Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 04 Jan 2017 (Wednesday) 09:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?

 
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,696 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 287
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
Post edited over 1 year ago by Nathan.
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:09 as a reply to  @ post 18232940 |  #16

Make that $13,625 when adjusted for inflation. But if we had to pay for all those exposures, we wouldn't be taking 10,000 photos. Let's say we take 1 photo per day of the year, based on 1964 prices adjusted to inflation, that'd be almost $500.

But realistically, film remained relatively cheap - about $4-8 a 35mm roll depending on brand and type. What was costly was developing the film. Back in the day, I suppose a "proper" hobby photographer would be developing his own film as opposed to taking it to a 1-Hour Photo. There's cost of chemicals and maintaining a dark room.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,215 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 1589
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:12 |  #17

further, i was a hobbiest photographer for decades with a cheap minolta, a 50mm and a 135. I eventually bought a wide zoom, but was able to do some pretty cool stuff with basically nothing.

now I actually work in photography and have zero reason/incentive to buy top of the line lenses.

zero.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,551 posts
Likes: 2539
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Bassat.
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:13 |  #18

I am a hobby shooter. I could do most of what I do with a camera with a Canon 500D. I can afford better gear, so I buy it. Every shooter, professional, hobbyist, and soccer-mom, has to determine their own budget. Shoot what you can afford. I drive cars I can afford, live in a house I can afford, and buy photo gear I can afford. Not seeing a problem with Canon's pricing. If I want more, I know I must spend more. I am not willing to do so.

Canon does NOT determine prices. The market does. Obviously, there are enough gear-heads out there to justify Canon's current pricing scheme. If the 5D3 didn't sell to Canon's liking, they'd have lowered the price. Ditto the 24-70 II & 70-200 II. No company stays in business by NOT selling anything 'cuzof too high prices. Maintaining high prices also gives the product an air of superiority, which can drive sales. Those of us who shoot used/refurbished gear love the introduction of new expensive stuff. That drives down prices for the older models, which makes me do my R&S Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy dance.

EDIT:
In 1974, I bought my first SLR setup. The brain is foggy, but I know I got entry level stuff for about 2 months salary. Different gear and different times, but I would not be relegated to entry level gear if I spent 2 months salary today. Back then I had to consider the cost of film/processing. Not today.

I shoot about 10k frames a year. Anybody care to add that up with respect to film costs?


Tom,
Film gear: Elan 7NE / Elan 7 / EOS T2
Yashica FX-D (x2) & FX-3 Super 2000 / DSB 28mm f/2.8 / 50mm ML f/2 / 135mm ML f/2.8 / Sigma Zoom-gamma II 21-35mm f/3.4.2 / Yashica ML 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 / Tokina 70-210mm ML f/4.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,878 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2705
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:23 |  #19

.

Bassat wrote in post #18232978 (external link)
Canon does NOT determine prices. The market does. Obviously, there are enough gear-heads out there to justify Canon's current pricing scheme. If the 5D3 didn't sell to Canon's liking, they'd have lowered the price.

Absolutely right. So, it doesn't make sense for the OP to be upset with Canon. Rather, he should be upset with the world, because it contains so many people who are willing to pay the higher lens prices.

Bassat wrote in post #18232978 (external link)
That drives down prices for the older models, which makes me do my R&S Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy dance.

I would love to see a video of this!!!

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,206 posts
Likes: 146
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:29 |  #20

K Soze wrote in post #18232907 (external link)
You are also forgetting to ask yourself are the cameras are better now then they were in "the old days" As a collector and user of vintage cameras such as the RollieFlex 2.8c Hasselblad C/M501, Lica M3, Mamiya RZ 67 and a Crown Graphic, the answer is YES!...

Not “yes” for me; like my Leica M2 over any of today’s offerings. But that’s just me.

Anyway, as for the OP, if I recall correctly, during the brief phase when DSLRs began to proliferate the market (thanks to the Canon Rebel and like), some folks on this site complained about the “FB/Insta” crowd sashaying around like pros with their new big cameras only to have their fancy gear perpetually fixed to auto mode and the kit lens.

Times have a changed apparently…

But really, entry level DSLRs these days are highly capable cameras and cheaper than their lower-spec counterparts a decade back, so I reckon it’s what you’re looking at specifically.


Summer 2017 (external link)
Eggleston's photography is superb. Deal with it!
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,551 posts
Likes: 2539
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Bourbon, Indiana - USA
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:29 |  #21

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18232989 (external link)
.

Absolutely right. So, it doesn't make sense for the OP to be upset with Canon. Rather, he should be upset with the world, because it contains so many people who are willing to pay the higher lens prices.

I would love to see a video of this!!!

.

I am sure you would! You-tube is really needing an uncoordinated, overweight, 60 year old man with no rhythm dancing in his underwear. R&S did it without pants. I'll spare you that.


Tom,
Film gear: Elan 7NE / Elan 7 / EOS T2
Yashica FX-D (x2) & FX-3 Super 2000 / DSB 28mm f/2.8 / 50mm ML f/2 / 135mm ML f/2.8 / Sigma Zoom-gamma II 21-35mm f/3.4.2 / Yashica ML 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 / Tokina 70-210mm ML f/4.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,878 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2705
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:33 |  #22

Bassat wrote in post #18232999 (external link)
I am sure you would! You-tube is really needing an uncoordinated, overweight, 60 year old man with no rhythm dancing in his underwear. R&S did it without pants. I'll spare you that.

This, I think, is the funniest post I have read in quite some time!

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,551 posts
Likes: 2539
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Bourbon, Indiana - USA
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:34 |  #23

I have received a PM asking me for more detail on the R&S HHJJ dance. (R&S = Ren & Stimpy Show) This is from a cartoon I absolutely loved about 20 years ago. It is almost as good as the Rocket J Squirrel & Bullwinkle J Moose stuff from my childhood.

Enjoy, please:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=eVM1nUmDHHc (external link)


Tom,
Film gear: Elan 7NE / Elan 7 / EOS T2
Yashica FX-D (x2) & FX-3 Super 2000 / DSB 28mm f/2.8 / 50mm ML f/2 / 135mm ML f/2.8 / Sigma Zoom-gamma II 21-35mm f/3.4.2 / Yashica ML 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 / Tokina 70-210mm ML f/4.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,412 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 936
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Jan 04, 2017 12:47 |  #24

Define 'unrealistically high'.

It's more like with the onslaught of cheap junk from we know where, and with the Culture of the Free very many people have now UNREALISTIC expectations in terms of pricing. Junk manufacturers aren't helping when they rip off somebody else's designs, build similar –yet inferior– items with subpar materials and then claim that they do 'everything the "expensive" ones do for a fraction of the cost'.

As it's been pointed out: research, development, and manufacture cost money, which is reflected in the price. I say enough with the myth of the 'brand tax'.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpiper7
Goldmember
Avatar
1,161 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 233
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Richmond Va.
     
Jan 04, 2017 13:04 as a reply to  @ post 18232940 |  #25

I used to use Custom Quality Studio in Chicago for "enlargments." in the 70s and 80s. thanks for the trip down memory lane.


Bill

billpiperphotos.com (external link)
Gear: 60D - 400D - 15-85 EF-S, 55-250 EF-S,18-55mm EF-S, EF, 50mm 1.8 and more stuff .

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpiper7
Goldmember
Avatar
1,161 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 233
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Richmond Va.
     
Jan 04, 2017 13:08 |  #26

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18232974 (external link)
further, i was a hobbiest photographer for decades with a cheap minolta, a 50mm and a 135. I eventually bought a wide zoom, but was able to do some pretty cool stuff with basically nothing.

now I actually work in photography and have zero reason/incentive to buy top of the line lenses.

zero.

<chuckle> More memories. I started with a 50, 135 and then a 28. 40 years ago.


Bill

billpiperphotos.com (external link)
Gear: 60D - 400D - 15-85 EF-S, 55-250 EF-S,18-55mm EF-S, EF, 50mm 1.8 and more stuff .

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,056 posts
Likes: 181
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Jan 04, 2017 13:27 |  #27

Photography is my hobby, and photography is insanely affordable these days.

What is not affordable is gear collecting.

My T3 and a kit lens was only a few hundred dollars a few years ago, and that camera is still producing some fine photos. My current go-to kit is either a pair of 7D bodies, because they're so affordable for what they can do. I would like to upgrade those to 7DII bodies, and add a pair of 5Dsr bodies to the mix as well, along with a lot more very expensive glass to use for different projects... But lets be honest and admit that buying that new gear is expensive and not really needed.

I've added lenses, flashes, hard sided cases, more flashes, more bags, more gear, and lots of things that strictly speaking weren't needed for me to continue enjoying photography as a hobby. They merely allow me to spread my hobby over a far wider range of subjects and styles. I could very easily argue against my own spending and say that I'm spreading myself far too thin. I have a busy life with work and such, and some gear can sit on a shelf for weeks or months at a time without being used. (I really am not sure when the last time I pulled my 28mm lens out... But I still want that on hand for whenever I decide I do want to use it.) I could very easily have continued to enjoy a decade or more of digital photography adventuring and experimentation for $500 and just accepted the limitations of my gear and worked within those boundaries instead.

However I have a full time job, and photography is one of the few things I spend any amount on. So why not spend the money to get more tools to play with and make the hobby more enjoyable for myself?


And rather than spending a ton more on even newer gear like full frame digitals or upgraded 7DII bodies, I ended up taking a bit of a different route. When I want a look and feel that is different than what I can do with my 7D, then these days I reach even farther back in history and pull out a medium format 6x6 camera and load it up with black and white film. (Which while not insanely cheap is still not terribly expensive to develop and scan at home. A home darkroom for making real photographic prints also isn't that expensive to set up. It might be several thousand dollars to get everything you really want for a reasonable setup and renovations, but how many decades are you going to use most of it for? $10,000 spread over 10-20 years is a pretty cheap hobby if you compare it to going out for dinner and drinks with friends every Friday evening for the same period of time.)


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,265 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 218
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
Post edited over 1 year ago by kf095.
     
Jan 04, 2017 13:40 |  #28

How much was 5D in 2005? 3300 $. Now 6D is well bellow 2000$. In 2008 we paid for 500D with 18-55 IS kit lens above 1000$, now current same kind of kit is well bellow 1000$.
So, to me the statement in OP is inaccurate. Look at every new iPhone release, it is exactly what OP is blaming Canonikon for. In 2016 Apple wanted 1000$ for the new unlocked iPhone. Was it 399 in 2007?

Camera manufacturers are keep on making new cameras and slightly old ones are very affordable. Fuji came with 24MP sensor, touch screen, large sensor, huge ISO and nice kit lens for 700$ available now. To me it is very impressive comparing to what was available for hobby photography before.
You could get new Fuji instax camera for one dining bill and have fun with photography.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
329 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jan 04, 2017 14:15 |  #29

I'd say no. When I got into photography (admittedly, I'm a late bloomer...child of the digital age) after the obligatory P&S and started with a Nikon D50 and kit lens. At the time it cost $1200. Compared to today, when cameras are much better in every way and you can get a D3400 and an 18-55 and 70-300 for $600. I'd say it's much better now than it was 10-12 years ago. Sure, if you want fancy ED elements and f2.8 super-tele lenses it'll cost an arm and a leg, but I'd say all around the majority of photography is cheaper, plus with the 3rd party guys stepping up it's definitely easier to build a decent kit nowadays.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quickben
THREAD ­ STARTER
Fairy Gapped
Avatar
1,458 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Mar 2004
Location: Whitley Bay, UK
     
Jan 04, 2017 14:33 |  #30

I understand that I can always buy used. And that I don't always have to have the latest and greatest, in fact I never buy at launch because the prices always come down within 6-12 months. I'm not saying that you can't produce excellent photos with entry level kit, or old camera bodies. I'm not that small minded.

What I'm asking is that in the current economic climate, should Canon really be replacing lens models with new ones that are more-or-less the same as the old ones and ask for twice the money for them ?

My son doesn't know anyone his age (at home or at university) that is into photography other than what they do on their phones. I asked him why ? He said it's just too expensive. He's 21. I was around that age when I started getting into it. Are they alienating future customers ? I think they could be.

Also, global camera system sales have been in decline for the last 6-7 years. How can putting prices up (for lenses I'm talking about) be good business practice ?


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17,274 views & 92 likes for this thread
Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is eyecancu
907 guests, 411 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.