Cost of photography - lenses, storage, photoshop, Lightroom

I have held off buying a digital SLR for as long as possible and used a Canon A1 and then a Nikon F80 (film cameras), plus a regular succession of decent point and click like Fujifilm F31fd. Now I have a Canon 7D and am worried about the cost of buying storage hard drives, flash drives, Photoshop CS4, not to mention good lenses...I was wondering, if photography is really the preserve of those with masses of disposable income, highest 0.1% in overall income as everything is so expensive. I mean the 5D Mark II was a little too much for what I would like to pay for a camera as I don't have a lot of spare time.

One of the reasons why I did not want to go to digital was the processing of RAW files. I am still learning, and have found I have to buy a new computer, 2 GB of RAM minimum, probably Windows 7...the list is endless...it is all a little depressing. I was quite happy with film. The 7D is a fantastic camera and I only have the kit 18-135 mm lens , and a 50 mm F1.4 USM...

Do we all belong to the ultra elite to pursue the extra bit of IQ ?

well there is a cost associated ...it can but doesn't need to be endless.

the price of memory and computing power is way down. (my computer is now about 4 years old and handles the file without issue ...windows XP)

and the biggest obsitical to entry is not the camera body. You can get a used 20D or 30D and give it a try. the canon software will allow you to make most of the post processing without(or before) going for other after market processing systems.

I am still using the 20D and the image quality is not that different then the newer models. examples in the links below.

http://www.pbase.com/llukee/profile
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=68
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=69
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=70

you will find that dslr is the way to go and you will wonder why you haven't done it earlier.

you don't need to get the latest models or the newest software to really enjoy digital photography.

regards
Luke

photome31 said:

I have held off buying a digital SLR for as long as possible and used a Canon A1 and then a Nikon F80 (film cameras), plus a regular succession of decent point and click like Fujifilm F31fd. Now I have a Canon 7D and am worried about the cost of buying storage hard drives, flash drives, Photoshop CS4, not to mention good lenses...I was wondering, if photography is really the preserve of those with masses of disposable income, highest 0.1% in overall income as everything is so expensive. I mean the 5D Mark II was a little too much for what I would like to pay for a camera as I don't have a lot of spare time.

One of the reasons why I did not want to go to digital was the processing of RAW files. I am still learning, and have found I have to buy a new computer, 2 GB of RAM minimum, probably Windows 7...the list is endless...it is all a little depressing. I was quite happy with film. The 7D is a fantastic camera and I only have the kit 18-135 mm lens , and a 50 mm F1.4 USM...

Do we all belong to the ultra elite to pursue the extra bit of IQ ?

Click to expand...

Luckily, with the exception of software, the prices of all those things (flash, harddrives etc.) are getting better all the time. And forget photoshop CS4, you could just use the competent and free software (DPP) that comes with the camera if you want to process raw. Or you could try the far, far less pricey Elements program. I just don't know your market target (self, magazine, wedding and so on). It's amazing how advanced the "mere" Elements version has become compared to when it first came out.

You can also join the happy ranks of the jpeg shooters out there who are more than happy with the great output of the camera and so again, no pp if any required. There's lots of IQ to be had from the in-camera processing if you have the time to adjust white balance, ensure exposure is spot-on and so on.

--
I am as ignorant as ever, and wiser than I've ever been.

Buy a scanner and keep shooting film. A little bit digital. A lotta bit analog.
--
::: DigiKon :::

photome31 said:

Do we all belong to the ultra elite to pursue the extra bit of IQ ?

Click to expand...

Not at all.

I use the computer I am already using for my job. As I am software developer, I'm having to have a decent one.

Images processing: DPP for RAW, The Gimp for jpeg. Economic cost = 0 (unless you feel compelled to make a donation to the fellow developers of The Gimp, which is not mandatory). I have tried other software, but I have declined to buy (lightroom, silkypix...). DPP+The Gimp is good! Besides, you can learn how to use The Gimp with no cost (try for instance the video-tutorial step by step at meetthegimp.org).

The cost of a memory card for the 7D, say 16Gb is not that expensive ( http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0313636 ). 50 dollars, less if you buy 8Gb (which is a lot).

As you already ahve bought your cam, you would need a decent pc. Mine is windows xp 2Gb RAM. That is enough to work. And you could buy one like mine for $300 or $400.

All that said: from here on, you can spend as much as you want: a better display for the computer, L lenses, a laptop for when you are photographic in a trip far from home...

HIH, and it is just my opinion, of course.

Best
--
Jaime

http://jaimsthesweetspot.wordpress.com/

I wish I was in the top 0.1% of the income bracket. Course then I'd have a whole new set of issues to deal with, like owning a football team. ;-)

I don't consider the money I spend on photography disposable. I look at it as therapeutic spending. It's money well spent, and I'm not done spending yet either.

photome31 said:

...I was wondering, if photography is really the preserve of those with masses of disposable income, highest 0.1% in overall income as everything is so expensive.

Do we all belong to the ultra elite to pursue the extra bit of IQ ?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not in the 0.1% income bracket but you know what I am getting at, then there is the polarising filter, camera bag, tripod, monopod etc etc.

Thanks for your comments.

Contrary to all the RAW talk, you can take professional quality jpegs. PS Elements, a 50 dollar memory card, an external hard drive (you can get a TB for under a 100) and your current computer is enough to shoot, process, store and display your pics. Buy lenses as you save up. I would have suggested a 50d (under a grand) if you hadn't already bought your camera. I think in total, this is about what any middle class individual would spend on a hobby/special interest.

As others have stated, it doesn't have to cost that much. Personally, I use a five year old pc, CS2 and a 20D. Over time, I've acquired some really nice lenses including a couple of "L" glass lenses that were purchased as refurbs.

My equipment is on the trailing edge of technology, but my enthusiasm for the craft has not diminished. Do I plan on getting newer equipment? Sure. However, once you 'settle' into your system, acquisition anxiety diminishes and you start enjoying photography.

--
Kevin Barrett
Lowell, MI
http://www.kbfoto.com

I got into digital photography about 5 years ago with a very low budget outfit. The one thing I've learned is it's very adictive and before it's over you'll want better equipment, better software and a better camera. It hardly matters where you start as it seems that once you master one level of this the possiblities for ways to improve you work begin to look very good.

At the moment I'm spending for high quality equipment a little at a time and working on improving my shooting as I go. I'd love a new camera now, but a better lens that I'll keep for years makes a lot more sense.

If it were me, I'd take the time to dabble a bit and see what you really like and really need before investing too much. However a good lens is always a good investment. You can rent equipment to try out and see if it really get you the result you want before buying. Often I found what I rented was better than I had, but not so great I was really ready to spend for it.

I think the enjoyment I've gotten out of photography is well worth any level of investment. It seem to be something that just gets better over time. If you can't accept that your intital investment may be only a drop in the total investment you will have made in 5 years, better rethink the whole thing.

Since you have the same camera gear overhead with film or digital, I think any "extra" expense is in the processing and storage.

As many have said, there is competent processing SW for free. But there is another angle to that. When you processed film, you took it to a lab that processed it in the way you liked. That can be done in-camera by setting up the different parameters to suite your photography, then shooting JPGs. Again, no real cost and no need to upgrade computers. If you want to have an "in house" lab, then you shoot raw and will need to do some processing. Older computers work fine for this for most people (my computer is also 4 years old running windows XP, and it is fine for my needs).

The other part about processing is that for each roll of film you have developed, you pay to have the film processed to negatives. With digital, you can chose to keep your older computer and not pay anything for this step. Then it's just the printing costs, and that is probably pretty equivalent for either option, except with digital you just pay for the prints you want.

Storage is a cost. I have 2 1T external hard drives that I paid about $100 each for. I have two so that I have a backup in case of failure. I keep it off site, so in case of fire or flood I have a copy. In the film days I only had one set of backups, the negatives. The $200 I paid for the disks were more than compensated in less than a year by not taking my film in for processing. So to me, that is a net lowering of expenses after a year.

So, my thoughts are, with film, my variable costs were associated with how many pictures I took. With digital, I can take as many as I want and only incur marginal incremental costs if I chose to add more storage or backups.

You can chose to go hog wild, spend a lot on new computers, monitors and software that will run a lot of $s. But you don't have to do that to get the benefit out of digital.

Dave

Thanks Dave for your comments, which are very helpful. I guess I know it can be not that expensive, but to get to a really high standard and get the photos that the Professionals can achieve, it will take time and money..that is something I want to achieve in time..

It feels like I have a mountain to climb right now though..

photome31 said:

It feels like I have a mountain to climb right now though..

Click to expand...

Don't despair. We all had to learn to get to where we are today and it took time. I'm proud to say I'm still learning new things all the time and am always open to new ideas. But, that's one of the great things about shooting raw. You'll always have that "negative" so that in the future when you've discovered or invented a new way to "develop" it, you can improve on what you did when you shot it months, years ago.

Enjoy the ride and take it a step at a time. You'll get to where you want to be in time.

--
I am as ignorant as ever, and wiser than I've ever been.

that is not correct. you can get that professional quality of image with a xti or 20D or even a 10D.

there is a big misconception that you need expensive equipment to get the professional shot. Granted the pro cameras are better tools but by no means defines professional quality images. Many pro do use xxD cameras.

processing film isn't free either.

http://www.pbase.com/llukee/profile

photome31 said:

Thanks Dave for your comments, which are very helpful. I guess I know it can be not that expensive, but to get to a really high standard and get the photos that the Professionals can achieve, it will take time and money..that is something I want to achieve in time..

It feels like I have a mountain to climb right now though..

Click to expand...

As a consumer, I do not need the fancy smancy EOS 1D Mark IV digital camera. I am more than fine with an EOS 40D, 50D or even a Powershot G11.

But like Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Porsches, Maybachs, etc. you will always find some consumer who wants the best or near the best in everything they buy.

Many of my professional photographer friends own Hasselblads, elaborate computer systems and software that would boggle your mind. But they are using it for their livelihood. They are extensions of them and they buy whatever product that can help them increase their wealth.

Yup. I keep climbing that same mountain. Sometimes we get caught up in the specific sharpness, saturation, noise, etc. that we see in our images, which can lead to equipment upgrades, lengthy post processing, and lots of pixel peeping. However, I'm now pretty sure that it's the guy behind the camera (me) that is the limiting factor. I learn more with every shoot, and forget half of what I learned, so it is a slow process. An example of this is in my soccer photography. There used to always be a stupid garbage can in the background of my shots (amazing how much trash us soccer parents can generate). Now I pick my spots on the fields much more carefully, and have gotten many fewer of the dreaded "trash" shots.

The thing I like about this process with digital is the near instant feedback (I can go home right after a shoot and see my mistakes immediately, which does help me think about the right things to do the next time). I can also take a wide variety of shots using new techniques without the overhead of developing the film, so I can go out on a limb much more.

Have fun with the climb. It's a blast.

Dave

Learning photography – Priceless!
--
Marcrest

Well yes - I think we are . We are not Rupert Murdoch etc or anywthing like it - but we can afford - still ??- to have a hobby - to which everyone on planet should be entitled - but Millions have not clean water etc etc - many barely survive -. Are we to blame for this - well one can ansewer that for themselves - this is a photo Forum - and the PROs certainly need the best to earn a living - but we are Fortunate IMO anyway to have disposable income - hope Rupert et al dont hear that .
--
Jim Flavin

At least you didn't buy a boat!

Plus, with digital, once you have paid the up-front expenses, it starts getting much cheaper than using film. (Unless you insist on printing every shot!)

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Enough. For now.

Quote: 'The only thing some people will believe is their own eyes. But in the realm of the quality of a printed image, is there really anything else that can be believed? '

All hobbies cost money. I guess after spending a couple thousand dollars on a camera body and realizing you have just scratched the surface on needed equipment purchases, it is a little disheartening. That said, there are many paths to accumulating needed/wanted equipment from budget purchases as an interim solution to taking out a loan to making a sacrifice in some other area of your life to buying the expensive pieces that fit a long range plan one at a time. Only you can make the decision on what will work for you.

Whatever you decide enjoy the journey.