked him out of the 40D and a Canon L-series lens.

Good for him. I work on "commission" selling cameras too, and I never let that change what I do. I honestly try to sell the camera that would work best for the guy, nothing more, nothing less. I've talked a guy out of a D200 after I found out he didn't know what shutter and aperture were. I know many salesmen would have pushed for it anyway, and they are not nice people.

Marketers ... filling the heads of todays beginners that this multi-million dollar setup is what they absolutely have to have to create professional results.

That's usually so, but not always so. I bought my Konica Minolta Dimage A2 with accessories for $1300 when it was new, but I did so because I knew it was a good camera. I had read dozens of pages of specs and reviews beforehand for almost a month before I was comitted to buy. (This was my very first real camera. My previous camera was a polaroid I got when I was ten) That A2's almost 5 years old now and it's still perfectly competitive with todays compact cameras. The images are just a bit noisier.

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

Oh yes it can. What it does is distract the learning photographer from the core fundamentals.

This isn't always true either. I paid mondo bucks for my A2 because it had full manual control over the zoom, aperture, shutter and focus - amongst other things. Ironically, If I had spent less, I would have had to settle for a full-automatic camera, and I would have learned so much less about photography.

 

[usayit]

This isn't always true either. I paid mondo bucks for my A2 because it had full manual control over the zoom, aperture, shutter and focus - amongst other things. Ironically, If I had spent less, I would have had to settle for a full-automatic camera, and I would have learned so much less about photography.

You misunderstand my post and the entire point of the thread.


You moved to A2 for more control and to avoid getting stuck in a full-automatic camera. There is nothing wrong with your decision. We are not discussing the value of spending money and moving out of a P&S (with limited control) into a more advanced camera (SLR or SLR-like) with more control.

We are discussing the idea of spending a exceeding large amount of money to go from a lower consumer DSLR to more expensive DSLRs that don't necessarily add value to the consumer. Keep in mind, even the most basic DSLRs on the market have full manual control over zoom, aperture, shutter, and focus. You don't need to spend the money to get the features you specified.

This was clearly stated in my previous post that included:

"In hands of most photographers, the 350D will produce just as good of a photo as the 1D markII. The features that place a premium on the 1D are not features that make a better photographer. "

This also includes the successful marketing campaign to convince the general consumer that they "must" have the latest-greatest-most-expensive in order to be a successful photographer.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Yup, you caught me. I only read the first few posts and the last few posts before writing that. Haha. But now that I understand the topic, this all reminds me of the Monster Cable fiasco.

 

[Socrates]

... and of course, always waiting to get a nice chuckle from the humorous comments of some VERY knowledgeable people here like Big Mike, Garbz, JIP, BATTOU, LAFOTO, SOCRATES, IRON FLATLINE and a slew of others.

That proves the old adage:
You can fool some of the people all of the time...
and all of the people some of the time...
Those are damned good odds!
W.C. Fields

 

[usayit]

Yup, you caught me. I only read the first few posts and the last few posts before writing that. Haha. But now that I understand the topic, this all reminds me of the Monster Cable fiasco.

Hehehe.. thats ok.. I've made the same mistake many times.

Yup.. audio equipment also fall into the same category. Monster cables, Watches, Cars, Cameras, Jewelry, etc.. I'm sure people who study human behavior have a ball with these topics all the time.

Makes me wonder if this behavior is mostly here in the U.S... the reason why Toyota markets luxury under Lexus, Honda markets under Acura, and Nissan under Infiniti.

 

[rmh159]

My .02 on this subject is who gives a F. If someone can afford to spend the money on a high end camera but doesn't give a damn about photography, why should I care? It's money that's going into an industry and will encourage it's growth and development... so we all win.

Likewise if some newb that knows nothing about photography walks into a store, gets convinced that they need to spend the extra money and ends up buying more camera than they need... then they're the idiot. Would you feel bad for that person? Who's unethical? The person who isn't responsible with their money or the person who's willing to take it from them? Besides if you're the type of person who walks into a store and makes a decision soley based upon what the salesperson (who has a stake in selling you the most expensive gear) tells you... you deserve to get fleeced. Buyer beware.

Bottom line: If a sale is going to increase the demand for a camera (which it does) which is going to push the manufactures to increase R&D, supply, technology, etc (which it does)... we all benefit. However that sale goes down, I can't be bothered with.

 

[Early]

My first SLR was a cheap Minolta XG-7 with lens and flash for about $250. I believe that's comparable to spending $1k today.

 

[Alex_B]

I wonder why this question creates so much debate

 

[TheOtherBob]

Someone doesn't remember high school economics

Uhh, ok. Don't mean to take that personally, but would you mind fleshing your comment out a bit? Frankly, I'm pretty sure I remember high school economics. Remember college and law school economics too, for that matter. Also remember all the economic theory I've studied since law school. (Or at least I sure hope I do, because some very nice people are paying me to give them advice based on it!) :er:

In any event, these concepts aren't that advanced, but, hey, maybe I did miss something really basic -- it happens. If you really disagree with what I said then please explain and I'd be glad to discuss.

 

[Dominic]

I wonder why this question creates so much debate

Because of jealousy and envy. Seriously though, I know someone who had a one-year old D2X and just upgraded to a D3 ("For Christmas"). If you saw this guy's shots, you'd want to shoot him (literally). I don't mind that he buys his toys. What upsets me is that he'll buy the highest level of body and lens, and then put a $5.00 Promaster filter on the front, and have a blank look in his eyes when I show him a B+W. ..."Uh, what's that?"

I can tell he tosses open the catalog, finds the most expensive thing that says Nikon or Gitzo, buys it, and then surrounds himself with the cheapest accessories he can find because he doesn't know any better.