 Mark Feldstein |
Equipment Expenses What I'm really REALLY curious about is (1) about how much money the average digital photographing person has spent per year, say over the past five or six years, on digital equipment: cameras, lenses, scanners, printers, cards, software, and (2) whether you've had to replace or substitute any digital equipment they've bought over the past five years and why.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
This ought to be a hoot - if you get any responses.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Hey buddy !!! (hope we're still pals after this one So, you were saying Kerry....how much was that?? Ballpark. Just ballpark would be fine.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
My total expenses for digital camera equipment in the last 5 years has been around $110.00, after rebate and including the upgrade fee. Came with a real nice phone attached too. LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter Hundley |
Hmmm.... I doubt I'm typical, but I'll give it a try. All purchases for equipment? I bought a Nikon D70 about 2 years ago, the kit cost me around $1,400, including memory card and bag. My only extra lenses are 20+ years old, from my film FM2, and my old flash works fine, too. I upgraded to Elements 4.0 a couple months ago, after using Elements 2.0 for several years. That's another $80.00 or so, unless I get the rebate sent in. I also have a new Nikon L2 "point n shoot", which fits in my briefcase, that was $200. Oh yeah, I bought a polarizer filter for the D70, that was pretty expensive. But, not counting printing costs, I'm under $2k. But barely. I'm getting ready to put some of my old stuff on eBay, can I subtract that??
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
5 years? Well, I haven't even been shooting a year yet, but here's a go.. - Nikon D70s Kit (Lens, 512mb card, kit lens, warranty) $1399 -Already had my lenses left over from my dark age days of print film, so they don't count. New lenses don't count either, because I don't have any that are digital only. Lenses in all -$1500. Do filters count? ;>) - 3 more 512mb cards @ appx $50 each - Photoshop CS2 - $700 - Canon i6600 printer - $200 - Ink and paper - $300 (so far, only had the printer a few months) and use Hahnemulle, Ilford (there's a name you analog guys'll love!) and other expensive papers. That's it! Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
you said average, so I might not count. I made the switch to digital from film. start up to make the switch? about $60k. upgrades and such since the switch. around $10k, maybe a little more.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
I'm trying to remember what everything cost. 10D - $1500 new Ability to shoot as much as I want without considering the price of film, developing, or what ISO was in the camera - priceless (ok, that was cheesy!!) I won't count lenses, because I use some from my film days, and would have bought the same lenses had I stayed with film. I also don't count filters, since I would have also bought those for film. I have trouble counting the hard drive or Photoshop, because I used those in my film days (I had most of my keeper slides scanned). I am not the type to upgrade with every new feature. I will upgrade my 10D someday, but only when I feel the price for features makes it worthwhile. To get an idea, I shot on my Canon 620 without upgrading for what, 7 years? So far, I have not had to replace anything digital (cards, camera, reader...) (knock on wood). I had to replace a lens, but that was an issue with a rapid change of velocity (dropped it). I never bought a printer: I still have my prints done at the lab. The scanner is for film, so I don't see how that counts toward digital cost (one project I am working on is scanning and touching up hundreds of old family photos, dating back to the 1800s). So my cost for going digital is just under $2000 in the last five years, not counting everything that I would have purchased had I stayed with film. I have shot over 10,000 photos with the 10D. Let'say that on average, it costs $.28 per photo on 35mm film (cost of film and development, not prints since prints would have to be made either way). I am ahead by around $800.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
This is getting pretty interesting. Jerry, let me ask you: Do you feel the digital manufacturers are supporting you (in a technical / innovation sense) in the style that you want to become accustomed? And...at the same time, does anyone (aside from me) believe that . . . the digital industry makers are revising their equipment into obsolescence faster than George Foreman can wolf down a chilli dog. (And this isn't due simply to technological advances). Whaddya think?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
"Jerry, let me ask you: Do you feel the digital manufacturers are supporting you (in a technical / innovation sense) in the style that you want to become accustomed?" Hmmmm. Where the manufacturers are leaning, IMO, is toward the consumer. In other words, the people here at BP.com and other people who are moving from a P&S to an 'affordable' DSLR. I have said this a thousand times, but a few years ago, the top of the line camera body, IMO, for 35mm, was a Canon 1V. The basic body was $1,600 brand new. And only a few years ago, that was a very expensive camera and was 'out of reach' for consumers. Now, that same $1,600 gets a consumer into an entry level DSLR (30D, for example). This is significant because then these people have to go buy lenses and flash and all the accessories. It also feeds the computer industry for cards and storage and processors, etc. In short, this is where the DSLR manufacaturers focus. This is also why pros are done with the megapixel race, for the most part, but it continues. Because consumers don't really understand that 8.2 is probably the cap for most pros. That's all we need. Of course, there are exceptions, but for most of us, considering business expenses of storage and such, that's a nice sweet spot. Canon came out with the 5D. This answered my question about full frame, and high ISO performance. It solved most of my needs. However, I hang on to my 1D for speed and better dynamic range, when I need it. So, to your question...I don't want to keep buying equipment. I argue that digital has cost me more than shooting film. I don't miss those $2,000/month lab bills. But, I also am spending alot to keep up. And, I don't keep up for technologies sake. I keep up because it keeps getting better. It's a trap. If you don't upgrade, you are stuck with whatever you have, where the other things solves a problem, but then introduces a new one...maybe storage, slower downloading, etc. What I would prefer, is that they build cameras like they build computers, so you can upgrade things in the body - interchange parts, update the sensor, etc - so I don't have to buy new crap all the time, I can just upgrade if I want to. But, planned obsolescence is part of the master plan...I am sure of it. It's also the nature of technology. That's just how technology works. You can continue to drive your old car, but if you want all the current safety features of the new automobiles, you have to pony up. I know many of us are asking the same questions of the manufacturers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
Jerry's response made me think of something that has been said over and over again, but still holds true. It's not the equipment, it's the photographer! You can buy that good DSLR that has the shutter speed range you need, good exposure range, etc., and be done!! I guarantee I could give Mark a Nikon n65 - the MOST basic film SLR and and he could go out and get stunning captures that equal those someone else took with a top of the line Nikon D2Xs dSLR! The upgrades you mentioned to cameras are all wants, not necessities. I could upgrade to another camera, but I have all I need right now. I WANT the Nikon D2Xs, but I don't NEED it to capture the things I want to capture in the way that I wish to capture them. The only time you HAVE to upgrade is when your camera dies. Period. The same holds true for all other digital equipment. It's really just a question of stepping outside that lane and letting the bigger better more features rat race pass you by. You'll be plodding along slow enough to get some great shots.... :>)
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
I always love it when the discussion becomes how camera companies keep putting out the next "best" camera to keep consumers purchasing. If I am not mistaken, we live in a capitalist society. That means that the market is driven by the consumer. Canon, Nikon, Minolta/Sony, etc... keep putting out new cameras because WE KEEP BUYING THEM!! Competition between companies keeps technology moving forward, improving upon what has already been done. We don't have to buy every fancy new piece of technology. This is not a "digital" phenomenon. Since 2000, when the EOS D30 was released, Canon has released 14 different DSLR models to date. Between 1989 (when the EOS-1, the first "professional" EOS camera, was released) and 1995, another 6 year period, 16 EOS film cameras were released. To date, there have been 4 versions of the (film) EOS-1 released, and 10 versions of the (film) Rebel. Some people seem to be so caught up in trying to point out their issues with digital, that they forget to look at the past. We should shoot whatever makes us happy. If 35mm film is your thing, great! If you are shooting large or medium format, keep it up! If you want to shoot digital, by all means do it! Why digital technology continues to be demonized is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
10K to make the switch the first month, then another 10K the next month for better lenses(l-series). Then better bodies so that the first purchase became backup (another 10K). About $500 a month for odds and ends. So far $34,790 (I know exactly because of tax time) and still growing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I always love it when the discussion becomes how camera companies keep putting out the next "best" camera to keep consumers purchasing. If I am not mistaken, we live in a capitalist society. That means that the market is driven by the consumer. Canon, Nikon, Minolta/Sony, etc... keep putting out new cameras because WE KEEP BUYING THEM!! Competition between companies keeps technology moving forward, improving upon what has already been done. We don't have to buy every fancy new piece of technology. A PRO knows the difference, thats why we keep trading in. Digital still has its bugs, but they are getting very close to making me happy.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I wasn't totally clear. I'm not bashing digital. One thing digital has done for me is improve my images. Since I now totally control the look and feel of my images, my images have improved 1,000x. I got tired of beating up my lab, and working with them to 'get' my vision. Now, I don't have to beat anyone up, I just do it. That is a real huge benefit of digital. Another huge benefit of digital is that it has raised the bar across the board for all photographers for the reason I just stated. Some pros think it has lowered the bar (due to all the new entrants into the market - and there is some credence to that), but for the most part, it hasn't. Peer to peer, the competition has never been so fierce as it is today. This, overall, is good. The reason for my upgrades in bodies has been imporvement in technology. The 5D for instance, can shoot at ISO 3200, with virtually no noise. That, for me, being that weddings is my main thing, is very significant. It is what I have been whining about. Combine the noisless images along with a full frame at a $3k price, and I'm all over it. Canon gave me almost exactly what I wanted. But, I had to buy new bodies. When I compare my 1DMII ISO 1600 images with my 5D ISO 1600 images, there is no contest. Since I prefer very little use of flash, this is important to me. But, at 12.8 MP, it created other expenses; more CF cards, More DVD's for back-up, more HD space, and slower download speeds, and probably a few other things I am forgetting. It is also interesting that the lenses I used to use on my 20D's, I no longer use now. So, while I don't think it resulted in any expense because I am by nature a lens slut, I found it interesting in my focla length choices. Had I not been a lens slut, I might have had to purchase additional lenses to compensate for a new non-crop sensor. I have some old camera bodies and lenses that date way back. One that I still use is a 1950's model Mamyia Sekor that my Uncle bought in Vietnam. It is a very nice SLR. Whenever I look at that, I think that those days are over. The cameras I am using now will not be something I can hand to my son for him to use. That would be like handing him a 1 GB HD computer or something. Kind of sad to me, but you know, progress and all that. One thing that is for sure, I sure do miss the smell of opening a fresh film cannister.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
Jerry, I guess my response was a little defensive, and I didn't mean it to be, or to direct anything toward you. I am on a number of photo forums, and none of them have the film vs digital debates that crop up here, so I tend to go a little over the top ;-) My point was simply that there were actually more film models released in a 6 year period, so we aren't ahead of the curve on that point with digital. I also understand that as technology gets better, sometimes we need to upgrade to get the functionality we are looking for. Trust me, I was less than pleased when Canon released the 20D a year after I had bought the 10D! ;-) There are always going to be people who chase the next, best thing. Trade in the D60 for the 10D, then went to the 1D mkII, only to jump on the 1Ds mkII. Hey, if they are making the kind of money, or have enough left in the trust fund, that allows them to chase technology, more power to them. Really, I am more jealous than anything! ;-) Of course I would like to own a 1Ds mkII, but I don't make enough off of my photography to justify the expense, yet. For you, the 5D had features that made it an important tool for your line of work. That makes it a business decision, not a "new toy" purchase. Remember when CD players first came out? Or DVD players? A couple thousand dollars to own one. Now, you can get entry consumer players for less than $50. The DSLR race will get there. We are just on the front line of the race right now, that's all. As avid hobbiests, occasional income amatuers, or full time professionals, we put ourselves out there on the cutting edge. In 10 years, there will be beginning photographers who will be saying to each other, remember when a DSLR cost thousands of dollars, and they only had 6 to 10 megapixels? I went from an AE-1 to an EOS 620. At the time, the EOS 1 was well out of my price range. I kept my eye on the Elans, but it seemed like a new one was coming out every year, so I patiently waited to see how much technology they would sell for how little money. All the while, I got very comfortable with the 620. I shot some amazing pictures with it. I only recently sold it, and a little part of my heart with it! The 10D will die one of these days. There are only so many shutter releases in it's life. I may shoot it until it dies, or Canon might release a model that finally pushes me over the edge to buy it. Or I might win the lottery (Is this Canon? Yes, could you send me one of EVERYTHING!!) Wow, that was a long winded response, sorry!! ;-) I guess all I am saying is to each there own. Go with what works for you, and don't worry about everyone else!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
In the last five years,...all I've spent "digitally" was the $900 I spent back in 2003 for my film scanner. In those same years though, I've plunked down much more than that on lenses and accessories which have helped me to improve and expand my reach and abilities. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
- Darren J. Gilcher Contact Darren J. Gilcher Darren J. Gilcher's Gallery |
Canon 20D + 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS + 1GB card= about $1800 Canon 50mm f1.4= $300 Canon 100mmf/2.8 macro= $570 Polarizer= $30 Reading all the threads and getting lots of help here on BP for the last year= Priceless
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
$800 for digital Rebel(300D). Had it replaced after a year because the retailer could not clean the sensor :) They also gave me a new 4 yr warranty. I wonder what they will replace it with in 3 more years? :) $200 on Shing Ray GND filters Approx another $200 on polarizers,etc. $50 on remotes, $150 on mem cards and readers. Oh can't forget the 580ex flash @ about $400, don't really want to remember, or total everthing up. Oh I almost forgot about $700 on glass. (I think I'm gonna be sick)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
Mark, Where is your list?, I need to feel better.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Heh-Heh, What about all the divorces due to the spouse spending wayyyy too much on this digital addiction? Divorce lawyers aren't cheap..Do we count their bill? LOL Mark, I'll try to add it all up and get back with a more serious answer. ;( Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Howdy Mike: I don't know if it'll make you feel much better, but my entry into the digital world is kinda like Bob C's: It consists of purchasing a lovely, brand-spanking new, Epson Perfection V700 scanner for about $500 from B&H about a few weeks ago. It came with PS3 ? and SilverFast software and works swell. But as far as cameras, I'm still using my Nikon F-2s, Leica M6's, Hassies, and Linhof Teknikardan, along with some equally old meters, tripods and studio strobes. Pete, I think divorce lawyers are a reasonable and necessary expense when one endures ANY photographic addiction, be it film or digital. If it's tax deductible, count them into the tab too. LOL !!! (Probably more reasonable than some of us might suspect. In all honesty, I can't think of a single client, corporate or news media (since I shoot features) that would prefer I switch to digital. Maybe it's the old adage "I'd rather fight than switch". As far as what Slim said, while it's true we live in a capitalist society, manufactuers by and large tend to feed us what they want us to have, not necessarily what we need. The car industry being a significant case in point. And equally unfortunate is the fact that the manufacturers continue to spew out a lot of cheap plastic junk. The trend seems to be that they don't have to support their junk past a certain point because first, physically, it won't last beyond the warranty period, and second; in many instances it'll be outdated before the end of a 12 month warranty. I think that's just plain wrong. Minolta really did a number recently by stopping support of certain digital cameras as did Canon, I guess. I think that kind of corporate conduct is just irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
Mark, Just what you have invested in Film equipment makes me feel better.lol I have owned 2 film cameras. A Canon AE-1 and a Minolta 7xi. Even with glass and accessories it does not equal your investment with either Nikon,Leica, etc.., But I don't rely on my equipment to put food on the table.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Well Mike, that's over the past 32 years. Although I just scored another F2 body that's in gr8 shape and two DP3 viewfinders. Anybody got any eye-cups that'll fit they're looking to get rid of??? M.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stacy L. Robertson |
Well here's my list of goodies. Made the switch to digital last year, Bought a Minolta Dimage A200 kit including two batt. packs, charger, and 512mb. card for $575.00. Studio lighting set-up including backdrops, and stand was $400.00. Then recieved my Fuji Finepix S9000 kit for $600.00. Flashes, extra cards and other goodies were $150.00. Photo Explosion editing software was $30.00. HP professional printer, ink, and paper....oh around $400.00 so far. You guys do the math cause I suck at it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Well, I'm not all that hot at math either Stacy. But lemme ask you: do you think you could produce the quality of images that you've got in your gallery without working digitally? And if not, how much time, on average, do you spend modifying or changing your stuff?? Mark
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
or maybe the question is-how many have lost out digitally because they didn't understand the concept?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stacy L. Robertson |
Well Mark, I did get some terrific shots with my film cameras. I had a Canon AE-1 and a Minolta X370 and I tell ya they took beautiful pictures. I wish I had a good scanner so I could post some on my gallery but that is another story. I guess I like digital cause I can see the shot right away and I love being able to adjust contrast, color, B&W, and ISO right on the camera. I also love the camera's I picked for they both have fixed zoom lenses and I HATE dragging around those heavy glasses just get my shot. I really didn't understand the concept of digital until I bought one. Then I just taught myself. I also do my own printing so that saves me from using a lab. I'm a simple photographer and I DO NOT like to sit at my computer and edit all night long. I try very hard to get the shot using the cameras abilities and mine. I still love film and still have a 35mm slr with 2 lenses, but I have fallen in love with my digital. Take care and I love to read your posts..you seem like a very interesting person.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||