Just sayin'
Dec 23, 2018 09:21:31 #
Luckily there is camera gear for everyone at every price point. New, used, refurbished. No real reason not to have good gear. Pick carefully and sparingly. My favorite lens happens to be a Fuji 35 mm f2 lens. It is affordably priced at about 450.00 or less when it is on sale as it has been for several weeks now.
Dec 23, 2018 09:21:58 #
nadelewitz wrote:
Is it not possible that "good" photograp... (show quote)
Not only "good" photography can be done inexpensively but it has always been the same. There were people who bought expensive gears 50 years ago and there are people who buy cheap gears today. There has always been frugal people and people who spend a lot on equipment. I strongly disagree with your word "still" as if it's only recently.
Dec 23, 2018 09:32:27 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Not only "good" photography can be done inexpensively but it has always been the same. There were people who bought expensive gears 50 years ago and there are people who buy cheap gears today. There has always been frugal people and people who spend a lot on equipment. I strongly disagree with your word "still" as if it's only recently.
Wouldn't the word "still" indicate that it is nothing new?
Still - 1. up to and including the present or the time mentioned; even now
---
Dec 23, 2018 09:34:51 #
Dec 23, 2018 09:37:58 #
olemikey
Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
Maybe there should be another forum section or two added for "The Frugal Photographer" or "Cheapskate Photographers" and or "Grumpy Photographers" & "Way Too Happy Photographers" and maybe a "Spent Too Much Photographers" I could be a founding member of several.......
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
Dec 23, 2018 09:49:40 #
Bill_de wrote:
Wouldn't the word "still" indicate that it is nothing new?
Still - 1. up to and including the present or the time mentioned; even now
---
Still - 1. up to and including the present or the time mentioned; even now
---
The word "Still" indicates that it's something new. Because he asked "can "still" be done without spending a fortune" so he implied that people used to be able to do photography without spending a lot of money. He asked if that can still be done he meant that he think it's no longer possible now but it was possible before.
Dec 23, 2018 09:53:24 #
cyclespeed
Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Came by to see how the tone had changed at UHH. Ranting is still on the rise from what I read in the last couple of weeks. Could be the political climate we are being submerged in. I am now on the hunt for sites that provide good information and less bafflegab.
Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
Dec 23, 2018 09:53:27 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
Their is something hiding in this forum. "Just sayin" has a point.
Their is a cultural story here. A material wealth story. A division in our society.
Some programs gave under privileged children modest cameras to shoot
photos and share in a class. I don't think that you will be amazed that
the results were interesting and creative images.
If you read popular publications now and see the shopping malls now would
think that being a billionaire is the most important thing we should do.
I worked a while back helping raiseing funds for the homeless in Philadelphia.
It had an big effect on my thinking.
I asked a former street person that lived under the train station what he
wanted most when he was lost.
He said he saw people eating with a fork. Hey wanted to eat with a knife and
fork. I was ashamed I hadn't thought of giving him a fork.
Their is a cultural story here. A material wealth story. A division in our society.
Some programs gave under privileged children modest cameras to shoot
photos and share in a class. I don't think that you will be amazed that
the results were interesting and creative images.
If you read popular publications now and see the shopping malls now would
think that being a billionaire is the most important thing we should do.
I worked a while back helping raiseing funds for the homeless in Philadelphia.
It had an big effect on my thinking.
I asked a former street person that lived under the train station what he
wanted most when he was lost.
He said he saw people eating with a fork. Hey wanted to eat with a knife and
fork. I was ashamed I hadn't thought of giving him a fork.
Dec 23, 2018 10:14:59 #
mgoldfield wrote:
From my reading here and on various Facebook groups devoted to photography, there is enormous pride of ownership in expensive lenses and full frame cameras. How many really need a Canon 5dMk4 and $15,000 worth of lenses along with tripods filters, etc.?
It's all quite absurd.
It's all quite absurd.
...but oooooh so satisfying!
Dec 23, 2018 10:19:52 #
Glad we have such a balanced opinion represented here.
Just a few rambling thoughts from someone who's been around the block several times since the stone age...
As a long-time pro who moved away into film and TV decades ago, but who still keeps shooting stills and loves every moment of it, I can tell you that my experience of "the equipment race" has been.
It originated from the racers themselves: not the photographers, but the camera manufacturers.
At one stage I was shooting Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Leica, Olympus, Arca, Rollei, Hasselblad and Sinar gear. And those kind folk were either giving me deep discounts, long-term camera loans, or just plain giving me the gear, mainly so my clients could see me using it. In other words, I was their mobile showcase on "what's hot and what's not", the original form of sponsorship, like sports clothing and power drinks these days. I think it's still being done, but back in the day they weren't so exclusive.
As a pro in the advertising and commercial business, optics and perception are everything. After all, that's what we get paid to do, that's the credo that's being sold here by the commercial and advertising trades. So the best photogs "know" they haveto have the latest and greatest, and kinda sorta lean on the reputations of those other folk using the latest and best to empower their own talent and skills, aka marketability and day rates.
I can remember we had, in our studio, the Swiss Broncolor flash system - several sets of the complete system. The boss would order (or get given) two of every kind of every light or accessory they made. And it would be out and displayed (and I'd have to clean and test them all) every day, maybe 40 units or so. All the newest and finest ones front and center, in pride of place - and the two of three lights we'd actually use, that would get, you know, kinda banged up from being used all day, every day? They'd be hiding out in the back of the line-up. "Advertising" said the first assistant to me. "That's advertising - for us - we are the best studio using the best equipment - always".
Which is like Leica, I'd say. Their approach has always been "the best for the most". A lot like Rolex's approach, their one-block-of-metal-carved concept worked a hundred years ago, when cameras were hand-made high-precision mechanisms like the watches of the time, and the best of the best for the highest of prices were, like a custom suit, a sign of prestige and made their users feel better using them. They would last for decades, ticking to the highest precision possible, and absolutely dependable.
Then there's the look and feel of the camera itself - which says something about the owner, but more about the user - how does this thing make you look and feel, when holding it in the hand, when putting it up to the eye?
In a job like photography, if it is all about the hand and the eye (which it still is, in the end), then the camera should be an extension of that. And manufacturers who keep that in mind will, IMO, win out in the end over those who are more manufacturing-minded and less end-user-minded, because their business, the business of interfacing a human being with a machine is, at base, that of cybernetics, the human and the camera. So yes, a pro might feel more empowered by a D850 or 5Ds more than, say, using an iPhone or a Light16. That pro might feel a whole lot more comfortable charging their $500-15,000 a day rate using one of those, or a larger format camera, or anything that at least looks the part, anyway. Until they've become David Baileys, or Helmut Newtons or Ansel Adams or Carier-Bressons, when they can use a Kodak Instamatic and nobody will say boo.
So the trend will likely continue. Don't forget the manufacturers are into selling their cameras, not supporting your great photography. Popular photography is based on the fact that there are more people around with less money to spend. Apple knows and does that best, for now. (Or Holga, I guess). Elite folk? Well there's the M series, still, Hasselblads, higher end Fujis, etc, all the "real camera" manufacturers and suppliers, all vying for our consumer dollars.
But the race for the latest model? Not so sure about that. I used a pair of D800Es when I got back into photography seriously, and soon scaled back to D600s when I realized that the marketplace, for me, didn't really need more than a 24MP RAW picture if one knows how to frame and has sufficient glass. I spent a lot of my time clogging my systems up with 36+ MP shots that only were scaled down for release. It's much better now with 24MP as a base format, and I can always rent or use a larger format camera if I need one. Had a digital Hasselblad as well, did maybe 2 shoots with it, sold that again, very quickly confirming my non-need for high MPs in my commercial photography arena today.
So I think for everyone here there's a natural place their photography and their cameras exist at, for this particular moment. For some it's a Sinar P2. For others it's an iPhone or maybe an L16.
I do remember handling the heritage cameras for the first time - a Nikon F, and a Leica M3. Wow. In those days it was David Bailey for the Nikon and Cartier-Bresson and the Magnum guys for the Leicas. And yes, I love the look and feel of the M2 especially, then the original SL, and their mechanisms - like a Rolex. Sure did give me a boost. Made me want to live up to the heritage that I could just feel in my hands.
Decades later, I went back to Leica, starting with a Digilux 2, then a 109, and the got serious with an M9-P for a book project. Hmm... not quite the same as the M2 oer M4 with a 35 Summicron, but quite serviceable. I made it work, and work well it did, for that job. Sold it shortly after.
I also got a Leica 114, the superzoom camera - which my other half, when spying it arrive and taking it out of its box, said "mine" - she still has it, and has shot three photo books with it exclusively to date.
So now, today, what Leicas do I still have? An R3 only. I have Leica lenses, yes. And my other half still has and uses her 114. But the others? Been and gone. That's twice around the block now. These modern cameras don't last long enough to keep a hold of them unless they're being used every day. Sensors today change a hundred times as quickly as film stock used to. Many Leica Series 1's still work, and you can still put film through them, today. And the shots look better, IMO, than those coming out of a lot of the digital cameras of even ten years' vintage.
So yes, there are two schools to this equipment deal, in my view. 1) get what you can afford, use it to death, move up if you absolutely have to. In the beginning, you don't need much and have a lot to learn. My old mentors said "full frame camera, 50mm lens, that's it". (or 80mm on a Rolleiflex, etc) and use that until you're decent at it. 2) start as you intend to go on - get the best there is, beg, borrow, steal, and then use that to elevate your art and craft quicker than the other way.
Both ways are valid. I guess it all depends on how you want to elevate your art and craft, in what manner and how quickly.
As a pro, we were taught to buy gear that held together, that, on the street you could use a street-sweeper lens as a bat for self-defense if you had to. It had to be SOLID! Yes, correct. I put an average of 40 rolls of 135-36 a day through each of my cameras, around 5-6 days a week, year-round. Also I have been in situations where my 300mm f/4 (yes, the old tank of a lens) was really standing by in case I felt the need to hit and run - never had to, but you know what they say about it being better to have and not need... :-)
Nowadays, I shoot just as many exposures a day when I'm working, just not working as many days as I used to. Digitally though, I still go into the thousands of exposures on a paid gig (instead of the hundreds in film), mainly because I still charge what people think is a lot for my work and I feel the need to give the clients variation - i.e. the need to give them their money's worth. And film was expensive. Digital, less so. That's because of the nature of what I do - which is still advertising and commercial work, although I get some sports commissions as well these days. Pray-and-spray, aka a creative choice, is expected these days, for their money. So for me, for now, that's D600s. Because ALL of the modern digital bodies will last for as long as I need, for now.
I still have an M2, an F3HP, a 500C and my first Speed Graphic 4x5 and 6x7 - and still use them, because they're still valid today. Everything else has gone, sold, exchanged for movie gear, then digital gear, back and forth as needed.
At one stage I had enough of the GAS and sold all my digital Nikon gear. All of it.
And then, maybe six months later, I really missed it, so went back to a D600 I got for very cheap, mostly to power all those Nikon and Nikon-modded Leica lenses I still have sitting around in cases, that I will never sell (I use them for digital cinematography, which is a whole other story, and not for today:-)
Will I go back to a D800E/D850/whatever the latest and greatest is? Sure, if work demands it.
Otherwise the D600 is plenty enough for me, the results make me happy and my bank balance thanks me because now I can take those dollars and go on trips to get great shots I'd not otherwise have been able to do.
Will I eventually sell my R3, F3HP, medium format and sheet film cameras? Not too sure about that. Sell enough gear, fine, then move on. Sell too much gear, then all that will happen is that I'd have to get replacements eventually, when the need for them comes up again. And then, well, they'd just be replacements, not the real deal, for me. I take my photography, and my cameras, personally.
After so much GAS, at least I've learned that much.
Happy Holidays and thanks for reading!
Yes, now that I recall, we even had a couple of gold-plated Arca cameras, back in the day, with lenses. Gift of appreciation to the boss. They looked great, sitting in then steel-reinforced cabinets in the studio, because they stayed there -- and never left the building :-)
Moving on?
Yes, sure. Moving on. Enough GASsing already!
Happy Holidays!
Just a few rambling thoughts from someone who's been around the block several times since the stone age...
As a long-time pro who moved away into film and TV decades ago, but who still keeps shooting stills and loves every moment of it, I can tell you that my experience of "the equipment race" has been.
It originated from the racers themselves: not the photographers, but the camera manufacturers.
At one stage I was shooting Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Leica, Olympus, Arca, Rollei, Hasselblad and Sinar gear. And those kind folk were either giving me deep discounts, long-term camera loans, or just plain giving me the gear, mainly so my clients could see me using it. In other words, I was their mobile showcase on "what's hot and what's not", the original form of sponsorship, like sports clothing and power drinks these days. I think it's still being done, but back in the day they weren't so exclusive.
As a pro in the advertising and commercial business, optics and perception are everything. After all, that's what we get paid to do, that's the credo that's being sold here by the commercial and advertising trades. So the best photogs "know" they haveto have the latest and greatest, and kinda sorta lean on the reputations of those other folk using the latest and best to empower their own talent and skills, aka marketability and day rates.
I can remember we had, in our studio, the Swiss Broncolor flash system - several sets of the complete system. The boss would order (or get given) two of every kind of every light or accessory they made. And it would be out and displayed (and I'd have to clean and test them all) every day, maybe 40 units or so. All the newest and finest ones front and center, in pride of place - and the two of three lights we'd actually use, that would get, you know, kinda banged up from being used all day, every day? They'd be hiding out in the back of the line-up. "Advertising" said the first assistant to me. "That's advertising - for us - we are the best studio using the best equipment - always".
Which is like Leica, I'd say. Their approach has always been "the best for the most". A lot like Rolex's approach, their one-block-of-metal-carved concept worked a hundred years ago, when cameras were hand-made high-precision mechanisms like the watches of the time, and the best of the best for the highest of prices were, like a custom suit, a sign of prestige and made their users feel better using them. They would last for decades, ticking to the highest precision possible, and absolutely dependable.
Then there's the look and feel of the camera itself - which says something about the owner, but more about the user - how does this thing make you look and feel, when holding it in the hand, when putting it up to the eye?
In a job like photography, if it is all about the hand and the eye (which it still is, in the end), then the camera should be an extension of that. And manufacturers who keep that in mind will, IMO, win out in the end over those who are more manufacturing-minded and less end-user-minded, because their business, the business of interfacing a human being with a machine is, at base, that of cybernetics, the human and the camera. So yes, a pro might feel more empowered by a D850 or 5Ds more than, say, using an iPhone or a Light16. That pro might feel a whole lot more comfortable charging their $500-15,000 a day rate using one of those, or a larger format camera, or anything that at least looks the part, anyway. Until they've become David Baileys, or Helmut Newtons or Ansel Adams or Carier-Bressons, when they can use a Kodak Instamatic and nobody will say boo.
So the trend will likely continue. Don't forget the manufacturers are into selling their cameras, not supporting your great photography. Popular photography is based on the fact that there are more people around with less money to spend. Apple knows and does that best, for now. (Or Holga, I guess). Elite folk? Well there's the M series, still, Hasselblads, higher end Fujis, etc, all the "real camera" manufacturers and suppliers, all vying for our consumer dollars.
But the race for the latest model? Not so sure about that. I used a pair of D800Es when I got back into photography seriously, and soon scaled back to D600s when I realized that the marketplace, for me, didn't really need more than a 24MP RAW picture if one knows how to frame and has sufficient glass. I spent a lot of my time clogging my systems up with 36+ MP shots that only were scaled down for release. It's much better now with 24MP as a base format, and I can always rent or use a larger format camera if I need one. Had a digital Hasselblad as well, did maybe 2 shoots with it, sold that again, very quickly confirming my non-need for high MPs in my commercial photography arena today.
So I think for everyone here there's a natural place their photography and their cameras exist at, for this particular moment. For some it's a Sinar P2. For others it's an iPhone or maybe an L16.
I do remember handling the heritage cameras for the first time - a Nikon F, and a Leica M3. Wow. In those days it was David Bailey for the Nikon and Cartier-Bresson and the Magnum guys for the Leicas. And yes, I love the look and feel of the M2 especially, then the original SL, and their mechanisms - like a Rolex. Sure did give me a boost. Made me want to live up to the heritage that I could just feel in my hands.
Decades later, I went back to Leica, starting with a Digilux 2, then a 109, and the got serious with an M9-P for a book project. Hmm... not quite the same as the M2 oer M4 with a 35 Summicron, but quite serviceable. I made it work, and work well it did, for that job. Sold it shortly after.
I also got a Leica 114, the superzoom camera - which my other half, when spying it arrive and taking it out of its box, said "mine" - she still has it, and has shot three photo books with it exclusively to date.
So now, today, what Leicas do I still have? An R3 only. I have Leica lenses, yes. And my other half still has and uses her 114. But the others? Been and gone. That's twice around the block now. These modern cameras don't last long enough to keep a hold of them unless they're being used every day. Sensors today change a hundred times as quickly as film stock used to. Many Leica Series 1's still work, and you can still put film through them, today. And the shots look better, IMO, than those coming out of a lot of the digital cameras of even ten years' vintage.
So yes, there are two schools to this equipment deal, in my view. 1) get what you can afford, use it to death, move up if you absolutely have to. In the beginning, you don't need much and have a lot to learn. My old mentors said "full frame camera, 50mm lens, that's it". (or 80mm on a Rolleiflex, etc) and use that until you're decent at it. 2) start as you intend to go on - get the best there is, beg, borrow, steal, and then use that to elevate your art and craft quicker than the other way.
Both ways are valid. I guess it all depends on how you want to elevate your art and craft, in what manner and how quickly.
As a pro, we were taught to buy gear that held together, that, on the street you could use a street-sweeper lens as a bat for self-defense if you had to. It had to be SOLID! Yes, correct. I put an average of 40 rolls of 135-36 a day through each of my cameras, around 5-6 days a week, year-round. Also I have been in situations where my 300mm f/4 (yes, the old tank of a lens) was really standing by in case I felt the need to hit and run - never had to, but you know what they say about it being better to have and not need... :-)
Nowadays, I shoot just as many exposures a day when I'm working, just not working as many days as I used to. Digitally though, I still go into the thousands of exposures on a paid gig (instead of the hundreds in film), mainly because I still charge what people think is a lot for my work and I feel the need to give the clients variation - i.e. the need to give them their money's worth. And film was expensive. Digital, less so. That's because of the nature of what I do - which is still advertising and commercial work, although I get some sports commissions as well these days. Pray-and-spray, aka a creative choice, is expected these days, for their money. So for me, for now, that's D600s. Because ALL of the modern digital bodies will last for as long as I need, for now.
I still have an M2, an F3HP, a 500C and my first Speed Graphic 4x5 and 6x7 - and still use them, because they're still valid today. Everything else has gone, sold, exchanged for movie gear, then digital gear, back and forth as needed.
At one stage I had enough of the GAS and sold all my digital Nikon gear. All of it.
And then, maybe six months later, I really missed it, so went back to a D600 I got for very cheap, mostly to power all those Nikon and Nikon-modded Leica lenses I still have sitting around in cases, that I will never sell (I use them for digital cinematography, which is a whole other story, and not for today:-)
Will I go back to a D800E/D850/whatever the latest and greatest is? Sure, if work demands it.
Otherwise the D600 is plenty enough for me, the results make me happy and my bank balance thanks me because now I can take those dollars and go on trips to get great shots I'd not otherwise have been able to do.
Will I eventually sell my R3, F3HP, medium format and sheet film cameras? Not too sure about that. Sell enough gear, fine, then move on. Sell too much gear, then all that will happen is that I'd have to get replacements eventually, when the need for them comes up again. And then, well, they'd just be replacements, not the real deal, for me. I take my photography, and my cameras, personally.
After so much GAS, at least I've learned that much.
Happy Holidays and thanks for reading!
Yes, now that I recall, we even had a couple of gold-plated Arca cameras, back in the day, with lenses. Gift of appreciation to the boss. They looked great, sitting in then steel-reinforced cabinets in the studio, because they stayed there -- and never left the building :-)
Moving on?
Yes, sure. Moving on. Enough GASsing already!
Happy Holidays!
Dec 23, 2018 10:22:18 #
I will probably get beat up here. I wanted a go bag. The bag stays in the car just in case. Instead of buying a camera bag I bought a lunch bag. Plenty of pockets. Same sort of material. A fraction of the cost.
Dec 23, 2018 10:27:02 #
tnturk wrote:
I will probably get beat up here. I wanted a go bag. The bag stays in the car just in case. Instead of buying a camera bag I bought a lunch bag. Plenty of pockets. Same sort of material. A fraction of the cost.
I bought a lunch box for my camera. I added padding inside. I don't do it to save money but to make it looks like food is in it and not cameras.
Dec 23, 2018 10:30:11 #
Nice! All my bags are non-camera bags, if I'm journeying out into the world. Back in the day, we used metal Halliburton cases for everything - and had a tailor make up old green canvas slip-covers to them that we'd purposely keep grunged-up - about the only things in the entire place that were maintained in that condition.
Dec 23, 2018 10:33:00 #
Dec 23, 2018 10:39:22 #
The lure as in most things is bragging rights, in my opinion. Whether it be jewelry, cars or camera equipment, I often hear the refrain that "I knew I spent too much, but you only go around once!"
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.