Toronto Photography Meetup Group

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

How to spend $9770 on $3195 worth of equipment. Ironically, very true...

poor man pays twice so to speak?

I thought the article was very funny and mostly true. I think better planning would of served him better. In my case my steps were:

(1) Canon G2 for 5 years

(2) Canon XSI for 2 years where I upgraded the stock lens to the 17-40 and 70-200

(3) Canon 50D (had it for a couple months)

I don't really agree with this article, if you're a gear wh#re, maybe. If you're not shooting professionally, theres no reason to not be completely satisfied with an entry level DSLR for many many years.

How many people do you see with $3k worth of equipment that don't have a clue in hell as to what to do with it. These are the people that follow this kind of advice.

Unless you can predict that you will need a professional body and lenses 5 years out, before you even start shooting your first DSLR, this article is BS. True, it happens to some people, and maybe a bit more people on a forum like this as we're serious about it, but that's just a natural evolution of a photographer. Without using a kit lens, a sigma and a tamron, I would never know if my $1500+ lens is really worth the money.

A colleagues daughter asked her for "the camera with the red swoosh on it" for christmas last year, if she'd listened to this kind of advice, she'd be out 3k and her daughter would be wearing a D700 as a fashion accessory.

I guess the thing is whether it is an iphone or DSLR people will always be tempted to buy something they term as better. In my book $$$ don't really equal results. In some cases it just causes people to think less about what they are trying to achieve and more about how shiny something is and how wonderful the features are. I'm sure there are many of us who have let this happen to us.

Would I be a bad parent if I told them to buy it themselves?

There is one good reason-- people don't know how to use their camera and believe that upgrading is the answer to their poor photos, instead of blaming their own skill. How many people could honestly critique themselves when they first started out? If you buy an "entry-level" camera, and your photos look like crap even though you've read all the manuals and bought "Photography for Dummies", and you're still not creating works of art, then it must be because the pros are using much better equipment right? OR, you buy an "entry-level" camera, and your photos look great *to you*, then wouldn't they be even better with better equipment? Then you go buy the next lens or body and don't see the improvement you expected, decide it's because it's not a nice enough lens or body so you start on the path of that article...



More than you'd imagine. I've seen a hired "pro" at a Christmas party last year walking around with 5d mk2 and 24/105L using 580ex straight-on flash. Another guy a couple years back told me he just spent almost $2000 on an XSI, 18-200mm, 580ex and he was asking me what the advantage was for not shooting in "Auto".

It really depends on your use. I still use an E300. Have hit it's limits many times, but it's still usable.

I know a friends friend that has a $35k medium format and he's just learning photography. I refrained from judgement because he probably spent a smaller percentage of his earnings on it than most people would if they bought Rebel. If you have the money, enjoy life.

I know I would buy some crazy gear if I ever picked the winning numbers

+1

It only makes sense if you know you are going to (learn to) use your camera otherwise you are just going to be shelving your "investment". Also buying the best you can afford because it will be cheaper in the long run is pretty stupid when the electronic product life time is about 3 years until you have to buy a new better camera.

Look at it this way

2005 Canon 5d with kit L lens $4,500
Some L prime glass $3,200

Change to Nikon

2007 Nikon D3 $6,000
New Vr Glass $6,000


2010 Nikon D3s $7,000
New Primes $6,000
--------
$32,700
--------

camera bags flash, filters... batteries
Tripods .... $$$$$$$ remember only the best will do

And don't forget the expense of hiring a professional as an assistant so you could shoot your cousin's wedding at below cost.

Wait there's more:

2012 Change back to Canon
New 1D Mark X $9,000
Pro Canon lens $9,000


2014 First baby due so sell equipment for a down payment on a Volvo

Or the ad on CL for wedding second shooters with min requirements to gear: 5D mk2 and a 2.8 zoom I laughed my ass off that day

That's true if you bought all the equipment in a short time, i.e. a year...but when I started digital the dSLR I would have loved to have back in 1994 would have cost me $18,000!

Instead to get a taste of digital between 1992 & 2002 I got several P&S cameras, and spent less than $1000.

In the past 10 years I've spent less than $3000 on one ultrzoom, one dual lens kit, and two bodies.

It wasn't just about buying the best camera I could, but actually being able to pay for it.

Now unlike film where I could buy one camera and use it for 20 years, digital is always changing, so each one of the cameras I bought in the last ten years was an improvement over the last.

Now I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but just has to respond to that article.

For the same reason you don't:

Buy a $1500+ set of golf clubs when you decide to take up golfing
Buy a $200+ squash/tennis racquet when you decide to take up squash/tennis
Buy a $5000+ carbon fibre road bike when taking up biking
Buy a .... list goes on and on

You can't predict the future nor how committed you will be to a hobby/etc you've never spent some time playing with.

Like "Magic" said, if you're super rich, and wipe your ass with hundreds, then who cares, but someone setting a $400 budget is probably not in that position.

But hay, in the end this hobby has kept his mind off the fact that he works for a dinky wage, in a crummy office, just to barely pay off the enormous mortgage on the house. In the end he has learned a little about physics from all the research about lenses. Possibly learned about economics though research about the ever ageing technology that is the digital camera. Got closer to his wife from the present and hopefully made some memories at birthdays and Christmas when the wife insisted he take some pictures.

Photography is my job and I wear out the gear before I upgrade. But I have piles of woodworking equipment I should of not gotten. In the end learning why I don't like them or finding that tools that don't hold an edge has been lessons to me. Honestly even after i got some antique tools and had some craftsmen fix them up they are still a poor return on the investment. They still don't get the used all that much, but I enjoy that I have some Stanley Planes from 1900-1940ish. (and they do a nightly good job)

I think we're missing the point here.. The author isn't really recommending everyone go out and buy that $3000 kit, in fact, he explains in the subsequent post that the "letter" to George was a farce to amuse himself, and to show a point that:



For those of us who really like this hobby, and have the money to buy a decent lens, it would have been better to buy right the first time. For me, I started with a point a shoot and knew I liked the hobby, and when I decided to get a second hand 20D a photographer friend recommended a 24-70L to start with. I didn't listen. I've bought and sold many lenses to upgrade along the way, and often wondered whether I would have saved myself a lot of trouble and $$ if I had gone with the 24-70L like he recommended. I still don't have the 24-70L, but I have gone from really cheap lenses to everything f2.8 or better. For me the article rings true in that I've wasted a lot playing the upgrade game, and although I haven't spent $9770, I'm sure I should have spent more time photographing and learning rather than thinking about the equipment I should upgrade.

Speak for yourself most of us get the point. His advice is just one of those true-isms. Look up the ancient one on buying many cheap tripods versus starting out buying one expensive tripod. My first $100 tripod is still going strong, sure you save money over the long run. That is if you are the exception, the hobbyist that takes up photography seriously.

He might be doing it tongue in cheek but many beginners would not be able to tell and might take his advice.

Buy the entry level DSLR camera with the kit lens and the ubiquitous cheap 50mm prime, go out and shoot, if after a year you are still using it then evaluate where you want to go. It's that's next level that is important and at that point most of us can make up our own mind.

What I mean is that spending $9770 on the $3195 package is not to be taken literally, as is your own example, Metrix, of spending $32,700. Besides, if we went according to the article of buying "right" the first time, you would have stopped after the $7700 for that first kit wouldn't we?


This is the advice the author should have given to the "George", but from his tone it seems that his target audience is instead serious hobbiests like ourselves who have gone through upgrading and wish we hadn't, and would find the rant humourous. Sort of a "rant" preach to the choir.

Would I recommend the $3000 kit to a beginner who wasn't sure if s/he liked photography? Nope, but probably the kit you mentioned. Did I find the article funny? Yes.

Judging by the more then the few real world examples that some of us know, the person that starts out with the $7.7K kit never stops there For the rest of us we should know by now that every latest and best camera body has by manufacturer's design less then a 3 year lifetime until replaced by a better model. For glass and lighting there's always renting at vistek before buying.

I started off skipping the P&S and going into an entry level body+18-70+75-300 kit zooms in 2007 for $1,200 & change. The body lasted me a decent 21 months, the lenses... 9 months before my upgrade.

the only new item I've bought since was a FF DSLR, all other glass I've bought used and sold via CL or kijiji for essentially the same or marginally more than I paid.

if there should ever be any advice to one starting out is: never buy new glass, even for your first DSLR.

Yes but just because a starter buys a higher end camera and then uses it for 2.5 years and lo and behold a new one is released. What good will the new one do for the starter. There are a lot of nonsense buys out there. People upgrading cameras for no real reason. I used my 10D until I started shooting at sports events. Then the 10D just could not keep up. If you compare the 10D image quality to the 7D there is no REAL WORLD difference in a studio. Right now my 10D is in the hands of a student who loves it.

I am now shooting the 40D... and I am looking wistfully at a 7D for iso performance. But I cannot justify it for the time being.

There is something to be said for the person buying an XTI or whatever then growing as an artist (photographer) then deciding in a direction. For me the last upgrade ever and only grudgingly I get a body. Glass and light is a priority for me. I do not rent but perhaps I should.

Please don't quote me out of context. If you had read my other post you would have realized I was not promoting upgrading unnecessarily quite the opposite.

sorry...

As one of the worst gear whores around here, one thing I can say is that sometimes the kit just doesn't do the job.

I went through several cameras between my first DSLR in 2005 and getting a D300 in early 2008, all because you simply couldn't buy a DSLR which offered the responsiveness, speed, features and size of an F100 until then. Every one of my previous cameras got in my way when shooting, either due to slow speed, poor viewfinders or poorly laid out control schemes. The problem was simply that the DSLR was not mature technologically until 2007 or so.

Since I got the D300, I've gone through several cameras due to my needs changing (went from wanting a high-performance do-everything camera to needing something compact with very good high ISO and moderate speed, a tough set of requirements even today). Otherwise I likely would have stuck with the D300 until the D7000 came out and possibly even after that.

Don't leave us hanging .. what did you end up with?

All points valid but try asking yourself if the gear is largely responsible for the photographer's success? I can think of one, Henri Cartier Bresson. Why? it's compact and allowed him to be unobtrusive, the viewfinder is built in a way that your left eye sees the scene while your right eye can focus at the same time.

And of course he had the means to be one of the few to afford a Leica when it first came out.

Didn't see this earlier, it's painfully funny. I think with most people, they don't fully understand what they want from photography, want they like ... until they try to reproduce what they've seen. With me on the SLR side, I didn't fully understand what I liked until I couldn't produce what I had scene. Then you start to learn about sensor size, DOF, and when you start printing, especially in black and white ... well, then you're broke, LOL.

When people ask for advice, I always ask:
- How big are you going to print?
- How oftern do you plan to take your camera with you?
- What do you plan on using it for, where do you plan to take your camera?
- And the last question is what's the budget?

Most of the women I know love the look of shallow depth of field, but do not want to carry something that won't fit in their purse. Mom's and dad's with kids in sports seem to lean towards the DSLR world, but don't understand they need to spend money outside of the standard cheapo zooms. Especially for hockey and evening outdoor games (baseball, football, soccer).

Currently running a Sony A33, which almost meets my needs (it's a little too small and lacking in build and direct controls). The A77 will most likely be the final stop if it turns out to be the 'slightly bigger than a K-5' size I'm expecting.

I am a firm believer that you should invest in good things that you use frequently or to obtain satisfactory (to one's standard) results, especially, if you can't waste money that you don't have.
In case of photography, if you don't know how camera limits your creativity then you don't need a better equipment (regardless, whether it is P&S or DSLR).

Translating my favorite saying from Russian - "we are not rich to buy cheap (word play - meaning low quality) things".
That is why I still shoot with my second hand D70, but have two professional lenses on it, which will (hopefully) last me a lifetime.
Currently saving $$$ for my next camera, once Nikon decide to release it.