Canon hobbyists with expensive equipment?

<p>Hello everyone, this is for all the hobbyists shooting with canon. I was just wondering if there are any hobbyist with expensive equipment like the canon 5d mark ii? If so, what kind of photography do you shoot?</p>

<p>Reason being....can you justify spending lots of money on equipment just for your hobby?</p>

<p>People can spend their own money on whatever they like. They don't have to justify it to anyone (except their wives!).<br>

Photographic equipment is quite cheap compared to the amounts some people spend on boats, golf, etc.</p>

 

<p>Hobbyists spend as much as they can (afford)</p>

<p>Professionals spend just enough to get the job done at the level they need</p>

<p>Also, there is no clear distinction between Pro and hobbyists</p>

<p>The market for selling pro gear to amateurs is much larger than that for selling the same pro gear to professionals.</p>

<p>The Canon 5D MkII was recently the second most common camera type to be used on flickr - a site largely used by hobbyists:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/cameras">http://www.flickr.com/cameras</a> The most popular is an expensive phone.<br>

Expense is relative. Price is soon forgotten.</p>

<p>Good points made...What type of photography do you hobbyist like to shoot?</p>

<p>I just use basic camera gear. Shopping is not my interest. </p>

<p>Photography is my one major hobby (cooking is the other, which can arguably be more expensive in the long run than photography but at least the family consumes most of the edible experiments). I own a 7D, 15-85, 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and a few other lenses, most of which I either purchased used or refurbished to cut costs. I probably would have stuck with my Rebel XT if it weren't for those meddling kids and their indoor sports...</p>

<p>I'm with Steve. The money I've spent on camera gear is insignificant compared to many other possible hobbies. Planes, boast and automobiles are easily ten times as costly (to start!). I couldn't even touch a "jet ski" or ATV for what I paid for the gear I have. Even spending $10,000 on a 500mm f/4L would keep my photography hobby in the relative "minor leagues" of hobbies (some might even say photography, too!).</p>

<p>I shoot mostly wildlife, but sometimes car shows, family stuff, whatever.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hobbyists spend as much as they can (afford)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Unfortunately, I see some hobbyists irresponsibly spending more than they can really afford, with no consideration for emergency funds or retirement. A financially strapped hobbyist doesn't need the latest 5D!</p>

<p>no, only Nikon users are allowed to use cameras with capabilities beyond what the photographer can take advantage of. </p>

<p>People are free to spend their money any way they want. Some people spend their money like there's no tomorrow, and not just on photo gear. Others budget their money and plan for the future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people spend their money like there's no tomorrow, and not just on photo gear. Others budget their money and plan for the future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And some don't have enough money for either of those options.</p>

<p>I have a ton of cameras and lenses and don't make any money at it. I like to shoot landscapes, wildlife, macro (flowers/insects), family. Pretty much anything except weddings. My day job pays well and I save a lot of money so I spend a fair amount of camera equipment.</p>

<p>Just a few months ago a very rich doctor asked me for camera advice for their upcoming trip. They spent over $10,000 on a trip to South America but balked when I suggested a camera and lens for $700. Everyone has different priorities that often make little sense to someone else.</p>

 

<p>Consider the economics. Pro photographers don't usually make enough money to buy the very best gear. Doctors, lawyers, and other people from well-paying professions are the primary consumers of the latest and greatest top-shelf gear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They spent over $10,000 on a trip to South America but balked when I suggested a camera and lens for $700. Everyone has different priorities that often make little sense to someone else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Objectively, that makes plenty of sense. I'm confident there are sound suggestions within the prefered price range that will meet most, if not all, of their needs.</p>

<p>Ah, but more or less successful pros can take tax breaks for equipment, as amateurs cannot. There may be professional camera equipment people trying to make a living at places like on the web or formerly at photomagazines, but as Sarah says, few professional photographers can afford the time or money for overkill in technology, per se.<br>

The 5Dmkii is actually a "pro-am" camera and well within the means of many hobbyists, especially those whose incomes are "adequate," as those with more money than some others put it.</p>

<p>You should see the equipment that the members of my former photo collective sported.</p>

<p>The 7D and 5D series are great for hobbiests. The 1D series are big, heavy, significantly more expensive, and are less hobbiest friendly IMHO. Their advantages over the 5D series and 7D are often not amazingly useful for a hobbiest as well. If I had a choice between a 1Ds Mk III and a 7D for chasing my kids I would grab the 7D. If I was doing studio photography the 1Ds Mk III would be the clear choice. </p>

<p>That said, if someone wants to take pictures of their family with a 1DX they will get great photos and it will cost less than many people spend on upkeep, fuel, and mooring fees for their boat. </p>

<p>Hobbyist here, and I like to shoot portraits for friends, portraits of my grandkids and family gatherings. I also do a lot of what I call digital art from my photos so I take photos of just about anything that I think looks interesting. I started with a Rebel XTi and now also have a 7D for...er...ah...because I wanted it. I wanted 2 cameras so I could stop fumbling with changing lenses and missing shots, and it's been great. I sold two pieces of used equipment to get the 7D so it was a wash. That's another thing I've found about buying good equipment...it's worth something when you want to sell it. </p>

<p>The 7D does take great video and I'm now learning to shoot video with it using a Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens. It's pretty cool to stand in the back of an auditorium and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Ceemitch?feature=mhee">catch the high school musical</a> without a bunch of heads in the frame but it's hard to keep steady. A tripod would have been great but there was no space for it. The Sigma 70-200 is also a great portrait lens, and with an extender I can also shoot the moon quite well. I was surprised at the detail I got at 100%. It's a very versatile lens.</p>

<p>I justify it by working every day and spending my money as a result of my labor. What's the point in saving <em>everything</em> for retirement? Aren't I living now? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow I may die. Then who will benefit from my scrupulous saving? My kids can make their own fortunes if they want one. I'd rather take a few pics. I buy one piece of equipment each year that I really want, within reason, and I sell a few that I thought I wanted but didn't use much. I get good experience on a lot of different kinds of lenses and other gear and some day I'll settle in with a kit that I love...for retirement.</p>

<p>Oh, and I will mention again, that one good thing about highly paid, overworked professionals (e.g., MDs) in OTHER fields buying camera equipment is that they buy expensive, use only rarely, and upgrade frequently. This provides a steady supply of nearly new late models for those of us who are somewhat less "comfortable." :)</p>

<p> I noticed over the years that people buy a lot of stuff. I always thought they were rich but in 08 when the world fell apart I found out that people live on a thread. One thing happened and they lost it all and society at large gets to pick up the tab. Just saying don't buy stuff you cannot afford, save for the future and educate your kids. </p>

<p>I can't really justify what I spend for my equipment (just as expensive as Canon equipment) but for myself there are trade offs. Several years ago when I was looking for a vehicle to drive, I could have bought a $40,000 fully loaded F150 pickup truck. Instead, I bought a slightly used Ford Ranger for $10,000 and have since spent a bunch of money on expensive lenses and DSLRs. At least the lenses have all maintained their original value. The F150 that I didn't buy has most likely depreciated in excess of $25,000. I think I came out ahead financially on this.</p>

<p>I recently changed my Canon 5D for the 5D Mk II. I am an amateur and although I have sold a couple of shots I am not concerned about making any money from my interest. The 5D cost 1500 GBP new in 2006 and I sold it for about 500 GBP. So that means it has cost me 1000/6 GBP per year, or 167 GBP/ year. Not a lot considering it is one of my main interests.</p>

<p> Last year I bought a FM2n for $200.00 on an impulse. It was in great shape but I only had some autofocus lenses that would work on it. I did not like it enough to buy more lenses (AIS lenses) so I sold it for $225.00. The only camera profit I have made. I have not sold much stuff really. Usually it finally breaks beyond a reasonable repair, gets lost or stolen. </p>

<p>I bought a 5D mark II.</p>

<p>It did not seem like that much money cmpared to some of the other hobbies I have had over the years.</p>

<p>What I like about the 5D2 is my 28mm f/2.8 lens works as a wide angle on it. That with the high iso the 5D2 can shoot at means I am getting shots inside that I simply was not getting before. I am very happy with with my camera, for me it was well worth the money.</p>