I can literally say that photography now is the most expensive it ever has been in its history. Gone are the days when all you had to do was make one major investment and you would be complete. I find that I have to make a major or semi major investment every 18-24 months these days. I know there was a thread here about not needing to upgrade your gear. I belong to the camp that believes you need to keep up with technology or fall behind.

I thought our expenses were supposed to drop since we no longer have to process film. That's true but we now have to process our photos with computers! So imagine you are a beginner photographer that wants to enter the arena with some good gear. What is your cost of entry?

Canon Mark II- $8,000
Three Canon Lenses- $3,000
IMac G5- $2,500
Editiing Software- $1,000
Calibration equipment- $1,000
Epson Printer- $ 800

That's over $15,000 boys and girls. Okay not everyone is going to purchase this kind of gear but if you sit down and analyze it, even if we reduced the camera, printer, and computer, you are still out a minimum of $5,000 if you want to process everything yourself. And who could ever imagine a 35mm going for $8,000? That's wide format with some serious lenses just a few years ago. Want to go in to a Medium format now? Try $20,000 or more and you don't even get the camera and lenses, just the stinking MF digital back!

Moore's Law that computing power doubles every 18 months still holds true. The digital photography industry more or less follows this cycle. Can we afford to reinvest every 18-24 months? Its getting crazy! :RedEye:

Makes you want to go back to the film days.

Hi Gabriel,

I definitely have not spent as much, though you're right, it could be expensive if I bought everything new. What I can say is that I'm enjoying using my DSLR much more than I ever enjoyed my film SLR :D

Aside from the low variable cost of each shot, there's the immediacy of digital vs film - I can immediately view, edit and upload my photos.

Also, I'm definitely learning about photography much faster using digital than film. With film, it would take several hours before I could practice concepts like DOF, bokeh, exposure, etc. Now with digital, it's just a few clicks away!

WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME :D This is the reason why some photographers turn professionals, to get paid back and recover some expenses!!! And in the same tradition, why other photographers, remain doctors, lawyers, entreprenuers, to afford this hobby!!!:Dollar: :Dollar:

I believe otherwise. I am just a hobbyist and I see that photography is getting cheaper each day. I can see dSLR kits for a little more than 30K, and less if you get it from the net. More and more good quality affordable lenses from third party manufs are available. Even so for those second hand Top-Notch lenses which those pro or bottomless pocketed hobbyists are selling each week. You get to print your own pictures now, with even the 1.9K petot Canon Pixma. In good quality pa. Photo paper is P6 ea in CD-R King, maybe even lower in other stores. I can even affor a Mac now, even if it's only a mini, i can run aperture and cs2 with no hitches and slowdowns. Calibration is offered by many, some even do it for free if you read a few threads here in DPP.

Now I don't know coz I haven't really tried film and SLRs. But I don't think I can afford to set up another room in the house as a dark room. Or go to photo ops with my friends every weekend to shoot more than 500 photos. Or to buy me a high grade scanner (everybody has a computer) so that I can re-touch some pictures or show them to everybody on the web.

hmmm... but that's just me hehe! cheapo! :D

hope everyhting doesn't get too expensive or else...

You listed some big items already that's why the cost is high. A Canon 350D or Nikon D50 is a good enough DSLR already, and if you have an existing computer that will surely do for photo editing already, and burning your photos to CDs which you can easily give to clients.

In film, if you want to be in the big leagues, getting the Hasselblads will also cost much.

With the current technology, it is actually more affordable to enter this field. I think that there are more people going into photography as a profession because of this development and lower initial investment. The options though like the computers, L lenses, etc will cost you :)

the initial investment i must admit can be quite staggering...(although epson printers need not cost that much hehe)
but as a profession, i believe its convenience will eventually give back your ROI not to mention up your learning curve.
not everyone can afford the mark II and a lot are content with the 300d, the 350d, the d70 and d50...then maybe upgrade some lenses, buy some...etc.
i see a lot of photographers rushing to buy the latest camera body when their workload and photography doesn't require them to. Is it to be supposedly 'competitive' by owning the latest camera? is it the image of having one around your neck that might snag that client versus those who have say a 20d?

just like any other gadget, yes, digital photography is constantly evolving, and although this is the fun part too, since you learn and keep yourself constantly involved, you need not succumb to the illusion of having to upgrade..

if it aint broke, don't fix it.

now one area which i believe contributes to the supposed expensive industry is....not knowing how to capitalize on your investment. You buy all the latest software, intel macs, etc...you have a great eye for capturing those images...but hey, are you familiar with color management? aha...not knowing how to get those right images will indeed result in waste of time, energy, printouts......

now if we look at it as a hobby...aaaahh now i must agree with you it is an expensive one.

which is why i am very much happy with my 350d and kit lens thank you.

actually its the lenses that weight a ton or two.

Hi Gabriel,

You know what, the equipment you mentioned is just for showmanship. Unless you are into Advertising Photography and a World-Class Wedding Photographer with a minimum shooting experience of ten (10) years, you can already afford to buy those gear not unless you're a rich guy who can buy it in one (1) day.

In Business, you don't spend all of your money in buying new stuff. The safest way to maintain one's cash flow is to use the money of the client and to buy things one step at a time. Everytime you generate income, you can either save it or buy something for the business aside from the one you set aside for your professional fee, expenses and depreciation cost. What's important is to get those accounts first and buy those equipment later on as soon as the business grows. I'm proud to say that I shoot on all types of events with only one (1) digital SLR and one lens. If we can't afford to buy a computer or laptop, we can always borrow or hire equipment as the need arises. Our Assets should always be performing and generating income and not just sit there in the cabinet or dry box.

Our Assets should always be performing and generating income and not just sit there in the cabinet or dry box.
Say's who? Isn't the term "expensive" relative to capacity? It's true that you can get the basic entry level DSLR, or the top of the line model. It does not make you a better person/photographer to have either.:Shock:

You know what, the equipment you mentioned is just for showmanship.
Say's who again? I doubt that was the intent of GA when he got these gear.:Scared:

Passing judgement, and second guessing one's intent for purchase may not be the thread's objective. Goes the same with exotic cars, audiophile equipment, home theater set up, Horology. Believe me, if showmanship was the objective, this is the wrong place to post his issues.

I believe it's the same, Digital or "analog" photography. It's the "learning curve" that may be cheaper. Equipment selection cannot be a strong barometer to determine what is getting expensive, because it is relative to capacity.

The cost of entry at the beginners level is no different now than it was with the film days. You could always buy an entry level SLR plus kit lens back then. But your only investment would be your lenses since printing and post processing was usually done by a lab unless you had your own darkroom. I for one sent everything out.

I truly believe that the digital revolution has brought convenience and total control back to the photographer, but at the expense of a price tag. So big deal I use a Mark 2. Even if I was on a 30D my expenses would still be high. If you are talking about control, and that means doing everything yourself, then its going to cost. And the upgrades that you need to do every 18-24 months is going to cost.

There are going to be people on this list who beg to differ. But again, I'll say that if you really want to control your images, expect to spend the money and expect to continually spend the money. Two years ago I had a 10D (still do) but can't even think about going back to that camera. This was only two years ago. Two years from now, most everyone on this fine forum will look back at their gear and realize the same thing. Admit it, we are at the stone age of the digital photography revolution. Technology is going to get better and better at a very quick pace. Its going to be fun albeit costly ride.

I am just happy to note that there will be those who will always want the latest stuff. That gives someone like me the opportunity to buy great 2nd hand lenses and accessories at much lower cost.

I've spent way more than $15,000 on my camera equipment alone. Just finished upgrading the computer with 1Tb of storage with another 1Tb external as back up.
Next is a new printer and obviously lot's of paper, some calibration tools for that and guess what this is just for fun!!

I don't want to be a pro, I don't want to sell my work, I do this just for my pleasure.

Maybe you can enter the Photography business with a D50 but I doubt you'd stay in business very long unless you charged a decent rate (not the ultra low prices the newbie's charge cutting the work from the established pro's) and reinvesting in your equipment.

Mike

Yes, it's getting expensive but getting better for both software and hardware.

In another perspective, I am guessing that a Sony-ericsson K750i can beat the $30,000 1.3 Megapixel Kodak DCS-100 launch in 1991. :)

In another perspective, I am guessing that a Sony-ericsson K750i can beat the $30,000 1.3 Megapixel Kodak DCS-100 launch in 1991. :)

Muaaahahahahhahaha!!!:D :D Nice analogy!!! OT : Dino, say hi to ur sis-in-law, Jes, Kumare ko!:Grin:

Derick,

First of all, as what I have said before. Any comments I post on any thread of DPP is supported by facts and data. I don't pass judgement on anyone or make a wild guess. I've spoken to professionals while we are doing a photoshoot and you know what, they regret investing a lot of money with those new equipment you mentioned because a cheaper and better camera comes out every six (6) months and not 12 to 18 months as previously projected. I can post all of the names of those famous photographers and you can even verify it with them. Some of them even discussed this during the WPPP Photo Congress. I agree that buying those expensive equipment entails one's capacity. Heck, I can even buy those gear if I want to but I am not dumb to be convinced by a manufacturer to buy something that I don't need. If my Nikon D70 can generate an average income of USD1,000.00 for a half-day shoot. God knows how much I can charge if I use a Nikon D2Xs a D200 or a Mark 2 Ds. Owning these great cameras does not improve one's capacity as a photographer. The term I used as "Showmanship" means that with the type of equipment you have, you can charge more to the client. But there are some photographers who don't even have a laptop and ony use a Nikon D70 and show the LCD to their client and this guy gets an average income of USD 5,000.00 per day. Are you questioning my skills? Perhaps, I can invite you to a shootout and see for ourselves whom the client will get. Oh by the way, I've met the richest photographer in the country and he only used a point and shoot camera for a one-man exhibit and his professional fee is USD 10,000.00 for a single portrait. I suggest you do more research and avoid judging me and learn from the true professionals who don't use high-tech and expensive equipment and yet earn a lot. Same thing applies in Golf, Look at Tiger Woods, no matter what type of Clubs or Golf Balls you give him, he still maintains the same handicap. The equipment he uses is merely for Marketing Purposes and Advertising.

Derick,

Are you questioning my skills? Perhaps, I can invite you to a shootout and see for ourselves whom the client will get. Oh by the way, I've met the richest photographer in the country and he only used a point and shoot camera for a one-man exhibit and his professional fee is USD 10,000.00 for a single portrait. I suggest you do more research and avoid judging me and learn from the true professionals who don't use high-tech and expensive equipment and yet earn a lot.

Can we please keep things in perspective. I believe Derick gave a difference of opinion to an opinion you posted earlier. There was no question placed towards your skills as a photographer. I don't think such a shootout challenge plays any place in the discussion nor will prove anything with regards to the topic at hand. A shootout will not have bearing on "digital photography is getting more expensive."

Hi Louie,

Thanks for your continued advise and guidance. I just hate it when rich people from Alabang put other people down. I also want to point out that owning a Canon Mark2 does not guarantee a photographer landing a contract compared to a guy using a Nikon D70. A shootout is the last resort if this guy still insists on what he think is right. Perhaps, he also does not know the history of digital photography. Five (5) years ago a 1.3 megapixel professional digital SLR would cost around USD 20,000.00. Now, let's see the current price of the top of the line digital SLR , In the year 2006, you can buy a 16-megapixel digital camera for only USD 8,000.00. Knowing this data, is Digital Photography getting expensive? I don't think so, in reality, it is getting cheaper every six (6) months. That's the difference when we post comments supported by facts, technical data and numbers compared to personal opinions. Even if we compute the annual inflation rate variable, it is still cheaper and not expensive. A simple food for thought guys and a reality check.

Digital Photography is expensive if you're going out for the super-expensive SLRs and lenses out there. And since it's digital, expect depreciation quickly. If this is a hobby, then you're not really using these expensive equipment to its full potential.. since it can't 'pay' for itself. A mentor once said that it's not in the most expensive equipment that a photographer can create great photos.. but first and foremost is the photographer's vision and his overall understanding of light and how to control light. If you have for example an entry level DSLR, heck, even if it's only an $800 camera.. you can create awesome photos from that. But anyway, if you have the money to burn, then the least you can do is complain. You got the high-end gear anyway, so why not make the most out of that? Don't tell me you're going to get the next high-end after 18 months just to take 'great' photos.

Eric,
Read Again. There is nothing I said that attacked your person, but if you feel guilty about something, and hate the world, that is not my problem. I am not responding to you as a person, but to the position.

@Louie - :) :D

Say's who? Isn't the term "expensive" relative to capacity? It's true that you can get the basic entry level DSLR, or the top of the line model. It does not make you a better person/photographer to have either.:Shock:


Say's who again? I doubt that was the intent of GA when he got these gear.:Scared:

Passing judgement, and second guessing one's intent for purchase may not be the thread's objective. Goes the same with exotic cars, audiophile equipment, home theater set up, Horology. Believe me, if showmanship was the objective, this is the wrong place to post his issues.

I believe it's the same, Digital or "analog" photography. It's the "learning curve" that may be cheaper. Equipment selection cannot be a strong barometer to determine what is getting expensive, because it is relative to capacity.

hmmmmmmmm.....who is the richest photographer in the land? should have made him/her my godparent in my wedding... :Grin:

anyway, chill out guys.

Derick,

You didn't directly attack me but you are insunuating someting to people who don't use expensive equipment like you. 2nd you mentioned that expensive equipment is relative to one's capacity. There are professionals out there who have the money and yet don't spend as much as you do. Perhaps, you are the one who hates the world because you like to burn money. I know how to read between the lines and I've dealt with rich people like you who think they are superior over others. I am not guilty of anything. I just want to contest your position that we have to buy expensive equipment. Did you know that a user of a Nikon D70 won a shoot-out over a Mark 2 in the Advertising World? The humble and simple guy won the bid because of his skills and talent and not because he has a Mark 2. I Love the world and there are other better things to do than argue with you.

Randy,

I'll send you a PM on who's the richest photographer in the land. Funny thing is, he didn't use a Mark 2 on his trip to Paris but only a Fuji Finepix S9500 that costs less than Php 40k and yet he produces photos that can can be sold at least half a million pesos. He is a very simple and humble guy and doesn't believe that you have to spend a lot to be successful in photography.

Derick,

You didn't directly attack me but you are insunuating someting to people who don't use expensive equipment like you. 2nd you mentioned that expensive equipment is relative to one's capacity. There are professionals out there who have the money and yet don't spend as much as you do. Perhaps, you are the one who hates the world because you like to burn money. I know how to read between the lines and I've dealt with rich people like you who think they are superior over others. I am not guilty of anything. I just want to contest your position that we have to buy expensive equipment. Did you know that a user of a Nikon D70 won a shoot-out over a Mark 2 in the Advertising World? The humble and simple guy won the bid because of his skills and talent and not because he has a Mark 2. I Love the world and there are other better things to do than argue with you.

Randy,

I'll send you a PM on who's the richest photographer in the land. Funny thing is, he didn't use a Mark 2 on his trip to Paris but only a Fuji Finepix S9500 that costs less than Php 40k and yet he produces photos that can can be sold at least half a million pesos. He is a very simple and humble guy and doesn't believe that you have to spend a lot to be successful in photography.

okay, thanks Eric...secrets safe with me. :)

One thing I really know is digital photography is EXPENSIVE. My take is it gets COSTLY for you when you acquire new equipment and lenses instead of other necessary things you could have had for the same amount of money. Naintindihan nyo po?;)

In short, it all amounts to disposable income....

I just hate it when rich people from Alabang put other people down.

:Shock: flame! hehehe just kidding. We're not all rich here in Ayala Yabang...I mean Alabang. :Grin:

As for the topic, I agree that it is expensive whether you have the money or not. These things are generally expensive. As a beginner, I find myself thinking about how far I should go with photography as a hobby. But I end up just pushing the limit just a little.

Maybe on the contrary it's getting to be very affordable for non-pros./enthusiasts that's why there is alot of pressure on the professional side of the market since quality wise, the line drawn between professional and prosumer/consumer electronics/equipment is getting thinner and thinner... Something to ponder on right :)

I don't know how much does an SLR body costs during the film days. All I know is that, I don't have the money to buy 1 back then and I am not willing to spend money on buying film and let it be printed before I can see if my settings were right or not.

But i do believe that the greatness of an output does not rely on the tool but rather, on the man behind the tool.

If you are happy with your point and shoot and some rich guy wants to buy your photo for half a million pesos, then why buy a mark II?

just my thoughts. :)

I don't know how much does an SLR body costs during the film days. All I know is that, I don't have the money to buy 1 back then and I am not willing to spend money on buying film and let it be printed before I can see if my settings were right or not.

But i do believe that the greatness of an output does not rely on the tool but rather, on the man behind the tool.

If you are happy with your point and shoot and some rich guy wants to buy your photo for half a million pesos, then why buy a mark II?

just my thoughts. :)

the mark II will be used as the backup cam instead... :Shock:

Whoa... this thread is hot!

I am ashamed to admit but I have nearly 80% of the equipment mentioned in the 1st post, but to be honest that's because Photography using Macs was soo natural and complimentary so I jumped in.

I wouldn't quit my day job though coz' my guidance counselor in HS still makes sense. Stick to what your good at and you'll be happy, if you really good, the rewards will come.

My Best advice when using internet forums is;

"Always count to 10 before you press that button to post or reply"

Just remember, nothing on the internet gets truly erased so everything you write on it can and will come back to bite you in the rear end.

My Best advice when using internet forums is;

"Always count to 10 before you press that button to post or reply"

Just remember, nothing on the internet gets truly erased so everything you write on it can and will come back to bite you in the rear end.

I agree with you 100% Dave!:Grin:

so you guys think there's a relation with digital photographic equipment getting more expensive or cheaper and their size getting bigger or smaller?

:Dum: :BlackEye: :Grin:

Whoa... this thread is hot!

I am ashamed to admit but I have nearly 80% of the equipment mentioned in the 1st post, but to be honest that's because Photography using Macs was soo natural and complimentary so I jumped in.

I wouldn't quit my day job though coz' my guidance counselor in HS still makes sense. Stick to what your good at and you'll be happy, if you really good, the rewards will come.

My Best advice when using internet forums is;

"Always count to 10 before you press that button to post or reply"

Just remember, nothing on the internet gets truly erased so everything you write on it can and will come back to bite you in the rear end.

hmm... i've spent a lot already on digital photography, considering that i've only started half a year ago. not my fault that I prefer to maintain my 9-6 job and have photography as my hobby. it's not a crime to do so, isn't it? :Grin:

hope that i'll be able to buy a kick-@$$ d200 body soon, not for business, but for fun... because i work hard, to be able to play hard. i hope that won't be a problem with anyone. :D

so you guys think there's a relation with digital photographic equipment getting more expensive or cheaper and their size getting bigger or smaller?


Dude it's not the size of it but how you use it... :D But don't get me wrong though!:Grin:

You didn't directly attack me but ............. 2nd you mentioned that expensive equipment is relative to one's capacity. Perhaps, you are the one who hates the world ................. I know how to read between the lines and I've dealt with rich people like you .................. I just want to contest your position that we have to buy expensive equipment............ I Love the world ..............

Oh man, are we still here? Are you kidding? Oh man this must be a joke.:Shock: Eric, no argument man! I'm no professional like you, never been paid for photography, hate contests, then you may be right....... can we move on?

Never expected to get so much flack for stating a position!!

You gotta love this forum. Put together a bunch of educated people and watch the opinions fly!

Anyway, I guess everyone has stated their position here, me included. The point of this thread is not whether good photography can be done with inexpensive gear because we all know it can. I started the thread to state that digital can get very expensive if you plan to stay on top of the game. Apples to apples, digital photography is simply far more expensive than film. Yes, prices of digital photography are dropping if you compare what we have now with the very first years of digital photography. That is simple market forces at work. But more pixels means more processing power and more storage requirements. The investment just keeps on piling. I upgrade my camera and realize that I can't process my photos on my old computer so out goes the wallet. Could you ever imagine paying $8,000 for an SLR during film days? Unheard of. How about $30,000 for medium format? Almost never. At the top of the game, digital is really really more expensive.

On an aside, if Eric Dino reads, this I hope you can PM me who the most successful photographer in the country is. I want to know who this guy is. If someone can command such a price for his work then at least there is hope for photography in this country. This sounds like good topic for another interesting thread.

You gotta love this forum. Put together a bunch of educated people and watch the opinions fly!

Anyway, I guess everyone has stated their position here, me included. The point of this thread is not whether good photography can be done with inexpensive gear because we all know it can. I started the thread to state that digital can get very expensive if you plan to stay on top of the game. Apples to apples, digital photography is simply far more expensive than film. Yes, prices of digital photography are dropping if you compare what we have now with the very first years of digital photography. That is simple market forces at work. But more pixels means more processing power and more storage requirements. The investment just keeps on piling. I upgrade my camera and realize that I can't process my photos on my old computer so out goes the wallet. Could you ever imagine paying $8,000 for an SLR during film days? Unheard of. How about $30,000 for medium format? Almost never. At the top of the game, digital is really really more expensive.

On an aside, if Eric Dino reads, this I hope you can PM me who the most successful photographer in the country is. I want to know who this guy is. If someone can command such a price for his work then at least there is hope for photography in this country. This sounds like good topic for another interesting thread.

eric, pm mo din ako kung sino yung photographer... i'm just curious as to who the person is... :)

eric, how about posting na lang the name on the thread kaya? i mean, GA's right. it could be very well an interesting topic to talk about na naman.

and some background info na rin on the guy for us who don't know him.

chill! :D

Hi Guys,

I can tell you who the richest photographer is but let us keep it to ourselves. The guy is a very private person and won't admit it but people in the industry were the ones who introduced me to him last Photoworld 2006 in Glorietta.

Technically speaking the richest photographer in the land is Don Jaime Zobel de Ayala but he is not a professional but a hobbyist who loves what he is doing. He also became rich because of other business like real estate and for the simple fact that he is a Peninsulares. Now with regard to the one who became rich because he was selling his photos as a profession, it has to be a private matter between those who want to know the mystery guy.

Hi Derick,

I'm still here and I wasnt' joking. We can move on but let's arrive at a conclusion. For some people, photography is expensive and for some it is not. No arguments, let's just play a round of golf one of these days.

Gabriel and Mark,

Competition is not about who has the biggest pixel count in one's camera. You will be surprised with what resolution is submitted to some advertising companies. Some only require 3.1 megapixels in their billboards. I had the same experience when I bid for a multi-national company with a regional office in Singapore. They only required me to submit the CD proof using a 3.1 megapixel camera, I said that I don't have one anymore. All I have is a 6.1 megapixel camera compared to the ones that the big leagues are using like 10.2 megapixels and 16 megapixel top of the line Mark 2 Ds. Survival is based more on the qualiity of work we deliver, world-class customer service and after-sales support, marketing strategies, sales management as well as being professional by submitting our images on time, not being late on business meetings and most importantly making the client feel relaxed during the photoshoot.

I can tell you who the richest photographer is but let's keep it to ourselves and respect the privacy of Mr. ____. There is a big hope and potential for Photography in the Philippines. There is an average of 2,104 weddings a day. I can send you more data and statistics if you need it. Best Regards.

Competition is not about who has the biggest pixel count in one's camera. You will be surprised with what resolution is submitted to some advertising companies. Some only require 3.1 megapixels in their billboards. I had the same experience when I bid for a multi-national company with a regional office in Singapore. They only required me to submit the CD proof using a 3.1 megapixel camera, I said that I don't have one anymore. All I have is a 6.1 megapixel camera compared to the ones that the big leagues are using like 10.2 megapixels and 16 megapixel top of the line Mark 2 Ds. Survival is based more on the qualiity of work we deliver, world-class customer service and after-sales support, marketing strategies, sales management as well as being professional by submitting our images on time, not being late on business meetings and most importantly making the client feel relaxed during the photoshoot.


Sadly though, in a good number of cases, that's not the case. Bigger pixel count matters. In fact, a number of ad agencies won't pay attention to you if you don't have a digital back. Just a little over two years ago, one advertising agency told me that their minimum requirement for their photo needs was 14 megapixels. At that time, the only dSLR that could do that was the Kodak 14n. I asked "surely you don't need 14 megapixels for a quarter page newspaper ad", they answered point blank "yes, we do." There are some hot photographers today who are very much sought after, but they lament the fact that they can't penetrate some ad agencies for the big projects unless they have a digital back that can produce X number of megapixels. To cite even one particular situation, one of these sought after photographers asked me if he could rent my 1Ds II as he was bidding for a requirement wherein the required file size should be an uninterpolated 40mb file. Then he told me never mind because the ad agency told him that they wanted a digital back and a DSLR was not good enough - even if the 1Ds II delivers a 48MB Tiff image once converted. Now I even hear of some agencies wanting a minimum 60MB file size uninterpolated.
In many cases, they really don't need that many megapixels yet that's what some clients want. Whether it is due to an understanding or misunderstanding of resolution and sensor sizes, or due to brainwashing by marketing forces, the bottom line is some clients insist on gear.

Another photographer who was shooting at DPI for an ad shoot asked if he could borrow a camera for me just for show. I asked why, he said that the client specifically said that there must be 2 cameras present during the shoot for back up purposes.

Lucky that the ad you bid for required only 3.1 megapixels. Prior to 6 megapixel cameras, they had no choice but to use 3.1 megapixels which was acceptable. Now there are clients who insist for much more and rightly so. Though 3 megapixels might be sufficient for billboard, you get better quality with more resolution. Plus, in case the client needs to crop the image for the billboard, more megapixels have an advantage.

This requirement for standards for gear even almost happened in the editorial photography industry. Just barely 2 years ago, one top official of a major publication made a statement that only high end digital SLRs were to be used for their magazines. To be specific, it was said that your camera had to be worth at least X amount of pesos (6 figures) to be able to shoot for their magazines. It didn't push through when they realized that they would hardly have any photographers left to shoot for them because majority of the photographers shooting for them cameras in the class of 20D and lower which was way below the stated price range for the camera.

So, in such cases, photography can get really expensive. One photographer took the leap and spent way over a million buying a digital back just to compete with the big time advertising photographers. Whether it is paying off, I have not been able to get feedback on that.

Of course, there are still more clients that are not that particular. Anyway, 8 megapixels is enough for most applications. Even billboards.

There is a big hope and potential for Photography in the Philippines. There is an average of 2,104 weddings a day. I can send you more data and statistics if you need it. Best Regards.

I want this data. Please give me details on how I can have it.

There is an average of 2,104 weddings a day. I can send you more data and statistics if you need it. Best Regards.

That's amazing. There's plenty of love(business) to spread around then.

I met Mang Guring way back my PWU Fine Art Days (1980), 26 years ago at Luneta when i used to bring my gilfriend for a walk at chinese garden. There with my Pentax k2 camera i learned a bit of photography. For me, during that time, a photographer was just a simple being, no big money to boast because after selling his prints (while stilll wet), Mang Guring would then buy me banana que at U.N. Avenue where the muslim settlers used to stay then, then our simple photography workshop starts. He showed me his barong barong and his family , they are all smiling all the time. His kids are small then, but when i visited him 5 years ago he has a child already working in Makati. The aura of Mang Guring still the same tho old already and still holding on to his priceless possesion, not the camera but his family with simple, happy contented life. I conclude that happy and rich people are those who love what they are doing, what they have now and living with it. Mang Guring for me is the richest photographer in the land. And rubbing elbows with Mang Guring seems like rubbing elbows with the higher powers of philipine photography:)

I want this data. Please give me details on how I can have it.

I'm gonna get flack for this, but I am sure that "guesstimate" includes all MASS weddings in churches, justice halls, brangay halls, secret vows in the basement!!! I doubt its a quality average!:D :D :D

Dino, that's not your market man! I've seen your work. IF i were a professional-photog, what i want to see, is the potential "market paying the rates I want" vis-a-vis, equal caliber photogs "charging the rates I want". Then I will know my industry positioning, or at least where I want to go. Believe me, you cannot teach "taste and breeding". But again that's just me. Anything below the line ain't worth it!

And that is the reason why I do something else to afford the gear I want. Its becasue I love photography. Deadlines, accounting, and all backroom-business issues do not appeal to me, at least for the business of photography.

A quote from a leading Stock Photography website.

[QUOTE] 48MB minimum uncompressed file size (unless reportage material, which we will accept as 24MB minimum). Alamy have imposed this minimum requirement to sell to the widest possible market. Note that images could be used for anything from a small web image to a giant poster.

Note for images from digital cameras - We strongly recommend that images are captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 17MB and upwards (6 megapixels). Please then interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using professional upsizing software. We recommend Genuine Fractals™, although other professional upsizing software is equally acceptable, including Abobe Photoshop versions 7 and CS/CS2 (if the bicubic option is used). [/ QUOTE]

I did also hear, though can find no proof of this on there website that Getty Images will only accept new submissions's from Full Frame digital camera's and they no longer take submission's on film.

Mike

I'm gonna flack for this, but I am sure that "guesstimate" includes all MASS weddings in churches, justice halls, brangay halls, secret vows in the basement!!! I doubt its a quality average!:D :D :D

Dino, that's not your market man! I've seen your work. IF i were a professional-photog, what i want to see, is the potential "market paying the rates I want" vis-a-vis, equal caliber photogs "charging the rates I want". Then I will know my industry positioning, or at least where I want to go. Believe me, you cannot teach "taste and breeding". But again that's just me. Anything below the line ain't worth it!

And that is the reason why I do something else to afford the gear I want. Its becasue I love photography. Deadlines, accounting, and all backroom-business issues do not appeal to me, at least for the business of photography.

OT: I want this data for another purpose. I want to understand the whole wedding photo industry. :)

I met Mang Guring way back my PWU Fine Art Days (1980), 26 years ago at Luneta when i used to bring my gilfriend for a walk at chinese garden. There with my Pentax k2 camera i learned a bit of photography. For me, during that time, a photographer was just a simple being, no big money to boast because after selling his prints (while stilll wet), Mang Guring would then buy me banana que at U.N. Avenue where the muslim settlers used to stay then, then our simple photography workshop starts. He showed me his barong barong and his family , they are all smiling all the time. His kids are small then, but when i visited him 5 years ago he has a child already working in Makati. The aura of Mang Guring still the same tho old already and still holding on to his priceless possesion, not the camera but his family with simple, happy contented life. I conclude that happy and rich people are those who love what they are doing, what they have now and living with it. Mang Guring for me is the richest photographer in the land. And rubbing elbows with Mang Guring seems like rubbing elbows with the higher powers of philipine photography:)

That's a very classic perspective. I love it. Things are doing very well for me in wedding photo business both financially and emotionally. But that doesn't make me richer than Mang Guring. Well, it doesn't make Don Jaime richer than me also. :)

PS. I hope I still can walk at Luneta like I do in the 70s. :) That would make me feel richer. :)

At the top of the game, digital is really really more expensive.


I'd just like to clarify this statement -- digital's fixed costs are more expensive but variable costs are lower, while the reverse is true for film :) So shoot enough frames and they even out (albeit a few tens of thousands of shots)

Originally Posted by Gabriel Ang
At the top of the game, digital is really really more expensive.


I'd just like to clarify this statement -- digital's fixed costs are more expensive but variable costs are lower, while the reverse is true for film http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/images/smilies/Drogar-Happy%28DBG%29.gif So shoot enough frames and they even out (albeit a few tens of thousands of shots)

Considering the initlal expenses will be the Camera body and computer (if you don't already have one). Price of lenses is almost the same except for the 10-24mm range. Considering the price of film/D&P, a couple of thousand shots is enough. For a wedding photographer shooting 10-20 rolls per wedding, ROI should be faster.

The learning curve is easier too.

And as Louie A. said, the type of gear you buy demands on your job requirement. having a little more than your job requiements sometimes feel better also.

I'd just like to clarify this statement -- digital's fixed costs are more expensive but variable costs are lower, while the reverse is true for film :) So shoot enough frames and they even out (albeit a few tens of thousands of shots)

I guess the marketing department did a very good job at this spin. Repeated frequently, it starts sounding true.

All I can say is that spin doctors have finally convinced hobbyist to now willingly unload P60K from their wallet for the body alone, whereas the concept was formerly unthinkable. Moreover, they also convinced people that upgrades are necessary. I guess peoples's indifference curves have shifted as a result of the perceived convenience.

Does anyone own Canon/Nikon stocks? :D

Digital Photography will always be expensive, we are dealing with a technology that is constantly changing.

Unlike back in the days when film was king, there is only so much technology you can cram into a body when the most important component, the film hardly changes. Today its different, the constant improvement in sensors, higher megapixels, dictate the price. Also with this improvement we also need to constantly upgrade to more powerful computers to handle the additional increase in filesizes. Trying processing a 8 mega pixel RAW file on a 2.0Ghz PC with only 512MB RAM... its a tragic story.

We can hold back from spending for as long as we can, but for professionals whose demands require it as well as to remain compitetive and to hobbyists that demand instant gratification and to keep up with the times, it would be always expensive.

For beginners though shooting digital is a blessing, it gives them a faster learning curve and wouldn't waste tons of film experimenting, most of all (and I think this is true for both beginners, hobbyists and professionals) it gives more control and power back to the photographer.

My two cents.

Sadly though, in a good number of cases, that's not the case. Bigger pixel count matters. In fact, a number of ad agencies won't pay attention to you if you don't have a digital back. ...
Of course, there are still more clients that are not that particular. Anyway, 8 megapixels is enough for most applications. Even billboards.

For a moment there I thought about if what Mr. Jo Avila said was true. He said that he had 2 images posted on billboards and the camera he used was only a 6MP camera. He said that he just shoot it in RAW format. Then the last statement came. Whew! :Grin:

I just wonder... Is there a big difference between an image that will be used for a billboard that was shot using a 10MP cam and a digital back? I mean, if the 10MP cam can deliver the work "NEEDED" for a clean image for a billboard's purpose, why use an expensive digital back? The person that will be looking at the billboard will be meters away from the image and from that distance, that perosn can never tell if the image on the billboard is clear or not. :BlackEye:

I just wonder... Is there a big difference between an image that will be used for a billboard that was shot using a 10MP cam and a digital back? I mean, if the 10MP cam can deliver the work "NEEDED" for a clean image for a billboard's purpose, why use an expensive digital back? The person that will be looking at the billboard will be meters away from the image and from that distance, that perosn can never tell if the image on the billboard is clear or not. :BlackEye:

The problem isn't what will just do but one of what the agency's want!

See my post above about the stock photo agency's 48Mb file size minimum.

Mike

The problem isn't what will just do but one of what the agency's want!

See my post above about the stock photo agency's 48Mb file size minimum.

Mike
Yup Mike's got a point here... Cannot do anything about that if that's what the stock photo agency's requirement is MF quality file size... Scary.

I wonder what Getty requires now? :)

X X X There is an average of 2,104 weddings a day. I can send you more data and statistics if you need it. Best Regards.

i'm all eyes... pls send me these statistics... martincpv@yahoo.com ; or if you can point me to a website where i can view them so much the better :)

thanks in advance from a struggling newbie :)

Sadly though, in a good number of cases, that's not the case. Bigger pixel count matters. In fact, a number of ad agencies won't pay attention to you if you don't have a digital back. X X X To cite even one particular situation, one of these sought after photographers asked me if he could rent my 1Ds II as he was bidding for a requirement wherein the required file size should be an uninterpolated 40mb file. Then he told me never mind because the ad agency told him that they wanted a digital back and a DSLR was not good enough - even if the 1Ds II delivers a 48MB Tiff image once converted. Now I even hear of some agencies wanting a minimum 60MB file size uninterpolated. X X X

Pardon me Louie, but what's a digital back?

It's used to allow SLR (film) cameras to become DSLR cameras.

In a nutshell, you take off the back of the film camera and replace it with a back that has a image sensor.

Issue #1 has reference to some digital back products from Leaf Photography (http://www.leaf-photography.com/default.aspx) if you want to research further.

Digital photography IS expensive...if you want the BEST. However, i do believe in growing with your gear, that way it justifies the reason for being expensive. Put it this way, if you are a weekend warrior photographing for your personal needs and wont be blown up to bigger than 8r, it wont make sense in investing in an $8,000 body....not unless you have that much extra cash to play around with. Now if this is a source of income, it´s like investing in a business so it would make sense to have the best gear you can afford....ONLY IF it is giving you that much money in return. Just my 2cents worht and exactly what I did.

It's used to allow SLR (film) cameras to become DSLR cameras.

In a nutshell, you take off the back of the film camera and replace it with a back that has a image sensor.

Issue #1 has reference to some digital back products from Leaf Photography (http://www.leaf-photography.com/default.aspx) if you want to research further.

thank you so much dave... i appreciate the reply.. i'll research it further for sure :)

mabuhay

The problem isn't what will just do but one of what the agency's want!

See my post above about the stock photo agency's 48Mb file size minimum.

Mike

Oh, i get it. I guess I'll stick to eyeing on weddings then. hehe. :Grin:

Hi Guys,

Good to know that the thread has shifted to another topic and here we are learning from one another. First of all, I agree with what Louie A. said. When I was in Dubai, the minimum requirement there was the Canon Mark2 Ds with 16MP for Advertising Companies and a 17-Inch Powerbook and you have to turn over the raw files right after the shoot. Some Ad agencies in the United States require a digital back and a Hasselblad. These gear are indeed expensive but I had the liberty and privilege of renting them or using them for free abroad. Unfortunately, the same cannot be applied here in the Philippines due to economic reasons. So the solution is to shoot raw. The work I submitted to Singapore was in Raw File using my 6 megapixel camera and I had to convince them that it is easier to shoot at high resolution then downsizing it to their desired level. The Graphic Artist agreed with me that they were using an old requirement, they were glad that I brought it up and so the Philippines became the model of their other branches in the Asia-Pacific Region.

With regard to the Wedding Data, I got it from the NCSO and from the Weddingsatwork.com Database. Here are some information worth noting.
May is the peak season for weddings with 2,189 weddings, followed by December with 2,051 and January at 2,042. Surprisingly, June is only 4th with 1,920 and August is the lowest with 1,033.

Derick, you're right this time that the data mentioned refers to all the markets concerned namely the ABCDEFG Market. It is a combination of weddings coming from Churches, Courts, Barangays and other forms. I'm concentrating on the AB Market. I'm not rich like you so I buy things one step at a time and use the money of my clients and not my own personal funds for pleasure. I learned Financial Management from Business School, AIG and 10 years of experience in the banking industry. I also agree with Ross, Mang Guring is now semi-retired and travels around the world with his family and just shoots for fun. Like him, my greatest treasure is not a posh house in Ayala Alabang or a sports car but my family. I believe you also have a big family. Equipment is only secondary, What's best for our loved ones is our top priority in life. Being resourceful is one of the skills that a photographer has to develop in order to survive in the industry.

Dino Lara, hope I answered your question. By the way, I wrote to you 6 months ago regarding the wedding of my niece on Sept. 1 but never received a reply from you. I'll be shooting some candid shots and won't get in your way. See you then.

As a hobbyist, Photography was expensive for me. That's why I became a pro so that I can grow with what I love as the business comes in. I agree totally with Pilar. Photography is a business that entails continuous investment. I am now beginning to reap the harvest and will be upgrading my gear very soon. My work right now only requires a 10.2 megapixel camera. I am still studying the viability of investing with a 12 or 16 megapixel camera just in case I enter the Advertising Industry Full time. I'm happy shooting events and having another source of income.

I hope this doesn't offend any of the members, but it really bothers me when i read one or more of the contributors mention about their financial status.

Can't we just say what we have to say and go straight to the point without referring to one or the other as rich or poor?

I feel statements like that can be very divisive and is absolutely contradictory to the goals and aspirations of this association.

Maybe if this was rich_photographer.com or poor_photographer.com then wealth or lack of it would have a bearing. But it's not. Nowhere in the group's objectives is there any reference to one's financial status. In fact, rich or poor, we're all welcome to join and express our thoughts and opinions here, right?

Our love for photography should be our unifying force. The incidental costs of practicing photography should not in any way hamper this fraternity.

Rich or poor or anywhere in between, i'd like to be able to stand on the same ground with my comrades in this here group. If others are wealthy and can afford the latest and more expenses equipment should they be guilty about it? Or if they can only afford so much, should they be looked down upon?

Please.... enough is enough. Let's just enjoy photography together.

....

Can't we just say what we have to say and go straight to the point without referring to one or the other as rich or poor?

I feel statements like that can be very divisive and is absolutely contradictory to the goals and aspirations of this association.

....

Please.... enough is enough. Let's just enjoy photography together.
Indeed. Very well said.

Chill!

Ryan and Martin,

I understand how you guys feel. I Love Photography. I am just sharing some of my experience and I don't want others to be looked down just because they don't have the latest and most expensive equipment in town. It is not a sin to be rich nor is it bad not to have much blessings. What's important is the person behind the lens, the skills, talents and the great photos we produce. Equipment is only a tool.

If ever one's financial status was discussed, the main reason for doing so was to point out that with the basic digital SLR, one can take great photos. I've seen people with the latest equipment who can buy it in one day and yet they don't know how to operate their camera. They can even afford to sell it the following day at a lower price. That type of incident for me is burning money and lack of social responsibility. If someone has more, he can at least share some to his brothers and sisters who are less fortunate and not brag about his equipment. I also don't agree that one's equipment is the basis for his status, skills and capacity to succeed.

On the other hand, I've seen photographers who are standing outside the church waiting for someone to ask for their services and yet still use film-based SLR at least 20 years old and after one (1) hour you see them holding 8x10 photos that look great and yet they only get a minimal income. This thread is in one way related to coming up with a standard rate guide in the Philippines with the intention of bridging the gap between the A and G Market. I've always admired people who are simple, humble and hard-working. That's all. Peace and Best Regards to all.

:) Peace

Here's to the rate guide project... it will certainly do a lot of good :)

Mabuhay :)

I just found out about this post :D

Yup, I have several billboards around the Metro and they were all shot with my 10d. The 30d still has to shoot something meant for a billboard.

I'm just happy that the clients that I deal with trust me enough when I tell them that a RAW file from a 6mp DSLR will do. It's nice to know that I still haven't let them down :D

Cheers!

Jo Avila


For a moment there I thought about if what Mr. Jo Avila said was true. He said that he had 2 images posted on billboards and the camera he used was only a 6MP camera. He said that he just shoot it in RAW format. Then the last statement came. Whew! :Grin:

I just wonder... Is there a big difference between an image that will be used for a billboard that was shot using a 10MP cam and a digital back? I mean, if the 10MP cam can deliver the work "NEEDED" for a clean image for a billboard's purpose, why use an expensive digital back? The person that will be looking at the billboard will be meters away from the image and from that distance, that perosn can never tell if the image on the billboard is clear or not. :BlackEye:

You can always start with a DSLR of your choice, the basic lenses, and a simple desktop. That's how I did it. After getting my feet wet with some freelance work, I got to expand my system. Right now, it really helps pay my bills. Makes me love my gear all the more. Hehehe :)

Whoooaa.. just when I was planing to purchase my first DSLR, then this thread..:D . Im sure in the next few months, new new models will come out and become the next best thing. I just hope when I get my first DSLR, I will not have the "upgrade itch" and be contented with what ive got, besides, it will just be a hobby for me.....for now:Grin: .

Whoooaa.. just when I was planing to purchase my first DSLR, then this thread..:D . Im sure in the next few months, new new models will come out and become the next best thing. I just hope when I get my first DSLR, I will not have the "upgrade itch" and be contented with what ive got, besides, it will just be a hobby for me.....for now:Grin: .

Just remember Patrick that once you consider to purchase that first DSLR... You are marrying into a system with alot of complications... If you can get a decent body with a very good professional lens to begin your immersion; it may save you alot of money and waive that lens lust disease that everyone seasonally has... At least for a while. :Grin:

it may save you alot of money and waive that lens lust disease that everyone seasonally has... At least for a while. :Grin:

tell me about it, its a very helpless feeling:)

tell me about it, its a very helpless feeling:)

I can emphatize with you Carlo... Yup, it sucks in the beginning and then there will come a time that your collection will FEEL complete... Then it will be ok for some time, until they come up with something new and better... Then it starts to kick-in again... :D

OT: Therapy Anti-Denial: "My name is Carlo... And I have LLD." :Grin:

I just bought my first DSLR. I realize that soon I will be spending more on accessories.

I'd like to update you on prices.

Canon 350D with 18-55mm lens
Henry's - P35,000 (grey market; store warranty)
Watson - P36,000 (with local warranty)
Mayer - P36,500 (with local warranty)
Infomaxx Megamall - P43,950 (with local warranty)

Ridata CompactFlash 1GB 150X
Henry's - P1,900
Mayer - P1,700

My friend told me this morning that "if you spend your spare time with it, it's a hobby. If you spend your spare money on it, then it's an obsession.

"if you spend your spare time with it, it's a hobby. If you spend your spare money on it, then it's an obsession".

Buti pa nga "spare" money lang usapan. Sometimes I think if kids really need an education or do I educate them myself like what Rizal's parents did.

Ha ha ha. Now that's really bad, although more and more people in the US are "home schooling" their kids. Selling one kidney would really make it expensive, as what others were kidding about. ;)

It will become expensive if you make it so. Otherwise, it all boils down on how much you're actually willing and able to spend. But of course, spend within your means, everything is better with moderation.

I can literally say that photography now is the most expensive it ever has been in its history. Gone are the days when all you had to do was make one major investment and you would be complete. I find that I have to make a major or semi major investment every 18-24 months these days. I know there was a thread here about not needing to upgrade your gear. I belong to the camp that believes you need to keep up with technology or fall behind.

I thought our expenses were supposed to drop since we no longer have to process film. That's true but we now have to process our photos with computers! So imagine you are a beginner photographer that wants to enter the arena with some good gear. What is your cost of entry?

Canon Mark II- $8,000
Three Canon Lenses- $3,000
IMac G5- $2,500
Editiing Software- $1,000
Calibration equipment- $1,000
Epson Printer- $ 800

That's over $15,000 boys and girls. Okay not everyone is going to purchase this kind of gear but if you sit down and analyze it, even if we reduced the camera, printer, and computer, you are still out a minimum of $5,000 if you want to process everything yourself. And who could ever imagine a 35mm going for $8,000? That's wide format with some serious lenses just a few years ago. Want to go in to a Medium format now? Try $20,000 or more and you don't even get the camera and lenses, just the stinking MF digital back!

Moore's Law that computing power doubles every 18 months still holds true. The digital photography industry more or less follows this cycle. Can we afford to reinvest every 18-24 months? Its getting crazy! :RedEye:

Makes you want to go back to the film days.

I know a guy that still uses a Canon 10D and often sell his images for $10,000+ for the rights to use them. So, I think one need not acquire the newest and shiniest gears to get by. Technology will only take us so far. It is the users that need to take it all the way.

Most of us upgrade because we have gear lust, not because we *really* need it.

I know a guy that still uses a Canon 10D and often sell his images for $10,000+ for the rights to use them. So, I think one need not acquire the newest and shiniest gears to get by. Technology will only take us so far. It is the users that need to take it all the way.

Most of us upgrade because we have gear lust, not because we *really* need it.

Exactamundoooo! :Grin: Add to that the constant peer pressure that some members of forums like DPP give; may it be consciously, subconsciously or subliminal... hehehehe :D

I know a guy that still uses a Canon 10D and often sell his images for $10,000+ for the rights to use them. So, I think one need not acquire the newest and shiniest gears to get by. Technology will only take us so far. It is the users that need to take it all the way.

Most of us upgrade because we have gear lust, not because we *really* need it.

hahahaha, tama yan. One of the most important things, identify mo muna kung anong genre ang appealing sa yo para malaman mo kung anong gamit lang talaga ang kailangan mo bilhin para ma-shoot mo mga subjects na specific sa favorite genre mo. Kung bibili ka ng mamahaling lens tulad ng 70-200 f2.8 na puti tapos ang trip mo pala eh studio portraiture na close up, eh aamagin lang yun lens mo :D kasi bihira mo lang magagamit. Unless mahilig ka sa Bird Photography, yan talagang napakawide ng array of lenses na kakailanganin mo dyan, from tele to macro of all sorts yan hahaha. Ako talaga cheapo ako hehehehe, masaya na ko sa setup kong 350D with Canon 50mm f1.8, Sigma 24-60mm f2.8, Sigma 70-300mm f4 APO DG Macro. Pero kung may pambili ako ng Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, why not?!? :D

It will become expensive if you make it so. Otherwise, it all boils down on how much you're actually willing and able to spend. But of course, spend within your means, everything is better with moderation.

I was about to say that too, anything, not just digital photography can be expensive if you make them so... kahit pagkain, you can be contented in a fastfood but some still eat at big named restos.

For me ganun din ang photography... I have been using my 300D and its kit lens for a very long time... and I'm happy with it :)

it is in fact cheaper. No films to develop, and resources are available in www.google.com (http://www.google.com)

who needs to go to photography school when you got the internet.

before you have to go to luneta to chat with fellow photographers. now just go to www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum) and chat with fellow photographers.. isn't that cheap??


photography is about capturing memories.. it should not be expensive. You buy a cellphone and you get a bonus camera. Isn't that cheap enough?

only people who suffer from insecurities and has envy problems are the ones saying that digital photography is expensive..

I was about to say that too, anything, not just digital photography can be expensive if you make them so... kahit pagkain, you can be contented in a fastfood but some still eat at big named restos.

For me ganun din ang photography... I have been using my 300D and its kit lens for a very long time... and I'm happy with it :)


and owning a motorized vehicle is expensive if a motorized vehicle for you one of those Ferraris or Porsche owned by your friend.. Yes it will be expensive for you..hehehe..

I was about to say that too, anything, not just digital photography can be expensive if you make them so... kahit pagkain, you can be contented in a fastfood but some still eat at big named restos.

For me ganun din ang photography... I have been using my 300D and its kit lens for a very long time... and I'm happy with it :)

So True! :)

Anything can get too expensive.

During the film days, the costs involved in buying film, having them developed and printed, buying fresh batteries, were considered costly. Then came digital into the picture and t'was regarded as an alternative to the pricey film route. Now it's come full circle and digital photography is now touted as expensive.

Ahh well, indeed it is expensive, but what else is not? :)

it became expensive because people treat a camera as a 'STATUS SYMBOL'

Its like, showing off your wealth on group gatherings by bringing in an expensive DSLR.

@Mike,
Some people consider it as a toy while others consider it as a tool for a decent living by being a professional. It's not showing off your wealth or anything but being there on business, nothing personal just doing what we love most. Sometimes we have to spend in order to earn more and there are companies that require a certain equipment for a demanding job like in Advertising, Events Coverage, Fashion and Weddings.

Its like, showing off your wealth on group gatherings by bringing in an expensive DSLR.
@Mike, please don't take it against people using expensive DSLR on group gatherings and tag them as "Showing Off". Its their right, they can afford to use that type of equipment.
Again, please be sensitive with your comments. Peace.:)

@Mike,
Some people consider it as a toy while others consider it as a tool for a decent living by being a professional. It's not showing off your wealth or anything but being there on business, nothing personal just doing what we love most. Sometimes we have to spend in order to earn more and there are companies that require a certain equipment for a demanding job like in Advertising, Events Coverage, Fashion and Weddings.

I agree with Eric. Some people consider expensive digital cameras a toy, some treat them as status symbols meant to impress others, while some, especially those of us in advertising, merely use them as tools. So, to each his own.

When we were just starting, we could not afford the best, but more expensive, medium format camera - the Hasselblad. So we bought a cheap Hasselblad wannabe called the Kowa. One photographer jokingly shook his head and said "kowawa naman kayo." We laughed about that but did not take offense. We thought he was witty. But John used his Kowa as if it was the best camera (at that moment, yes, it was the best - the best that we had) and produced good photos. But we knew it was not a Hasselblad, not as sharp or sturdy as one, and we dreamt of having a Hasselblad. When we could afford it, AND NOT SOONER:) , we got ourselves a Hasselblad. Actually, we traded in a Nikon for a Hasselblad. We had a client who bought a Hasselblad and never used it. He traded down, we traded up, and we were both happy as we ended up with cameras that we each could use.

Because of our work, we do have these sophisticated equipment, but everyday, John walks around with a Sony or Canon pocket-size point-and-shoot digital camera. He's never without one.

Whenever there is a debate on equipment - and I still don't understand the need for such debates - John always says (he must have heard it from someone else but don't know who) - it's the "injun"(indian) not the "pana," but if you have the best injun and the best pana together, that injun would be a formidable foe. As long as the cost of his "pana" does not bankrupt him, and only if he would learn how to use it so he could shoot well.

Ma'am Harvy... sir John doesn't just walk around with the cameras you mentioned... I've seen him work as a person and not a photographer... he has this "thing" that bring smiles on people faces, young and old. Because of this, I do not mind if he walk around with two expensive Canon bodies and brag how sturdy they are. It really is all about the personality of the camera holder. :D

I am so glad to be with him on our Banaue trip.

i see amateurs who get to the point of even getting loans and getting into deep debt to fund their photography hobby..

that is surely expensive. how insane..

i see amateurs who get to the point of even getting loans and getting into deep debt to fund their photography hobby..

that is surely expensive. how insane..

yeah i heard this story lots of times. we were talking about this one of those nights in owg with sir raffy. alam mo ng umabot masyado sa mali pag ganyan eh. if you can't afford it you should hold off your purchase. self control talaga ang kailangan.

yeah i heard this story lots of times. we were talking about this one of those nights in owg with sir raffy. alam mo ng umabot masyado sa mali pag ganyan eh. if you can't afford it you should hold off your purchase. self control talaga ang kailangan.

like this thread

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=1945&page=4


i see owners from some other forums and thread who sell their lenses and body because of one reason "badly need cash"

how lame...

i mean its ok you go into photography and show it off if you can really afford it. If you are as rich as Manny Pacquiao then it will not look pathetic and lame if you probably own expensive cameras, expensive cars etc. But to try to be what you are not, and try to have something you cant afford..Thats just plain pathetic

Just to put my two-centavos in the whole discussion:

I'm just a hobbyist and I have never sold anything nor joined any contest whatsoever. I only do it because its fun and I love it and never been paid for it. And Yes, I might be a bit guilty of spending a lot on camera. I'm not rich, but I would say I have enough equipment that I can say costs me a fortune. :D

However, my main point is that "expensive" is relative. What might seem expensive for some, might be relatively cheap for others.

I know someone in my office who just bought himself a D2xs after having a D70 and D50. He's a die-hard hobbyist, if there is such a thing. He said that digital for him is much cheaper because he doesn't spend anything on film. He said he used to go on trips carrying 30+ canisters of films, so imagine the cost.

And yes, I agree. Its not really wise to get into debt just so satisfy your lens-lust. Like all other hobbies (speaking from a hobbyist POV) or everything general, regardless its luxury or neccessity, just spend what you can afford.

Ma'am Harvy... sir John doesn't just walk around with the cameras you mentioned... I've seen him work as a person and not a photographer... he has this "thing" that bring smiles on people faces, young and old. Because of this, I do not mind if he walk around with two expensive Canon bodies and brag how sturdy they are. It really is all about the personality of the camera holder. :D

I am so glad to be with him on our Banaue trip.

You won't see it - that P&S pocket-sized digital camera - is in his belt pouch. Of course, he does not walk around with a Hasselblad - he only uses that at work. And the only reason he was carrying the Canon bodies when you went to Banaue is well, there are lots of photo opportunities in Banaue.

P.S. Hope you enjoyed going to Banaue with John. Going on a trip with him is always an adventure.:)

You folks realize of course that part of the joy that comes with this hobby is about the equipment that we use. Appreciating quality craftsmanship is part of the fun. And owning it to bask in the knowledge that these people put a lot of time and energy in creating a lens that will probably not make a whole lot of difference in the eyes of many but because they're wired to pursue "perfection" is something that I admire. Sure there's a business angle to it but you can't deny that "nice feeling" when you put your grimy hands on one of 'em.

Good glass is good glass.

However, my main point is that "expensive" is relative. What might seem expensive for some, might be relatively cheap for others.


Haaayyyyy salamat, someone agrees with me. Finally..........:Grin: :Grin: (after 9 pages.... :))

^^ Yup, for me, 20K cam is expensive hehe.

You folks realize of course that part of the joy that comes with this hobby is about the equipment that we use. Appreciating quality craftsmanship is part of the fun. And owning it to bask in the knowledge that these people put a lot of time and energy in creating a lens that will probably not make a whole lot of difference in the eyes of many but because they're wired to pursue "perfection" is something that I admire. Sure there's a business angle to it but you can't deny that "nice feeling" when you put your grimy hands on one of 'em.

Good glass is good glass.

I sometimes need to remind our photographers of an advice from a banker friend. He said "be on the leading, not the bleeding, side of technology." What is high-tech today may be completely passe tomorrow. Some of them - first generation cameras, lenses, accessories - may not even work properly after a few uses. Or you could get tired of them easily. Hope you all weigh your purchases carefully. :)

You folks realize of course that part of the joy that comes with this hobby is about the equipment that we use. Appreciating quality craftsmanship is part of the fun. And owning it to bask in the knowledge that these people put a lot of time and energy in creating a lens that will probably not make a whole lot of difference in the eyes of many but because they're wired to pursue "perfection" is something that I admire. Sure there's a business angle to it but you can't deny that "nice feeling" when you put your grimy hands on one of 'em.

Good glass is good glass.

based on your statement, you are not into photography, but a shopaholic. You should go into collecting stamps, coins, figurines etc. Not into photography

based on your statement, you are not into photography, but a shopaholic. You should go into collecting stamps, coins, figurines etc. Not into photography


Hey Mike,

Why don't you put a lid on it? We tolerated your posts in the beginning because it seemed like you had something to contribute but now you are trolling. So I suggest you put a stop to your nonsense immediately.

based on your statement, you are not into photography, but a shopaholic. You should go into collecting stamps, coins, figurines etc. Not into photography

he says its "part" of the joy, so his statement is actually a segment of a multifaceted love for photography. Now if he said the reason why i love photography is becasue of the gear that would be driving a different analogy.

trying to assume what a person's reason for being into a certain hobby based on your assumption and deconstruction on what he has stated is another moot point in getting your point across.

i almost forgot about this thread as i'm strictly a hobbyist.

i quite understand ms. harvey chua's opinion. and we should all heed her words about "weighing our purchases carefully" especially if you plan on making money out of this endeavor.

carlo, your reply is on the money.

mike, i'm not going to contradict you on the shopaholic aspect. i do like to shop. but i also use the stuff that i, er, "collect". by the way, have you seen old cameras and lenses? quite nostalgic. they are in themselves, works of art, and worthy of private dispay, IMHO :)

peace, all :)