Digital Photography- value for money?

[gstark]

Did I mention it may not be statistically valid?

May not ??? smile

I rarely complete these sorts of polls because they have no validity whatsoever. The statistical sample is so small as to be meaningless, and the responses recieved are only ever from those who .... respond.

Hiow many have seen the questions but ignored them, not even bothering to respond with a message in the thread?

That said, I'm happy to enter into the discussion, because I do believe that the question, as couched but sans-poll, is valid and worthwhile.

I've not even bothered to calculate to value of my photographic equipment, at least not for about 20 years or so. These days I look at it as a part of my entertainment budget, much the same as I would travel.

As long as I can afford it and I'm enjoying what I'm doing, then it represents great value to me, and the actual dollar cost becomes a non-issue.

[rjlhughes]

Gary

a poll, an award or an event is a great way to attract attention, and this one has!

But we're now pushing up towards 5% of the members, aren't we, who've responded.

That's way bigger than the tv ratings sample as a percentage, but not a balanced sample of course.

A number of people have raised the idea that they love the community and shared activity. Others have used the you only live once argument.

The interesting question here is the opportunity cost and the marginal utility as I think the economists would put it.

What else could I afford with the money I'm about to spend on the new lens?

And what does the increase in sharpness or focal reach cost and what's it really worth?

People frequently talk about lens list here - I'm interested in how people quantify the perceived value of the lens they lust after.

[Sheetshooter]

In something of a reversal of the LUST trend, over the past 12 months or so I have been very much in divestment mode. Through Camera Exchange in Melbourne I have flogged over $20,000.00 worth of lenses and cameras which would likely become a greater liability as time went on and their value dropped.

There's a chance that the darkroom stuff will be next to go. Been looking into scanners this morning and for the cost of a plumber and a sparky I could equip myself for digital output quite effectively.

[rjlhughes]

desire and release - the age old theme in art!

[Aussie Dave]

Us humans are a wasteful breed....always wanting what we don't have, always seeking the next best thing. Around 2 years ago, we were all buying our D70's and thinking it was the best thing since sliced cheese. Now we al look to the D2X as the D70 is no longer good enough.....what's changed ? Do we all "really" need all the added extras the D2X brings ?? for the pro's out there (and very serious amateurs), perhaps. For the majority of us coming to grips with the D70 and dSLR in general, I think it's a waste.

How many times have you seen a young 18 y.o. on P plates driving that Suburu WRX and thought, "you ain't ready for that kind of car". That's my analogy ! Still anyone with enough cash can buy pretty much whatever they want.....and if you can afford to do so, good luck to you.

I'd love to own a D2X, 70-200VR, along with a myriad of other lenses....but in reality do I need them.....NO. If I was making a living off my photography, then of course having the best would possibly give me an edge...but in the scheme of things, it's the photographer that makes the biggest difference to the photos produced. We can all fool ourselves into thinking we need that extra sharpness, or a touch more Focal Length...but where does it end ?

Or does it end ?

I guess it comes down to how serious you take your hobby

[MHD]

The way I look at it is that we all waste our money on something

My last car cost me less than $4000 (still needs a little work) but I know many people who must have the latest $40,000 new Subaru (or worse, those who buy those luxury 4wd at 100k+)

Some spend many thousands on pro audio gear, while others think nothing of upgrading to a new PC/laptop every year costing 3K+

Me... I spend my limited disposable income on camera gear

[Raskill]

Just curiously, how many of you out there have any sort of insurance on your camera gear. If your running as a pseudo business or full time business do you have business insurance? Home and contents will generally only cover you if it's stolen from inside the house.

I'm one of the 51% who spend to much on gear, and don't have insurance to be running around the streets with thousands of dollars worth of gear. Anyone else out there as silly as I?

And no, I don't work for GIO.

[Glen]

Raskill, I am as bad as you, my gear isn't covered on the streets.

[Raskill]

I was walking round sydney one Monday morning about 1:00 a.m. to get some shots and saw a large group of drunken blokes and thought 'gee I'm a bit silly walking round with this gear'. Luckily I had my mate with me and we're both ugly enough to look after ourselves, but it did leave a nagging doubt in my head...

[Glen]

It is usually the wrong side of midnight when I get those thoughts too! Then you think about protecting life and limb and realise the camera gear may get caught in the melee

Just take photos near John Howards place, I did and the AFP were good enough to provide an armed escort the whole time

[Raskill]

Good idea, your tax dollars at work!!

[Paul]

Raskill,
I have insured my gear as extra cover on top of my home & contents.
If anything happens to my equipment it's fully covered, I've spent too much hard earnt cash to have it stolen or damaged and not be able to replace it.
It's a small price to pay to enjoy taking images anywhere I go at any time (Unless its Westfields! )

[Greg B]

The first issue is, what is comprised within "Kit"

For example, digital photography needs a decent computer, software, maybe a printer. And people's interest often leads to a scanner as well, although it is obviously not fundamental.

The computer and peripherals undoubtedly have other uses, so a true costing would be difficult.

The second issue is that trying to financially quantify enjoyment is difficult, to say the least. Where we spend money to make money, ie in a business, it is relatively more simple. When we are spending on our hobby, there are totally different issues at play.

It is like trying to cost each, how can we put this, launch of the love rocket ( ) by amortising the cost of the wedding, and all other discretionary expenditure on one's partner, compared to the "pay per view" approach of getting a Ho'

Ridiculous? Of course it is.

It is interesting to see what we have spent on our hobby. Less so to try and figure out whether it is worth it - in fact, that very analysis may diminish the pleasure.

[stubbsy]

It is like trying to cost each, how can we put this, launch of the love rocket by amortising the cost of the wedding, and all other discretionary expenditure on one's partner, compared to the "pay per view" approach of getting a Ho'

ROTFLMAO

Raskill - like Paul my gear is insured outside of the home as part of a special inclusion (& extra premium) in my house contents policy (and interestingly I'm insured with GIO)

[Raskill]

Ask and you shall receive! The good folk at AAMI have insured my gear for an extra $32 per $1000 of camera gear, on top of Home and contents insurance.

$190 dollars a year. It's not a lot for peice of mind.

[Glen]

Raskill, next time you are in Sydney we can do a night shoot, maybe Eveleigh St or the Rocks at closing time, with your gear Seems good value.

[Raskill]

A photoshoot at night in the 'block' also requires life insurance...

[Glen]

[Onyx]

All those who've insured for 'peace of mind' - has anyone actually had to make a claim?! Insurance companies are known to grab your premiums without hesitation, but until the shit hits the fan and you need to make a claim, you can't tell the good from the bad.

[Yedrup]

I really good question that can engender discussion on a number of grounds. Principally how much you spent financially against the financial recompense. Unfortunately or fortunately I don't have to or want to look at my hobby in this manner.

Helen spends a lot of time working away and recently while we were talking on the telephone her laptop went into screen saver mode and being XP started flashing photographs that I had taken of her, me and Henry (her son). The squeals of joy and happiness at the memories each picture brought back was recompense a thousand times over. I may be a pretty bad photographer (ok, don't poke........ I am a pretty bad photographer) but she didn't see that, she just saw the memories my imagery brought back.

So, $1000, $2000, $10000 doesn't really matter.

Thanks for the question.

Cheers,
Terry

[Glen]

Terry, well put and nice to hear about the great memories your photgraphs are bringing up

[Greg B]

Great post Terry, thanks for sharing.

[Aussie Dave]

Good point Terry....though one could argue that a $200 2MP P&S camera could give you the same thing (assuming the viewer is more concerned about the "memories" aspect and not necassarily the quality of the photographs (or expertise of the photographer).

If our hobby gives us happiness (which I assume is why we all do this), then how much is that happiness worth ?? If better, more expensive equipment is what we need to make us happier then what is wrong with spending that amount of money ?

Those that can, do....those that can't, aspire to be one of those that can !

[Ivanerrol]

Anybody remember when a brand new Pentax Spotmatic II plus Sunpak Flash cost the equivalent of 4 weeks wages? To get a 36 roll of prints developed and printed cost 3 days wages.

I still have that camera bought in 1970 - it still works .

I doubt if my D70s will still have a working in 35 years.

That $ 5,000.00 mark will be well and truly passed within ten years.

Ivanerroll
D70s, kit 17-55,35-70 2.8ED,24-35 3.5D
Host of Film cameras

[Glen]

Ivan, by the look of your lenses I think you would be past $5k now

[Ivanerrol]

Glen,
sorry to say - way way way past it.
its an affliction. - it all started with a Nikon FA.

regards

Ivan

[joolz]

Bob - great topic.
I most certainly agree with Terry who brought up of the sentimental value that photographs evoke. I love the stack of albums of childhood/family/friends photos which my father amassed of us as we were growing up. I recall the fact that not many were particularly interested in having those countless group shots etc. taken at the time, but my father would obstinately insist. Now, many friends and family have requested copies of these same photos and it doesn't feel like there are anywhere near enough of these treasured images of the past - the key to long forgotten memories.
It demonstrated to me the value of photography as a personal visual historian and documentary. In that vein I have attempted to take numerous photos of my own daughter, knowing that she will value them as I have treasured my own photos. I guess "priceless" is a cliched expression, but my wife and I would certainly be devestated if we ever lost these photos.
What was my point again? If one doesn't enjoy the process of taking the photographs, then they won't be taken. I think that if a purchase reignites one's passion for photography, then it was probably worth the expense. If it means that you pick up your camera more often and can take at least a few more interesting photos, then it was enough. If you can derive pleasure from taking photos with a cheap point and shoot, all the better. Something as cheap as a $2 grey card has spurred on my creative juices and desire to go out an take more photos.
But as with many hobbies, it is a law of diminishing returns.

[rjlhughes]

Joolz,

thank you for the comment.

perhaps all life is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

I think sometimes when we return to an old lens, or camera it can also reignite our interest.

And sometimes a trip away can prompt more interesting photos than a new gadget.

It's not about price, it's about value. And many people have pointed out the priceless nature of their returns from photography. It's been very enjoyable to read.

I suppose another thought is that the more you value each piece of equipment in terms of the amount of time and the resources you can put into it the more it's worth in your life.

That's a bit like saving up for the new bike when you were a kid - the time it took made the bike more special.

There's a member here, James, who almost always uses a 50mm 1.4. Yet he takes the most interesting variety of shots.

It's probably fair enough to feel sorry for the kids who didn't earn their bikes and kicked them around, as much as it is for people who don't get much out of their photographic gear.

[Matt. K]

Bob
I have just completed scanning over 1000 images taken about 30 years ago. They are pics of my family and friends....and anything that caught my attention. I have discovered windows back into time that are priceless. A million dolllars could not procure these images....but I now have them digitized and saved to hard disk. Photography and time are interlinked and beyond cost.

[Nnnnsic]

If I were to tell you that I've spent less than $1000 on my kit, would you believe me?

[Glen]

Not on a DSLR forum leigh

[birddog114]

....but I now have them digitized and saved to hard disk. Photography and time are interlinked and beyond cost.

Matt.K
Make sure you have two or three copies of them, just incase.

[gstark]

Not on a DSLR forum leigh

Glen,

Reread Leigh's words very carefully, and remember who bought him what for his 21st birthday.

[Glen]

The benefits of family. Maybe you will get a Leica for fathers day? Or a D2X?

[Yedrup]

Not on a DSLR forum leigh

Glen,

Reread Leigh's words very carefully, and remember who bought him what for his 21st birthday.

Although I have a very nice, kind, gentle father but as Xmas is not too far off would you like to adopt me?



Terry

[Glen]

Terry, I am looking for someone to adopt me

[Yedrup]

Terry, I am looking for someone to adopt me

Oh oh, competition damn and you come with cake cooking skills

Guess it's back to either the grindstone or the line at lotto counter

Terry