Seriously - How does one afford photography?

<p>Ok, this is a legitimate question. Outside of "it doesn't matter on the lens/camera as much as your ability to shoot," how can ANYBODY afford to get into photography it seems?<br>

I have a Nikon d80 and the standard 18-135mm lens, and looking at getting into Sports photography, but really, I cannot afford the glass in which it takes to get into it. (70-200 f/2.8 for 2100? Ouch, or even more, the 300 mm f/2.8? with an optional 1.4x teleconverter?) And I'm not even thinking about upgrading my current camera to a d700 or *gasp* D3. What is the best thing to do outside of destroying my credit cards and saving for 3 years when I am just trying to get into it?</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree about the costs associated with photography. Furthermore, being surrounded by many lenses and cameras worth >$1k, one loses a bit of perspective, and starts thinking a $600 zoom is an entry-level affordable object. It obviously is, when you compare it with the Canikon f/2.8 zooms, but you can build a pretty decent computer with that money. That money would also buy me a week in any european city. Eventually, it depends on how much you can save monthly and your priorities.</p>

<p>Regarding the 70-200, or even the 300/2.8, I suppose the best thing to do is renting the equipment for a week or so, and see whether it is your thing or not. If shooting with that equipment is your thing, then second hand is an option. This is especially true with the "mad rush" to FX and the switch to the 70-200 VR2. The VR1 works as well in a D80 and can be found second-hand for $1200 or so. If you find you don't like it after a year, in the case of the Nikkor it is possible you will recover a very significant amount of your investment (as a certain Ken usually says).</p>

<p>Finally, there's also the third party zooms, although Sigma seems to be in a price hike lately. </p>

<p>A "less-than-brand-new" approach won't hurt to get started. The D80 and a older AF 300mm f2.8 (non-D, non AF-I, non VR) Nikkor lens -- and a monopod will get images just about as good as the AF 70-200mm f2.8G Nikkor lens. If you start small, save your $$$$s, and sell what you are shooting...you should be able to get better equipment in a month or six months from now.</p>

<p>You have to work at what you enjoy doing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rent the lens! Seriously. Many pros do this, that's why these places exist. I can't understand it either, how apparently dozens of members of the Nikon forum drop $2k on a zoom lens, and they aren't even pros! I could never justify it for myself, even a $600 lens makes me hesitate, and that's about as much as I could ever spend on a lens without making money with it.</p>

<p>To expand on Jerry's point, very few people learn to play the violin on a Strad or an Amati. You can buy good used equipment, older equipment which is still as good as it ever was and which once was the best <em>anybody</em> had.</p>

<p>A monopod may well be more useful than a tripod anyhow. If you learn and do well, you may work your way into better and newer gadgets.</p>

<p>Hard as it may be to believe, once upon a time, people shot totally manual Nikon F cameras with manual focus lenses at major sporting events and got paid for doing so.</p>

<p>It's really no different than asking, "How can anyone afford set up a plumbing business?" That involves a heavy, reliable vehicle, training, lots of expensive tools and materials, insurance, marketing ... sound familiar? How does someone launch a bench jewlery making business? How about a small web hosting operation? Or a carpet cleaning business, able to handle commercial work? <br /><br />You either have a good enough business plan to impress somebody into loaning you money, or you have to claw your way through lower-budget equipment, and re-invest every dime you make into growing your kit. It takes time.<br /><br />There's also Plan B: work like you really mean it at some other line of work. Skip all vacations. Stop going out to dinner. Live with older clothes and fewer other toys. It's amazing how many silly places money goes if you start taking note - and especially if your real priority is to rack up the cash to launch a photography business. Then become a weekend warrior, keeping the day job as you shoot, and as you gain experience. It's tiring, but it gets you there without going into debt.</p>

<p>I have bought most of my lenses used and a couple of bodies reconditioned (by Nikon). I have a acquired a pretty extensive kit (cameras, lenses, flashes, tripods, memory, etc.) over a period of several years.<br>

You only need one body and one or two lenses to do a lot of photography and a lot of learning.</p>

<p>Many people don't even have money for the ticket to watch the games. I know many kids who love photography and try hard to save $30-$40 to get a beatup K1000 or AE-1 with a prime lens. Some even had to take a Chinon instead because it costs only $20</p>

<p> I wonder at what level of sports photography are you talking about. Taking Little League pictures or did you land a job shooting the Cowboys? I would not know about professional sports photography myself. I did ask a guy on the sidelines at a PGA tournament how much his lens cost and he said he does not buy the gear he uses. When it comes to Little League type pictures I think you have good enough gear to shoot with. You can always add a lens that you can afford later on. Many people just slowly build there system over many years as they can afford to. </p>

<p>It took me 20 years to buy my first Leica M. I settled for a Minolta XG-M in the meantime. I still have that Minolta, by the way. I went to school, didn't buy fancy clothes, and did not eat much. After completing my education, I got a better job, and am able to buy equipment that I could not afford when I was younger.</p>

<p>If you hesitate at the price of a D700, maybe photography isn't something you should be putting effort into yet. Spend what money you do have on tuition and get yourself an education, get a better job, then start dumping money on frivolous camera products.</p>

<p>I'll second <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a>'s answer....Used to be there was no AF, VR built in exposure meter, etc & people still managed to get excellent shots. I still use a lot of older MF lenses as well as newer AF ones to fill holes in focal length ranges. Not only to fill in missing ranges in the AF gear, but also for certain characteristics that the newer gear does not have. Lens "defects" can sometimes be put to creative uses...I've been shooting for over 40 years & have amassed a lot of gear , but ,with putting 2 kids thru college (& one thru Law School), I didn't have the funds either. I do sell some of my work, but prefer to shoot to please myself, thus I don't roll the small profits over into new gear. I guess I'm still somewhat of a dinosaur as I use the old gear as much as I do (still shoot film every so often as well)</p>

<p>You don't <em>need</em> a 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 to shoot sports. As with any other subject, the biggest thing is your knowledge of the subject. Then, shoot with a 55-200 or 70-300 f5.6. You'll need to bump the ISO pretty high probably. You'll also probably have to use some of that knowledge to time just the moment to hit the shutter, because you won't be blasting through 8+ fps. You're going to shoot 100, 300, 500 photos at an event, and your going to throw away 90% because they're not quite sharp, 7% because they are cut off, and 2% just miss the perfect moment. And of that remaining 1% of images that are "good," most of them are not going to be aesthetically pleasing.<br>

But you're going to keep doing it like that. And you'll learn the limitations of your equipment, and you'll lust after bugger, faster lenses. And you'll get better, and some shots will be worth showing off, even!<br>

As for affording expensive lenses? Assuming you're not a pro, the answer to that is quite easy. I once heard a hobby described as something you spend large amounts of money on for no justifiable reason. That's exactly what most of us do, whether it's a $200 lens or a $2000+ lens. You don't <em>need</em> it, you <em>want</em> it. And that's ok.</p>

<p>If you're shooting Nikon then there is a handy solution: used lenses. </p>

<p>Can't afford the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII? Then what about the VRI? No? Then how about the 80-200mm AF-S? 80-200mm AF-D? 80-200mm push-pull? </p>

<p>Your options for the standard xx-200mm f/2.8 range from that $2100, to about $400 for the push pull which is slower to focus but still produces solid images.</p>

<p>But the number one thing that has funded my gear is doing work and getting paid to do it and buying as I go. Right now I'm supplementing my income and my photography habit by doing senior photos, weddings, selling photos from high school sports and small odd jobs here and there. </p>

<p>All you need to really get started is the camera you have now and maybe a 50mm f/1.8. Build from there.</p>

<p>You don't need to buy everything on day 1. You just have to have a down to earth idea of what you need to get started and try not to worry as much about the rest of it.</p>

<p>A budding photographer could get the 24-70 nikkor and the 70-200 and either a D700 or the D300 with a speedlight/diffuser and that kit minimal though it may be would enable some beautiful work. Unfortunately photography is a pursuit that carries a huge price tag if one would have the latest / greatest gear. Honestly there is not too much way around that if high-quality fast lenses are desired. Buying used and being patient will help somewhat but inevitably the forces of NAS will prevail...and slowly building up the kit over years of time is usually the way it gets done when the photog is not that well-heeled. Which if you think about it is not too bad since that forces the image-maker to actually work with what he or she has and THINK ABOUT what their results are and then to know what lens they really need before writing in to a forum with the thousandth inane post about "What lens should I get?"</p>

<p>What really annoys me is the cavalier way the "haves" converse with the "have nots". Seriously, on this and many other websites, the offhand manner in which someone casually suggests you buy an expensive lens to fix one problem you might be having is almost insulting.</p>

<p>However, someone mentioned this earlier: rent the lens. Whenever I'm hired to shoot a particular event that I feel needs something other than what's in my current arsenal, I'll rent it and bill the client. They never seem to mind (I include it on their invoice as "equipment rental") and I'm able to get the job done.</p>

<p>Work with what you have. It's better to be a genius with a point and shoot than a hack with all the best.</p>

<p>I've always worked with great, older equipment, and spent the money to have it serviced. A Hasselblad will last a heck of a long time and give superb results, time and time again if you take care of it. I'm glad I owned Nikon since the 80's because the lenses can still be used on my D200 and D700. And I've owned the same 4x5 cameras since the 80's too. Good, solid equipment and brands are a good investment. I seldom buy new, but I do rent high end cameras for photo shoots that require high quality and high reliability. I don't have a 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor, and I don't own the 14mm Nikon, but the 15mm I've had since the early 80's. I seem to get by.</p>

<p>Here is my Nikkor Go-to kit for fast less expensive lenses that are also <em><strong>great lenses</strong></em>.</p>

<p>AF 50mm f1.8 $150.00 new</p>

<p>MF 75mm - 150mm f3.5 $100.00 used <br>

With a close focus lens (diopter) attached it becomes a good macro lens.</p>

<p>AF 180mm f2.8 $350.00 used and built like a tank.</p>

<p>AF 300mm F4 $700.00 used and built like a tank.</p>

<p>These lenses can get you to an excellent skill level, hold their value, and they will be your friends for years to come.</p>

<p>After acquiring the above lenses, and when I had the financial opportunity, I purchases more expensive Nikkor zooms. Was their added quality worth it, many would say no.</p>

<p>Hang in their, take your time, and practice.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Amateur photography (using decent cameras/lenses) will soon be a luxury enjoyed by doctors, lawyers, and their spouses.</p>

<p>The rest of us will be stuck with sub-2000 dollar camera/lens combos (which even today will barely cover the cost of a D90 with a 17-55 2.8 lens)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rent the lens! </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I shoot sports professionally, and I do this. I rent an 80-200/2.8 (Canon, but this is really not different) when I need it, which is about four times a year. That's $100/year, it would take 16 years to get to where the lens is.</p>

<p>The rest of the equipment is expensive, but it's still just one body and one lens (24-70/2.8) because for what I shoot, fights (boxing, MMA), it's plenty. I rented the camera and that lens several times before buying, to make sure it was going to work, rather than buying before I knew what I was going to do.</p>

<p>You should look at what rental will cost relative to buying.</p>

<p>Skill is not dependent on the lens or other gear but on the individual. A good photographer can take better pictures irregardless of the gear. The gear may help take a better photo in difficult circumstances, but the gear doesn't automatically make anyone using it a better photographer....Use what you have & add more as you can afford it, or rent it to see if it fits your needs.</p>

<p>A Hasselblad, considered the gold standard for certain types of photography, has always been beyond the reach of many. I don't think anything fundamental has changed. Same for top-of-the line 35 mm SLR cameras.<br>

Also nothing new that the top gear can only be afforded by professionals with enough revenue to recoup the costs, and by amateurs in well paying professions. That includes a retired house painter I met with his assortment of white Canon lenses.</p>

<p>Haha I agree, and I think the key is to give up any hope of ever being rich, holding down a decent relationship, living in a nice house, driving a nice car, having nice clothes, eating nice food, and generally devote yourself completely to photography. <br>

But seriously - a quite useful and inspiring article that helped me find my way from dead broke to a D700 (and dead broke), was Ken Rockwell's "How to afford anything". <br>

<I tried to link to the article here, but the elves tackled me to the ground. Just pop over to his site and search for "how to afford anything"><br>

Good luck!<br>

Vineet</p>

<p>The latest, greatest expensive equipment is all fine and well but you don't need it to produce decent photos.</p>

<p>I had a pro photographer teach me some tricks about shooting baseball. With that knowledge and despite owning much better equipment I went to a college game with a Nikon FE, 75-150 and a couple of rolls of HP5. I was thrilled with the keepers I landed. All with no AF, no VR and no motor drive.</p>

<p>My point is you can get decent shots with less than pro equipment if you have a passion for what you are doing. </p>