Seriously - How does one afford photography?

<p>I believe the desire , which at times might be "need" to have better and better photo gear has been around a long time, BUT .... I think that the push to have the newest has never been stronger. It's the feature glut syndrome. Back 20 years ago, the best new feature was a faster AF motor or more frames per second. You knew those would be handy things, but not THAT important to the quality of the picture. Now, with all the VR and ISO performance and CA reduction and auto this and auto that, the basic photog gets the impression that you just CAN'T get that result without the newest model of what ever you are looking at. That makes people think that they NEED more and it's not just a want. The camera companies LOVE this.</p>

<p>I wish we had a few Wednesday picture sessions where not so top of the line or even OLD gear is the topic, just to prove that you don't NEED all the alphabet soup to get great shots.</p>

 

<p>Start with used equipment. A used D200 coupled with manual focus AI/AIS lenses will give you pro and near pro capabilities for far less money than the latest and greatest AF VR toys.</p>

<p>I started off small, then sold the entry level camera and lens, then upgraded to the next level until I had enough money to get into the pro level and L series stuff. Took me five years to gather all my gear though saving money and upgrading old gear.</p>

<p>I think Doug made an excellent point, and that is, you do not need to use expensive lenses to produce exemplary work. I've seen incredible results made by photographers using non-Nikon lenses, like Sigma or Tokina. These lenses are available used for far less than a new lens costs. And for the most part, if the lens has not been abused, it may still have a lot of life left in it. I use a Nikon 70-300mm ED AF-D zoom lens, which I bought used for $200. I also recently purchased a reconditioned 55-200mm VR zoom for $150 when I want to go small and light, which lately is more and more often. I use these lenses on a D300, which is one of the finest DX format cameras Nikon has ever produced. Some would say I'm a fool for using such "low-end" lenses on such a fine camera. I disagree. I find both of these lenses to be excellent for my needs. I am not shooting for pay, and I am not shooting to publish, however I have published an image I shot with the 70-300mm ED zoom at 300mm, which isn't it's finest setting. So just buy the lens you think will work for you.</p>

<p><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/670207003_inwWF-L.jpg" alt="" /><br /> I shot this image at Boeing Field, as this Northwest Airlines Boeing 747-200 was about to take off on its last passenger revenue flight, and it was published in Airways Magazine in 2009. It was cropped for publication. I was standing on a ladder looking over the perimeter fence.</p>

<p>Consider all of great photographers of the past 70 years from Ansel Adams, Avedon, Capa, HCB all the way up to recently deceased Galen Rowell. I think I have better equipment than any of them with my Nikon D300, bought used. For a larger format, I recently bought a Bronica 6x7 GS-1 with 65mm lens, metered viewfinder, speed grip and 120 film back all in EX++ condition for $250. Galen Rowell used a Nikon F4 and I have a F4s in EX++ condition that I bought for $350 and a F100 for the same price. My Nikon auto focus lenses tend to be low end, but I have quite a few top notch MF Nikkor primes that work well on the D300. The problem isn't equipment. The problem is that I don't have one microgram of the talent and vision of the great photographers and never will.</p>

<p>Photography is expensive, but there are ways to keep it within reason. As has been said you can buy used gear or rent lenses that you don't use a lot. You also don't need the latest and greatest. Instead of a 70-200 f/2.8 VR you can get a used 80-200 f/2.8 or (heavens forbid) a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Your D80 is still a good camera at low ISO's. If you want to upgrade it, get a refurbished D90 instead of a new D700 or D300. Later on you can upgrade what you need to upgrade as you can afford it.</p>

<p>If you are really into photography you may have to make sacrifices in other areas. Go over your budget and see where you can spend less. Minimize debt. Instead of charging something and paying outrageous interest rates, save up for it. Set up funds to save for expensive items. We have a car fund that we contribute to monthly. That way we are making interest instead of paying interest. Most importantly, live within your means. I can afford anything I want today partly because I didn't buy things when I couldn't afford them. Susie Ormand, who is actually pretty good, said that the biggest financial mistake people make is spending money they don't have to impress people they don't know. I would amend that to say don't spend money you don't have period.</p>

<p>Dave, I enjoyed your shot from Boeing Field. I worked for Boeing for 24 years. Fourteen of those years were spent at the Development Center just across the street from where you took that shot. Bringing a camera onto Boeing property was considered cause for termination, but many of us did it so we could use them at lunchtime. I never brought one into a building and they stayed in my car packed into an insulated lunch bag along with one of those blue icy thingies. Boeing also had the same policy for alcohol and firearms, but when I worked at the Kent facility, I often had a shotgun in the trunk so I could take advantage of the Boeing skeet and trap range at the same facility. I retired 5 years ago but I sometimes wonder how many people go to work at Boeing with a camera equipped cell phone. If you visit Boeing Field, you will see a white 757 with some strange stuff hung on it. It is called the Flying Test Bed and it is the first 757 ever built and it has a F-22 wing mounted directly over the pilots' compartment, not because of the need for more lift, but because the F-22 wing contains quite a few sensors. On the nose of the 757 is a real F-22 radar. In essence. the 757 is an electronic F-22 fighter, and I took part in over 40 test flights. We usually flew over Okanogan where there is little commercial traffic and we were often accompanied by a many as four F-16 fighters who would act as our adversaries. I sure miss those excursions. The 757 is usually parked near the south end of the field with a bunch of AWACS aircraft.</p><div></div>

<p>I may be out of line on this, but hasn't camera gear always been expensive? I seem to remember the Nikon F5 selling for several thousand dollars (US), and pro lenses always being expensive. Sure the cycle for new camera bodies has sped up, but that's because the "film" is permanently fixed inside the cameras now days.</p>

<p>As has been mentioned before, many professional photographers don't own their own gear. The AP and other news organizations, for example, often issue gear to their photographers. Others who are in business for themselves rent, make do with what they have, or build it into their operating expenses. Furthermore, many do not buy the latest and greatest if they don't have to. Just because Nikon/Canon/Whoever release a new professional body every 2 years doesn't mean the other ones stop working. I own the old Nikon 70-200 and have no plans to upgrade to the newest 70-200. I'm also using the "ancient" D3s I bought in 2007 and have no real plans to replace them for quite some time. Nikon will have a D4 out soon enough, and a D4 successor thereafter. It's only when my gear cannot supply me with the edge or abilities that I need that I replace or upgrade it.<br>

To get into photography, all you really need is a camera that is adequate for your needs. Landscape and portraiture don't usually require cameras that shoot at 1,000,000 ISO and 20 fps, and even sports can be shot happily at the relatively modest 5 fps that most cameras do now days. Keep in mind that only a short time ago sports were shot at 3 fps on cameras that had to be reloaded with film every 36 exposures and whose maximum ISO was 1600.</p>

<p>I hope I am not cavalier when it comes buying expensive stuff. My father was an immigrant from Scotland that started in the West Virginia coal mines. I craved a Leica as 12 year old in 1948, based on a book from the public library, and it took me till age 66 when I acquired that book, (another copy) and the camera and lens that was on the dust jacket, a Leica IIIc with a 50mm Summitar lens. I joined the Air Force in 1958 as an ROTC 2/Lt, and it was not until 8 years later that I felt I could afford a 35mm camera, which I bought at the PX in Vietnam for $35. (a great camera that I still have). Waiting that long seems extreme, but the services were on starvation wages until the late 60s and I had a wife and kids and 7 of my first 8 years in the service were spent in low cost of living areas like NYC, Atlanta, Boston, and DC. If there had been food stamps, we would have been on them. After 22 years in the military, I worked for Boeing for 24 years until age 69, and for the last 4 years of employment, I drew a good Boeing salary as a senior aerospace and software engineer, combined with a colonel's pension and thank to Bill Clinton, full social security without penalty from age 65 to 69. So being a tripple dipper helped, but that was offset my youngest son going to an expensive private school back east, as opposed to attending the U of Washington here in Seattle, as my wife did.</p>

<p>If I had saved my money during the past 10 years instead of buying over 100 classic film cameras, I could be using a D3 with an assortment of good glass, but I love the old mechanical cameras, and even my best camera, a D300 bought used will be a doorstop long before my Nikon Fs, F2s, F3 and F4 and my Canon T90s, F-1s and an assortment of Leicas, Minoltas, Voightlanders, Retinas, and Zeiss give up the ghost.</p>

<p>Which brings me to a question. I am pure amateur, but what is to stop me from claiming professional status, and getting a tax write off on the gear. I am not about to do it, and will not become a tax cheat, and I realize that at some point you actually have to prove that you at least made some money, but what if you just made some claims as an aspiring pro, and found out in a few years that it didn't work out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A "less-than-brand-new" approach won't hurt to get started.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't hurt as a continuation either. Most of my cameras are at least as old as me and cost next to nothing.</p>

<p>It is hard to admit, but photography was - and is - a hobby for the wealthy. Even the repeated cost for simple develop and scan that I have for my 35mm film is expensive. So, what with everything going up in price and financial pressures everywhere, I will be slowing up a little with my hobby. One roll a week instead of two. Certainly no more new gear for the forseeable future.</p>

<p>I've read this thread a few times and I am a bit torn about the OP. On the one hand I wish it was easier for Greg to get his sports photography gear. On the other, to some extent that's life. One can want to fly light aircraft, to ride horses, to go scuba diving, or whatever and one cannot always afford to do the things one wants. That's just the way it is.</p>

<p>But I don't think the answer is to engage in 'class warfare' either, and didn't like the talk of 'haves and have nots' and of people dropping '$2K on a zoom lens and they aren't even pros. Each person here has their own circumstances and priorities. They can share as much or little as they want of those, and others will give advice according to the information provided. And good newsis that when someone does mention a maximum budget or likewise, they usually get a bunch of pretty good advice within that limitation.</p>

<p>Finally to John W's specific point about an 'old gear' Wed pic. To me that is unnecessary, and would in fact be counter-productive. People post images on their merits, and we get a good mix already of wonderful images from all sorts of gear. Doing a 'cheap only' thread would be a kind of reversed jealousy thing that defeats the purpose.</p>

<p>I believe since its inception, it has been thought of as a hobby for the wealthy. Back when I was very little, in the 70s, my parents used to borrow "the camera" from an older, wealthier relative if they were going somewhere special or had a special occasion. We'd call and drive over to get it a few days in advance. </p>

<p>If I had tons of disposable income, I'd buy a suite of Zeiss lenses and a few other pieces. I hate not being able to go out and just buy it, but I haven't figured out how to explain to my husband the reason we'd be living in our car. </p>

<p>For now, I have bought nearly everything used. I run a small part-time business, but it is supported by a day job. After I'd been learning for a couple of years, I bought one camera body new and I don't know if I would do it again - I'd rather have the money buying used from a reputable seller. I rent equipment as needed. It's in my operating cost and I sometimes need specialty items that I would never use any other place (fisheye lens for huge groups, for instance). I reinvest the money I make right back into the business. </p>

<p>Mostly, I use great older lenses that get excellent reviews. They are nearly all primes & manual focus, which can be far cheaper. It's another way I save money. If I have any equipment failure, I pay to get it repaired. I try hard to buy the best quality I can afford in the first place so that if it eventually needs fixing, it will be worth it. The above requires some research before buying, and means you can't just impulse buy, but that too saves money. I pay business insurance annually on my equipment so that if it is stolen, I can have it replaced, and so if there's an accident, I have coverage. </p>

<p>It is interesting sometimes to read threads where the professionals suggest a bit of gear that is (technically) inferior to that proposed by the amateurs. As a Canon user, an example that strikes home for me is the choice of 17-5x f2.8. Many amateurs suggest the OP should get the Canon 17-55 as it is 'the ultimate' in this range, while a professional adds that they use the more humble Tamron 17-50 as all they need to earn a living.</p>

<p>The professional is aware of what they need, and more specifically <em>what they need to do the job</em> and they often make careful considered choice based on the cost of the lens, its quality and whether it will pay for itself. The amateur on the other hand falls into 3 camps: those who have sufficient income to pay for the best (this is often though not always mixed with 'pride of ownership'), those who want as good as they can afford in some misplaced belief that it will help improve their photography (and I admit I have done this!); and those who through hard experience (like the professional) know what will 'do the job. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with the sentiment though I would stop short of calling it 'insulting' - inconsiderate certainly, especially when the OP says they have a limit of (for example) $500 and people start withinin with suggestions of $800 to $1,000.</p>

 

<p>Either increase your income, or decrease your desires.</p>

<p>I am sorry, but I find this a silly question. I have a D700 and would love to have all the pro glass. I could afford them if I would choose not to have my three children to join a sports club, have decent clothing, set money aside for their university years, and many other things. Like many other posters have said it is a matter of choice.</p>

<p>You want the top things, buy them and compromise on the other things in life. Your choice, your responsibility.</p>

<p>Fast long tele lenses = expensive. Period.</p>

<p>Most everything else has a workable solution at a more "accessible" price point.</p>

<p>Plus, now that I'm shooting digital, I'm not buying film (money saved) and only printing what I really really want...</p>

<p>Earn more money by getting a higher paying job and/or getting a 2nd job to help pay for the things you want. And spend your money wisely.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with the sentiment though I would stop short of calling it 'insulting' - inconsiderate certainly, especially when the OP says they have a limit of (for example) $500 and people start withinin with suggestions of $800 to $1,000.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Notwithstanding what I wrote above I completely agree with this little sub-discussion. People don't seem to be able to read an original poster's budget.... or for that matter requirements (eg the 'what 50mm lens' threads in which everything from a 24 to a 85, and many zooms, are offered as answers).</p>

<p>I really like and agree with Arthur Richardson's response just above by the way.</p>

<p>True, you do not NEED expensive glass to get beautiful images. You never did. You can get a beautiful image with a pinhole camera costing 2 bucks. But that is not the point, is it?</p>

<p>If you want to take certain shots then you need the necessary gear. If you want to shoot an endangered eagle up in the Rockies, then you need a 600mm f/4 lens. You simply cannot take that image with a 55-200 f/6.3 or something. So, it all comes down to what kind of a photographer you are and what kind of images you're looking for. If you want to shoot your family holidays, maybe a nice vista and so on and so forth, then yes, you certainly do not need the latest 70-200 VRII...</p>

<p>BUT...if you want to shoot highschool football because the school ASKED you to and they expect quality images from you, then you NEED the 300 f/2.8. If you cannot get your hands on it (either bought or rented), then you simply refuse the job. After all, nobody is holding a knife to your neck. And of course, I'm not even going to go into the situation where people are actually PAYING you for those images. But by then, you're into the "professional" category and equipment costs are part of the whole deal...</p>

<p>As for how you can get there, I think it has been mentioned: start small, buy second and third-hand items and shoot with them until you outgrow them. Then sell 3-4 items for a single higher quality, again second-hand item. At that stage, add a bit of your own money for that little bit extra. And you repeat until you get your desired kit. Of course, if at any moment throughout this little uphill battle you find ways of selling your images, then by all means, fund your hobby more seriously.</p>

<p>I started with a D50 with the 28-105 kit lens. I bought a 70-300 fiftieth-hand lens for $25 and used those for a year. Then I traded the whole thing for a used D70 and added another $100 for a used 50mm f/1.8. 8 months later, those were traded for a used D80 and, with a bit of financial wizardry, a 18-135 lens (then my pride and joy). By that time I was managing to sell images and Blurb books and so, less than a year later, the D80 and the lens became sacrificial elements in the purchase of an ex-demo D200 and a third-hand 80-200 push-pull (I added around $300 at that stage in 6 monthly installments!) 3 or so years later, after having shot over 10 events, after having covered various political turmoil incidents and marches, after selling over 500 Blurb books and hundreds of images, I was able to buy myself, for the fist time ever, a brand new D700 and a used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens. I had to load my credit cards to do that, but it was worth it. I would rent or borrow other lenses from friends and now, almost two years later, having turned semi-professional with a dedicated clientele, I have my own D3, with ALL the fancy lenses (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 VRII f/2.8, 105 Macro and 4 Speedlights. Oh, and a used Sigma 120-400 OS for those long shots.</p>

<p>It can be done. You need patience, resourcefulness and perseverance...</p>

<blockquote>

<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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your question begs for two other:</p>

<p>- "get into photography" for what purpose? For snap shots, for art, for business?<br /> - "can ANYBODY afford" compared to what? Compared to hobby: sailing, golfing, cooking, sewing, etc.? Compared to art: painting, sculptures, playing a musical instrument, etc. Compared to business: running a food truck, becoming a MD, starting a chip factory?</p>

<p>Enjoyment or success of any of the above does not start or end with the equipment involved.</p>

<p>Seriously.</p>

<p>Photography is just a hobby for the the bulk of folks on the planet.<br>

<br /> <br /> Only a few parts per million of folks who use cameras make enough cash to pay for their equipment.<br>

Thus photography is a lossy hobby.</p>

<p>About all Folks who shoot images are amateurs; they do it for fun.</p>

<p>The trust in marketing to amateurs is you NEED that latest lens; latest body to shoot a great image. This drives the industry. It is the core tenet of being an amateur; the dogma that is worshiped. If you only had that better gizmo; you too could make better images.</p>

<p>Any mention of actual experience is quashed.</p>

<p>Any mention of technique is quashed.</p>

<p>Any of lighting is quashed.</p>

<p>Thus to keep the industry afloat requires amateurs to buy the latest gizmo; since that is really what matters to shoot a great image.</p>

<p>Most all folks who actually sell image do not even make enough to pay for their equipment.</p>

<p>I wrote for an audiophile magazine for twenty-some years. A two-thousand-dollar amplifier is considered 'inexpensive'. I got sick of the attitude after a while. (The writing did pay for the audio gear.)</p>

<p><strong>DISCLAIMER: </strong>(Since I get flamed a lot.) There are photographers for whom the latest and greatest may be a necessity. If faster AF and greater high-ISO quality gets a <em>top</em> sports shooter a higher number of publishable images, he <em>does</em> need it. For most people though, including those who make a living with their cameras, it is not necessary to get the newest thing that comes out. There are enough gearheads doing this to keep Canon, Nikon and the rest in a profitable condition.</p>

<p><strong>TO THE OP: </strong>The 70-300 VR Nikkor is an excellent lens. All you need to start shooting sports is that lens and a monopod. Maybe Topaz Denoise as well, since you will need to raise the ISO. That's it. Make some nice, big prints of your best shots (WHCC or Mpix do a good job) and put them on the wall. That will go a long way to damp down the gear lust.</p>

<p><strong>GENERAL THOUGHTS: </strong>The current hoo-hah about the Nikon 85mm f1.4 just amazes me. The lens it replaces is a legend--'The Cream Machine' (sounds like a porn star). There are laws of optics and engineering here; unless you raise the cost to astronomical levels, it is hard as hell to improve on a great design. 'Faster AF', they cry, while discussing how they will use the lens wide-open for portraits (can't have both eyes in focus now, can we). I would be willing to bet serious money that the Samyang 85 would do just as well, even under close examination, for this purpose.</p>

<p>Like others before, I also can recommend the old Nikon Nikkor 80-200 AF 2.8D it has pro glass but it is about 20 years old so it can be had on ebay for around $600. that if you ask me, is a steal for pro level 2.8 glass. It does not have VR but you won't need VR for sports anyway. some reviews say the AF is slow but honestly when i was tracking fast flying birds and action sports, it was -not- slow. (especially if you are fast enough yourself with good hand-eye coordination)<br>

i don't think you'll need 300mm 2.8 especially for a crop sensor body, that would be the equivalent of 450mm which i dont think is necessary unless u are staying far away from a dangerous animal.<br>

so once you get a nice used 80-200mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 for portraits, and a 24mm f/2.8 for landscape, ur all set.</p>

<p><strong>OP - "</strong>looking at getting into Sports photography,"</p>

<p>I'm with Matt here. If you're going to do it as a business, it's like any other business, and it takes money to get started. If it's as a hobby, compromise within your means. Stay away from the low-light venues, get some used glass, and do the best you can.</p>

<p>Photography, in spite of what one reads on PN, doesn't have to be terribly expensive. A decent P&S, like an LX3, Canon G11, etc., with an average computer, in conjunction with inexpensive (or free) software is not terribly expensive. If one is really pressed financially, scour craiglslist, hit the garage sales, and for less than $75, one can often find lots of decent P&S'. True, for the PN gearheads, that stuff would not be fit for a trip to the playground with the beighbor's kids, but it would serve a hobbyist well, and for very little.</p>

<p>When the going gets tough, the tough get creative.</p>

<p>Not being a troll (apologies Nikon crowd), but move to another system if you're going to use older lenses. I won't be so crass as to mention names, but some have inbuilt shake reduction so you'll at least get some benefit of modern technology when you use those older lenses (ie as opposed to on the lens, which is just modern, system-specific). Older lenses are a steal.</p>

<p>Also, the need to have an ultimate superfast lens, with today's advances in ISO I think that'll become less, especially for amateurs that don't have a specific shallow depth of field requirement. When a body outputs good stuff on A4 at 3200 ISO, why on earth pay $1k more for that extra 1/2 a stop when the body gives it to you. Yes it's nice to have the best of both worlds but if you're on a budget you can't always have that.</p>