Seriously - How does one afford photography?

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>how can ANYBODY afford to get into photography it seems?</em></p>

<p>Here's how: you don't have children, you work a well paying job that you can put up with, you sleep, eat, and everything else you do or spend money on is photography. You start with second hand lenses and gradually move up. You choose your subjects carefully and don't get any other equipment than what you need to cover those subjects.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you work on subjects that are not as equipment-intensive as sports photography. Portraits, for example. Don't need much expensive equipment for that.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I wanted a 300 2.8 Nikon lens since I was 19. I finally got one 20 years later. That was after I finished college, grad school, photo school, and 3 or 4 jobs.<br>

<br /> That's how one does it.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I shot baseball in the mid 1970's with a 400mm F6.8 Spiratone; and made about 50 to 100 times what the lens cost; but amateur friends had the better Telephoto lenses and did not make enough to pay for their lens.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>As my brother use to point out, most things in life that are fun are always expensive. He was into surfing and guitar playing and both hobbies you would have to spend money for good equipment.<br /><br />As an old school photographer I can say that photography is a lot less expensive that it use to be back in the 80s and 90s. Back when we were having to buy film, chemicals for darkroom developing, or paying to get it done elsewhere, we could easily spend in a few days what you'd pay for the lens you mentioned. Back then we didn't proof over the internet, we'd have to spend money on actually creating a proof album. Because the cost of photography has gone down with the introduction of digital, so has the pay rate a photographer makes, so I don't really know how most full time photographers afford equipment either... unless they're like me and work a full time job that actually pays and do it on the side.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>Not being a troll (apologies Nikon crowd), but move to another system if you're going to use older lenses. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you mean micro4/3, you have a point, although you will lose AF, which is critical for sports these days. IBIS is nice, but sports requires fast shutter speeds in any case, and MFT sensors are not the best at high-ISO. (Although not as bad as the gearheads believe.)</p>

<p>OTOH, if you mean (shudder) Canon, you can't USE older lenses. :)</p>

[markjordan]

<p>Use your credit card to get some of the decent equipment and then try to use this good equipment to make some money to pay off the cards and then buy more. Very little in photography is affordable if you want good, or even just decent, equipment, let alone to frame a few photos! It's easily one of the most expensive hobbies around. I have yet to frame anything because I can't afford it, even doing it myself. I know this hobby has put me into several thousand dollars of credit card debt a few times! Luckily Photoshop came along, because truthfully you can take average photos and sometimes make them amazing using it. so I invest more in software now to correct the photos I take with my Mediocre equipment! Seems to be the cheaper way to go as a beginner.</p>

[hugh_j.]

<p>Why does it "take" anything to get into it? What ads have you fallen prey to? Are you being paid for your work? I can understand professionals needing the best possible gear in order to do their paid assignments to the best of their ability, if nothing else, in order to score more paying assignments in their competitive field of work. In that scenario, a D3 and 70-200/2.8 VR are needed because "It was too dark" is not an excuse the photo editor wants to hear when the photographer gets back to the office with nothing to show for the assignment. And even then, few of such pros own anything beyond a basic 70-200mm, as exotics can be signed out from their newspapers' equipment pools when needed.</p>

<p>But as an amateur? Why can't you make concessions and just avoid shooting night games? And why does missing a few shots here and there matter when it doesn't mean not being able to eat that night? It's all in your head. Just get over it and start enjoying it, because you're lucky you don't depend on it for your living.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>You want to talk about expensive photography. For a period of nearly 10 years, I worked in support of the National Reconnaissence Office (NRO) when it was a top secret compartmented clearance program with clearance granted on a "must know" basis, much more stringent than "need to know". It was DoD's highest priority program, was film based, and photography was performed in stereo. I was debriefed in 1977, so it is unlikely that I am revealing anything sensitive. You can google "NRO corona" to learn about a very successful program of the 60s and early 70s, that has been largely declassified. I was much more involved in the "taking" the picture than in analyzing the picture, but I saw plenty of photos from all the systems employed back then. We are talking billions of dollars, for satellites that had a lifetime in orbit of about two weeks, and which ejected film capsules near Hawaii, that descended via parachutes and were snatched in mid-air by specially configured C-130s and each attempt was successful. Not so with all satellites launches. Film size was measured in feet, not millimeters. </p>

 

[dan_south]

One word: Prioritize

 

Prioritize your life so you'll have money left over for essential gear.

 

Prioritize your wish list and buy only what your really need.

 

Prioritize your time and spend it learning how to get the most out of the gear that you have so you won't lust endlessly

after shiny goodies that you don't need.

[scottshotsphotography]

<p>You got to pay to play. If you know you're good and you can make your money back, there are business loans and credit cards. If you are not totally confident that you have a way to make money with your images, you should probably avoid expensive pro gear while you get better at not only shooting but at your photography business skills. <br>

I'm not cheap to hire and every time I talk to a new client I get a gasp when I tell them my rates. It is up to me to explain why they should spend more on me rather than hiring the part time "pro" with a Costco Special. I sometimes don't get the job but most people respect quality equipment and they understand I need to pass some of that expense on to them. I find it is easier for me to get jobs now with expensive gear and high rates rather than using cheap gear and undercutting my competition on price like I used to do many years ago.</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>Starting any business usually requires some sacrifice and indebtedness. You need to ask yourself honestly how big will my final prints to the customer be, if not giant size then the aftermarket lens like the newer Tamron and Sigma may work very well at about half the price of Nikon and Canon. That said I find myself wanting the best lens too, just because it is there. As important as the camera and lens and as expensive is a good computer and calibrated monitor and printer, and lots of storage for the computer. Try to focus on the whole business plan not just the camera and lens.<br>

Good Luck in you endeavor in professional photography<br>

Jim Ducey</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>OTOH, if you mean (shudder) Canon, you can't USE older lenses. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeez, I have to rise to the bait. Almost the only old lenses you <em>can't</em> use on a Canon digital are the Canon FD lenses, and even they work with a negative lens adapter.<br>

Old Nikon lenses, including non-AI ones, work beautifully on Canons as do many other lens mounts like M42, Exakta, Contax/Yashica, etc. Try fitting some of my non-AI lenses on your "backward-compatible" Nikon digital cameras. ;)</p>

[kuzzy]

<p>OP, I shoot tons of sports and I still shoot with my D70. Compared to newer equipment it is slow focusing, "poor" noise at higher ISO etc. I cannot afford the latest and greatest body or lenses but there are some pretty good low cost alternatives for lenses.<br>

Buy used and smart, you can afford some lenses fast enough to do almost anything. I use a<br>

50mm 1.8 (~$120 new, $200 less than the 1.4 alternative),<br>

85mm 1.8 (~$330 new, $900 less than 1.4 alternative)<br>

80-200 2.8 (bought used, like new $900, and saved $200 over new and $1200 less than 70-200)<br>

It has taken me a few years to accumulate this lineup but I manage to shoot basketball and hockey indoors without flash and football and baseball at night without flash. Yes some additional reach would be great but with 2 kids in college I do not have deep enough pockets to acquire the tools.<br>

Timing, practice, good exposure (to reduce noise) go a long way. Read as much as you can about shooting sports, maybe take a course through a local continuing ed program and shoot shoot shoot. The desire to have that great equipment will not go away but when you get a great shot you will no doubt be just as thrilled. If your interested in what you can do with that gear you can check out this site http://marianhigh.smugmug.com as most of the shots there are mine and have been taken with that gear. Good luck.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Acquiring a good collection of equipment takes time, unless your last name is Trump or Gates. My collection of 4 bodies and 15 lenses in two different formats has taken me over 30 years! Not all of my lenses, or camera bodies, were purchased new. I have a Nikon F4 I have had for a good long time I bought used on Fleabay. It has never failed me.</p>

<p>Lenses are expensive, it's a fact of life. You mention a 300mm f/2.8 in your question. Do you REALLY NEED a long telephot that fast? Or will a 300mm f/4 do the job? The answer is yes. I still use a 300mm f/4.5 AIS Nikkor with my F4 and D700 and it works beauifully. I do, however, own a 600mm f/4 AIS Nikkor, but I bought it used from a friend who had had it for years and was willing to let it go for a song, just to get it out of his closet. But that is not the norm, not by any stretch. Very fast telephoto lenses are specialty lenses. Lenses you see full time sports photographers carrying. For an amateur, unless you're loaded, it is a waste of money. You did not mention what kind of sports photography you are doing.</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>Like others have said, spreading the cost over time, buying used, and keeping spare cash to snap up a bargain helps a great deal.</p>

<p>Photography is just like professional dress clothes. You can build a good wardrobe slowly, but if you do it all at once you'll break your budget. Let's say you budget $1000 a year for photography. Well, the first year, you buy a used D80, a couple cheap lenses, and a used flash unit. The next year, you get a used 17-55 f/2.8. The next year you get a good tripod and ball head. The fourth year, you get an 80-200 f/2.8. The fifth year, it's time for a new camera body. After five years, you've spent five grand, but you've got a decent kit. And that's only added up to about $84 a month, less than your cable TV bill.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Lot's of great feedback and terrific advice on this post. For me, one of the unspoken things that goes on in photography on sites like this is that we are all exposed to a staggering amount of phenomenal photography. I am literally in awe of some of the portfolios on display and the total body of work on photo.net. The quality and imagination seen here can be inspiring, sobering and everything in between. One can't help but compare their own art and work with what others have done. And if you are like me, you are very interested in the gear, technique, lighting and settings used to get their shots. So I understand Greg's frustration in looking at shots where unobtainium was used to capture the moment. I have lens and camera envy all too often even though I have a decent camera and one great lens... gear that I will have for a long time because of the cost of upgrading.<br>

But, I so agree with so many posters that remind us that technique overshadows gear almost every time. I shoot with a used D200 and was privileged to have a wife who allowed me to purchase a 70-200 F2.8 VR Nikon three years ago. Awesome lens but it will not compensate for exposure errors, focus mistakes and general photographer error. I have lots of proof. <br>

My advise... get really good with what you have and be thankful for all of it. Know your camera and lenses well, read a lot and experiment as much as possible, use the best possible techniques to improve quality with the gear you have and give it all some time to make sure the direction you think you want to head is actually important to you. I find that if I have a desire that won't go away even after 6 months or a year, it truly is important and I need to take steps to see it to fruition. I also find that the burning passion I have today for the latest/greatest frequently goes away after a month and I realize I was just letting advertising or other influence tug me along.<br>

I would be interested to hear the resolution of your decisions. </p>

[philip_tam]

<p>I have several things I've convinced myself of (it may not even be true, but I've drilled it in my brain so I don't think about it anymore):</p>

<p>1. If I upgraded to full frame, *everything* will get several times more expensive, the lenses, the cokin to lee filters, the tripod to support heavier stuff, the camera bag to hold heavier/bigger stuff................................ and I compare that to how much I spend on my car.</p>

<p>2. I can count maybe, 3 or 4 instances where a better camera body would have vastly improved my picture: once when shooting vultures in flight, an elk in dim lighting far away, and so on. The other 98% of the pictures I took, the camera body probably wouldn't have mattered. I sometimes open up my vulture pictures and think: "Would you pay $3000 to make this sharper so you can slap it on facebook with more pride?"</p>

<p>3. I take comfort in the fact that even with my budget camera, and budget to mid-range lenses, I have a set of technology that would have been considered *phenomenal* a mere 10 years ago... and people have been taking great picture far before then.</p>

[aodh_mcliam]

<p>If you have a business, then you could, say, photograph a wedding for a friend and charge a token amount, and bang; your lenses are tax deductible.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>Here's how to get into sports photography cheap. Get a superzoom point-n-shoot camera for about $300-500. You will have to learn how to anticipate the action and pre-focus and hit the shutter release at the height of the action, but it can be done. No motor-driven madness. No tripod or giant lens.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Some people are pros and do what they have to do, some people are loaded and can afford anything they damn well please, and I suspect a lot of people just throw it on credit cards (the American way).</p>

<p>Then there are people who photography is their #1 priority, and they sacrifice in other areas for their passion.</p>

<p>Finally there are people like me, and clearly many others here, who by used, refurbished, and older equipment. I happily have an 80-200mm f2.8. Sure it doesn't focus as fast, but it's pretty much as sharp as anything out there now. Similarly the 80mm f1.8 will take just as good of a photo as an 80mm f1.4. Regardless both can be bought used for significant savings.</p>

<p>The only thing that ever gets my goat about this, and it's mostly at DPReview that I see this, are the nimrods who come into a forum dedicated to $1000 cameras and tell everyone they should own their $3000 camera. Personally when you own a camera that costs more than many people earn in a month, some humbleness is warranted. I don't blame people for owning a D3 (or god forbid, a D3x), but a little sensitivity goes a long way. After all let's face it, even $1000 cameras are pretty offensively expensive considering the number of people struggling to even pay their rent.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>PS: Also buy off brand lenses - many Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lenses are pretty dang close if not occasionally better than the Nikon/Canon provided lenses.</p>

[allan_jacks]

<p>You could start with what you can afford. There are some wonderful images taken everyday with cameras that are older that 5 years old. My best advise is to prioritize what you need and take your time in building up the lenses. You can rent the lenses needed when you need them. I use a 5D which is 5 years old and use a 24-105 as my walk around lens. I also have the 50 1.8. The next lens to purchase will either be the 70-200 f4 IS or 100-400 then the 50 1.4.<br>

Allan</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>My first sports gig was in college for my photojournalism/sports journalism classes. I had an old F3 (that looked like it had been dragged through hell behind a truck) and three lenses: a 50 1.8 Series E, a 135 3.5 Series E, and a borrowed 200/4 Ai-S. I had to shoot a college football game for the classes. I burned through five 36-exposure rolls to get exactly 8 decent shots. Manually-focusing for an SEC football game wasn't easy...and film wasn't cheap (although I rolled my own). But that's where I got my start...and where I got my first newspaper publication.</p>

<p>You don't have to jump in credit card-deep at first. Get good at what you do, and then expand as you're able to afford better equipment.</p>

[photo5]

<p>James, I still can't believe Boeing stopped production on the 757. It is such a perfect airliner. Gave the market to the A321 they did. My father worked for Boeing for 37 years, all in the Seattle area. He worked mostly in Renton but spent some time at the Dev center at Boeing Field. He passed away a year ago last June, after enjoying retirement for nearly 22 years.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>my car cost $13,000. my 35 lux asph costs 3995 new, my m6 cost me a hasselblad and an 85/1.4. my v700 scanner humming next to me cost $450. these things are obtainable. I am a server at olive garden. I am not good with money. Luckily, I could sell all of my gear and probably have more money than i started out with. I will not do this. save your money. I worked for two months straight and put all my money into my pocket for my d700. i sold her for the 35 lux. get a second job or get closer to the field:) </p>

<p>that being said, exploit connections to get shots no one else can. befriend a maintenance guy and get on the field. talk to the coach and say youd like to take some photos and send them to the newspaper and to the school. get on the field. get in the huddle. then freelance, get a press pass and get a salary. borrow and shoot, shoot shoot. </p>

<p>and by the by, is sports photography your passion?</p>