Bassat wrote in post #18242645
While addressing grammar issues, my pet peeve is 'that' instead of 'who'.
I saw a photographer that was using a big white lens. WRONG!!! The photographer is (usually) a person. People are 'who'.
I saw a photographer who was using a big white lens. AHHH!!! I feel better already.
Actually, using "that" instead of "who" is entirely possible in defining relative clauses such as these. Were they non-defining relative clauses this would not be possible and only who is correct. E.g. The photographer, who was using a big white lens, happened to be a keen linguist. There the additional information which (or that) can be omitted, or is not essential to the sentence, and is placed between commas. 'Who' or 'which' are the only two relative pronouns that (or which) can be replaced by that in defining relative clauses, other relative pronouns do not change. The use of 'that' is a stylistic choice and often a feature of spoken English, but is not incorrect in the written language, though 'who' or 'which' may be considered more formal - and this will perhaps be why one is far more pleasing to your tastes but the other is not on this occasion incorrect. (A surprising amount of so-called rules of English grammar are based on the personal preferences of early self-styled grammarians ... it's actually depressing to think of the number of people upon whom physical punishments were inflicted for ending sentences in prepositions, which is another example of a "rule" that is no such thing. My dad had his knuckles rapped for that, and I'd be surprised if my mother escaped.)
Returning to the original subject: numerous calculations appear to show that Photography is, relatively speaking, as expensive as it has ever been and perhaps even cheaper as we are now spared running costs such as processing and printing - though the latter remains possible and to be encouraged. What has changed for the casual photographer is that previously, owning a camera of some description was the sole means of taking photographs whereas nowadays most people consider a smartphone to be an essential item, meaning we already carry cameras with us. As these cameras become more capable and our sharing habits become more instantaneous and geared towards the means provided by said smartphones, the idea of investing in an additional, expensive and in many ways less convenient piece of photographic equipment becomes a less attractive proposition for many. The poster above me has already alluded to this.
CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18243605
Isn't the Euro worth about half what it was worth 10 years ago?
There's also the disparity within the Eurozone to consider. I just did a quick check on amazon.es and amazon.de and the same lens carries the same price on both sites to within about one euro. The lens in question cost around €2000 and it only takes a passing knowledge of European affairs to understand that such a price is not the same for person collecting their salary in Germany as it is for one cashing cheques in Spain or Greece.
MalVeauX wrote in post #18486921
Proper hobby photography? What does that even mean?
So again, you really have to figure out what "proper" means.
I come ("I's" or 'I is' in dialect form) from the West Country where "proper" means 'great' or 'excellent'; with "that's proper job that is" being high praise indeed. This probably isn't what you meant though.