# What is with all these beginners with $1000+ cameras?



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.

I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?

Not criticizing, just curious... (and a bit jealous )

EDIT- By "1000 dollar camera", I mean just the body, not including lenses and other accessories.


----------



## Battou (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> Not criticizing, just curious... (and a bit jealous )



Marketers who don't always know what their doing or have little experiance in photography filling the heads of todays beginners that this multi-million dollar setup is what they absolutely have to have to create professional results.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

Battou said:


> Marketers who don't always know what their doing or have little experiance in photography filling the heads of todays beginners that this multi-million dollar setup is what they absolutely have to have to create professional results.



I hear you on that. I went to a photography store with a buddy that was looking at a 40D (hint: he doesn't need it whatsoever. He'd just be overpaying for what he needs.) and it shocked me when the salesman actually talked him out of the 40D and a Canon L-series lens.

Still though, any other reasons?


----------



## Battou (Mar 4, 2008)

None that I can think of, well....except Maybe online buying.

To expand on the previous post a little. Ever walk into Wal Mart and peruse their selection of cameras.......well to put it bluntly any P-Shooter you want is likely there however for SLRs be they digital or film all you have to choose from is the most resent of whatever manufacturer.

Walk into Wal-Mart and pick up the Rebel XT on display and ask the clerk "so what are the specks on this baby?" and you will likely get one of three responses: I dunno, handed Rebel XTi "this one has higher MGP", a word for word reading of the brosure.

The specialized staff like you have are a rare breed among a rare group. Few and far between are specialized photography shops, places like B&H are bringing an end to the era so to speak with the convenience of the internet. B&H is one of the best you can find, and it is easy to buy from the internet, so many are taking that route and local shops have a difficult time competing. Even then the number of honest photo shops are dwindling in an effort to stay alive by pushing the more expensive gear (enter the other head fillers).

With buying on line the chances of being talked out of one thing or another is down right low. All you have to work with are reviews and testimonials from users. There is little way for some beginners to find what they really need as opposed to what they think they need.


----------



## passerby (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> Not criticizing, just curious... (and a bit jealous )


 
I was looking for a quality snap shooter on the market, and they were 3 that attracted me. They were sony T200, canon G9 and coolpix 5100. Their prices were roughly above $600 all the way to $800. While searching for more info I came across nikon D40 review, very interesting review. Than I read more reviews from different site with the same views. Than I read more reviews of other DSLRs. The D40 was $600 on ebay and $700 at the local shop.

Because that I came into conclusion that for the snapper I need only the cheapest one, and I spend the rest for the D40 some 2 weeks later.

The snpshooter is in my work bag all the time, just like my previous cameras which were stolen by somebody.


----------



## TCimages (Mar 4, 2008)

or the other side of this is maybe beginers are more informed than you think. The internet is a great resource to learn and understand the different cameras and the flexibility that many models offer. If you can afford it, Why not buy something you can grow into instead having to buy again in a year. I personally don't understand why the cost would have anything to do with the buyers ability. We buy lots of things we don't know how to use in the begining...and we learn it.


----------



## Battou (Mar 4, 2008)

TCimages said:


> or the other side of this is maybe begginers are more informed than you guys are giving credit for.  The internet is a great resource to learn and understand the different cameras and the flexibility that an many models offer. If you can afford it, Why not buy something you can grow into instead having to buy again in a year.



I understand what you are saying but, there is the element of "too much information" with this. Curiosity did not kill the cat because it was investigating the wrong thing, it got killed because it acted on an investigation that put it in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Not every beginner is out to become a photographer, your standard issue happysnapper does not need top of the line equipment to save the memory of the birthday parties. That's seven or eight hundred dollars that will get used once or twice a year.

For the beginners who are out to become photographers, often still fall victim to having to buy again after a short period of time when/if they enlist in classes as many require analog for atleast the first year. All that flexibility gets shelved and spending starts over again.

It's for this reason I firmly believe that when getting started the perspective photographer absolutely needs to evaluate what they want to do with the camera and how far they want to go right from the start. Simply because one can not learn what they want to accomplish on the internet. They can learn what they need to accomplish it yes but as you well know what you need to accomplish your goals is different from what I need to accomplish mine, this applies to everyone. Yes things and goals may change over time but what doesn't. If one does not know what they want, they don't know what they are looking for and then by default they go with what ever looks the best wether they really need it or not.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

passerby said:


> Because that I came into conclusion that for the snapper I need only the cheapest one, and I spend the rest for the D40 some 2 weeks later.



There you go though. You bought a camera that has all the features you need and you didn't overspend. That is ideal.

My point is that some newbie with a Canon 40D/Nikon D80 won't take nearly as good of pictures as an experienced photographer with a Canon 20D/Nikon D50. If the cheaper camera has all the features you want, why spend more on the next tier?

I got a 10D because it has a more professional feel than the Rebel XT/XTi. I had the cash for something higher up, by why spend the extra money if I wont be utilizing the extras on the next tier cameras?

The average newbie will not need to shoot 12MP pictures. The average newbie will not take any better pictures with a 1200 dollar lens. The average newbie will not snap better shots with a higher tier camera period.

Will I "outgrow" my 10D? Probably. It could be a year from now, or six. By then, anything I would have bought now that is higher tier will be just as outdated. Anything higher tier is effectively wasted and depreciated money if you don't have the applicable skill level to make a difference.

Moral of the story- save your pennies kids. Buy used if it's acceptable. That extra $1000 you dump on your camera could buy you an L lens when you actually can tell the difference later on.


----------



## SBlanca (Mar 4, 2008)

i think that most of the time DSLR's are expensive as it is...where i live they're all around the equivalent of $1000, and it is impossible to find second hand stuff or order online without paying the same price as in shops


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> i think that most of the time DSLR's are expensive as it is...where i live they're all around the equivalent of $1000, and it is impossible to find second hand stuff or order online without paying the same price as in shops



Au contraire- I got my 10D for less than 300. It has a couple scuffs, but otherwise it's in perfect condition.

I should have been a bit more specific in making my original post. I used money as a user-experience marker rather than actual models.

To put it in the words of a San Jose Photo tech- "Do you need to take 12 photos in a second? No? Then you don't need the 40D. Save your cash."


----------



## Battou (Mar 4, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> i think that most of the time DSLR's are expensive as it is...where i live they're all around the equivalent of $1000, and it is impossible to find second hand stuff or order online without paying the same price as in shops



yes they are expencive, but question remains, why buy a 1D mark III when a 350D will suit your needs far more effectively, Especially when online shopping comes into play, Ebay regulary has them, B&H have them, I saw one earlier for under 500 USD. Shoping around is easy enough online.


Ok so the 1D is blowing it a little out of proportion but...


----------



## Monz (Mar 4, 2008)

$1000.00 is where you are going to find a good SLR that you can grow into. I wanted something more than a point and shoot.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?


 
What like me spending several thousand dollars on a D200, 6 lenses, tripods, filters, backpack, books, courses and on and on and on?

- First, I am a grown man. That means that I am a big boy and can make my own decisions... lol.

- Second, I did my homework. That means I researched and knew what I wanted at every step BEFORE I paid my hard earned money.

- Third, I bought what I could comfortably afford (yes a prosumer dSLR and prosumer level HD video camera and all the gear does push me over the $6000 mark, but I am ok with it).

Am I a beginner? Yes, last June, when I first held my D200, I can with all honesty say that I was not just a newb, but a super-newbie... lol. 

I am no longer a beginner and am happy to say that because of the time and dedication I put into this hobby, I would place myself into a nice intermediate level. Within a year from now, I will be an advanced amateur if I keep going at this rate. Within 2 years I will have attained the experience and quality of consistancy of a seasoned professional... though I have NO desire to make this my full time job.

Why do I do this? Becuase I love it. Photography is an amazing hobby that gives me a lot of pleasure, and is never stagnant. I have a lot of passion for it, and I hope to attain a consistantly higher level of quality that I am pleased with in time.

Would I be your average beginner? Not from what I have seen here or elsewhere, no... but then again, I've always worked hard and played hard in everything I did in my life. Why would photography be any different?

But, why are you more concerned about what someone else has or can afford?  Why not put that time into something more constructive like concentrating on YOUR needs, goals and desires?

I personally could not care less what other people have, I am just here for the great comradery, tons of info... and of course, always waiting to get a nice chuckle from the humorous comments of some VERY knowledgeable people here like Big Mike, Garbz, JIP, BATTOU, LAFOTO, SOCRATES, IRON FLATLINE and a slew of others.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 4, 2008)

Another question to ask is "Why do newbies want to get a dSLR on the cheap?"  

If the proper amount of homework and research was taken, the realization of how expensive this hobby (dSLR) can get onto your pocket would hit home.  Why not choose a good P&S until the finances are in order.  It is tiring to read all these threads where the OP wants to produce photos like Galen Rowell but spend less than $500 on the entire kit.

I'm in a similar boat as JerryPH.  I had my eyes wide open, I am an adult and the costs were not an issue.  I wanted more camera than I needed so that as my skills improved, my gear would not leave me hanging.


----------



## mstephens (Mar 4, 2008)

i think alot of the college/post college are preparing for the future but alot of the highschool hobbyists are over-using mommy and daddys credit card. and im not assuming everyone in highschool or even younger are this way.


----------



## JIP (Mar 4, 2008)

WhenI used to work at Ritz I used to resent the lkind of gear that some people could afford and not me but I realised it was just that resentment and nothing else.  I say if you can afford a D3 to take the first picture you have ever taken in your life more power to you why should expensive cameras be restricted to the pros??.  Besides, if it wasn't for the amatuers that can afford pro cameras I think there would be alot less advancement in the tech.  In my opinion (and that don't mean much) there is not _that _big a pro market for all the pro cameras that are made so someone has to buy them to keep the tech moving.


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> The average newbie will not need to shoot 12MP pictures. The average newbie will not take any better pictures with a 1200 dollar lens. The average newbie will not snap better shots with a higher tier camera period.


The average newbie does not yet know the true meaning of megapixels.  The average newbie knows only what the marketing says, and that is more megapixels equal better pictures.

The average newbie only understands that better equipment means better photos which those into this hobby understands that is not the case.

The average newbie knows nothing about photography.  Most just want better pictures of their kid's birthdays and think that the more you spend, the better the kid's birthday party pictures will be.

I have a $200 Fuji non-dSLR camera.  I am only 2.5 months into this hobby and don't plan on taking it to the extreme that many others do.  I want better photos and want to do more than the kid's birthdays, but I am not so engrossed that I have to go out specifically shooting for the hobby.  

In the summers, we take the kids to many places on day trips.  I will be interested in the hobby side of photography while I am at these places as well as family shots when there.  I am on this forum and another seeking knowledge of photography to improve those photos I wish to take with my $200 camera.  I am visiting every recommended link that someone posts here to gain knowledge of how a camera works, how to compose better photos, and photography in general.

A buddy of mine bought a camera the same time I did.  He wants better snapshots of his kids.  He spent $1500 on a kit on e-bay for an XTi.  He claims his photos are fantastic because the camera does everything for him.  He shoots in automatic mode only.  He thinks it is great.

His photos are simply snapshots of his kids.  No thought of composition, no thought of exposure, no thought of creativity.  They are taken full automatic with $1500 worth of camera equipment.  His camera is better than mine because of what it costs and the fact that his is 10 mp and mine is only 7 mp.  His thoughts, not mine.

I take snapshots of my kids as well with my $200 camera.  I also take photographs and think about exposure, think about composition, and think about creativity.  No, I understand that I am not very good about it, but I do think about these things when I turn the camera on.  I do know that, my photos with my $200 "only 7 mp" camera are much better than his $1500 "it's 10 mp!" camera.


----------



## patrickt (Mar 4, 2008)

Why do people who surf the net and do a little email have top-of-the-line PCs? Why would anyone wear a Rolex or use a Mont Blanc fountain pen? Why isn't everyone driving a Nissan?

I met a gentleman with a DSLR and the kit lens. He was only vaguely aware that you could change lenses and had never taken the camera off fully automatic. He didn't know what a raw file was. But, he was enjoying himself and it was his money. I realize some don't believe in the concept of earning and then spending money but it still exists in a limited fashion.

So, if you want to drive a Maserati and take family snapshots with a D300, go for it.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

During the early film SRL days, there was not a single feature or "functionality measure" that set cameras apart from each other in a concise manner for all consumers to judge.  The same film shot by a professional can just as easily be loaded in a bargain basement Spotmatic find.  The focus during this time was the glass but the typical consumer either could not see the difference nor was the difference clearly stated on the package by a simply number (it was subjective).  In other words, it was difficult to sell the idea that a high end professional camera SLR body was worth several times the cost of a low to mid-level camera body to the typical consumer.

Fast forward to autofocus.  This is when we saw the first real feature that can be easily marketable to the typical consumer.  Camera's either had it or not.  Minolta and then Canon really cashed in at this time.  Again... easily marketable feature via demonstration in the store.  My father was immediately sold on AutoFocus from the time he demo'd his Minolta 7000.

Fast forward to Digital.  Now we have a clear a concise measure of performance by which consumers can be sold.  Consumers are told that higher mp count the higher the quality of the final print.  All other difficult to understand terminologies, features, and subjective measures are pushed aside.  

The ENTIRE market moved on this.... and RAN with it.  

MEGAPIXELS is to Camera what HORSEPOWER is to Cars.  Car consumers don't look at other important factors such as curb weight, suspension setup, transmission, and TORQUE. They are sold on the idea that horsepower = performance because it is a clear and concise way to compare two vehicles without busting a brain cell.  This is exactly what is happening in camera sales.

My political/economics junkie coworker would also argue that the availability of excess cash and credit in the US also contributes to consumers willng to by into the higher more expensive camera equipment.  Of course this is beginning to change as the economy takes a downturn for the worst.  I tend to agree with him. 


My loose opinion from being on both sides of the counter.... The typical camera consumer is LESS knowledgeable than the typical consumer of the past.


----------



## domromer (Mar 4, 2008)

Just to add my .2 , I've got a friend at school. She's only been shooting for a year or so. She first bought the D80 then upgraded to the d300 as soon as it came out. SHe buys all the most expensive pro lenses. She can't take photos to save her life. When she see a nice photo the fist thing  she asks is "what lens? "what camera" She doesn't even know the basics of photography yet own all the most expensive gear.  All she talks about is upgrading gear. Yet she still can't use what she has. It drives me crazy. I want to give her a k100 100 rolls of film and tell her to come back in a year when she understands photography. Maybe it's good marketing that drives beginners to want the very best camera gear. Either way it irritates the hell out of me. When ever I'm in class all you hear is people talking about how they need this pro lens or the D3. Yet most of these people have a hard time even exposing a photo correctly. I think beginners are *much* are better off with a more basic camera to learn the fundamentals of photography. Ok I'm done with my rant now.


----------



## Jermz_01 (Mar 4, 2008)

just to compliment Dom's comments:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

domromer said:


> Just to add my .2 , I've got a friend at school



I've got a few friends like that.... part of their G.A.S. is my fault.  I've been shooting for most of my life and they see me with old, new, high end, low end cameras and I guess they are just trying to follow suit.  From what I can tell, all the nice equipment seems to simply distract from understanding core concepts. 

(the good news... is that they buy all their used stuff from me   )

The other day, a couple co-workers asked how I was able to obtain the nice shallow DOF in some of my photographs I have on display.  I brought a DSLR with a couple screwmounts the next day to demonstrate.  They couldn't believe that I could create good quality photos using a low end ebayfind DSLR with a couple 60s vintage ebayfind screwmounts.  

In the end... they still want the 5D with the 24-70L.  oh well...   They didn't even want a Pentax because it is not a highly recognizable name..


----------



## nicfargo (Mar 4, 2008)

When I bought my first camera I knew I wanted complete control.  I knew I wanted quality shots and not just "snap shots".  I was passionate about learning photography.  I bought a $1000 DSLR.  Before this I had a $300 P&S.  I still have the point and shoot, but my wife uses it mostly.  I knew shortly after buying the P&S that it wasn't what I wanted...I couldn't be creative enough with it.


----------



## Antithesis (Mar 4, 2008)

My cousin has a d80 with an 18-200 VR and an SB-800 on top and never takes it off auto mode and wonders why his images look like crap. I know it's not the best setup, but it's still like $1700 worth of camera equipment that he won't bother to learn how to use even though I offer all the time to teach him. 

I feel I went the slightly smarter route, starting with a d40 and then moving up to a d80 when I was being limited by my POS kit lenses.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 4, 2008)

This is from a newb 

Getting an expensive camera, while it will not allow newbs to take better pictures, it sure will not hurt them either.

In fact, I believe the more expensive cameras have features that are more forgiving - 40D handles noise better then my 30D so newbs can up the ISO without having to worry about getting other things right.

For some of us "newbs", it's about getting results and if we have the money to "waste" - it's our money. Not like we (me at least) will ever compete with a pro for job in future. If anything, we help drive the manufacturers to come out with bigger and better toys.

The more people interested in photography the better it gets for everyone - price goes down, technology goes up, etc ... look at the computer industry as an example - 20 years ago, the 750GB external Seagate Drive did not exist, today you can find it on pallets @ Frys.

Too bad I can't go to Frys and just pick up an "L" lens for under $200  ... maybe in 20 years?

As to why newbs can spend so much money ... like pro photographers, we also have jobs.


----------



## cdnjeepin (Mar 4, 2008)

I am a total 100% newb when it comes to DSLR..I don't know a whole lot about it, nothing about filters, lens, etc..I did know about shutter control, aperture and manual settings..since for the last 10 years I have been shooting with an old Nikon Coolpix 950. I have well over 5000 pics on my puter with this camera...and not 1 have ever been editied with any programs, never had the desire to try and learn one..

Now i have a D50 with 18-70mm lens and will be getting a 70-300mm VR and a 60mm macro for it.. 

I got lucking in finding a used D50 with 10K shutter clicks on it, and got it for a smokin cheap price.. I was about to drop over a grand on new stuff..till my buddy found the camera I have now..

Not every newb that goes and drops big coin will be a total newb, maybe they shot for years with a simple PS, but now want to go a bit farther in there pics and want a DSLR now..so they drop the cash for something they hope to not upgrade for a few years..

I still have my 950, but now it just sits there, collecting dust, as I learn how to use my D50, and learn everything about it...

I do it just for fun, nothing more, nothing less

edit - this issue happens with everything today, I have a highly modified jeep..yet I see people who will never ever go offroad, driving a brand new Jeep Rubicon, with all the extras, which in reality, will never ever get used..makes it good for the die hards in the sports, means down the road you can pick up top of the line stuff for cheap, when they get bored of it


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 4, 2008)

I posted above, but I spoke more about newbies to cameras than newbies to the actual hobby of photography. In the sense of this hobby, it's all relative to what you can afford.

As I stated, I have a $200 camera. It's what I can afford, or actually quite more than what I can afford really. 

If you have a job, you need transportation to get to work. The country I live in is a vast place and there is not public transportation everywhere. Thus you need a car. What is the difference in transportation sense between a Chevy Cobalt and a BMW 3 series? In strictly the sense of transportation, the biggest difference is cost. Why would someone pay $50,000 for a BMW when they can cover the same need for transportation with a $15,000 Chevy?

I have a $200 camera. Do I wish I had a $1000 camera? Yes I do. I wish I could get myself a simple D40x with a wide lens and a long lens. But, this will go back to my first post, being new to photography, I read plenty of info about both cameras and photography when I was wanting to purchase. I originally wanted a nice camera for "snapshots" of the kid's birthdays and such. After diving in deeper and reading about photography, I decided I may like to be more creative and interested towards the photography side of "taking pictures". At that point, if I had the money, I would have gone with a $500 camera with a kit lens and an extra 200 mm or so zoom lens along with tripod, carry case, etc. That's not the case though, I could only afford $150 and spending $200 was extremely stretching for me.

Fact is, someone just interested in just taking "better pictures" is wasting their money with an expensive dSLR camera. But someone who is wanting to put thought into taking "pictures" and want to actually do the photography hobby side, will have better results with a more expensive dSLR camera. They are definitely of better quality than mine and if you put thought into your photos and are willing and able to learn about it, you will get better results. I know I certainly would get better results with a D40 than my S700. In my eyes and my situation, a D40 along with the minimal necessary extras needed, is extremely expensive.  But to others, even the other cameras you all have and talk about here are cheap.  Cheap and expensive are all relative to the situation of the individual.


----------



## Antithesis (Mar 4, 2008)

Also, I think people will pay the $1000 for a nice camera, because digital photography is a whole lot easier to learn now then it was with film. Rather than using a $50 old film SLR, where it takes a few days to find out what that aperture setting looked like, or if you even exposed correctly, now it's instantaneous. That, in itself, is worth the extra expense of the dSLR. The accessability of photography has fueled the new market, as well as the flooded professional sector. For better or worse, it will continue.

The trend is nothing new. Camera companies have been playing the "Better camera = better pictures" card for a long time. I just compare my old Nikon FG20 (completely manual with not a single bell or whistle) to my Nikon FA. The differences to me aren't even really apparent to me, but at the time it was enough to have the FA be far more expensive. Does one take better pictures? No, I actually prefer to use the FG20.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 4, 2008)

I think, it really depends on what you want to do and what you buy the camera for. If you really feel you would like to delve into photography as your top priority hobby, and if you have the means, then why not invest in something good from the start?

But when I have been asked (by friends) what kind of camera to get for their teenage kids who have never so far done any photography, I usually suggested cameras of the Powershot kind: small and compact, lightweight, not too expensive, and to be used in all possible functions: fully automatic, programme mode, creative modes, AV mode, TV mode, fully manual, up to manual focussing. Thus the young newbie can test out everything possible with the camera, grow with it, find out if this new hobby is really going to become his passion ... and later maybe move on. 

At least that is how I was lead towards photography, only was my first camera no digital done, but a Rollei 35.  That was a nice little camera ... but I always had to GUESS how far away I was from things, there was no help in the viewfinder and certainly no auto focus .


----------



## TheOtherBob (Mar 4, 2008)

Because I had a very specific idea of what I wanted the shots to look like, and didn't think it could be done with a cheap PnS.  The good PnS's I looked at might have gotten me close -- but they were $400-500.  For $1000 (at the time) I could get a 20D with a kit lens -- if I loved it I could add on from there, and if I hated it...well, the resell market seemed strong.  (Whereas if I hated the PnS, it was pretty much just going to live in my closet.)  So at the end of the day, if I hated photography and wasn't using the camera, I might end up reselling the 20D for, say, $650 -- but it still made more financial sense than (a) sinking $400 into something I couldn't resell or (b) buying something for $150 that I wouldn't enjoy.

By the way, who cares if people who can afford nice cameras but don't need them buy them anyways?  Frankly, the more people who buy that 40D, the cheaper Canon can make it -- supply here isn't really limited for most of these cameras, so increased demand will only drive up economies of scale, encourage continued innovation, and allow for cheaper, better cameras.


----------



## CanadianMe (Mar 4, 2008)

Well being new to the hobby for me it was quality ,weight and options that determined why I bought a better than entry level Camera. I spoke with people here, the camera store and read tons on the different Cameras. I had considered a Rebel, but after handling it, it felt light and off balance in my hands. I also knew that it would last me for a while. I tried to buy the best glass my budget would allow, although from when I first thought of going DSLR to what the final cost was, it almost doubled. Outside of One Lens I am now set for several years and no more out of pocket costs. I also have worked all my life and hard so I felt I deserved better than entry level if I could justify the cost and see the need and both of those ended up being answered yes too.


----------



## Heck (Mar 4, 2008)

I got a D40x with a big fancy lens cuz it makes me look like im good. It just makes me feel better about myself thinking people think im taking better photos then them cuz I look bad azz with my gear!


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

Battou said:


> Ok so the 1D is blowing it a little out of proportion but...



Actually, Battou,  don't sell yourself short.  You are exactly right... In hands of most photographers, the 350D will produce just as good of a photo as the 1D markII.  The features that place a premium on the 1D are not features that make a better photographer.  

(A large portion of the cost of the 1D is built into the camera's ability to survive the rigors of professional use.  Dropped, banged, rained on, long battery life, weather sealing, long life shutter, etc).


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

TheOtherBob said:


> By the way, who cares if people who can afford nice cameras but don't need them buy them anyways?  Frankly, the more people who buy that 40D, the cheaper Canon can make it -- supply here isn't really limited for most of these cameras, so increased demand will only drive up economies of scale, encourage continued innovation, and allow for cheaper, better cameras.



Someone doesn't remember high school economics 

I really don't care if someone goes out and spends 2000 or more dollars on all their stuff. What I DO care about is who has been feeding this misinformation BS to them and told them they couldn't get by with anything cheaper.

I've noticed that some of you guys posting aren't what I'd call newbies. By newbie, I mean someone who has never taken their Point and Shoot off of full automatic mode. I've been noticing some people on this forum and others that have no idea what they're doing and still have some 1000 dollar camera and another 1200+ bucks in lenses.

If you can utilize it, by all means utilize it. If you want a higher end camera, by all means get it. I completely understand the whole "grow in" mentality. If you buy higher than pricepoint, you will spend less money in the long run and you will learn quicker. I believe that only works to a point though. Give a newbie a 1D Mk.3 and watch him get intimidated.

All in all, I spent roughly 800 dollars on everything I have- camera, lenses, bag, tripod, flash memory, filters, cleaning supplies, etc. I've been a hobbyist photographer for about 2 years. I used to play with my dad's SLR when I was really little and he would develop the pictures for me. 

Even if I had the cash to get a 20D, 30D, or 40D, I would have still gotten my 10D. We'll see in the next few weeks what I can do with it, when I have the time to go out and take photos again.



Heck said:


> I got a D40x with a big fancy lens cuz it makes me look like im good. It just makes me feel better about myself thinking people think im taking better photos then them cuz I look bad azz with my gear!



Looking through your gallery, your photos are pretty good. A testament to what you can do with a "lower end" DSLR.

EDIT- also clarified the OP.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Getting an expensive camera, while it will not allow newbs to take better pictures, it sure will not hurt them either.



Oh yes it can.  What it does is distract the learning photographer from the core fundamentals.  This is the same old reason why past photography professors preferred students to use cameras that were fully manual without the temptation of AF and auto-metering (Pentax K1000 for example).




> The more people interested in photography the better it gets for everyone - price goes down, technology goes up, etc ... look at the computer industry as an example - 20 years ago, the 750GB external Seagate Drive did not exist, today you can find it on pallets @ Frys.
> 
> Too bad I can't go to Frys and just pick up an "L" lens for under $200  ... maybe in 20 years?



Yes your are right.. but I think the OP was referring to the "why"?  The lower prices are a result not the cause.

I really doubt you'll find L lenses drop in price... the techniques to produce high quality optics has been around for centuries (albeit improved on).   Price hasn't really dropped and the manufacturing has not gotten cheaper (unlike in computers).  In fact, some lenses have increased in price due to materials being more difficult to locate.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> it shocked me when the salesman actually talked him out of the 40D and a Canon L-series lens.


 Good for him. I work on "commission" selling cameras too, and I never let that change what I do. I honestly try to sell the camera that would work best for the guy, nothing more, nothing less. I've talked a guy out of a D200 after I found out he didn't know what shutter and aperture were.  I know many salesmen would have pushed for it anyway, and they are not nice people.



Battou said:


> Marketers ... filling the heads of todays beginners that this multi-million dollar setup is what they absolutely have to have to create professional results.


 That's usually so, but not always so. I bought my Konica Minolta Dimage A2 with accessories for $1300 when it was new, but I did so because I knew it was a good camera. I had read dozens of pages of specs and reviews beforehand for almost a month before I was comitted to buy. (This was my very first real camera. My previous camera was a polaroid I got when I was ten) That A2's almost 5 years old now and it's still perfectly competitive with todays compact cameras.  The images are just a bit noisier. 



usayit said:


> Mystwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Getting an expensive camera, while it will not allow newbs to take better pictures, it sure will not hurt them either.
> ...


 This isn't always true either.  I paid mondo bucks for my A2 because it had full manual control over the zoom, aperture, shutter and focus - amongst other things. Ironically, If I had spent less, I would have had to settle for a full-automatic camera, and I would have learned so much less about photography.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> This isn't always true either.  I paid mondo bucks for my A2 because it had full manual control over the zoom, aperture, shutter and focus - amongst other things. Ironically, If I had spent less, I would have had to settle for a full-automatic camera, and I would have learned so much less about photography.



You misunderstand my post and the entire point of the thread.


You moved to A2 for more control and to avoid getting stuck in a full-automatic camera.  There is nothing wrong with your decision.  We are not discussing the value of spending money and moving out of a P&S (with limited control) into a more advanced camera (SLR or SLR-like) with more control.  

We are discussing the idea of spending a exceeding large amount of money to go from a lower consumer DSLR to more expensive DSLRs that don't necessarily add value to the consumer.  Keep in mind, even the most basic DSLRs on the market have full manual control over zoom, aperture, shutter, and focus.  You don't need to spend the money to get the features you specified.

This was clearly stated in my previous post that included:

"In hands of most photographers, the 350D will produce just as good of a photo as the 1D markII. The features that place a premium on the 1D are not features that make a better photographer. "

This also includes the successful marketing campaign to convince the general consumer that they "must" have the latest-greatest-most-expensive in order to be a successful photographer.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 4, 2008)

Yup, you caught me. I only read the first few posts and the last few posts before writing that. Haha. But now that I understand the topic, this all reminds me of the Monster Cable fiasco.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 4, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> ... and of course, always waiting to get a nice chuckle from the humorous comments of some VERY knowledgeable people here like Big Mike, Garbz, JIP, BATTOU, LAFOTO, SOCRATES, IRON FLATLINE and a slew of others.


 
That proves the old adage:
_*You can fool some of the people all of the time...*_
_*and all of the people some of the time...*_
_*Those are damned good odds!*_
_W.C. Fields_


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Yup, you caught me. I only read the first few posts and the last few posts before writing that. Haha. But now that I understand the topic, this all reminds me of the Monster Cable fiasco.



Hehehe.. thats ok.. I've made the same mistake many times.

Yup.. audio equipment also fall into the same category.   Monster cables, Watches, Cars, Cameras, Jewelry, etc..   I'm sure people who study human behavior have a ball with these topics all the time.

Makes me wonder if this behavior is mostly here in the U.S...  the reason why Toyota markets luxury under Lexus, Honda markets under Acura, and Nissan under Infiniti.


----------



## rmh159 (Mar 4, 2008)

My .02 on this subject is who gives a F. If someone can afford to spend the money on a high end camera but doesn't give a damn about photography, why should I care? It's money that's going into an industry and will encourage it's growth and development... so we all win.

Likewise if some newb that knows nothing about photography walks into a store, gets convinced that they need to spend the extra money and ends up buying more camera than they need... then they're the idiot. Would you feel bad for that person? Who's unethical? The person who isn't responsible with their money or the person who's willing to take it from them? Besides if you're the type of person who walks into a store and makes a decision soley based upon what the salesperson (who has a stake in selling you the most expensive gear) tells you... you deserve to get fleeced.  Buyer beware.

Bottom line: If a sale is going to increase the demand for a camera (which it does) which is going to push the manufactures to increase R&D, supply, technology, etc (which it does)... we all benefit. However that sale goes down, I can't be bothered with.


----------



## Early (Mar 4, 2008)

My first SLR was a cheap Minolta XG-7 with lens and flash for about $250.  I believe that's comparable to spending $1k today.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 4, 2008)

I wonder why this question creates so much debate


----------



## TheOtherBob (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Someone doesn't remember high school economics


 
Uhh, ok. Don't mean to take that personally, but would you mind fleshing your comment out a bit? Frankly, I'm pretty sure I remember high school economics. Remember college and law school economics too, for that matter. Also remember all the economic theory I've studied since law school. (Or at least I sure hope I do, because some very nice people are paying me to give them advice based on it!) :er:

In any event, these concepts aren't that advanced, but, hey, maybe I did miss something really basic -- it happens. If you really disagree with what I said then please explain and I'd be glad to discuss.


----------



## Dominic (Mar 4, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> I wonder why this question creates so much debate



Because of jealousy and envy.  Seriously though, I know someone who had a one-year old D2X and just upgraded to a D3 ("For Christmas").  If you saw this guy's shots, you'd want to shoot him (literally). I don't mind that he buys his toys. What upsets me is that he'll buy the highest level of body and lens, and then put a $5.00 Promaster filter on the front, and have a blank look in his eyes when I show him a B+W.  ..."Uh, what's that?"

I can tell he tosses open the catalog, finds the most expensive thing that says Nikon or Gitzo, buys it, and then surrounds himself with the cheapest accessories he can find because he doesn't know any better.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

TheOtherBob said:


> Uhh, ok. Don't mean to take that personally, but would you mind fleshing your comment out a bit? Frankly, I'm pretty sure I remember high school economics. Remember college and law school economics too, for that matter. Also remember all the economic theory I've studied since law school. (Or at least I sure hope I do, because some very nice people are paying me to give them advice based on it!) :er:
> 
> In any event, these concepts aren't that advanced, but, hey, maybe I did miss something really basic -- it happens. If you really disagree with what I said then please explain and I'd be glad to discuss.



It could go one of two ways. Either people buying more cameras will make prices drop, or they could make them rise.

You do realize that you also pay for R&D in a camera when you buy it right? Let's say more people buy 40Ds, Canon starts working on a new camera, the prices in the 40D will most likely stay the same or even rise due to new R&D costs.

Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 4, 2008)

Dominic said:


> Because of jealousy and envy.



Exactly! This was a rhetorical question of mine anyway 

The only thing I think sad is, if someone not that rich is talked into buying something expensive he does not need. But many people buy things since they can afford them .. and then cannot use them to their potential. but that is fine with me. my images with a cheaper cam are still better then


----------



## rmh159 (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?


 
Man, this is WAY off base.  You can't compare the price of oil to the price of a camera any better than you can compare the price of an egg to the price of a Xbox 360.

One is technology that ages quickly and doens't maintain value and one is a necessity to daily life.

TheOtherBob: 1          CanAm: 0


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

rmh159 said:


> Man, this is WAY off base.  You can't compare the price of oil to the price of a camera any better than you can compare the price of an egg to the price of a Xbox 360.
> 
> One is technology that ages quickly and doens't maintain value and one is a necessity to daily life.
> 
> TheOtherBob: 1          CanAm: 0



Actually, no.

I never said the supply and demand structure was the same, I said that if people will pay more, companies will charge more.

Plus, it wasn't a debate. He wanted an explanation, I gave it. He has much more knowledge in the application of economics, and for all I know I could be wrong.

@rmh159 - I don't get why in every discussion, no matter what the topic, some third party needs to take a side and create this dichotomy of opinions. We all have our own opinion, and we all like taking pictures. Instead of focusing on our differences, why not elaborate on our common grounds as people?


----------



## Mav (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?


Oh brother. :lmao:


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

Mav said:


> Oh brother. :lmao:



Tell me then, why you pay more for a branded item, versus a generic one?

People identify with names and will pay more for them.


----------



## Mav (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Tell me then, why you pay more for a branded item, versus a generic one?
> 
> People identify with names and will pay more for them.


Nope, I don't play this game, sorry.  This has _nothing_ to do with what you were saying before and is a _totally_ different argument.  Here's what you were saying before.



CanAm said:


> Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?


My reply: Gee, could it have something to do with record demand for oil thanks to the exploding economies of India and China?  How bout the concept of an inelastic supply curve where if demand rises, supply stays relatively fixed?  How bout the fact that no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in ages, thus an increased demand for foreign refined fuel which is more expensive?  How bout the oil companies do not dictate and "raise" their prices and that prices are set based on oil traders at the mercantile exchange in New York?  Seasonal demand?  Security concerns?

If you're going to call someone out on their economics knowledge, at least demonstrate some yourself.

BTW, "most" people who visit this particular beginners sub-forum, as in about 80%, shopping for their first DSLR are sticking with the Nikon D40 or cheaper Canon Digital Rebel bodies with an initial budget of $500-600, sometimes even less.  Very few are jumping right in with $1000+ bodies.  So right off the bat you're instantly mischaracterizing what most beginners are buying.  The D40 is Nikon's most popular model by far, and it single-handedly pushed them past Canon for DSLR marketshare in Japan.  Did you know that?  Again, very few are jumping right in for a grand or more.  And if they do and they get crap results, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them too.  If you were on this forum for more than a day before posting this thread, you might have known at least some of this.


Troll feeding over.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

Mav said:


> Nope, I don't play this game, sorry.  This has _nothing_ to do with what you were saying before and is a _totally_ different argument.  Here's what you were saying before.
> 
> My reply: Gee, could it have something to do with record demand for oil thanks to the exploding economies of India and China?  How bout the concept of an inelastic supply curve where if demand rises, supply stays relatively fixed?  How bout the fact that no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in ages, thus an increased demand for foreign refined fuel which is more expensive?  How bout the oil companies do not dictate and "raise" their prices and that prices are set based on oil traders at the mercantile exchange in New York?  Seasonal demand?  Security concerns?
> 
> ...



I wasn't trolling at all. My entire original "someone doesn't remember highschool economics" thing was a joke... thus the "" smiley. I even admitted that the other poster had far more experience in the application of economics than I did. I'm just a college kid, and a linguistics major at that. You think I should be better educated in the way of the domestic and international markets, then write your congressman.

Yes, most people do have SLRs that cost less than $1000 dollars, but I was asking about the minority that spend more than $1000 on their first SLR. I wasn't asking about that majority that bought D40s, Rebel Xt's, etc.

PS- You have no idea how long I've been reading this forum. For all you know I could have been here for months before I decided to register. Reg date is irrelevant to my argument.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> ...



In discussions like this, everybody loves to quote Ansel Adams.  I ask you, did he EVER state that he does _not_ understand how cameras work?  I maintain that, in order to produce good photographs consistently, you need not only an eye for beauty but also an appreciation for the mechanics of a camera.  _Of course, having that appreciation means that you will also utilize the best equipment that you can afford._

In my case, I have a lousy eye for beauty but I am somewhat of a geek with regard to photographic technical knowledge.  My wife is the exact opposite.  We'll go out together and she'll describe a potential photo, ending with the question: "Can you do that?"  I'll use my knowledge of my gear and create the photo that she described.

By the way, I have an N80, a D80, a 50mm f/1.4 with a Hoya Pro-1 clear protector, a 28-105 zoom macro with a Hoya Pro-1 clear protector, an 85 f/1.8 with a Hoya Pro-1 circular polarizer, an 18-200 VR with a Hoya Pro-1 circular polarizer, an SB-600 with a Stroboframe bracket and some other stuff that I can't remember right now.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

Socrates said:


> In discussions like this, everybody loves to quote Ansel Adams.  I ask you, did he EVER state that he does not understand how cameras work?  I maintain that, in order to produce good photographs consistently, you need not only an eye for beauty but also an appreciation for the mechanics of a camera.  _Of course, having that appreciation means that you will also utilize the best equipment that you can afford._
> 
> In my case, I have a lousy eye for beauty but I am somewhat of a geek with regard to photographic technical knowledge.  My wife is the exact opposite.  We'll go out together and she'll describe a potential photo, ending with the question: "Can you do that?"  I'll use my knowledge of my gear and create the photo that she described.



Well said.

Also, the idea of tag-team photography is kinda cute.


----------



## MACollum (Mar 4, 2008)

Photography has been a hobby of mine for a few years now. However, shooting with a P&S is WAAAYYY different than SLR photography. In that sense I'm still a noob, even though I've been taking pictures for many years.

I bought my XTi when they first came on the market so I paid $900 for the body and kit lens. Even though I still suck (and I've spent so much on equipment) I don't regret it. I love photography. I'm so excited about spring (it's right around the corner!!) I could jump out of my skin


----------



## kundalini (Mar 4, 2008)

Another potentially good thread taking a nose dive due to thin skins and egos.

And yet another reason I don't list my gear in my signature, as well.  It really doesn't matter.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Another potentially good thread taking a nose dive due to thin skins and egos.
> 
> And yet another reason I don't list my gear in my signature, as well.  It really doesn't matter.



I agree, gear does not matter. My initial inquiry was out of sheer curiosity. I want to know why people bought what they did and their rationalization for it.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 4, 2008)

It's really rather simple.  Folks will buy SLRs now because the feel they will be able to use them.  40 years ago, SLRs were not for the casual user.  It required a basic understanding of exposure and metering to achieve consistent results.  AND...  zoom lenses were not common, or affordable for that matter.  So a camera SYSTEM was necessary.

These days, the auto modes and zoom lenses make it reasonable to EXPECT consistent, good results without much effort.

-Pete


----------



## TheOtherBob (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> It could go one of two ways. Either people buying more cameras will make prices drop, or they could make them rise.
> 
> You do realize that you also pay for R&D in a camera when you buy it right? Let's say more people buy 40Ds, Canon starts working on a new camera, the prices in the 40D will most likely stay the same or even rise due to new R&D costs.
> 
> Also, if people are willing to pay more for the same goods, companies will raise their prices. Why do you think gas prices are so high and Exxon is turning the biggest profits they've ever seen in a quarter?


 
No, sorry, but you've missed something critical to what I said earlier -- supply. If the product in question had a significant limitation in supply, then, yes, demand could outstrip supply leading to a theoretical price increase (theoretical because of market forces that don't need to be discussed here (and that make my Chicago School friends sick to their stomachs)).

Or, to answer your question, why is gas so expensive? 

OPEC.

(Oh, and the fact that refineries can only process certain amounts at a time, and that new refineries are difficult and expensive to build, meaning that supply is relatively inelastic and has failed to outpace demand over the last few years, and that there are complicated relationships between the various refiners, distributors, etc... Truth be told, the question of gas pricing is extremely complicated, and I'm over-simplifying the heck out of it -- to say "OPEC" is to tell about a tenth of the story, if that. But "inelastic supply" is a good place to start. Anyways...)

But that's why I noted that there was no apparent limitation on supply in the camera market. Cameras are not made up of any raw material that's hard to obtain, and to my knowledge camera manufacturing has usually (though probably not always) been able to keep up with demand despite recent demand increases. I'd guess (and I've been assuming) that the supply in this market is sufficiently elastic to almost always meet demand in a reasonably timely fashion, and that competition is sufficiently strong to provide a manufacturer with incentives to supply as much as it can sell (market demand curves and all, you know?). If that's wrong, of course, then I'm wrong -- but that's the assumption I'm making.

If supply is elastic, then anything other than a sharp spike in demand will likely be met by a resulting increase in supply. At the same time the increased supply has a backside benefit - scale. As supply increases, economies of scale are likely to increase, resulting in cost savings. In a highly competitive market, those cost savings are likely to result in price cuts or increased innovations. Simple as that -- so I guess I still don't understand your disagreement. :er: 

To the R&D costs, again, sorry, but you're way off. Economies of scale don't reset -- in part because Canon doesn't (as your example would require) observe consumer demand levels and then decide whether they want to do R&D for future products. They're always doing R&D, so if there are ways to make that R&D cheaper or better...great. Economies of scale make R&D cheaper and/or better. 

For your view to work, we'd have to assume that Canon built the 40D, saw customer demand for it, and decided to do more R&D than they otherwise would have -- AND that such additional R&D was so costly that it _more than offset_ the economies of scale. But...why would Canon have done that? (Putting aside the fact that Nikon would then eat their lunch.) Or, more directly, why would increased consumer demand influence Canon's decision to increase R&D to a level exceeding its profit-maximizing point? Simply put, they wouldn't - there's just no reason for them to do that (unless they...you know...just don't like money.)

Anyways, back to work.


----------



## WayneS (Mar 4, 2008)

I believe it's all relative to what you can afford and are willing to spend.  I didn't buy a professional model.  I bought a Nikon D40X which I'm very happy with.  I've used many P&S's and felt it was time to move up considering I had started in the photography hobby many years ago.  All in all, I probably have around $1500 invested in it so far and am still going.  Later on, if I'm still going strong, I'll probably upgrade.  

Not quite understanding why the question though.  Why else do people get into hobbies? (that is, those of us that take pictures for a hobby and not work).  It's something to do in our spare time and is enjoyable.  You could spend years psychoanalyzing why people spend money and time on hobbies, but when it comes down to it, it's just human nature.

Btw, I also use my wife for the artistic side of her view. :blushing:


----------



## Socrates (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> ...the idea of tag-team photography is kinda cute.



Well, it took a while but we kinda grew on each other.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 4, 2008)

WayneS said:


> Why else do people get into hobbies? (that is, those of us that take pictures for a hobby and not work).



I'm glad that you used the hobby reference.  It doesn't matter how good you are but, if you take a hobby serious, it doesn't matter what it is, it will cost you a bundle.  Talk to any golfer or hunter or fisherman or stamp collector or whatever.  A hobby is your relaxation and what's that worth to you (relative to what you can afford)?


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 4, 2008)

Why do people buy sports cars that will go over twice the speed limit?

Anyway, I have a couple other hobbies that I'm very tallented at and can use the full pontential of the *high dollar gear* ( which I own by the way ).  Therefore I know what you get out of the good stuff as opposed to the entry level stuff.  I want to get the full potential out of myself now, and still have room to grow into my $1800 worth of camera gear.


----------



## JIP (Mar 4, 2008)

If I tried to answer all the posts that needed to be responded to it would take all day so I will leave it at this: relax people there is no qulification or test to buy high-end gear so buy what you want and let others do the same and keep your nose in your own business.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 4, 2008)

usayit said:


> Oh yes it can. What it does is distract the learning photographer from the core fundamentals. This is the same old reason why past photography professors preferred students to use cameras that were fully manual without the temptation of AF and auto-metering (Pentax K1000 for example).


 
You are assuming the newb want to "learn photography".

But many newbs just want to take good pictures - they equate more pixels to better product.  Sales people at Best Buy and Frys also like to point to 'increased pixels'.

When my wife wanted a "better camera", if she had seen pictures from you guys here ... she would have bought the 5D with whatever lens you guys used for that incredible picture.  I'm sure the 5D with the 24-70 f/2.8L will take better pictures then the SD800IS which I gave her - even in green box mode mode .  

That is $2500 in hands of a newb who will never have it off green box, will constantly complain about having to look through eyepiece, but will be perfectly happy because the camera allows her to take pictures of daughter running around in low light.

I equate original question to me seeing someone with an EXPENSIVE hand bag - I'm talking $10K for a dinky, furry bag.  Who am I to question them now?  I spent over 2K on medal tubes with glass inside :mrgreen:.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 4, 2008)

JIP said:


> relax people there is no qulification or test to buy high-end gear so buy what you want and let others do the same and keep your nose in your own business.


Being a bit of a pacifist, I want to agree, but I don't.  If everyone minds their own business, then there's no conflict, and interesting threads such as this one would never be born. 

I say "keep it up, guys! You're doing a splendid job entertaining me and helping me procrastinate!"


----------



## Antithesis (Mar 4, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Tell me then, why you pay more for a branded item, versus a generic one?



I'm not sure that applies when discussing camera gear quite as much as something like clothing or graphic t-shirts. 

There are people out there that are 'fanboys', but for the most part, buying a bigger brand in the photography world can equate to more compatible lenses and such. For example, the third party brands often don't make lenses for Pentax's or Olympus, or atleast not for a bit of time after the Nikon and Canon stuff comes out. 

Also, the phenomena of spending rediculous amounts of money on a hobby is not limited to photography. I used to mod cars and I probably spent well over $10k in parts for my WRX, and I have a friend that dropped about $90k into an STi (making it one of the faster street-driven ones on the west coast). I realize now how rediculous of a waste of money it is, but at the time, it was my hobby and I was willing to spend the money.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 4, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> I have a friend that dropped about $90k into an STi (making it one of the faster street-driven ones on the west coast


 
Geez!!  Wouldn't a Porsche be more impressive?  Or even one of those big Benz - that always says "MONEY".

At least with expensive "L" lens, everyone knows it when they see it - BIG UGLY WHITE lens.


----------



## bhop (Mar 4, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Geez!!  Wouldn't a Porsche be more impressive?  Or even one of those big Benz - that always says "MONEY".



I'd say that depends on who you'd be trying to impress.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

There are two topics being discussed... these are two completely different topics.

The economics and business practices of selling/marketing (pushing) higher.. or needless expensive items to buyers.  These include responses referring to "economics" the price of the goods and references to how it influences the market/future market.

The mind set from the consumer convinced that the better camera == better photos.  These include posting regarding people's reasons for buying more expensive or stuck in a perpetual chasing of the latest-n-greatest.  This includes internalized responses like "jealousy" and "envy"


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> You are assuming the newb want to "learn photography".



Of course that is my assumption.... why else would we even be discussing this topic otherwise.  For what else reason why this topic would be on "thephotoforum"?  Beginner = someone who strives to be a good photographer not just someone with a nice camera.  



> When my wife wanted a "better camera", if she had seen pictures from you guys here ... she would have bought the 5D with whatever lens you guys used for that incredible picture.  I'm sure the 5D with the 24-70 f/2.8L will take better pictures then the SD800IS which I gave her - even in green box mode mode .



Actually the Canon 5D with the 24-70 f/2.8L is about the WORST camera for your wife.  
1) The 5D is lacking any "creative" modes.  It only has the "core" Manual, shutter, aperture, program modes.    The lower end models would best suited for her as she can choose between portrait, landscape, action, etc.. and the camera will select the best shutter/aperture combinations given the selected mode.  On the 5D, one would need at least the fundamentals in order to leverage the camera. 
2) 5D+24-70L is a very heavy setup.  For the typical snapshooter, a heavy camera will equate to one that is left at home often.  This equates to a very bad investment and experience. 
3) Try explaining to her why she'll spend more money on a zoom of 24-70 (pretty darn short) when a MUCH cheaper P&S will have an effective zoom range of around 24-200mm.  Canon G9 for example is equivalent 35-210mm with a measly 6x zoom.  
4) Try explaining to her why a 5D costing several times more than the Rebel 450D still has the same number of Megapixels.  Try to explain to her that the 5D+24-70 is worth the premium cost over the G9.  

I've been on the other side of the counter enough to know that I can easily sell a high end expensive DSLR+lens setup to a enthusiast beginner.  However... a snapshooter (like your wife) is actually a tougher sell for the high-end expensive DSLR+lens.  Why?  because their intentions are different.  One strives to be "just like the pros" the later just wants good pictures.

In other words....

I can hand your wife a Rebel or a G9 and I guarantee that she'll by far be happier with the resulting photos.   



> That is $2500 in hands of a newb who will never have it off green box, will constantly complain about having to look through eyepiece, but will be perfectly happy because the camera allows her to take pictures of daughter running around in low light.



Successfully shooting a camera in low-light means the person will have to have a basic understanding of:
* slowest shutterspeed he/she can handhold given their steady hand and focal length.
* How shooting a lens at wide open will result in a very shallow depth of field and how to work around it. 
* how to leverage existing lighting.

A newb will be far more successful using standard camera+lens with the appropriate flashpack.  Shoot in low light on full auto "green box" without flash.. it doesn't work very well.  For starters, AF is more useable once a dedicated flash is attached and emits a focus assist "beam".

Buddy.. you just reinforced my statements in almost every way.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

bhop said:


> I'd say that depends on who you'd be trying to impress.



Well.. this is the KEY to the thread... at least in my opinion.

From where I sit... beginners who chase after the latest-n-greatest of the most expensive are just chasing what they see being marketing to them.  They simply wanna be like the Professionals they see on TV.  

This is the same reason why the WHITE/PUTTY lenses of Canon sell so well.  This is the same reason why the red ring on the end of the L lenses do so well.  This is the reason why the "Nikon" and "Canon" straps are worn.  This is the reason why the Branding is in big white letters on the front of the cameras.  This is the same reason why an equally capable camera under the name Pentax doesn't sell as well as Nikon or Canon.  This is the reason why Leica shooters are better.  Um..Ok.. the last one was a joke.

In the end... the market is driven by a population of posers.  Which is just fine and dandy... but we wanted to discuss it here anyways.


----------



## JIP (Mar 4, 2008)

usayit said:


> Of course that is my assumption.... why else would we even be discussing this topic otherwise. For what else reason why this topic would be on "thephotoforum"? Beginner = someone who strives to be a good photographer not just someone with a nice camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am not exactly sure where you come off telling someone what is the best or worst camera for them.  I like you used to be the guy on the other side of he counter and really hated to see the people who made it their purpose to tel people exactly what they needed.  When I sold I guided people to things and gave them options but would never presume to know exactly wht thy NEEDED.  And by the way telling someone a good flash is a better way to get a good image shows that you have a little to learn yourself.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

rmh159 said:


> Man, this is WAY off base.  You can't compare the price of oil to the price of a camera any better than you can compare the price of an egg to the price of a Xbox 360.
> 
> One is technology that ages quickly and doens't maintain value and one is a necessity to daily life.
> 
> TheOtherBob: 1          CanAm: 0




Exactly why is this off base???  The point of a business is to sell a product for as much profit (higher prices) as possible without causing the market to fall out from underneath it.  

If the consumers are willing to pay/go into debt, to buy all those cameras then yes... this can cause the price to rise (of course taking into consideration supply/demand).   This is the same for eggs, Xboxes, and cameras.  Now oil is a bit on different due to the regulations involved.  "Necessity of daily life" type products are nothing special... they are just like any other product with the exception that regulations are often in place due to the fact that they are necessities (for example: you can't cut off someone's heat in the middle of winter).


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

JIP said:


> I am not exactly sure where you come off telling someone what is the best or worst camera for them.  I like you used to be the guy on the other side of he counter and really hated to see the people who made it their purpose to tel people exactly what they needed.  When I sold I guided people to things and gave them options but would never presume to know exactly wht thy NEEDED.  And by the way telling someone a good flash is a better way to get a good image shows that you have a little to learn yourself.



Dude.. stay in context.

We were talking about unnecessary spending on expensive camera equipment by beginners.  He stated that the most expensive camera=better photos for his wife stating explicitly that the 5D+24-70L as an example.  I simply replied responded stating that the 5D is about the worst choice for his example.  

Let me set this straight.  I do not tell people or push people to buy what I feel... BUT.. I will give them my opinion if they ask for it.  By responding to my post specifically giving the 5D_24-70L as an example opens the door for me to respond with my opinion.   My comment needs to be taken in context as a response NOT as a statement in of itself. 

Sure... I'll sell $$$$ of equipment to whoever wants it... its a business.  But last time I checked this wasn't a forum about business and sales.  Then again.. as i stated before.. there are two discussions going on here at the same time.


----------



## Fally (Mar 4, 2008)

Well, before this newb gets skewered and grilled, my fiancee bought my D80, 18-200 VR and SB800 for me for our engagement ring.  I bought a ring for her, she bought a camera for me!

Now, being new, and admittedly an automatic point and shooter, I'm using this camera to get into photography.  Why would I want to settle for something that I'm going to need to get upgraded sooner than later?

Frustrating a new photographer with limitations of their camera that they reach far earlier than they should is not what will progress communities like this.  Allowing any amateur the flexibility to buy what they choose should not be hit with the stigma of "experienced" photographers.  

When I buy higher-end goods, it's because I'm not blowing cash all over hell's half acre.  I'm buying good items that will withstand the next 2 generations of something and then, I'll buy the upgrade.

I would say, rather than chastize the people that are buying things that maybe you can't, or choose not to, help them learn.  There was only one person that posted they would offer assistance to show the other person how to utilize their camera to it's potential.

It seems rather elitist to be criticizing people that choose to spend their money how they choose, by people who, as a generalization, might not be in the same socio-economic status.  That's what makes this debate so foolish.

And yes, that's the biggest determining factor in this debate, always.  The socio-economic status.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 4, 2008)

Fally said:


> Well, before this newb gets skewered and grilled
> ....
> I'm using this camera to get into photography.  Why would I want to settle for something that I'm going to need to get upgraded sooner than later?
> 
> Frustrating a new photographer with limitations of their camera that they reach far earlier than they should is not what will progress communities like this.


Don't worry, I think they're talking more about the clueless newbies who buy a kit like that and then don't know, or care to know how to use it. You're in the clear.:thumbup:


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Being a bit of a pacifist, I want to agree, but I don't.  If everyone minds their own business, then there's no conflict, and interesting threads such as this one would never be born.
> 
> I say "keep it up, guys! You're doing a splendid job entertaining me and helping me procrastinate!"



What he said... hehehe glad we are providing entertainment for you this morning.

But yeh... buy what ever you want.  I've recently gone Leica and no one.. I mean NO ONE.. seems to understand my choice and thinks I'm nuts.. (am I?).  I am also the first to admit that all my cameras, past and present, were more than I needed.  I'll sell you whatever you want if I'm on the other side the counter too...  


I think the best bang for the buck out there right now is from Pentax.. K10D and K20D.  Simply because their cameras don't have Canon nor Nikon written on them makes it a hard sell..  Explain that one in terms of pure photographic intentions?  They are cheaper too....


----------



## domromer (Mar 4, 2008)

Wow this thread has gone haywire! What were we talking about?


----------



## JIP (Mar 4, 2008)

usayit said:


> Dude.. stay in context.
> 
> We were talking about unnecessary spending on expensive camera equipment by beginners. He stated that the most expensive camera=better photos for his wife stating explicitly that the 5D+24-70L as an example. I simply replied responded stating that *the 5D is about the worst choice for his example. *


Can you tell me why exactly???


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2008)

JIP said:


> Can you tell me why exactly???





Mystwalker said:


> You are assuming the newb want to "learn photography".
> .....
> When my wife wanted a "better camera", if she had seen pictures from you guys here ... she would have bought the 5D with whatever lens you guys used for that incredible picture.  I'm sure the 5D with the 24-70 f/2.8L will take better pictures then the SD800IS which I gave her - even in green box mode mode .
> 
> That is $2500 in hands of a newb who will never have it off green box, will constantly complain about having to look through eyepiece, but will be perfectly happy because the camera allows her to take pictures of daughter running around in low light.



I took from this... 

wife... better camera... newb.. not necessarily interested in photography.. wants a "better camera".. wants to use camera in full auto.

his recommendation... 5D + 24-70L

I don't agree with his recommendation for the following reasons:



usayit said:


> 1) The 5D is lacking any "creative" modes.  It only has the "core" Manual, shutter, aperture, program modes.    The lower end models would best suited for her as she can choose between portrait, landscape, action, etc.. and the camera will select the best shutter/aperture combinations given the selected mode.  On the 5D, one would need at least the fundamentals in order to leverage the camera.
> 2) 5D+24-70L is a very heavy setup.  For the typical snapshooter, a heavy camera will equate to one that is left at home often.  This equates to a very bad investment and experience.
> 3) Try explaining to her why she'll spend more money on a zoom of 24-70 (pretty darn short) when a MUCH cheaper P&S will have an effective zoom range of around 24-200mm.  Canon G9 for example is equivalent 35-210mm with a measly 6x zoom.
> 4) Try explaining to her why a 5D costing several times more than the Rebel 450D still has the same number of Megapixels.  Try to explain to her that the 5D+24-70 is worth the premium cost over the G9.



I am confused, JIP, the answer was in the post you quoted...

oops.. I also forgot to mention that the 5D has no built-in flash just for sheer convenience.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 4, 2008)

I'm fairly sure Mystwalker's example using the 5D was hypothetical or hyperbole.


----------



## Battou (Mar 5, 2008)

Heck said:


> I got a D40x with a big fancy lens cuz it makes me look like im good. It just makes me feel better about myself thinking people think im taking better photos then them cuz I look bad azz with my gear!



lol, Personally I feel on top of the world walking around town with my rawdawg gear over my shoulder, walking into the coffee shop setting a couple lenses on the table and sipping coffee wile I sit. My Canon EF, FD mount 80-200, 50mm and 35mm primes look all holier than thou are next to a cup of coffee. 



usayit said:


> Actually, Battou,  don't sell yourself short.  You are exactly right... In hands of most photographers, the 350D will produce just as good of a photo as the 1D markII.  The features that place a premium on the 1D are not features that make a better photographer.
> 
> (A large portion of the cost of the 1D is built into the camera's ability to survive the rigors of professional use.  Dropped, banged, rained on, long battery life, weather sealing, long life shutter, etc).



Yes, that is exactly why I made such an example. I was (still am) under the impression that the OP's original curiosity was geared towards the question of why are people buying gear with options they not only don't need but have little to no use for and paying out the rectal orifice for it. It seemed to be leading into the direction of a P&S vs SLR when it is actually entry level SLR VS advanced SLR VS Pro SLR. I blew it out of proportion to bring it into perspective a bit.

I too personally don't care how others spend their money, quite frankly all these people who firmly believe they will get better pictures out of the newest camera on the market only inflate my ego as I toddle around town with my archaic little black box. In the aria of people who literally have the money to drop two or three thousand dollars just for a toy to play with...What Ever do what you are gonna do it's your money. If you can afford to own that Corvette and still get all four kids to soccer practice, more power to ya. The fact remains some people are being drawn into buying a camera that is not suited to them and actually technically out of their price range, thus is my issue.

I personally feel that if you can not afford atleast two lenses after the body with a kit lens, you are getting the wrong camera. This is made worse with the decline of experienced camera dealers and venders. For those in the market to learn, paying for the options you are going to use should out weigh the ones you won't. I know you know this but it needs to be said, there are some things that can only be learned with experience, shooting with different lenses is one of them. Why hinder your self like that, it's like selling your minivan to buy that Corvette, you won't get them there any faster if you have to make two trips, right.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'm fairly sure Mystwalker's example using the 5D was hypothetical or hyperbole.


 
It was 

But if she did see one of the photos I often see here and learned that it was taken with a 5D (or 1Ds, whatever) with a 24-70L (or whatever lens), she will want that same set up.

I guess the 5D wasn't a good example because it does not sound like it has the green box mode.  But a high end camera with that green box mode will help newbs take better pictures then they would using a P&S?

DSLRs are expensive P&S for most people.  Most people are not trying to "learn photography", they just want to take good pictures of their family, vacations, or whatever.  They see the "profession photos" and they look at the equipment used, and think they can duplicate it with similar (better) equipment.

For some people, $1000 is not much for something they think can capture instances of their life or of their loved ones.  Probably not the wisest decision, but it's their money - they work for it like everyone else here.


----------



## Battou (Mar 5, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> ...
> I guess the 5D wasn't a good example because it does not sound like it has the green box mode.  But a high end camera with that green box mode will help newbs take better pictures then they would using a P&S?
> 
> ...



WTH is green box mode?


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 5, 2008)

Battou said:


> WTH is green box mode?


 
That's what I saw someone else call it - the auto mode.  

Thought all cameras used a "green box".


----------



## Battou (Mar 5, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> That's what I saw someone else call it - the auto mode.
> 
> Thought all cameras used a "green box".



Oh....:lmao: I feel dumb now.....I think I have an entire one camera in my entire collection with such.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 5, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> I guess the 5D wasn't a good example because it does not sound like it has the green box mode.  But a high end camera with that green box mode will help newbs take better pictures then they would using a P&S?




Öhm, I think the 5D has such a mode. I think I once switched it on by accident ....   But no, the potential of the 5D can only be unlocked when _you yourself_ decide about shutter and aperture and all ...

It does not have the so called _creative modes_ though, since it is expected from the photographer to know how to be creative 

Anyway, even if it had those modes, I would not recommend the camera for the typical I-don't-care holiday party and family snapshooter. any p&s is better for them.


----------



## rmh159 (Mar 5, 2008)

usayit said:


> Exactly why is this off base??? The point of a business is to sell a product for as much profit (higher prices) as possible without causing the market to fall out from underneath it.
> 
> If the consumers are willing to pay/go into debt, to buy all those cameras then yes... this can cause the price to rise (of course taking into consideration supply/demand). This is the same for eggs, Xboxes, and cameras. Now oil is a bit on different due to the regulations involved. "Necessity of daily life" type products are nothing special... they are just like any other product with the exception that regulations are often in place due to the fact that they are necessities (for example: you can't cut off someone's heat in the middle of winter).


 
Technology ages quickly so it's not a good comparison.  That's why tech companies replace models so quickly.  For example Nikon comes out with a D40 and they price it at $600 (not sure what the actual price is so I'm guessing a bit).  Even if it sells well they're not going to increase the price.  They make their profit because the cost to produce it drops due to the aged tech inside it.  

By comparing to something like oil or eggs, to me, sounds like the argument is being made that if a Nikon D40 sells well, a year or so after it's intoduction Nikon would raise the price of it.

Sorry to get so off topic. :blushing:


----------



## Mav (Mar 5, 2008)

rmh159 said:


> Technology ages quickly so it's not a good comparison.  That's why tech companies replace models so quickly.  For example Nikon comes out with a D40 and they price it at $600 (not sure what the actual price is so I'm guessing a bit).  Even if it sells well they're not going to increase the price.  They make their profit because the cost to produce it drops due to the aged tech inside it.


On something like this, the cost to produce remains relatively fixed.  Its 6MP sensor was already "old tech" when the camera was introduced and a lot of the other hardware components are all "platform" parts that are shared which have relatively steady and low prices as well.  Therefore maximum profit is made on the first units sold, at an MSRP of $599.  Companies love early adopters and love it when there's lots of them, because that's where they make all of their money.  After awhile the hype and sales fade a bit, so they drop the price a little to encourage more buyers.  Then they go into kits at Costco.  Then they offer the special two lens kits with a camera bag and memory cards and bundle it.  Then they drop the basic kit price even more.  Then they offer refurb units for $399 with a lens and a warranty!  By this point they're really not making too much money on the actual kit.  What they're doing is getting their foot in the door for future sales, because they know that eventually all of their new D40 owners are going to want more advanced lenses, like the 70-300VR for $500.  An SB-600 flash for $180.   A 17-55 f/2.8 pro zoom lens for $1200.   A 12-24 wide angle for a bit less than that, etc.  They flood the market with as many D40's as they can, and then intentionally limit the supply of lenses, including the really nice ones, to keep the ASP (average selling price) high on those to keep margins high.


----------



## Mav (Mar 5, 2008)

Anyways I started with a $1000 camera.  A D80 at or near its intro at $999.99 (close enough).  At the time the D70/s was a bit cheaper and looked like a pretty good camera, but it was already a 2 year old camera with 2 year old technology.  With each generation of cameras, so many things improve like white balance handling and dynamic range and noise performance and firmware/usability improvements that are either unspecified, or difficult to specify or quantify to begin with.  So I didn't really want a 2 year old camera.  The D50 was even cheaper, but a little too basic and I knew I wanted more.  I wasn't a complete newbie.  I was into photography for years with digital point and shoots and took my various Kodak and Sony cameras all over the world literally.  I never had a film SLR, and DSLRs were still enormously expensive and impractical when i was starting out so I decided to wait 3-5 years to let them mature a bit.  Glad I did, because they're STILL not cheap!  One day in 2006 my wife announced that we were gonna have a new addition to the family, so that was one thing.  Then I decided that I was gonna take her on a "babymoon" to Paris because I had always promised her Paris, and it was now or never.  About that time the D80 was announced at $1099 with a lens and it looked great, so I knew my ship had come in and made the jump.

I think I've made pretty good use of it.  Today it has almost 19,000 actuations on it, I've shot some informal and formal company events, a wedding, got a ton of great baby photos, Paris pictures, other trip and vacation photos, and have taken the thing just about everywhere.  I also picked up a D40 and a nice collection of lenses too.  I'm glad I didn't go for a D50.  I shoot just seriously enough that the extra money spent on the D80 was worth it to me.  I'm also glad I didn't get a D200, which was a lot more at the time.  The D200 is a much more serious camera, but 99.9% of the time I'm not shooting seriously enough to warrant a D200 and my D80 does just fine.  No sense in out-buying your own needs.  I used the money I "saved" by not buying a D200 to start up a nice collection of lenses instead.

The advice I was given when I started was the following: Buy the cheapest body that you can get by with, even a used one, and invest most of your money in NICE lenses instead.  DSLR bodies are still advancing greatly every year, and have ridiculous amounts of depreciation.  A nearly $2000 camera bought today will hardly be worth $1000 in the blink of an eye.  My D80 bought new for $1000 is only worth maybe $600 today.  When the D90 comes out this fall, it'll drop to about $500.  A D50 bought new for $700 with a lens ($600 body only) when my D80 was new is still worth $400 body-only today or thereabouts.  That's $200 of depreciation for a D50 bought in Fall 2006 vs $400 of depreciation for a D80 bought in the Fall of 2006 vs $800 of depreciation for a D200 bought in the Fall of 2006.  This is why it's such a bad idea to buy more body than you need.  If you're not using it to its full potential, then all of the money you end up wasting could have gone into nicer lenses instead, which make a far greater difference, and also hold their value a lot better.  A $1200 professional zoom bought new in the Fall of 2006 that makes FANTASTIC photos even on a cheap D40/D50 type camera can still be sold used for $1000-1100 today.  In fact you could have bought it used back then as well, and sell it for about the same price you got it for used today, so it effectively costs you nothing.


----------



## rmh159 (Mar 5, 2008)

Mav said:


> On something like this, the cost to produce remains relatively fixed. Its 6MP sensor was already "old tech" when the camera was introduced and a lot of the other hardware components are all "platform" parts that are shared which have relatively steady and low prices as well. Therefore maximum profit is made on the first units sold, at an MSRP of $599. Companies love early adopters and love it when there's lots of them, because that's where they make all of their money. After awhile the hype and sales fade a bit, so they drop the price a little to encourage more buyers. Then they go into kits at Costco. Then they offer the special two lens kits with a camera bag and memory cards and bundle it. Then they drop the basic kit price even more. Then they offer refurb units for $399 with a lens and a warranty! By this point they're really not making too much money on the actual kit. What they're doing is getting their foot in the door for future sales, because they know that eventually all of their new D40 owners are going to want more advanced lenses, like the 70-300VR for $500. An SB-600 flash for $180. A 17-55 f/2.8 pro zoom lens for $1200.  A 12-24 wide angle for a bit less than that, etc. They flood the market with as many D40's as they can, and then intentionally limit the supply of lenses, including the really nice ones, to keep the ASP (average selling price) high on those to keep margins high.


 
Hahaha good example. My point is simply this... it's not as easy as saying if a product sells well the manufacturers will jack up the price like oil companies do because it just doesn't make sense.  The two don't compare.

Ok... I'm going into "Read-Only" with this thread.


----------



## Rachelsne (Mar 5, 2008)

I paid $600 ish for my S3 which is an advanced point and shoot, I soooooo wish I had spent the extra and got my self a nice DSLR because now I feel the need to upgrade and I cant afford too at the moment.

If you enjoy your camera and use it alot then who cares if your a 16 year old or a 80 year old, beginner or not, if you enjoy it then all is good.

(of course i am jealous of all those with DSLR)


----------



## Socrates (Mar 5, 2008)

Rachelsne said:


> I paid $600 ish for my S3 which is an advanced point and shoot, I soooooo wish I had spent the extra and got my self a nice DSLR because now I feel the need to upgrade and I cant afford too at the moment.
> 
> If you enjoy your camera and use it alot then who cares if your a 16 year old or a 80 year old, beginner or not, if you enjoy it then all is good.
> 
> (of course i am jealous of all those with DSLR)


 
Don't forget:  _Whoever dies with the most toys wins!_


----------



## mstephens (Mar 5, 2008)

to all of you who are bashing "newbies" dont forget you were there once and if you could have afforded a 40D instead of a XTi i am sure you would have. 

I really hope nobody that is just starting is reading some of these replies because they will never want to get into this industry with the way that some of you all are talking down about them so much. if i were a "newbie" and read this i would be backing out of this hobby because i wouldnt want to deal with some of you all *(and no im not talking about everyone who has replied to this topic)*


----------



## CanadianMe (Mar 5, 2008)

mstephens said:


> to all of you who are bashing "newbies" dont forget you were there once and if you could have afforded a 40D instead of a XTi i am sure you would have.
> 
> I really hope nobody that is just starting is reading some of these replies because they will never want to get into this industry with the way that some of you all are talking down about them so much. if i were a "newbie" and read this i would be backing out of this hobby because i wouldnt want to deal with some of you all *(and no im not talking about everyone who has replied to this topic)*




 I am new and those who appear spiteful and jealous you just learn to ignore. This is the first tirade of this sort I have ever read on a photography forum or any related type of site. What does what one pay have to do with anything, if you can afford better than entry level it seems to me the way any rational person would go and even more so when you follow advice from several well regaurded sources. The Camera was cheap it was the lenses that killed me lol. And most of those into photography are not like some of those whom have posted, you get vile spiteful people in every field. And those whom I speak of know whom I mean. I could have even went with a better camera than I ended buying but I went with I thought would be right not what some jealous person or uniformed person would have me buy.  .....


----------



## Lakewood Photography (Mar 5, 2008)

Newbie with a D80 here.  Personally, I've always had a passion for photography.  My point and shoot cameras were suffice for the numerous requests I was receiving from family and friends to take photos for them at public and private functions.  The photos were shared with their family and friends and the next thing I know I'm being asked to take family portraits, wedding photos, pet portraits, etc.  

My husband surprised me with the D80 last year.   I was itimidated at first, but as I'm learning about DSLRs through education and informative forums such as these, I'm learning the powerful features a DSLR offers... and am also learning the importance of good lenses.

I'm a newbie, but maybe one day I'll be as good as MAV.  Fortunately, I now have the equipment and the guidance of the PROs on here to help me learn every day.

Thanks.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 5, 2008)

Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???

Hey, I figured that if I become good at this hobby, maybe after a few years I might move up to the Nikon D80 or something...but I LOVE my set up and it gives me a lot of flexibility as is.


----------



## Jermz_01 (Mar 5, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???
> 
> Hey, I figured that if I become good at this hobby, maybe after a few years I might move up to the Nikon D80 or something...but I LOVE my set up and it gives me a lot of flexibility as is.



a quick search at B&H Photo or Adorama, heck Ritz Camera... there are plenty of $1000+ (body only) cameras...


----------



## probe1957 (Mar 5, 2008)

Why did I buy Callaway golf clubs when I have broken 90 maybe twice in my life?


----------



## CanAm (Mar 5, 2008)

probe1957 said:


> Why did I buy Callaway golf clubs when I have broken 90 maybe twice in my life?



Ah, but that's different. Holding and using a camera is more of a primarily mental process than golfing is. Golfing is all about having a good swing and muscle control. Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones may add 25-50 yards to your initial drive. 

Having a 40D versus a 20D won't make your ability to take pictures any better.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones



If they were graphite you would certainly not really enjoy them. Even worse if they were graphene  let us just call them carbon-based


----------



## mstephens (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Ah, but that's different. Holding and using a camera is more of a primarily mental process than golfing is. Golfing is all about having a good swing and muscle control. Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones may add 25-50 yards to your initial drive.
> 
> Having a D40 versus a D20 won't make your ability to take pictures any better.


 

but why buy a D20 when you have the budget for a D40. that just means you wont need to upgrade your body in 1 1/2 years.

i say if you can afford it without taking out a second morgage out on your house or giving up food for 3 months then GO FOR IT.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 5, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???
> 
> Hey, I figured that if I become good at this hobby, maybe after a few years I might move up to the Nikon D80 or something...but I LOVE my set up and it gives me a lot of flexibility as is.



well, you can spend $7000 for the body alone if you want.

And if you go medium format, proper digital backs (that is basically just the sensor without the camera!) start around $ 8000 

This world is more diverse than you may think....


----------



## JIP (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Ah, but that's different. Holding and using a camera is more of a primarily mental process than golfing is. Golfing is all about having a good swing and muscle control. Sure, they both have an element of judgment, but graphite shafts versus old iron ones may add 25-50 yards to your initial drive.
> 
> Having a 40D versus a 20D won't make your ability to take pictures any better.


 
So why did you buy a 10D then???.


----------



## leila (Mar 5, 2008)

what a judgmental question. who cares? maybe they are taking really good photos on P&S and now they want to learn more.  really, i could care less.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 5, 2008)

I need a new camera.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 5, 2008)

I'm waiting for the D800000.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 5, 2008)

JIP said:


> So why did you buy a 10D then???.



It was 300 bucks and has all the features I need. I don't see the need to overspend. When I feel I want something more professional, I'll move up to it, but this camera has every feature I could want in one.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> It was 300 bucks and has all the features I need. I don't see the need to overspend. When I feel I want something more professional, I'll move up to it, but this camera has every feature I could want in one.



the 10D is a pretty nice camera.  I have one...  was my first digital.  I still use it.

-Pete


----------



## Fally (Mar 5, 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *probe1957*
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's actually not that different.  Golf is about having sound mechanics...for you.  Not everyone's swing is the same, however lots of people could have the same handicap.  Golf is more about what you put into it for practice etc than the clubs you have.

Graphite shafts are going to give you a little more distance yes, but not 25-50 yards.  Graphite shafts are probably also more for accuracy than distance.  It's about what's right for you as a golfer.  

Why did you buy Callaway clubs?  They are more forgiving.  Callaway is a fantastic brand, however the clubs that you bought are probably better for you as they are more forgiving.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 5, 2008)

The game of Golf is 90% between the ears.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 5, 2008)

I know a thing or two about golf. I only worked at a country club for oh... four years.

Comparing golf to photography is like comparing hockey to an easter egg hunt.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 5, 2008)

As much as this thread has jumped topics, I didn't think my comment that far off the mark , since a discussion of metal vs graphite shafts had begun, as well as the virtues of Calloways.  I own a Big Bertha, but actually prefer Taylor Mades.

My apologies.


----------



## GeorgeUK (Mar 5, 2008)

How many people who own a Porsche actually use it to its abilities?

A well driven 'inferior' car may be just as quick if not quicker.


----------



## Fally (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm,

Golf and photography are really not that different.  Both require fine motor skills, both are able to exploit one's creativity, both have benefitted hugely from technological gains to benefit the amateurs and be conveniences for professionals.

You could be a mechanical golfer or a feel golfer, or more accurately, a mix of both and not realize it.  The same goes for photography.

And, not that it matters, I worked at a course for a similar number of years and during that time, played to a 5 handicap.  I also played with inferior gear to what I have now, and was better because i was playing every day.  Golf is far more regressive than I anticipate my photography to be.  I currently play to an 8 handicap (once or twice a week during the spring/summer).

Fallys


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 5, 2008)

kundalini said:


> The game of Golf is 90% between the ears.


Nothing is 91% between my ears....  

I can't even remember what this topic is suppose to be about.  Oh yeah, "beginners" with $1000 cameras.

We've had plenty of people post and state "I'm a beginner and I have a xxxx."  Yet then they state how they have always been into photography, etc, etc.  A beginner to photography entirely is what I think the OP was talking about.  3 months ago, I was a complete beginner to photography.  Not "I use to do photography with a film SLR, a point and shoot digital, a point and shoot film, a whatever".  I was a _complete_ beginner.  Sure I had a camera.  Every household has a camera.  But I was a "birthday party shooter" and neither knew nor cared anything about the actual hobby of photography.  That is what this thread's original intent was I believe, the complete beginner to the hobby.

It is perfectly understandable that someone who has been interested in photography for years, or has done photography with film SLR for years to spend big money when converting into digital SLRs.  They don't need a beginner camera to start out on.  They have already been through the beginner stage.

This topic has gone a bit silly, from cameras to comparing the cost of photography with oil, from true beginners in photography to photographers who are only beginners to the digital medium.  Three pages and I have yet to see anything related at all to the original post of why (true) beginners need to get the expensive stuff.


----------



## MarcusM (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> ...



Well, I paid $999 for the 300D + kit lens back in 2004 when that was how much the kit cost. If I remember correctly, that was the lowest-priced DSLR on the market at that time.

I already had bought a Nikon Coolpix 4300 previously, and I was absolutely sure I wanted to get into SLR photography and knew I had a passion for photography, so I knew I wouldn't regret the investment.

It all depends on the person. If they want to spend that much for their first DSLR, that's their prerogative. Who cares, really? It doesn't seem like much of an issue to me honestly.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 5, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Nothing is 91% between my ears....


I'm oh so lucky if I get 69...
































%


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 5, 2008)

GeorgeUK said:


> How many people who own a Porsche actually use it to its abilities?
> 
> A well driven 'inferior' car may be just as quick if not quicker.


 
In US, I doubt many can regularly driven it to it's limit.

Some people may not be able to handle the Porsche at it's high limits.

BUT it's fun to know that you can, and if you can afford it, who am I to tell you how to spend your money.

Same with $1000 or higher for camera in hands of new photographer who may never take it off auto mode.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> ...



The way that this is going, you may well set a record for the longest thread on the forum!


----------



## kundalini (Mar 5, 2008)

Socrates said:


> The way that this is going, you may well set a record for the longest thread on the forum!


 
I beg to differ.  Quite possibly *this* one.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 5, 2008)

kundalini said:


> I beg to differ.  Quite possibly *this* one.



Psh, that's off topic, it doesn't count.

My argument of golf versus photography is that golf consists more of physical discipline (yes, it is very much in your mind however though), and photography is more of artistic finesse. I think it's like comparing apples to oranges- Both are fruits, but they have their irreconcilable differences (apple took the kids and orange got the house, by the way).


I am glad I have brought a controversial, heated, though enlightening discussion to your forums.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 5, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Psh, that's off topic, it doesn't count.


So if I were to suggest that you were off topic, would it be rude for me to brush aside your last comment.

That which you were "Psh"ing to was not directed to you.

The remainder is not worthy of discussion at this time.


----------



## Battou (Mar 5, 2008)

Ok I'll jump into the photo/golf thing.


Some one please explain to me this, why is it that when I use my new clubs I can't hit a drive straight to save my life, how ever when I break out the the old screwfaced woods (yes, wood) my drives fly farther and straighter.

Here is my explanation, My metal headed, graphite shafted Dunlops have more surface aria on the club face than I will ever need....well With such a large sweet spot how can I miss right. Sloppy thought process, swing and sloppy results. Those steel shafted wooden heads (I have swung a few hickory shafts as well but) have such a small sweet spot all I can think is "don't hit a screw". I think of where I make contact, swing plane and get better results. Simply put, it has all of what I need and none of what I don't.

The last time I swung a big Bertha the ball ended up three fairways over, no joke.

On top of that Why do you need to be able to drive three hundred yards, all you are gonna do is put your self between clubs and over complicate your second shot.


The same applies to my photos, Why is it that I get sharper focus with MF than I get with AF? 

I use a thirty year old camera, If I decided to get up off my butt and put my mind to it I could out do half of the seasoned amateurs here and almost all of the newbies. Why....Simplisity and the fact I can afford to change my glass when I want to. Why don't I, It's a hobby, the city I live in has nothing of interest and I am too lazy to get up off my but and go somewhere that does just to occupy my free time. 



So again, why pay for options you don't need if you can't afford them. All you are doing is over complicating things.


and if you can afford it with out mommy and daddy's money who gives a rats ***.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 5, 2008)

kundalini said:


> So if I were to suggest that you were off topic, would it be rude for me to brush aside your last comment.
> 
> That which you were "Psh"ing to was not directed to you.
> 
> The remainder is not worthy of discussion at this time.



Take it easy, I was referring to the thread you linked, not what you said. That is what I was "psh"ing.


----------



## GeorgeUK (Mar 6, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> In US, I doubt many can regularly driven it to it's limit.
> 
> Some people may not be able to handle the Porsche at it's high limits.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely. It's their money, their problem. I'm not going to worry about it. People will always go for the mosy highly specced/fastest/best/feature packed time. Whether they will use the item to its potential is another matter.

Life is too short for envy and jealousy (even on a small subtle scale).

If I can use the tools I have available to me, to the best of my ability I'm happy. :thumbup:


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Hmm...I have a Nikon D40 with a SB400 flash and a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. That is my ENTIRE set up...I am a beginner...where on earth are you coming up with $1000 (body alone!) camera???


 
If you did not spend $1000+ on your setup as a newbie photographer, then obviously you were not the kind of user being discussed by the OP in this thread.

Though I, however, was the kind of person that the OP asked about. I did not consider it a very serious question at all, becuase the answer to me was "who cares if someone else has more expensive equipment than I?  I care about my needs, not someone else's. I bought what I wanted, with what I could afford and what I thought would best serve my needs now and in the future".

Do all people think like that? I don't think so, but if thats ok with them, then its ok. 

Anyone that thinks that it is wrong or improper, well deal with it becusae it happens all the time.

I was at a gas station this summer past. In rolls a Ford GT ($150,000 car) with a father and son in it. They could not find out how to get the gas cap open... and the father's words were "well since it is now your car for your 16th birthday... YOU learn how, and we'll deal with teaching you how to shift gears later". 

The kid owned a $150,000 car, did not know how to get it into first gear, much less gas it up. I was not jealous, but chuckled and acknowledged that this was one lucky kid. Paid for my gas, and moved on.

I think that for many, that would be the best advice concerning this thread... just smile, and move on. 

Its a great day out there today... time to get out and take a few pics!


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 6, 2008)

GeorgeUK said:


> How many people who own a Porsche actually use it to its abilities?
> 
> A well driven 'inferior' car may be just as quick if not quicker.



I had my motorway driving lessons on a Porsche  And yes, I was allowed to drive it to it's speed limit  .. OK, rather straight and empty motorway


----------



## Mav (Mar 6, 2008)

I was once on a business trip to Flensburg by way of Hamburg, and was shocked to see a row of Porsches sitting in the Avis rental car lot at the airport.  It was difficult, but I did manage to get into my 110ps Seat Toledo rather than going back to the counter for an upgrade.  I just tried to drive the Seat like I would a Porsche.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

Wow...sure didn't expect people to get so defensive over simply stating that someone getting right into photography and purchasing a $1000 body only camera was an asinine thing to do.
   Sure, you are all absolutely right, there ARE $10,000 camera bodys out there...but if you have JUST started this hobby, why on God's Earth would ANYONE want to spend that kind of money on something or a hobby that may never take off? As stated earlier in the thread by other members of TPF, of course the camera is responsible for the turn out of the image...but ultimately it is the user that truly captures that moment in time with skill, experience, passion and feeling. 
   And a final note since we are discussing $10,000 cameras, not $1,000 cameras anymore...just "because I can" purchase a $10,000 camera because you are financially loaded, does not make you any better than someone with a lesser camera. I have absolutely nothing against anyone purchasing a $10,000 camera that has taken incredible images, knows composition of light, has the experience of balancing shutter speed, aperture and overall image composition. A true artist of the image and a real pro. One who reaches such high pinnacles of their hobby or profession, truly deserves such fine equipment AND knows full well how to master such a fine work of mechanical art...but...seriously...a 'noob' purchasing such equipment just seems ridiculous and a waste of money when they really do have absolutely no clue what they are doing. 
But then again, that is our world today. I personally was looking at the D80 when I was in the market for buying a camera, but I figured I would begin with the D40 and learn what I was doing first BEFORE spending more for added features and more buttons to push and so forth. The D40 is a great camera, I thoroughly enjoy mine and my imaging and composition gets better and better...in time I will possibly move up to the D80, but that depends on a few different factors when the time comes.


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 6, 2008)

> but if you have JUST started this hobby, why on God's Earth would ANYONE want to spend that kind of money on something or a hobby that may never take off?


Because its THEIR money.  You people assume these folks with these cameras have been hoodwinked or hornswoggled into buying them from some unscrupulous salesman, when in fact they may have simply asked, whats the top of the line, ok - THATS what I want.

Sory, but this is a silly topic.  All these cameras have the most basic operation - point at your subject, and hit the button.  If the manufacturers wanted to limit their consumption to the Photographic Elite (nose high in the air), they'd remove every "convenience" on the camera, not include a manual and damn sure make you buy your own lens.



> just "because I can" purchase a $10,000 camera because you are financially loaded, does not make you any better than someone with a lesser camera.


Again projecting motivation on another person based on your own bias.


----------



## JIP (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> of balancing shutter speed, aperture and overall image composition. A true artist of the image and a real pro. One who reaches such *high pinnacles of their hobby or profession, truly deserves such fine equipment AND knows full well how to master such a fine work of mechanical art...but...s*eriously...a 'noob' purchasing such equipment just seems ridiculous and a comes.


 
So where is the application to see who deserves expensive gear.  Also who is responsibe for rviewing those applications to see who is qualified to buy expensive gear.


----------



## eminart (Mar 6, 2008)

I used to be a competitive archer.  I occaisionally worked in some friends' shops and often recommended gear to beginners who came up to me at various places.  I never recommended something that they'd grow out of in a year.  That's discouraging to beginners.  Why would they want to start out it something that limits them?  I recommended the best equipment that they could afford.  

Now, *I'M* the beginner in this hobby.  I've spent less than $1000 on my initial gear, but I can understand why those that can afford it would spend more.  I'm an all or nothing kind of guy.  I don't see any reason I should start with a camera that I know isn't up to the level that I'm wanting to get to.  

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with starting small if that's what you want, but I don't see any reason a "newbie" should buy the cheaper gear if he can afford the nicer models.  And I completely understand that some of the less expensive digitals will make photos every bit as good as the professional ones, but you don't see a lot of pro's shooting D40's.


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 6, 2008)

Agreed.  It's like buying a motorcycle.  Sure you can buy a 3000 Kawasaki Ninja 250 - but there are bigger bikes out there that you will not grow out of in a year, and that WONT be so intimidating and challenging as to retard any actual growth on your part.  If I were recommending someone start shooting, I'd have no problem suggesting a D80 or hell even a D300 simply because at the end of the day it will point and shoot like any other camera.  When they start to see aperture and iso speed and shutter speed and lighting and yada yada - they wont be disappointed in the fact that "haha - your 400 dollar camera can't do that!".


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

eminart said:


> And I completely understand that some of the less expensive digitals will make photos every bit as good as the professional ones, but you don't see a lot of pro's shooting D40's.



...and I rest my point...you see PLENTY of intrusive objects in blurry snapshots and very poor compositions (obviously in noob's hands) taken by D300's


----------



## eminart (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> ...and I rest my point...you see PLENTY of intrusive objects in blurry snapshots and very poor compositions (obviously in noob's hands) taken by D300's


 

And you don't see those when they're using a D40 or a Rebel?


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

eminart...of course you do...but just because you are the proud owner of a "Nikon D5000"...it will make you no Ansel Adams, my friend...only experience and skill will...unfortunately, everyone keeps missing the point here. No big deal. We all have our own opinions, life goes on as do our love of photography...whatever you use


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 6, 2008)

> ...and I rest my point...you see PLENTY of intrusive objects in blurry snapshots and very poor compositions (obviously in noob's hands) taken by D300's


So let me see if I understand:

Because a person does not fully understand the "rules" (ha) of photography - they should, for their own good, spend 400 dollars on an entry level camera, then when they are comfortable spend 800 on a mid-level camera, and possibly if they need to spend another 1500 on a advanced ametuer non-pro camera - yea, that seems like a swell idea.



> it will make you no Ansel Adams, my friend



So THIS is your point.  You realize its a lot more clearer than any of the laughing, snide asides you've been making.  It still doesn't preclude someone from buying a top of the line cameras as their learning equipment.  It just means they will have to be disuaded from continuing to believe that particular bit of nonsense on their part - if they even know who Ansel Adams is.


----------



## Antithesis (Mar 6, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Geez!!  Wouldn't a Porsche be more impressive?  Or even one of those big Benz - that always says "MONEY".
> 
> At least with expensive "L" lens, everyone knows it when they see it - BIG UGLY WHITE lens.



It did 10.2 second quarter miles, so I think it's a little faster than a porsche. Actually, faster than any production vehicle and it had a 'subaru' badge on it. Shwing!

did I mention that this thread delivers?


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> So let me see if I understand:
> 
> Because a person does not fully understand the "rules" (ha) of photography - they should, for their own good, spend 400 dollars on an entry level camera, then when they are comfortable spend 800 on a mid-level camera, and possibly if they need to spend another 1500 on a advanced ametuer non-pro camera - yea, that seems like a swell idea.
> 
> ...



ANDS!
I hardly see anything snide, as you call it, in any of my text. Now the laughing and humor is another thing. It is people like yourself that "just have" to have the best and latest equipment over anyone else, I see plenty of people everyday like this, and to each their own. Some people have that "golden eye" for photography, and some just never get it, and never will...so best have the $400-500 camera that is still a great tool and can be used for snapshots, family portraits and so forth, and still enjoy the camera for the tool it is...instead of spending thousands on something that never panned out for them. See...that is the wasteful world we live in. 
...and I am 100% positive, you will have SOME derogative remark to make back to me, because that is simply your nature. But please...keep it cordial and clean..it will save me having to report you for terms of service violation. Thank You.


----------



## eminart (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> but just because you are the proud owner of a "Nikon D5000"...it will make you no Ansel Adams, my friend...only experience and skill will...


 
I think the vast majority of even newbies understand that picking up an expensive camera doesn't make them an expert. Just because someone buys a D300 doesn't mean they think they've arrived as the new photo king. Maybe they just want a nice camera to learn on and can afford it?

Edit*  Also, a lot of beginners are in the same boat as me.  I have a vast art background.  Composition is hardly a new idea for me.  My area of inexperience is in the technical side of cameras.  There's no reason I couldn't learn that on the higher (or lower) end of the camera selection.  I'm just saying, maybe all "newbies" aren't as inexperienced as you may think.  In fact, some of them may know more about art and composition than some of the "experts" who know which dials and buttons to turn on a camera.


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> But please...keep it cordial and clean..it will save me having to report you for terms of service violation. Thank You.



Haha! This is just ridiculously funny!



skyvue2 said:


> ANDS!
> I hardly see anything snide, as you call it, in any of my text. Now the laughing and humor is another thing. It is people like yourself that "just have" to have the best and latest equipment over anyone else, I see plenty of people everyday like this, and to each their own. Some people have that "golden eye" for photography, and some just never get it, and never will...so best have the $400-500 camera that is still a great tool and can be used for snapshots, family portraits and so forth, and still enjoy the camera for the tool it is...instead of spending thousands on something that never panned out for them. See...that is the wasteful world we live in.
> ...and I am 100% positive, you will have SOME derogative remark to make back to me, because that is simply your nature.



So I don't get it. Say I will _never _obtain this "golden eye" you speak of. Is my purchase of the higher end camera (in terms of your price figure of $400-500) not going to be just as efficient in taking the photographs that *I love*? Your post seems kind of contradictory in that sense. Or you are insinuating that no matter what, it is a waste of time, money, or both? 

This whole topic is just silly. Why does anybody else care so much about what other people spend their money on?


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

Of course the camera will be more than efficient in taking the images that you love. It just seems to me that because I own a Nikon D40 and me myself am a noob and learning, it is being made out that I am  a fool for purchasing such a "low end" camera and that I cheaped myself out of so much...this is just silly. I have thoroughly enjoyed the camera I own and have taken some incredible images with it. If you never get that "golden eye" for real professional photography,but love the images you have taken anyway...then that is all that matters. You are absolutely correct danmass. If you are a millionaire, then it truly wouldn't matter what you spent your money on (yachts, Ferraris, mansions etc.etc) and I bet you...silly little cameras would not be anywhere near the top of your purchase list.

oh yes...I wouldn't find anything funny about being reported about violating TOS on a forum...they do delete accounts for that. I keep things clean and cordial...I expect the same. I have absolutely no issue with debating, even elevated debates...but if people get nasty or personal...then we have a problem.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 6, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> Agreed.  It's like buying a motorcycle.  Sure you can buy a 3000 Kawasaki Ninja 250 - but there are bigger bikes out there that you will not grow out of in a year



Please, for the sake of human lives, never become a motorcycle salesperson.

With motorcycles, it's far safer if you start small and learn how to handle that kind of power before you step into the bigger bikes with the bigger engines.

A small mistake with a D300 won't cost you your life.


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Of course the camera will be more than efficient in taking the images that you love. It just seems to me that because I own a Nikon D40 and me myself am a noob and learning, it is being made out that I am  a fool for purchasing such a "low end" camera and that I cheaped myself out of so much...this is just silly. I have thoroughly enjoyed the camera I own and have taken some incredible images with it. If you never get that "golden eye" for real professional photography,but love the images you have taken anyway...then that is all that matters. You are absolutely correct danmass. If you are a millionaire, then it truly wouldn't matter what you spent your money on (yachts, Ferraris, mansions etc.etc) and I bet you...silly little cameras would not be anywhere near the top of your purchase list.



Ahh yes I understand where you're coming from and in response, if my love for photography stays where it is currently at, than you betcha a "silly little camera" will be at the top of my purchase list. 

The way I look at it is if I envision a top of line end result in my mind, than I want the top of line equipment to help me project that into another's eyes. This is not always the case, as I'm sure many photographers get their top of the line vision with lesser models. However, this would be my main reason for going with higher end equipment. Furthermore, by working with my top of the line visions I am introducing - to myself - new learning methods to adapt to technically (about what the camera can do) and personally (how I can better my visions). I would also want a camera to adapt with me, thus another reason I (myself) would go for a higher end model. 

But I know I am only contributing to the useless, melodramatic plight that is this thread.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thank You CanAm.

For the record...CanAm has agreed to NOTHING discussed here...only a logical observation made about motorcycles. There is a logical approach to becoming skilled and experienced to most everything in life...you start with either small or mid-line and move up as your skills grow..because if your skills do not grow or interest is lost (the great American impulsiveness in each and every one of us), then we are stuck with something we spent way too much money on and have absolutely zero interest in. I am sorry folks...it just makes sense.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

danmass...bottom line...like you said, this plight of a thread is really getting old. My only statement is simply get good at what you do with a great entry level camera, then spend the extra money a couple years down the road for the dream camera you always wanted, because you know in your mind and skill level, you can fully utilize everything the camera has to offer because your skills will be so much better than they are currently (back to that experience thing). Then...keep the entry level camera as your back up, or travel camera. 

No more...no less.


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> danmass...bottom line...like you said, this plight of a thread is really getting old. My only statement is simply get good at what you do with a great entry level camera, then spend the extra money a couple years down the road for the dream camera you always wanted, because you know in your mind and skill level, you can fully utilize everything the camera as to offer because your skills will be so much better than they are currently (back to that experience thing). Then...keep the entry level camera as your back up, or travel camera.
> 
> No more...no less.



Yeah, I get it. If that works for you. 

I don't want to pay $500 right now, get good enough to purchase a better model, than shovel out an even more $1,000 or whatever. I don't work in stages like that. I might as well spend the $1,000 now and grow into the camera. The higher end model should undoubtedly offer the same features as the lesser model anyways, right? In the end I'm sure as you grow you'll use all the features accessible to you no matter what stage of skill level you are at. That's what makes sense to me. 

Thus this unfortunate thread - everybody projecting what works best for them as the 'right' way to do it. Happy shooting!


----------



## TheOtherBob (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> It just seems to me that because I own a Nikon D40 and me myself am a noob and learning, it is being made out that I am a fool for purchasing such a "low end" camera and that I cheaped myself out of so much...


 
Not in the least. In fact, quite the opposite -- people are saying that if you're a beginner and want to buy a D40...good on you. If you're a beginner and want to buy a D80 or D300...hey, have fun. If you're a beginner and richer than G_d and want to buy some $30,000 medium format dealie...hey, you know what, it's your money. (Also, can I borrow it?) 

The question here was why _everyone_ doesn't do what you did - buy a (relatively) basic camera to start with. And the answer is that everyone has their own reasons, but if it makes them happy and they can afford it, no one should care -- just like they shouldn't care if someone wants to start with a PnS, or a Holga, or a matchbox with a pinhole in it. If they're happy, we're happy.


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

TheOtherBob said:


> Not in the least. In fact, quite the opposite -- people are saying that if you're a beginner and want to buy a D40...good on you. If you're a beginner and want to buy a D80 or D300...hey, have fun. If you're a beginner and richer than G_d and want to buy some $30,000 medium format dealie...hey, you know what, it's your money. (Also, can I borrow it?)
> 
> The question here was why _everyone_ doesn't do what you did - buy a (relatively) basic camera to start with. And the answer is that everyone has their own reasons, but if it makes them happy and they can afford it, no one should care -- just like they shouldn't care if someone wants to start with a PnS, or a Holga, or a matchbox with a pinhole in it. If they're happy, we're happy.



Bingo, thank you.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

Yes, you are right. danmass...if it works for you, then go for it. Like I said, a thousand bucks really is not the big deal I was trying to point out...it is the total noob buying the $10,000 (body alone!) camera with absolute zero experience...that was my beef...just downright silly. I mean, check it out, I have a D40, SB400 Speedlight and the 55-200mm VR zoom lens, I also have a total set up a little over $1,000. 

But the again..I have seen much, much worse.

Seriously though, happy shooting to you too and I wish you that "golden eye" and that all your images come out the way you hope they do!


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Yes, you are right. danmass...if it works for you, then go for it. Like I said, a thousand bucks really is not the big deal I was trying to point out...it as the total noob buying the $10,000 (body alone!) camera with absolute zero experience...that was my beef...just downright silly. I mean, check it out, I have a D40, SB400 Speedlight and the 55-200mm VR zoom lens, I also have a total sey up a little over $1,000.
> 
> But the again..I have seen much, much worse.
> 
> Seriously though, happy shooting to you too and I wish you that "golden eye" and that all your images come out the way you hope they do!



Thank you, same to you. :cheers:


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 6, 2008)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

danmass said:


> Yeah, I get it. If that works for you.
> 
> I don't want to pay $500 right now, get good enough to purchase a better model, than shovel out an even more $1,000 or whatever. I don't work in stages like that. I might as well spend the $1,000 now and grow into the camera. The higher end model should undoubtedly offer the same features as the lesser model anyways, right? In the end I'm sure as you grow you'll use all the features accessible to you no matter what stage of skill level you are at. That's what makes sense to me.
> 
> Thus this unfortunate thread - everybody projecting what works best for them as the 'right' way to do it. Happy shooting!



I think that it's about time to jump in with a very real comment.  My first "serious" (SLR) camera cost me $400 *in 1964!*  Photography has been my primary hobby ever since.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Mar 6, 2008)

> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.


 
I don't consider the few handful of newbies that wander into this forum as being "all" of anything.

If they are from the U.S., then they have been trained from birth to buy or whine their way to the biggest/shiniest(?)/most expensive anything. This guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame,etc..


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

Jon said:


> I don't consider the few handful of newbies that wander into this forum as being "all" of anything.
> 
> If they are from the U.S., then they have been trained from birth to buy or whine their way to the biggest/shiniest(?)/most expensive anything. This guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame,etc..



Haha touché!


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

Jon said:


> I don't consider the few handful of newbies that wander into this forum as being "all" of anything.
> 
> If they are from the U.S., then they have been trained from birth to buy or whine their way to the biggest/shiniest(?)/most expensive anything. This guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame,etc..



I have more toys than you have and, if we die, I win!


----------



## keith204 (Mar 6, 2008)

Hey hey hey... I don't really wanna read through all one-hundred-fifty-something posts in this thread... will somebody summarize it for me?

:shock:


----------



## CanAm (Mar 6, 2008)

Jon said:


> I don't consider the few handful of newbies that wander into this forum as being "all" of anything.
> 
> If they are from the U.S., then they have been trained from birth to buy or whine their way to the biggest/shiniest(?)/most expensive anything. This guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame,etc..



You, sir, need to learn idiomatic hyperbole. "All" is simply a modifier used in pointing out the number of people that fit into my example. 

No different than saying "what's with all these Canadians that use the word eh?".

I do agree though, people from first world countries (not just the US, don't be so deprecating) tend to want only the latest and greatest. Thankfully my childhood has taught me that it's not always the case.



keith204 said:


> Hey hey hey... I don't really wanna read through all one-hundred-fifty-something posts in this thread... will somebody summarize it for me?
> 
> :shock:



Opinions happened. Tons.


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

keith204 said:


> Hey hey hey... I don't really wanna read through all one-hundred-fifty-something posts in this thread... will somebody summarize it for me?
> 
> :shock:



I'll give it a shot. 

What's with all these noobs w/ $1000+ cameras?...

...my way...

...no my way...

...oil...

...golf clubs...

...porsche...

...motorcycle...

...my way...

...if it works for you, my way...

...if it works for you...

...good for you...

...good for _you_...

..cheers!

Let me know if I missed something. As informative as this community is (which I love), this post is actually what got me to finally sign up.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

kundalini said:


> I beg to differ.  Quite possibly *this* one.



OK.  You win.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

CanAm said:


> You, sir, need to learn idiomatic hyperbole. "All" is simply a modifier used in pointing out the number of people that fit into my example.
> 
> No different than saying "what's with all these Canadians that use the word eh?".
> 
> ...




"Eh" is not a word.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Mar 6, 2008)

Well here is my take on this,
I bought my first DSLR (D70s) one week before the D80 came out. Am I disappointed; not at all it still is a great camera! (Currently my wife uses it)
Was it too much for me as a noob? Absolutely!
But it also pushed me to take better pictures; it helped me develop what has now become a passion for me. If I had gone an bought a lower end camera I could have made it work to create the images I wanted but it would have been much more difficult and I may have lost interest. 
When I started out I shot in auto and took snapshots but as I took to time to play and learn, I discovered all of the features of the camera and as I discovered each one I tried it out. 
I could not have done the same thing with a P&S Camera. 

Just because I was a noob did not mean I had to have the best or the worst, but I did consider that, If I wanted to take some classes that I would want a camera that gave me the most options to explore

"Eh" is not a word.
It is in Canadian


----------



## Fally (Mar 6, 2008)

Sure it is, eh?

It's no different than being in the US for us Canadians, we say "thank you" and the waitress/server/etc says "mmhmm".

Although "eh" isn't as annoying as not getting a "you're welcome".

Now back on topic, what if I thought you were a lesser experienced photographer if you had a D40 (or other brand equivalent) because you spent less than I did?

I like these threads because it exposes the people that just don't get it!   What I or anyone else can afford, doesn't have any bearing on the photos you take.  If it does effect your photos, look at your own creative limits and if you don't lack in creativity but your photos are worthless, maybe it is because of your gear?

I know with my D80 and 18-200VR there are some serious limitations when I'm trying to take certain pictures, and that will be solved when I spend the money on better glass.  Some of these things could be solved (shutter speed) if I had a D300 and could crank the ISO a bit to have good "stop" shots for various action shots.  Also, the extra FPS would be nice (so I could get the GF to take better pics of the stages of my golf swing! lol).

I've had my camera for 2 months now and understand the limitations of the body and the glass.  Better glass will help me a lot with what I want to do though.

Fally


----------



## kundalini (Mar 6, 2008)

danmass said:


> .... this post is actually what got me to finally sign up.


Masochistic tendancies???



Socrates said:


> OK. You win.


Finally I'm a winner.  Now, will the winnings be sent by check or a direct deposit?


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Finally I'm a winner.  Now, will the winnings be sent by check or a direct deposit?



Rubber check.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Masochistic tendancies???



There was a masochist screaming "Beat me, beat me!" and a sadist that responded "No."


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2008)

Socrates said:


> There was a masochist screaming "Beat me, beat me!" and a sadist that responded "No."


 
I wonder how many here ACTUALLY understood that one... lmao!


----------



## danmass (Mar 6, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Masochistic tendancies???



Mayyyyybbeee. Everyone loves a little heat now and then though. Right? Right? :lmao:


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 6, 2008)

> It is people like yourself that "just have" to have the best and latest equipment over anyone else



Fantastic!  You've moved from making sweeping generalizations about buyers to individual members.  Congrats, generally takes someone at least 100 posts before they feel comfortable enough to veer into that area.  A little hint, I have a D80 and started on a used D50, and unless 1500 bucks falls out of the sky, have no intention of upgrading.  



> It is people like yourself that "just have" to have the best and latest equipment over anyone else



Flag away friend - you don't need to violate the "rules of the road" to point out the ignorant statements of others.



> With motorcycles, it's far safer if you start small and learn how to handle that kind of power before you step into the bigger bikes with the bigger engines.



Myth perpetrated by folks who dont ride or simply buy into the basic "poopooing" motorcycle snoobs put out.  The SIZE of the engine (those magical CC's) is meaningless compared to how much HP/torque the machine is putting out.  But please - continue on thinking otherwise.  Try telling any "noob" riding a SV650 that its "TOO MUCH BIKE!" for them to start off on.



> It just seems to me that because I own a Nikon D40 and me myself am a noob and learning, it is being made out that I am a fool for purchasing such a "low end" camera and that I cheaped myself out of so much...this is just silly.



So its wrong to make someone feel silly for buying a low-end camera that theyll grow out of, but perfectly fine to s****** at folks buying a high end camera whose functions they'll grow into?  Only on the internets -


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2008)

keith204 said:


> Hey hey hey... I don't really wanna read through all one-hundred-fifty-something posts in this thread... will somebody summarize it for me?
> 
> :shock:


 
Sure thing! Down the corridor, make a left... first door on the right.  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> So its wrong to make someone feel silly for buying a low-end camera that theyll grow out of, but perfectly fine to s****** at folks buying a high end camera whose functions they'll grow into? Only on the internets -


 

"All your myths are belong to us."


----------



## usayit (Mar 6, 2008)

* The first couple pages of this thread never said anything "against" or "for" a beginner spending a lot of money on camera equipment.  I think the OP just wanted to talk about his observation.  

Some say marketing (thats what I feel)
Some say economics
Some say techno savy wants
Some say just because
Some say ego (thats my second choice)
etc..

Don't think (perhaps I missed it) I read any posts saying that "laws" or an act of god should come down and strike those breaking the carnal rule of purchasing photography equipment.

* When did people "outgrow" cameras?  Last time I checked, low-end and high-end DSLRs all had M, Av, Tv, P at the very least with enough megapixels to satisfy poster sized prints.

I've been shooting my whole life and I feel like I've got at least more experience than the typical shooter....  I'd be an ego-maniac to say that I "outgrew" any camera much less a DSLR of today.  If I ever did, I'm sure there are 100s of photographers out there that can take that camera I outgrew and prove otherwise.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> Fantastic!  You've moved from making sweeping generalizations about buyers to individual members.  Congrats, generally takes someone at least 100 posts before they feel comfortable enough to veer into that area.  A little hint, I have a D80 and started on a used D50, and unless 1500 bucks falls out of the sky, have no intention of upgrading.
> 
> 
> 
> Flag away friend - you don't need to violate the "rules of the road" to point out the ignorant statements of others.



Wow, that's very interesting ANDS!, for all the hypocrisy you have been 
showing in the past 100 threads towards everyone who has purchased garbage cameras (at least, in your mind...something that costs less than $1000), that is very interesting you stooped so low to buy a (Oh My!..a USED!) Nikon D50 as a first camera. I really believed an individual like yourself would have learned on a Nikon D300 "intermediate camera" 

And as for flagging away, I have absolutely no intention to report or flag anyone for debate or being arrogant or egotistical, that is your decision and the world is just full of "look at me! mine is better than yours so that makes me better than you" people. I only report individuals who get abusive or downright rude with bad language. If you were willing to debate and have valid opinions, then cool...but I don't know you from Adam, so it was just a warning, no more, no less.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

I think you nailed it with this summary 


danmass said:


> What's with all these noobs w/ $1000+ cameras?...
> 
> ...my way...
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

Oh, and for some of those who got heated up in this thread:
*This is just the internet! Relax! :lmao:
*


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 8, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I think that it's about time to jump in with a very real comment. My first "serious" (SLR) camera cost me $400 *in 1964!* Photography has been my primary hobby ever since.


 
But soda pop was a nickel.
Soda is like 50 cents today.

So $400 camera translates to $4000 today?


----------



## Garbz (Mar 8, 2008)

Ever considered that people who are just finishing school not yet married and live with their parents have excessive disposable income?

I ask you this: Why wouldn't you start with a $1000 camera.

One may also say you should learn on an SLR, and the total cost of ownership of a DSLR is nothing compared to a film SLR once you take your first 1000 photos.

For the record my very first camera was a Nikon FE and I started using this camera as a beginner when I was 10, and I still use it now, it was given to me. If someone knows the link to a good website to calculate currency conversions over 30 years it cost 500 shillings in 1970 I think. That would be the the D300 of today.

I better be off, my buddy is here with his lotus. We're going for a drive up mt glorious to through $100 bills out the window.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

There was only one reason why I did not start with a very expensive setup decades ago ... and that was: _I did not have the money then_ 

We should keep in mind that there is _lots _of people out there for whom $10000 or even 30000 are really nothing special, people who do not know how to spend their money and what to buy. I think it is better when they buy really expensive photography gear, even if most of it stays stowed away since they have not use for it, than if they spent it on excessive drug abuse or food until they explode...


----------



## JIP (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Yes, you are right. danmass...if it works for you, then go for it. Like I said, a thousand bucks really is not the big deal I was trying to point out...it is the total noob buying the $10,000 (body alone!) camera with absolute zero experience...that was my beef...just downright silly. I mean, check it out, I have a D40, SB400 Speedlight and the 55-200mm VR zoom lens, I also have a total set up a little over $1,000.
> 
> But the again..I have seen much, much worse.
> 
> Seriously though, happy shooting to you too and I wish you that "golden eye" and that all your images come out the way you hope they do!


 
Can you explain why people should not be free to buy exactly _anything _they want.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Explain why people should not be free? What do you mean? Am I the Law or something???...oh, and never within my last 100+ posts have I ever even remotely stated that people should not be allowed to buy whatever they want...now this is all becoming very silly.
People can buy whatever they so choose, providing it is legal products or substances, if not, then there may be an issue with legalities. But asking me why I do not allow an individual to purchase something they so choose? I have never stated that I was the final approving authority on anyone's purchases, apart from my very own. Seems like a very silly and arrogant question.
   Actually, this very question, placed in the context that it was...is exactly what I was talking about.

"I am rich, and you're not! naa-naa-boo-boo!" or "Don't tell me what I can or can't buy, it's not my fault I am richer and therefore better than you are!"

...come on, people....I fear this poor thread will become infinite simply because the "better than you are" that have "better equipment than you do, simply because I am richer than you are" individuals that keep posting in here just HAVE to have the last word. Obviously part of a silver-spoon-in-mouth upbringing, teaching them from a very early age that they are soooo special and the entire rest of the world is scum and beneath them. Such a shame, and exactly what I have been talking about for the last 100+ posts in this thread. 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what someone should have their own liberties to purchase for whatever price...it has to do with the arrogant, egotistical and selfish attitudes that certain members seem to have in relation to their photographic equipment. 

I personally think an individual is very silly and spoiled to state..."hmm, let me try this new thing, i'll get into photography today!" and then go right out and spend $2000 or a lot more on a complete set up...then guess what everyone....here comes the GRAND FINALE......the very next week, wake up one morning and decide "photography sucks!, I am tossing all of this in the trash!"

...our disposable and arrogant world never ceases to amaze me

...and everyone reading these posts can very clearly see exactly what I am talking about by the arrogance and egoism clearly expressed within the last 100+ posts by certain members. Unfortunately, it's a very sad world we live in.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> "I am rich, and you're not! naa-naa-boo-boo!" or "Don't tell me what I can or can't buy, it's not my fault I am richer and therefore better than you are!"



no one said so here 

*better *is the word you try to read between the lines...



> ..it has to do with the arrogant, egotistical and selfish attitudes that certain members seem to have in relation to their photographic equipment.


haven't really seen much of that attitude in here .. strange.



> I personally think an individual is very silly and spoiled to state..."hmm, let me try this new thing, i'll get into photography today!" and then go right out and spend $2000 or a lot more on a complete set up...then guess what everyone....here comes the GRAND FINALE......the very next week, wake up one morning and decide "photography sucks!, I am tossing all of this in the trash!"


All I am sayig is: *So what?* If those $2000 have the same meanign to him as $20 mean to you and me ... so what, let him buy and later throw away or give it as a gift to me or sell it second hand for a reduced price. Of course he wasted some of his personal money then. But who would really care?

It is only sad if people are talked into getting something too expensive, and if this is really a financial burden to them. But if it causes no financial pain to someone, then I could not care less 



> ...our disposable and arrogant world never ceases to amaze me


normally cameras are not disposed but sold second or third hand... or are borrowed by nephews who enjoy photography more than the original customer who wasted his money :lmao:



> ...and everyone reading these posts can very clearly see exactly what I am talking about by the arrogance and egoism clearly expressed within the last 100+ posts by certain members. Unfortunately, it's a very sad world we live in.


been looking for it... but without a certain bias it seems hard to find it 

And if you do not like one or two individuals, just put them on ignore


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Trust me, Alex B, I understand what you are trying to say. I also understand that most cameras are passed down to other family members when an individual upgrades or whatnot. We do live in a disposable world though. People buy houses and live in them for 5 years then move again. Rarely anyone in America pays off entire car notes anymore, they sell or trade in before the warranty runs out. These are just two of very many examples out there. And you are right, no one said the "better than you" thing, but the attitude is just as apparent. 

It's just typical, I started into photography with the purchase of my D40 Nikon about a month ago. I love the camera and really enjoy learning about the different composition techniques, filter effects, framing subjects, aperture and shutter speed to name a few. I personally am very impressed with this little camera...it's just so typical that certain individuals (not just the ones in this thread, but throughout the entire forum) slam the camera calling it cheap, garbage, plasticky, "not as good as mine" and so forth. I like what Jon the Elder wrote a few posts back...



> I don't consider the few handful of newbies that wander into this forum as being "all" of anything.
> 
> If they are from the U.S., then they have been trained from birth to buy or whine their way to the biggest/shiniest(?)/most expensive anything. This guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame,etc..


...and I find this typical of not only certain members in TPF, but life in general. See...if I also had a Nikon D300 with 5 top of the line Nikkor and Sigma Lenses and a remote flash slave unit, then...and ONLY then...can I be in the elite "smacktalkers" in the forum here that "know what they are talking about" simply because of the equipment they own.

I love it though....guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame and Demi-God status!

Today's world.....soooooo true!


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> People buy houses and live in them for 5 years then move again.



Not people's fault though ... mostly they have to move for the job.



> Rarely anyone in America pays off entire car notes anymore, they sell or trade in before the warranty runs out.



Yes, and someone else buys it... so what? 



> but the attitude is just as apparent.



No, I do not think so. I think this is your bias which makes you see such an attitude behind every not so precisely phrased comment. Yo u like your camera, and that is what it is all about. So you should be happy. Some people might say they would not like your camera for some reason or another ... so what?  Of course cameras do have shortcomings in certain areas of application, and if someone cannot live with such a shortcoming, then he might really need/want a more expensive camera. Others just buy the best of the best, as you correctly mentioned, since they either want to brag with it, or just want to make sure, or for whatever reason. But it does not really matter.

Hey, I have been approached by Nikon shooters in public, who told me I should buy a proper camera (mine is not a Nikon ), and they were smiling an making jokes about me all the time. If  such a thing happens to you, then you have all rights to be really upset and kick their behinds 

And not everyone advising you to get a more expensive camera, does so because he wants to show you he is better than you, some just know of some shortcomings of yours, and they falsely assume those would affect you. Or they think you might grow out of it too quickly, because they see your talent or love for photography.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Alex B, I take it you have spent extensive time living in the US? (and no, I am not talking about a college semester, a vacation or a 2 week photo shoot in the US) I see you are German and born and raised here in Germany.
Not most Americans are selling their houses due to jobs. I see you are biased also and set into your ways. I am not here to change your way of thinking, so why try and change mine? Living here in Germany...there are far more economy issues than the States have. 60% tax immediately from your paycheck, then 19% tax on everything you purchase, I am frankly amazed anyone in Germany owns a camera. Sorry, I just resent foreigners try to tell me US economy issues, when Europeans attempt to debate or discuss US Government issues and act like they know how exactly the US works..I do find that amusing indeed.  I think Germany, along with the rest of Europe in general, is still sore with us over the oil issue...

but no disrespect intended Alex, we're all one big worldly community, right?


----------



## kundalini (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Explain why people should not be free? What do you mean? Am I the Law or something???...*oh, and never within my last 100+ posts* have I ever even remotely stated that people should not be allowed to buy whatever they want...


*<---------* I see 18.



skyvue2 said:


> "I am rich, and you're not! naa-naa-boo-boo!" or "Don't tell me what I can or can't buy, it's not my fault I am richer and therefore better than you are!"...


I too failed to be able to find this attitude within this thread.



skyvue2 said:


> Such a shame, and exactly what I have been talking about for the last 100+ posts in this thread.


*<---------* I see 18.



skyvue2 said:


> This has nothing whatsoever to do with what someone should have their own liberties to purchase for whatever price...it has to do with the arrogant, egotistical and selfish attitudes that certain members seem to have in relation to their photographic equipment.


It comes across you have this very attitude you so vehemently are directing towards the responders to this thread....only in reverse. You do give the impression of trolling for arguments just for arguments sake. You have plainley stated your opinion on this matter, but yet each time another reply is posted that contradicts your opinion, you feel the need to counter attack with the exact same message only mixing up the words a little. I get the impression that it may simply a case of sour grapes on your part or you just want to continue spouting your egocentric rantings. Either way, it has become quite boring.


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 8, 2008)

I used film for about a year, then for graduation with most of the money i got to attend school and buy food with i bought a D-80. I hated the way the D-40 feels, i thought it was tiny and felt like a toy in my hands so i spent the 1.3k on the D-80 and the lens, as did my dad. My dad hardly ever turns it off fully auto, but he loves using it. As he said, "you can tell the difference between my point and shoot and my d-80.'' I think you can because he sets the shot up with his D-80 and not just point and shoots. He also did not want the d-40 because he hated the feel of it.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

I don't find it quite boring, I find most of this entertaining. This is a forum for discussion, and providing the discussion is clean and not vulgar, we can discuss whatever we so choose. It has not gone off topic. When a member writes something in contradiction to my ideals and beliefs, I am allowed to contradict what was written. I read nowhere in the Terms of Servce that this forum was a dictatorship. Thank You for your input though, it was your opinion.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

well those people in the US which i know personally, they all usually sell their houses when they have to move for the job. And they move quite often. but OK, maybe I know just people from a small sub group of US citizens. So my statistics might be limited here. But that was not my main point anyway 



skyvue2 said:


> Alex B, I take it you have spent extensive time living in the US? (and no, I am not talking about a college semester, a vacation or a 2 week photo shoot in the US) I see you are German and born and raised here in Germany.
> Not most Americans are selling their houses due to jobs. I see you are biased also and set into your ways.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> I don't find it quite boring, I find most of this entertaining. This is a forum for discussion, and providing the discussion is clean and not vulgar, we can discuss whatever we so choose. It has not gone off topic. When a member writes something in contradiction to my ideals and beliefs, I am allowed to contradict what was written. I read nowhere in the Terms of Servce that this forum was a dictatorship. Thank You for your input though, it was your opinion.


Yes, that was my opinion.  However, the entire discussion within this thread was for an opinion, as laid out by the OP's initial post.  Obviously, facts, conjecture and out right misleading information can weave themselves in and out of an opinion oriented thread.

I will give you one fact and a follow up opinion.  
[FACT]Out of your 20 posts you have tallied thus far, 15 have been within this thread.  
[OPINION] I would think that as a newbie with a new D40, much more entertaining would be how to actually use that equipment by asking questions about your gear that you are unsure of it's use.  At this time, I am not sensing a positive contributory effort on your part to the TPF community as a whole.  I certainly hope this to be otherwise in the near future.  This can be ventured in a number of ways and only you can decide on how it is to be accomplished.


----------



## Fally (Mar 8, 2008)

Skyvue2,

I don't mean to speak for kundalini, but I think he's saying that you are becoming boring in this thread with your soapboxing.  You've provided your "same" opinion in the last 2 days of posts and really, we get it.

What do we get?  You're apparently bitter by these $1000 newbs.  Get over it.

This thread was more entertaining when everyone was chiming in on stuff, but now that it's basically just you soapboxing, it's getting old, fast.

If you don't like something in life, make a change for it.  Don't try and construct an army of individuals to make you feel better about your situation in life.  I think you were fishing for this "army" and I don't think you got it.  If you don't like where you live, move.  If you don't like the job that you have that enables you to buy this stuff, then get a new job.  Don't put it on the rest of us that are happy in our situation.

/rant off

Fally


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Not most Americans are selling their houses due to jobs.


Nope, most people around me are selling their houses because they can no longer afford them.

The working class is huge in the US.  The "richness" as I know the UK/European crowd seems to think of the US is based on an average.  Unfortunately, there are very few at the average.  The average is made up of lower income and higher income with very few in between.  Good jobs are disappearing to overseas and the ones that are left are giving nothing for it anymore.  I have barely seen a raise in years.

Products are being produced cheaper and cheaper, while being sold for more and more.  Products of today _are_ throw-aways.  Back when I was young in my parent's generation of parenthood, you purchased a product and it lasted.  Now, you have to mow your yard?  Your lawn mower lasts a few years then gets replaced.  The lawn mowers of yesterday lasted nearly forever.  Appliances, you purchased a stove, refridgerator, cloths washer, you were good for 20 years.  But, the efficiency of these products are far better now.  Unfortunately, the quality is not.  Plastic and far inferior parts ensure that it will break in a few years time.  And the cost of fixing the stuff that breaks is nearly what it costs to just "throw away" and purchase a new item.

Since the price of things are so drastically rising, people buy the cheaper stuff, which lasts even less time.  People just can't afford to live and do the things they need to do.

25 years ago, when I was a child, I knew one kid who's parents both worked.  Today, out of the hundreds of adults I work with whom have children, I know maybe 4 or 5 who have one parent staying home with their kids.  It simply can not be done.  I currently make more per year at a low paying production job than my father did before he passed as the vice president of a small corporation.  That salary now is peanuts compared to what it takes just to keep a household together with nothing extra except the TV programing and the internet staying on.  Everything else and more in a paycheck goes towards housing expenses.  

If you have the money to spend thousands on camera equipment, more power to you.  There is a giant gap between those struggling to pay the bills and those who can toss money around like it's pocket change.  The reason you see a question such as "What is with all these beginners with $1000+ cameras" is because the one's who can afford it are the ones that are here.  The ones that can not afford it, are not here because....  they can't afford it.  I am in a big minority who are here interested about photography, but can only afford a cheap camera.  Generally, those like me with the cheap cameras are those who are not interested in photography, but only use a camera for "snapshot" pictures at family functions and stuff.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

OK..OK.

It seems as though my opinion is not worth a cent, but everyone else's is. Having envy for everyone who owns a $1000 camera is very far from the truth. I am very far off from poor. If I wanted a $6000 camera, I would simply go and buy one, but why? I would rather learn on the entry level to become comfortable with the controls and skilled at composition before moving up to a more complex and hi-tec camera. I just cannot understand for the life of me why I am being castigated for simply being the owner of a D40??? This makes no sense. "Soapboxing", as you put it, about my personal opinion seems to be a crime, where other individual's opinions seem to be like the law in the Wild West. It's their opinion...or nothing.

Yes..fact..15 out of 20 posts have been for this thread alone, but why should I be slandered because I own a D40 camera? Why should I have to take everyone else's opinion and not be allowed my own? That is NOT what a forum is all about. 

This was an opinion based thread started by someone who threw a question out about $1000 cameras. I answered with my opinion (as everyone else did) and now labeled a troublemaker by members like kundalini and politely threatened with account termination, for simply responding with my own opinion when questioned again and again by several members of this forum. Bottom line...those members kept asking questions, and I kept answering. There was nothing derogatory, impolite or personal aimed at any one individual. One posting could have branched into politics, but both members ensured it did not. 

I hardly need any "army" of individuals to make me feel better...actually, better about what exactly? I have my opinion and certainly do not need anyone to make me feel better or to solidify that opinion. I have my own strong will and mind and do not need anyone to "make sure I am right". I simply admired what Jon the Elder said, no more...no less.

And Thank You Fally, if I needed advice over my career or place of residence, I will drop you a PM in the future, but Thank You for your concern.

And finally mrodgers, you are absolutely correct. Most Americans are really not selling their houses...they are losing their mortgages and forclosure is killing Americans all over the Country due to the awful economy. So I do stand corrected. (But this really has nothing to do with $1000 cameras, so I will stop with this).

So, I really do wish to Thank those who did share their opinions with me, who debated the way they see things I did actually learn a thing or two about the marketing, sales and models of different cameras. So it was educational after all, at least for a noob like me. I guess I have no option now but to stop with this thread and throw the soapbox away since I have threats of termination coming my way...and there is an incredible amount of knowledge I truly do wish to learn from each and every one of you.

To all, I finish on a pleasant and humble note, happy shooting to ALL of you here at TPF and I wish you all great success with your imaging, composition and cameras, whether they be Nikon D40's or Nikon D4000's!

Best Regards,

Don.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

OK guys, then let's get out shooting! After all, this is what it is all about 

And then we can discuss the images, and composition, techniques and give advice and learn.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 8, 2008)

BTW, I just had a very nice dinner.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> OK..OK.
> 
> It seems as though my opinion is not worth a cent, but everyone else's is.



No.  There's a BUNCH of us.  It's a pretty big club.  You're in good company, Don.

-Pete


----------



## tygersclaw (Mar 8, 2008)

Another reason many beginners have expensive cameras is they are dealing with salespeople who are all on commission (Future Shop for example). These sales people need the commission to survive and would obviously put a person into a $1000+ camera over a $500 camera.

And many digital cameras are touted as "beginner friendly" which makes selling them to beginners easier for sales people.


----------



## Bruce_h (Mar 8, 2008)

tygersclaw said:


> Another reason many beginners have expensive cameras is they are dealing with salespeople who are all on commission (Future Shop for example). These sales people need the commission to survive and would obviously put a person into a $1000+ camera over a $500 camera.
> 
> And many digital cameras are touted as "beginner friendly" which makes selling them to beginners easier for sales people.




Ha!  That's how I ended up with my A100.  Except it was Best Buy.


----------



## usayit (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Not most Americans are selling their houses due to jobs.



Not sure how this is on topic... but this is such a wrong assessment.

People move towards opportunities.  Its a big country and opportunities are spread throughout.

People sell homes because they no longer can afford it. 

even more tragic...

Retirees are forced to sell a home they worked hard to pay off due to the rising costs of ownership and taxation.


You only need to look at both the west and east coast to see examples of this.    New Jersey is ranked 10th in the Union for tax burden.


----------



## usayit (Mar 8, 2008)

skyvue2 said:


> Living here in Germany...there are far more economy issues than the States have. 60% tax immediately from your paycheck, then 19% tax on everything you purchase, I am frankly amazed anyone in Germany owns a camera.



Unless I'm missing something here...

Try 15% to 45% for income tax:
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany#Tax_use
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germantaxes.html

Not sure about sales taxes... but it too might be an over estimate.


Personally... there are many foreign countries that seem to have a more straight forwards taxation code.  In the US, taxation is all spread through several layers of complexities.  The typical American will simiply look at Federal income tax....  but they are missing the taxation that comes from

- sales
- fuel
- local/city
- property tax
- state ( for most states)
- federal

are just a start.... I haven't seen a document that totals up all the taxation for individuals but I'm sure it isn't all that pretty.  (Some would say that it is intentional to keep the typical tax payer in the dark when it comes to taxation)  Until recently, a large chunk (growing every year) of middle-class Americans have had to pay AMT because of the original tax code written in 1969.  They help alleviate the situation as of Dec 2007 but sheesh... sure took way too long.

skyvue2, if people didn't think your opinon was worth anything they wouldn't be responding to your posts.   OP just made an observation and wanted to discuss....


----------



## Stratman (Mar 8, 2008)

Fally said:


> It's actually not that different.  Golf is about having sound mechanics...for you.  Not everyone's swing is the same, however lots of people could have the same handicap.  Golf is more about what you put into it for practice etc than the clubs you have.
> 
> Graphite shafts are going to give you a little more distance yes, but not 25-50 yards.  Graphite shafts are probably also more for accuracy than distance.  It's about what's right for you as a golfer.
> 
> Why did you buy Callaway clubs?  They are more forgiving.  Callaway is a fantastic brand, however the clubs that you bought are probably better for you as they are more forgiving.



 If graphite is so great, why do pretty much ALL pros use steel shafts on their Irons? because they get better control with steel. 

 By the way, I went the cheap route on my first DSLR, then upgraded when the price dropped dramatically on the K10D, no regrets, and now I have 2 DSLRs for about $1,000 total :thumbup:


----------



## Fally (Mar 8, 2008)

> If graphite is so great, why do pretty much ALL pros use steel shafts on their Irons? because they get better control with steel.


 
The graphite reference I made was in relation to a woods, I believe.  I agree and acknowledge virtually all pros have a "steel" shaft.  I say steel because even the steel is so teched up right now, who knows how they compare to steel of 15-20 years ago! 

Even an extra-stiff graphite shafts are not as stiff as steel, hence why they will go in the irons.  That and the variance is probably much less as well, where I seem to find a much greater variance in shots with my woods.  Irons are more for precision shots than distance.  The distance in iron shots will generally come from technique, not technology.

If you have the luxury of having a copy of Tiger Woods' 1997 Masters victory, even he had steel in the shafts of his driver.  But, as the technology of graphite shafts has improved, they are able to make them stiffer and closer to that of steel.  There is something about kickpoint differences in graphite vs. steel too, but I'm not that well versed in that.

Back on topic!

Fally


----------



## CanAm (Mar 9, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> Myth perpetrated by folks who dont ride or simply buy into the basic "poopooing" motorcycle snoobs put out.  The SIZE of the engine (those magical CC's) is meaningless compared to how much HP/torque the machine is putting out.  But please - continue on thinking otherwise.  Try telling any "noob" riding a SV650 that its "TOO MUCH BIKE!" for them to start off on.



Excuse me?  I DO ride and I don't buy into any of that crap. I've ridden to the point of countless stitches, burns, and one very costly reconstructive surgery.

Sticking a motorcycle newbie on something with more than 650cc's is suicide for them. Would you ride a bike you couldn't even pick up?


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 9, 2008)

Let's bring this back on topic. Discussions about a motorcycle and the inherent dangers of an overpowered bike for a less experienced rider has LITTLE to do with purchasing a D40 over option #2.

(though my first motorcycle was the first production motorcycle to come out in 1982 with a turbocharger from the factory... and I had never touched street bikes before... and I survived just fine, thanks).

The big factor here is that people get all personal and look at themselves and their needs, and equate that to mean that everyone has those same needs. 

News break... we are all different and have different needs.

To push your needs on someone else is not a fair way to gauge if a camera is good for someone else or not. Let them do their own homework and define their needs... and then buy what THEY want. You don't even have to respect their decision... what you DO need to do is be respectful of their right to choose what they bought... good or bad.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 9, 2008)

Thanks, Jerry!
Well spoken.


----------



## Lakewood Photography (Mar 9, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> I'm waiting for the D800000.


 
I'm on the waiting list...


----------



## domromer (Mar 9, 2008)

That's it, I'm selling my D80 and shooting nothing but my TLR!


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 9, 2008)

People spend thousands of dollars on bodies and a couple hundred on zoom lenses because they think the camera does all the work. 

I've seen way too many people with D300/200's and 18-55/55-200's on them.


----------



## JIP (Mar 9, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> People spend thousands of dollars on bodies and a couple hundred on zoom lenses because they think the camera does all the work.
> 
> I've seen way too many people with D300/200's and 18-55/55-200's on them.


 
Now now there are a few peole on ths board that think that is a perfectly acceptable combination, that or the 18-200.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 9, 2008)

You will see my 55-200 VR on my D300 from time to time.

It takes really good pictures, and in certain situations I use it in place of my 70-200 f/2.8 VR. 

Having said that, I agree with your intent... that good glass is more important than a camera body.

I did, after all, buy the 70-200 VR before I bought the 55-200 VR.

I haven't had my wife's 18-200 on my D300 though... I really don't care for that lens very much.

As far as the 18-55, it is the only other wide angle I own... but since I really don't shoot wide angle much, it has never made it onto the D300 either. 

Usually I keep my 24-70 f/2.8 on it for basketball shots, along with the 70-200 VR.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 9, 2008)

Jon said:


> If they are from the U.S., then they have been trained from birth to buy or whine their way to the biggest/shiniest(?)/most expensive anything. This guarantees success, popularity, envy, local fame,etc..


 
You win my award for the most ignorant thing I've ever read in a Forum :thumbdown:


----------



## usayit (Mar 9, 2008)

I think his statement might be a little exaggerated but you would be equally ignorant if you didn't accept the fact that IMAGE is VERY important in the United States.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" is very much alive in this country.  A very small example are some member's signatures on this here forum (yours included)....  An even bigger example from a purely marketing standpoint is the popularity of "branded" products which seem to bring attention to the branding over the product itself (Mercedes symbol, Nike, Canon, Nikon, etc..).


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 9, 2008)

also i think megapixels has a lot to do with it
people automatically assume more megapixels means better quality when really 6 megapixels is more that hobbyist or non-professional photographers will ever need, honestly
but marketers push the belief on buyers, so D300s are outselling D40s in the amateur market (who, btw are probably only using about $200 out of their $million setup)


----------



## CanAm (Mar 10, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> (though my first motorcycle was the first production motorcycle to come out in 1982 with a turbocharger from the factory... and I had never touched street bikes before... and I survived just fine, thanks).



I'd speculate that you rode dirtbikes at one point, then, judging by the way you worded that. 


I came across a militant newbie (I say this because he was a photography buff, but took pretty awful pictures) yesterday at a photography seminar. The guy was a Sony rep pushing the Alpha series (which, for the record, take everything you don't need in a digital SLR, and cram them all in there, and at a hefty premium, too!) at the DigitalDays photography classes. He saw my Canon 10D and my Sigma lenses and started criticizing my gear because it wasn't pricey enough. I told him what I had works and he said "well then, it's a gamble that's working in your favor so far".

His unfounded claims of "Sigma is known for awful quality control" and "Sony's Karl Zeiss glass lenses are far superior to anything else you can buy and they're affordable! (On a millionaire's budget)" were enough to make me boycott Sony products for good.

If you happen to be reading this, Mr. Sony Rep, learn that it's bad business sense to force a product on someone that has no money for what you're selling, and has no need for what you're selling. You can sell someone the most expensive camera in the world and they still won't take decent photos if they have no idea what they're doing.

Sorry guys, had to vent.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 10, 2008)

The thread which would not die .... ! 

Anyway, just to add another strange story. I mentioned that I was already attacked by Nikonians for not shooting Nikon. But it also happens to me that people with Canon cameras approach me with aq broad smile, shouting from a distance that they have the same camera as I do.
But then they come closer and see that mine is alot more expensive expensive 
- they blush, and start to apologize that they did not realise it earlier. _Just as if they had just insulted me by underestimating my gear!_ Now isn't that ridiculous as well?


----------



## JIP (Mar 10, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> You will see my 55-200 VR on my D300 from time to time.
> 
> It takes really good pictures, and in certain situations I use it in place of my 70-200 f/2.8 VR.
> 
> ...


 
Well to me that statement is more about buying them at the same time (D300 bought with the cheap 18-55 and 55-200) as exsclusive glass for the body.


----------



## Mav (Mar 10, 2008)

Yahoozy said:


> so D300s are outselling D40s in the amateur market


Not hardly.  D40 kits are flying off the pallets at Costco and other big retailers, not D300's.


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 10, 2008)

hahah dude i know 3 guys who have D300s and never venture out of Program mode
makes me cry =(


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 10, 2008)

Yahoozy said:


> hahah dude i know 3 guys who have D300s and never venture out of Program mode
> makes me cry =(



Well, you don't have to worry about me. My first thought when I read this was "Wait just a minute, the D300 doesn't even have a Program Mode on it, does it?"

I had to pull out my camera to see.

It does.

Shows you how much attention I pay to Program Mode I guess.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 11, 2008)

Wow, this thread has it all! Motorcycles, housing, local economies, golf, something about oil. I think this is the one and only thread anyone visiting the internet tonight needs to read.

I know _I_ feel like I've had enough!


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 11, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Well, you don't have to worry about me. My first thought when I read this was "Wait just a minute, the D300 doesn't even have a Program Mode on it, does it?"
> 
> I had to pull out my camera to see.
> 
> ...



hahahah 
you have renewed my faith in humanity Sabbath =D


----------



## Battou (Mar 11, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Well, you don't have to worry about me. My first thought when I read this was "Wait just a minute, the D300 doesn't even have a Program Mode on it, does it?"
> 
> I had to pull out my camera to see.
> 
> ...



Could be worse....I had to ask the other day what the hell "green Box mode" was....


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 11, 2008)

JIP said:


> Now now there are a few peole on ths board that think that is a perfectly acceptable combination, that or the 18-200.


 
I very clearly heard my D200 tell me that it lubs my 18-200. True story!


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Wow, this thread has it all! Motorcycles, housing, local economies, golf, something about oil. I think this is the one and only thread anyone visiting the internet tonight needs to read.
> 
> I know _I_ feel like I've had enough!



I think we also need something about women in here ... :lmao:


----------



## Fliphishermon (Mar 11, 2008)

Why did I, a complete noob, go out and spend over $1,000 for my  camera, never mind the glass?

Because I could...

Neener, neener!


----------



## cactus waltz (Mar 11, 2008)

In 2004, the Canon Digital Rebel kit cost 999 dollars new. This Christmas, I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XTi kit for 600 dollars new. Because of the fact that camera technology advances while getting cheaper, I plan ahead. My past years have looked like this:

2001: Got a Pentax APC film camera. Took a lot of snapshots.

2004: Bought a Canon Powershot A80. Began to learn Photoshop. Experimented with composition.

2007: Bought a Canon Rebel XTi kit with 50mm 1,8. Really learning shutter speeds, aperture and lighting.


A new camera every third year, with experience and gear inbetween is a good deal for me. I figure that in 2010, I can buy a used 50D or whatever. What's most important is that I feel that I can appreciate what I am using. So far, each new camera has brought a new appreciation. For that, I am glad that I didn't give in for the coolest gear on the market at once. In any case, my kind of photography doesn't need it:

www.flickr.com/photos/aerophysics


----------



## crotograph (Mar 11, 2008)

I thought we were in a recession! 

I go back to the 70's. I bought my brother a Nikon FTn while in the Navy in Sasebo, Japan. While I was at it I bought one for myself also. My brother became a teacher, I became a photographer, still working. I still have my FTn and still shoot with it, a wee bit. So, the price paid at whatever time may result in a career or it may be a waste of money. However, the original purchase is up to the buyer and the results of that purchase are up to the mind of the buyer. 

An SLR is as sexy today as it was then. Yet, it may be ignorance of the medium and what is available that applies. I can pick up an RZ 67 with a pretty nice package included on eBay for just over $1000.00. Depending. 

The reason there are so many digital SLR shooters is that it seems to be the equipment before the knowledge of photography. It has been suggested here that advertising (marketing) is a primary mover of DSLR sales. I agree. I do not see Canon or Nikon or Mamiya advertisements on TV. Therefore, it must be the internet that drives this and forums. Mostly, though, it must be word of mouth and print medium. I know very few amateurs that don't have at least a point and shoot. The older folks have the inexpensive point and shoots and the younger have the pricey P and S's or the DSLRs. It's an interesting dynamic. Used to be a Corvette, now it's a N or C DSLR. Times have changed.

I say more health to those who buy a DSLR. Maybe they will learn to use it if the difficulties of photography don't get in the way.

Myself I shoot 120/220 almost exclusively as I need the negatives for my work. However, good luck and don't be afraid to work if you buy a really great DSLR. 

I want a D3. Can't justify it for what I do, therefore, won't buy one.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 11, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> I think we also need something about women in here ... :lmao:



Nekkid women?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Nekkid women?



even better!

So how many nekkid woman should surround a man each day in order to boost his ego and show others how great he is? 


I'd like 10.


any other ideas?


----------



## crotograph (Mar 11, 2008)

Nekkid women is an interesting thesis for DSLRs. You don't have to go to the one hour photo. See, I mention the word sexy and here you go. Post some photos.


----------



## danza (Mar 12, 2008)

I can only speak for myself even though my camera was under $1000.  I purchased a hand me down dslr when a photographer friend of mine wanted to upgrade his.  I figured I'd be using it for a while and wanted something i'd be able to grow with as I get better and better.


----------



## Miaow (Mar 13, 2008)

I think a little bit of the canon with my boyfriend is that he likes that its an expensive camera and therefor looks good when out an about etc... I wanted an DSLR cause of having p&S's in the past that were completely unable to do what i wanted them to do.  I think so far I'm the only one who's actually used it on manual so far (and manual focus).

I have a friend that asked me once should he get a canon EOS cause it might be able to do what his didnt seem to be able to - i asked him what he had - he told me a nikon D40 - i then asked him had he tried altering any of the settings and he hadnt he'd just been using it on the auto setting.  I suggested maybe start playing with the settings cause the Nikon should be able to do what he wanted.  I then pointed him in the direction of a post on here on how to do what he wanted


----------



## Bruce_h (Mar 13, 2008)

I just want to have good stuff to start.  Upgrading is expensive, you take a loss on the first stuff you bought and then have to pay even more to get the good stuff.  I am lucky that I am in the position I am to afford this stuff.  While I realize a 40D isn't top of the line I believe with the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens I chose a lens that will last me a long time


----------



## crotograph (Mar 14, 2008)

Just a thought in addition. A Pro model camera has so many adjustments and combinations that one must know photographic principles of exposure, light reading and DOF just to utilize the features. If you have the money and the discipline to learn, go for it. If you're just looking for a great photo and can still afford it, buy a cheaper model SLR and put great glass on it.

Those who buy SLR's are able to afford the cameras. Credit or cash has no bearing. That's an individual issue.


----------



## CRman (Mar 15, 2008)

I bought the D80 to begin.. +/- 1K... Was going to get the D200 but opted for a few lenses too. Reason in short of why I bought it... Because I could. Only three months old and now looking into the D300 around summer time. Why, just because...


----------



## phoenix_rising (Mar 15, 2008)

I would say the reason is as simple as Supply and Demand. Manufacturers have long been trying to expand their SLR market shares and to do so they reach out to those who were not able to afford such cameras in the past. 

You can pick up a very nice DSLR now for $500, much within the grasp of a novice like myself. 

But marketing can also be blamed for making people think they can achieve pro results with little prior education.


----------



## usayit (Mar 15, 2008)

phoenix_rising said:


> But marketing can also be blamed for making people think they can achieve pro results with little prior education.



We are all suckers for a good marketing strategy...  Me included .. lol hehehe.


----------



## Battou (Mar 16, 2008)

usayit said:


> We are all suckers for a good marketing strategy...  Me included .. lol hehehe.



People being suckers for a good marketing strategy have been around for ages, always will be. Canons AE-1 is ample proof of that a good marketing strategy works, Some five million units sold during it's term of service back in the days when the SLR market was still fairly exclusive to pros. All the effort Canon did to reduce the price of it led to issues, but despite this it still sells with millions still in service (albeit many have been parted out to maintain those still in service). The cost reduction was not really all that much, so it was not like they just brought it to the working class threw price, it was all in the marketing.


----------



## milavidal (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, I'm a "beginner"myself and fall right under this situation..My first camera was a point and shoot Sony DCSP200, and setitng it to manual mode, I learned many things, spent quite a while learning composition, became a lover of natural lighting, and by learning new things, it striked me to want to learn more about all the "technical stuff". I have been complimented on my "work"but I do know that i am only taking the first steps into photography. It's a hobby that I love, so I recently bought a Nikon D80 and I'm trying to learn.


----------



## Latina (Mar 17, 2008)

When I decided to buy a new camera I wanted something more than a point and shoot.  I did research and talked to other photographers who recommended a canon rebel for beginners and I'm happy I went with it...I like to buy something worth it because I know that when I do something I go *all* out and so I knew a point and shoot would soon be obsolete for me.  That's my reason for buying my camera and still it only cost me $800.


----------



## Clikon (Mar 20, 2008)

man, i actually reached for my wallet when i was in the camera store today, then thought better of the notion.  thankfully.  

i now see that b&h has the D40 with the 55-200 (and the 18-55) for 659.95!  i almost paid 867 for the same thing at the store! (well, it came with a bag and some DVDs.)  I mentioned this in a previous post.  But here's what I'm getting at...I'm a NOOB like no other, and here I am laying down my life savings for what I feel is the best value for my current needs.

I see the Hasselblad H3DII-39(MP) is on sale for just under $34,000.00 What do you think of this camera?  Does anyone know anyone who owns it?


----------



## Clikon (Mar 20, 2008)

I don't know why i posted that.


----------



## solrac8126 (Mar 20, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> ...


well i read a couple of post not all of them, anyways about your question i think:
There are no real warrants that you'll get better pictures with a 2k camera than with a 200, i was a beginner last year when my p&s died and decided to get a new one, i got the s5is which was a great camera, and has all the manual features than any dslr , except maybe a focus on a lens, i had it about to weeks and sold it to get the one i have right now. Why? i could get into technicals about ISO noise and such. Is not what i want to discuss, even that i know you'll get different result from different cameras (Prices). 
Most of people will get the best equipment even if they have absolutely NO info, experience, knowledge, etc. but they have the money. And yes i think you will be "more covered" with "more features" if in the future you plan to do (in this case) photography to a next level.
This is not personal, but i think you asked the question, because you wanted to know what to buy or if you'll get better results with an expensive camera and didn't wanted to ask the same question :mrgreen:

Other thing; "*(and a bit jealous )*" like you said

I know i guy that has a bag with at least 8k in equipment which he has no clue how to use it, i remembered i thought that day , GOD why i can have that ???? i know I'll give it a better usage!! 

But that's life most people will think the same about you, it just depends the social and economical background and life people has.
I know i have at least bought 2 or 3 things a year i don't NEED, but i just had the money, so i bought it, i know most of us have been there.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 20, 2008)

Clikon said:


> I see the Hasselblad H3DII-39(MP) is on sale for just under $34,000.00 What do you think of this camera?  Does anyone know anyone who owns it?



When I shot weddings, I shot Hassys. They are simply the best medium format cameras.

While I have no need for a 39 megapixel camera, I WANT one of those Hassys... I don't need to even try it first, Hasselblad has never made a single bad camera model...

They are priced that high because they are worth it.


----------



## heatherwilkerson (Mar 24, 2008)

I am "pro hobbiest" as many say.  I say I am a beginner that is still learning her camera.  I got the Nikon D80 after owning two other point and shoot digital cameras and using a 35mm SLR.  I am planning for the future.  I currently do a few of my friend's and family's portraits.  I am also doing a wedding for a family member and they are very aware of my "lack" of experience.  Any suggestions?  

I think part of it is, that the college students wanting to do photography don't get taken serious if they have a point and shoot.


----------



## Battou (Mar 24, 2008)

heatherwilkerson said:


> I am "pro hobbiest" as many say.  I say I am a beginner that is still learning her camera.  I got the Nikon D80 after owning two other point and shoot digital cameras and using a 35mm SLR.  I am planning for the future.  I currently do a few of my friend's and family's portraits.  I am also doing a wedding for a family member and they are very aware of my "lack" of experience.  Any suggestions?
> 
> I think part of it is, that the college students wanting to do photography don't get taken serious if they have a point and shoot.



...I'll cut ya some slack because you are new, But this discussion is not about the SLR VS P&S, It's about High end SLR's VS low end SLR's. The College students you mentioned is a big part of it though. 

Yeah, you are right, they won't get taken seriously with a P&S, However they "absolutely need" little more than a SLR. There is no need for a student to have luxories built for professionals who need to put their cameras in the line of fire for their shot.

Me personally, I would take a eight year old with an AE-1 and a fleet of lenses far more seriously than an eighteen year old with a 30D with kit lens.

When one is looking to learn, having the most options available is more important than having a body that can take a hit or two. With P&S cameras becoming more advanced, the real difference between the SLR and P&S is clearest with the ability to change lenses. The other atributes of SLRs are being met/or catching up to in some form or another with manual controll over the P&S camera wile at the same time SLRs are being dummied down to include all the auto abilities of the P&S cameras.


----------



## crotograph (Mar 25, 2008)

If you can afford it, buy it, is silly. If you can understand it, buy it, is more to the point. Photography is not just a camera and lens at any price. Rather, it is an art that delves into understanding of the technical formulae of light and how to paint it. Most, starting out, have a long learning curve. The learning curve is the absolute joy of trial and error. Now that digital is here it is completely do able. Film is way to expensive to experiment with now.

I never advise my students to buy an expensive camera. Just buy something used and go from there. Or, rent a camera and see what you can do with it and how well you understand what the menu is telling you as to exposure. Ebay is a prime example of folks that have purchased way over their experience and knowledge. For that matter, so are a lot of websites that portray the photographer as a pro. The camera doesn't make the pro. The camera is only a tool for the knowledge of the pro.


----------



## snowalker (Aug 6, 2008)

Hey, nice point of view )
Good question. The things are like this: big income + curiosity 
My opinion...


----------



## cofphoto (Aug 14, 2008)

I haven't read any of the replies but I'll just put it this way:

- Our average customer spends about $1,000 on their order.  Why not pay that same $1,000 on a camera, so that you can take them yourself, and shoot as many pictures as you like?

- A 5x7 print costs $0.39 at Walgreens, why spend $50 on one?

- I just spent $1,000 on photographs and it only took my Photographer an hour to take them.  So I just paid him $1,000 an hour!

These are all things that we know are not true, but these are the thoughts of much of the general public.  That and the fact that for $30 - 50 you can take a three hour "seminar" and learn everything that you need to know about being a Professional Photographer.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 14, 2008)

I am one of those beginners spending much more.

still it did not help.


----------



## Sirashley (Aug 14, 2008)

I'm a super noob, got my Sony a200 in May. I got it from Dell for 539.99, then I had to buy another lense, Beachcamera.com Tameron 28-200 for 89.00. Then a bag from adorama which was 59.99. Lucky me, I have a mac so GIMP was free. A couple of UltraII 4gb flash cards later (34.99 each from Costco)and I am at a grand total of $759.95 for my entire setup. I thought I did pretty well...

I am a broke Noob with an easy to use camera that doesn't overwhelm me and so far, has produced great results for me... I just couldn't justify spending 1000+ on the camera, when as you can see, the accessories add up too... Just my two cents...


----------



## cofphoto (Aug 14, 2008)

Oh and in my city there is a local Photographer who goes on the news and tells people that they can get professional photos by, and I quote "Spending $750 at Costo on a camera and going to www.MPIX.com to get professional prints" including a mounted 16x20 "for about ten bucks".


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 14, 2008)

Meh, someone needs to plant two feet firmly in reality for a moment.  If someone with less than a year's experience thinks that they can "out shoot" a pro and their professional equipment, more power to them.  Personally, I just think that someone is missing the boat... and I *do* mean that they totally missed the boat.

If you believe that you can out shoot a professional with a $750 Costco bought camera and an account at MPIX... go for it, because you can make TONS of money... seriously... go put all the local pros out of business and then make a mint. 

BTW, do you have some info on that "$30 - 50 you can take a three hour "seminar" and learn everything that you need to know about being a Professional Photographer" seminar? Because *I* would be interested... as would just about every other person on earth that can hold a camera!

(where is that avatar of the rolling eyes when you need it??)

Dude, seriously... in 3 hours, a professional instructor would be *challenged* just to explain BASIC CAMERA FUNCTION to a new camera owner... much less how to exceed the capabilities of a PROFESSIONAL!

As for MPIX... just to show you the level of NON-credibility he has... the lowest price for a 16 X 20 on their site is $13.99 and that is *UN*mounted.  If that idiot cannot even get something so simple as prices that are publically posted and available on the net straight... how accurate is the rest of his info?

This coming from one of those noobs with WAY more than a thousand bucks in my equipment.


----------



## maulrat (Aug 14, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> I am one of those beginners spending much more.
> 
> still it did not help.


 


			
				Friedrich Nietzsche said:
			
		

> He who would learn to *fly* one day must first learn to stand and walk... one cannot *fly* into flying.


 
=)


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 14, 2008)

maulrat said:


> =)



well, I come from the country of Nietzsche, and I only crawl!! not fly not stand or walk, just crawl.


----------



## Paul M (Aug 14, 2008)

I checked out this thread when it first started and saw some valid points. I have not checked back until today, and WOW 6 pages of this crap ROFLMAO too funny!

I have to add my 2¢, do you realize how many pairs of Air Jordans are out there? About 85% of the kids out there must be professional basketball players :mrgreen:


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 14, 2008)

Paul M said:


> I checked out this thread when it first started and saw some valid points. I have not checked back until today, and WOW 6 pages of this crap ROFLMAO too funny!
> 
> I have to add my 2¢, do you realize how many pairs of Air Jordans are out there? About 85% of the kids out there must be professional basketball players :mrgreen:



Who is Air Jordan?

Jordan is a river, and air we all breathe every day. I am confused now.


Oh, and what the heck is basketball??


----------



## STICKMAN (Aug 14, 2008)

Thats the problem in this world. To many people worrying about what others are doing with there money. I earn it, I can spend it the way I feel is best for me and my family, If this makes someone feel like less then what they are, then theres more then a camera thats the issue. In the end IMO spend within your means and you will be fine. Just remember you got to lay your head on that pillow at night, do whats right for you...


Its not the camera that makes the picture, its you, the camera only follows your orders........................


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 14, 2008)

Obviously speaking most of the good pictures come from a person not the camera, we know that, but still a good camera helps us out...or else why aren't we all shooting with $100 P&S cameras


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 14, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> The average newbie does not yet know the true meaning of megapixels.  The average newbie knows only what the marketing says, and that is more megapixels equal better pictures.




You know, if you're going to the store to drop a thousand dollars and you have _absolutely no idea why one camera is better than another_ you're probably buying a nice new DSLR for the status symbol.  (the mentality of I'm on the beach wearing a rolex, birkenstocks, and taking my pictures of my family with a really expensive camera I must be cool).

But, as a n00b who just bought an expensive camera (2 lenses + body + tripod + memory card + filters == $900) I can tell you I sure as hell did research before plunking down that hard earned dough.

I went online and I actually looked up what megapixels meant (you know NASA's rovers use a 1 MP camera with a really good lens)?  And based on my needs, I bought a 10 MP camera because:



I want to be able to blow up my pictures and a 6MP won't make as good a poster print.  (I forget the figures but I think you can only blow a 6MP up to 8x10)?
Ideally I wanted to purchase one body that I could grow into.  Whereas I can upgrade my lenses so that I can take pictures of sports, or get a macro lens, I can't upgrade the body.  (Plus if I buy a new lens I can reuse it with another body provided it's the same size).
I wanted features out the wazoo so I could experiment, and I wanted it to be idiot proof that all I have to do is push the button to get a great shot if I frame it right

-Dan


----------



## fabric (Aug 14, 2008)

the best camera for a novice is a top-of-the-range camera.
steep learning-curve. however no steeper than any one elses.
think about it.
if you can afford it - do it. life is short.

top-of-the-range..as in go to a big city, find a specialist camerashop.
not top-of-the-range as in 'we also sell washing-machines'.


----------



## cviste (Aug 14, 2008)

honestly. its all about money.
if they can afford it then hey better for them.
but the mroe expensive the equipment doesnt neccasarily mean better results.
i am shooting with a nikon d40 not the best but good enough for me.
dont get me wrong im jealous, i wouldn tmind have ing one of those 1000+ cameras.
haha


----------



## fabric (Aug 14, 2008)

yes. i agree. i learnt things from their limitations. learnt how to feel 
frustrated probably. certainly get to imagine what you could do with 
better. maybe to start with the best has perfect potential but no 
(initial) awareness of that potential. if your first camera was a D3
or an M6 -all the better at the end of the day. a person just has
far more mistakes to try out on a D3 than say, a 1980 practika MTL5.


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 14, 2008)

I think for me it's more that I get frustrated because of the lack of knowledge of people. Many on here have talked about how they are/were complete newbs and they bought great equipment, and have grown into it. Fantastic, that is awesome. If you have a real desire to learn the photography and will actually do it, then by all means get this camera. 

As has been said, getting the 40d or even the markII is not going to create a better photo than the rebel version (in this case appx. an xsi). It also, will not necessarily make it much easier to take this better photo. if you go look at the features that make up the difference although useful to some, in most cases the differences are not all that helpful. I mean, the 40d can shoot more rapidly. yeehaw, that will help so much when you want 17 shots of the birthday candles being blown out. The 40d with it's wheel is much easier to change settings rapidly than the xsi. This is exceptionally useful for people who never take the camera off auto (thus don't have those options anyway). 

The thing that I become most angry at is the people who should know photography recommending people to get a DSLR or a higher grade one when it is quite clear they don't need that equipment. My wife likes my DSLR, but she finds it much to heavy for her. People often want something they can just fit in a pocket and go, instead they get pushed into buying a DSLR because it's "better". 

Again, if you're going to learn the uses of it, and actually do, then by all means, go for it, they (40Ds are nice).  If it's just a hobby, don't waste your money. I'm not mad if you do, I just think you made a stupid decision.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 14, 2008)

NateWagner said:


> yeehaw, that will help so much when you want 17 shots of the birthday candles being blown out.




I think if you're going to buy an SLR, for most people, you're not trying for 17 shots of the birthday candles being blown out.  You're looking to take professional quality pictures -- even if you're under the delusion that an expensive camera will magically make you a professional, you're not doing it for family shots.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 14, 2008)

well if a person is serious about photography, then in the long run its cheaper to buy the best camera you can afford be it film or digital instead of upgrading often.


----------



## fabric (Aug 14, 2008)

"well, (cough) we usually recommend our customers the holga, sir..a marque of quality"


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 14, 2008)

I just bought one of those last week! I'm excited to use it!! I like the  pro features it offers, and the double exposure feature.


----------



## cofphoto (Aug 14, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> If you believe that you can out shoot a professional with a $750 Costco bought camera and an account at MPIX... go for it, because you can make TONS of money... seriously... go put all the local pros out of business and then make a mint.
> 
> As for MPIX... just to show you the level of NON-credibility he has... the lowest price for a 16 X 20 on their site is $13.99 and that is *UN*mounted. If that idiot cannot even get something so simple as prices that are publically posted and available on the net straight... how accurate is the rest of his info?


 
Just thought you'd be curious to know that this "idiot" was a speaker at WPPI last year...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 15, 2008)

Well, normally a more expensive body will help with high ISO photos ... Skill cant help you if you _need_ to use high ISO


----------



## anubis404 (Aug 15, 2008)

Eh, I wish I had $1000 to blow on a camera. I'm a bit shy on money, having to save for college and all. All I got is a D40 with kit lens, and a 50mm coming and that's all I need.


----------



## usayit (Aug 15, 2008)

The D40 + kit lens is more than most photography students I studied with have access to.  You shouldn't worry about what other people have .... college is more important.  College is also not accessible to everyone so consider yourself in a good well-off position.

When it comes down to it.... people buy the expensive cameras because they've been told to.  

I also don't buy the "buy the most expensive you can afford now rather than upgrade" bit.  After some point, the benefits of an expensive camera over a more affordable model diminishes to a regular consumer.  Professionals are a different story as they have paychecks, projects, and put their equipment through the ringer.  From the viewpoint of the typical consumer pay incrementally more money for essentially the same basic function.

But.. hey.. I'll sell yah the expensive camera... its a business after all.


----------



## AussieDee (Aug 15, 2008)

<------- still carries a $99 GE point & shoot

I just leave puddles of drool in camera shops.


----------



## Overread (Aug 15, 2008)

ahem - I think if you look at the general financial situation you will find your answer: Recession approaches (or at the very least threatens)

That means people are gunning now with thier savings for thier hobbies or for the hobbies they wish to do. Hence a lot of people are buying cameras now before the crunch really hits - they want the kit now before things get bad and they cannot even dream of affording the camera - since before they could dream about getting the camera oneday - in the rescession they mostly can't get that dream till the recession ends.

Further - and going by UK prices - a low end DSLR and even a mid range with kit lens is well within peoples current spending power - yes its expensive, but look at the number of people with a £500-£1000 computer in thier home (at time of purchase). 
Did they need such expensive/good kit -- that is not a question that is jealosy speaking --- why? because no=one can disagree that a better model camera is able to take a better recording of a photograph - even in auto modes. A mid range DSLR is able to apply better noise reduction than a low end model - so its simple logic that is a "better camera". The sights and composition will still be the same of course those areas will need work no matter the amount a newb spends - the question of will they spend the time learning is moot as its down to indevidual cases.


(ps - comming from someone who really has spent a heck of a lot in under a year of photography)


----------



## manaheim (Aug 15, 2008)

Who cares?  Unless yer jealous?

I spent an assload on my D100 way back when and couldn't use the stupid thing to save my life.  Years ago, many would have laughed at me, but I was determined and I have progressed a lot and even make money with my camera.

Does that mean the expense was justified?  Who gets to determine what is justified?  Who gets to determine someone's worth as a photographer as they are starting out... as they grow... or on the day they die?  Are they worth that camera?  Did they need it?  Is my getting paid for my work some sort of mark of worthiness?  What if my work sucks?  Who is to say?  You?  Me?

If they're using their camera as a hammer to build a house, then no... the investment was stupid.  Short of that, none of us is in a position to say.  

Now everyone stop complaining about what someone else is doing and take some more pictures.


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 15, 2008)

well, I also don't really agree with the buy one to grow into it. I would say rather to buy a better lens and grow into that. The better, faster lens, will help more (in my opinion) than the better faster camera. Besides the camera will go out of date soon enough and you will have to upgrade again. So why not get a cheap DSLR (xt at about 350 or less) and a nice lens and upgrade the body when you outgrow the current body. By then the new version of that camera will probably be out anyway. 

But again, there is nothing inherently wrong with buying the nicer camera to start, so don't think I'm saying that. I'm just saying if you want to spend the money spend it on your lenses, those will stay with you and are much more valuable to you in the longer run.


----------



## Juliette (Aug 25, 2008)

Hi Everyone,

I photograph since May '08, so that will make me a newborn  but I would like to share with you my .01 too

I got my first dSLR on my b-day from my family. And yes, it was expensive. I played with it for 2 months and, to great "disapproval" of my family, I "upgraded" to the fully manual Minolta x-700 bought on e-bay for 80 bucks with fixed 50mm Minolta f1.7 and Quantaray 70-210 f4 and I love it! 

So not all of us, newbies, buy into expensive gear without appreciating and learning photography. Well, technically I did that at first 

I will get to a point where I may own a body worth of $7000 and some freaking amazing lenses but I plan to master photography first, not a camera )


----------



## randym77 (Aug 25, 2008)

I started out with cheaper cameras...and regretted it.  I'd have saved money if i just bought the more expensive stuff to start with.

I like sports photography, and that means yes, you do need 6 fps.  Or at least, it helps.


----------



## Twinney (Aug 25, 2008)

randym77 said:


> I started out with cheaper cameras...and regretted it. I'd have saved money if i just bought the more expensive stuff to start with.


 
I just bought my first somewhat expensive camera in June, and that's after spending abou $300 on my first. For the money I spend all together I could have gotten a really nice $600 camera, or had $300 and the camera I have now.
I'm completely with you on regeting the cheaper cameras. You get what you pay for...or less. 

Seeing people such as my self with an expensive camera dosn't bother me, seeing 7 year olds walking around with an $800 camera with extra lenses does...what if they drop it?? O_O


----------



## Joves (Aug 25, 2008)

Well as I look at it, all of these noobs spending money on upper end equipment is a good thing. It keeps the costs down because the manufacturers are making money on volume. If only the experienced photographers bought the high end then the equipment would cost more. 
People ever since the film days have been buying the best they could, never having touched anything better than a Kodak Instamatic. I remember meeting a ton of them. The best for me was a lady who had her Pentx set at ISO400 but, was using ISO100 film. She couldnt understand why her pics werent turning out. I showed her how to adjust the film speed. So as you can see this is nothing new. 
So God bless all the noobs with money to burn. They make it possible for the camera makers to make a profit and, improve the technology.


----------



## dklod (Aug 25, 2008)

I dont see a problem with spending that much on your first camera. Does that mean when people buy their first computer, they have to start with a 486 DX4-100 with 16mb ram and 80mb HD with windows 95 on it?? Or their first car has to be a bomb even if they can afford a new one?? As we learn, we quickly find that we need more, want more.

My current camera, whilst I loved it when I got it nearly 2 years ago, I quickly grew out of it. Wanting smaller apertures, longer exposure, better ISO performance, wider frame etc..It only cost me a little over $200US and it served its purpose as a stepping stone to an SLR. (and SWMBO would have had kittens if I spent $1k on a camera) Do I regret doing that?? Yes and no. Yes, because I've spent the last 12 months losing a little interest in my photography because I feel resticted in some ways. No, because technology has come along in the past 2 years and maybe what I would have paid for a 6mp back then, I can get 10-12mp now with better sensors, better kit lenses etc today. I figure get the best you can afford regardless of what it is (cameras, golf clubs), but justify whatever price you pay.


----------



## AussieDee (Aug 25, 2008)

> Yes, because I've spent the last 12 months losing a lottle interest in my photography because I feel resticted in some ways


I'm feeling it now. I'm very restricted and wish I had a grand to purchase a new camera. 
I have no desire to take pictures anymore with what I have. It's not achieving what "I" see.


----------



## joethedestroyer (Aug 25, 2008)

There are so many reasons why I want my first dSLR to be a Canon 40d rather than the less expensive XSi or any Nikon model.  For one, I've always used Canon cameras and been pleased with the result.  Brand loyalty is the least of all reasons though.  I also feel like I have a pretty good handle on how Canon's think and feel (i.e., menus & ease of use).  More to that point, if I'm going to invest in something in the $700 range, the pricepoint is such that I'd rather spring a couple hundred extra for the higher model with better build quality/features/etc.  The 40d feels like I think a camera should and I like the weight of it too.  It's like my dad told me when buying my first car.  On big investments like this, if you don't like the way it looks and feels, you'll never be completely happy with it.  Plus, I think there is a huge difference in the user interface between the entry level and prosumer models (mainly, the wheel).  It just seems to work better for me.

Photography has always been a hobby of mine, and I'd like to invest in something that I can grow into and use for quite a while.  But in any case, there are my reasons for wanting to get a $1000 camera for my first one.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Aug 25, 2008)

CanAm said:


> I'd like to know why all these beginners have super expensive DSLRs.
> 
> I've always wondered, what exactly warrants going out and spending 1000 or more dollars on a new camera when you're a beginner?
> 
> ...



I see nothing wrong with a beginner buying an expensive camera system.

The problem is when you have a total noob with a Canon 5D with nothing but L series lenses, manfrotto carbon fiber tripod and a 580EX mk II who thinks, "Oh, I put it on the green box and I'll get the best possible photos."

I heard once (I can't remember who from) that buying a dSLR and then leaving it on auto is like buying a Ferrari and then getting someone else to drive you around.  A car like that, you want to drive it yourself!


----------



## Bryant (Aug 25, 2008)

buy nice or buy twice


----------



## manaheim (Aug 25, 2008)

Good god let this thread die.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 26, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Good god let this thread die.


:thumbup:


----------



## Battou (Aug 26, 2008)

Bah....let the zombie horse roam. Beating a dead horse is more fun when it's moving.


----------



## usayit (Aug 26, 2008)

Battou said:


> Bah....let the zombie horse roam. Beating a dead horse is more fun when it's moving.



Hahahahaha....

Those that revived are relatively new to the TPF... they had something to say...


----------



## Battou (Aug 26, 2008)

usayit said:


> Hahahahaha....
> 
> Those that revived are relatively new to the TPF... they had something to say...


Yeah, I cought that. that is why I did not say anything abut the bump when I saw it.


----------



## sarallyn (Aug 26, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Who cares?  Unless yer jealous?




eggggggg zactly.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 26, 2008)

usayit said:


> Hahahahaha....
> 
> Those that revived are relatively new to the TPF... they had something to say...


 


Battou said:


> Yeah, I cought that. that is why I did not say anything abut the bump when I saw it.


 
Yeah, and it was, of course, COMPLETELY different than everything else that was said in the other 291 posts on the thread, right? I'm sure they read all 291 posts before responding, too! :er:

  Sorry.  I don't begrudge the noobs, I just hate some of these TFHs.


----------



## visualpoetry (Aug 26, 2008)

I started with the Rebel Xti and recently upgraded to the 40D. My reasoning was nothing less than money. If I could have afforded the nicer body when I started, I would have purchased it. I think it's fine if beginners want to sink money into photography - as long as they already know it's something they have a passion for it.


----------



## usayit (Aug 26, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Yeah, and it was, of course, COMPLETELY different than everything else that was said in the other 291 posts on the thread, right? I'm sure they read all 291 posts before responding, too! :er:
> 
> Sorry.  I don't begrudge the noobs, I just hate some of these TFHs.



I agree... but like it or not... they feel they have something to add and it isn't against the rules of TPF.  So I let it slide.   Notice a lot of old threads getting revived in the same manner.


----------



## mike134 (May 21, 2009)

when I was a student I wanted to have the most expensive laptop, why? because I did not know a lot about laptops, so I was thinking that If a have the most expensive I was going to do alot of great work, amateur, then I started to read more and learn more, hahahaa:mrgreen:, so I recomend this, I bougth a book online, Advanced Photography, of Langford, amazing book, read it and learn,:thumbup:
Advanced Photography 7th Edition - Download Photographic Techniques


----------



## wiredhernandez (May 21, 2009)

This is an entertaining thread. For most photography is a hobby ... Hobbies cost money ... Hobbies require toys ... Cameras and lenses could be considered toys .. Many folks can afford to buy the toys they want according to their own means... if a newbie can buy a 5D why should anyone else begrudge... Not everyone is an up and coming photographer or student on a shoestring budget ... I would say its that simple...


----------



## bdavis (May 21, 2009)

How else are they supposed to learn unless they buy a camera?


----------



## KmH (May 21, 2009)

I haven't read 20 pages of posts but come on, that's why it's called disposable income.

A couple thousand $ in camera gear for a beginner is not a lot of money today.

Plus it's relative to your hobby. If you want to race a Formula Ford it will take way more than couple of grand just to get a race car, let alone actually put it on the track.

If you have decided flying an airplane is the hobby for you........


----------



## adamwilliamking (May 21, 2009)

Whats worse, them buying the camera that they didn't NEED but WILL grow with.

Or you complaining about it on TPF? 

Literally, who cares. They found something that they want to be passionate about and they spent all their money on it. Thats what life is man. If you are really that pissed off than go by a D90 and show up D3 users. At least thats what I do.


----------



## adamwilliamking (May 21, 2009)

CanAm said:


> The average newbie will not need to shoot 12MP pictures. The average newbie will not take any better pictures with a 1200 dollar lens.


 
Incorrect my friend, a better lens is really the ONLY thing that has an effect on IQ.

PS: **** I had no idea this thread was so old.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 21, 2009)

It's all relative ...

I saved up $250.00 to purchase my first camera, in 1985. I was making about $8000.00/year.
Now lets say the current average wage is about 4 times that ... so 4x $250.00 = $1000.00


----------



## DScience (May 21, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> It's all relative ...
> 
> I saved up $250.00 to purchase my first camera, in 1985. I was making about $8000.00/year.
> Now lets say the current average wage is about 4 times that ... so 4x $250.00 = $1000.00



The average wage is definitely not $32,000 a year lol


----------



## dxqcanada (May 21, 2009)

US avg wage index


----------



## mrodgers (May 21, 2009)

KmH said:


> If you have decided flying an airplane is the hobby for you........


Nah, only cost me $109 compared to my superzoom at $199.  Oh, you meant flying a real airplane, not an RC plane....


----------



## farmerj (May 21, 2009)

DScience said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > It's all relative ...
> ...




U.S. Average Salary Income - Job Comparison

No it's not.  It's closer to $42,000.
Disposable income is $32,000 according to that.


----------



## usayit (May 21, 2009)

Its lower...  once you account cost of living and inflation.

But you are right... it is all relative.  In some places, just having a consistent meal every day is considered fortunate.  Having a million in the bank is wealthy to some... and to others... a million in the bank  is nothing special.. hence the newish term "middle class millionaire".


----------



## blondie621 (May 22, 2009)

I think it is always good to work your way up but if you have the money who'se to say! I started 4 years ago with a Nikon Coolpix, had it for 9 months and it broke down. Then went to a Canon A630. I have taken some pretty good pics with it.  Next month am stepping up to the SX10 IS.
After that either a Sony DSLR, Nikon or Canon! :blushing:


----------



## EhJsNe (May 22, 2009)

I say its a result of people listening to salepeople WAAY to much. Spending an extra lotsa moneys just to get a d40x for 4 extra megapixels. even tho a few specs are worse. 

I know like 5 people who have amazing cameras (d200, d90, canon 50D, and Canon 20D) with sb-900 flashes and 580 EXII flashes and use reletivelyt nice lenses (18-200, and a few L lenses) who have never taken it off of auto.
They have the money and they got it. They feel nice camera = big price tag = nice pictures. 

In my opinion, the mojority of the pictures they take arent to great. (however, the owner of the D200 and 50D do take some neato shots, but nothing worth framing and hanging up....photo almbum worthy.)

I wanted a D300, but I saved for 3 years and got 500 dollars. So I got a used D70 and a 50mm f/1.8 instead. I only wanted he D300 for the amazing burst, but after realize what 3 FPS was, I was perfectly happy with it. Now I am very happy I didnt get the D300. 

So I guess the big camera + big price tag = nice pictures must be what people go by.

I wanted my big camrea so I could change lenses and I didnt have to wait 3 seconds after I push the button to take my picture.
If I coul get a P&S with a ultrawide to uber telephoto lens with a constant aperture of 1.8, and have it reletovely compact, along with manual controls and small shutter lag for under the 250 I spent on my D70, I would have. But no such camera exsists. Nor does a lens like that exsist.

So... peace


----------



## manaheim (May 22, 2009)

ACK!  Who revitalized this thread?!  A pox on you!


----------



## bored (May 23, 2009)

a couple reasons i can think of is that people that starting out might not know much so they think either bigger mp is better or cost is relative to quality of picture. actually, i was talking to my cousin about this, who is working in asia, he mentioned that having an expensive camera is like having a really nice car. it's a show of status. 
for me, when i was younger i would buy cheap learning gears for my hobbies, i.e. guitar, bass, paint gun, airsoft gun, etc., and i would always upgrade. i notice i spend more money when i buy cheaper things to get something better when i got better. when i initally get something more expensive i tend to stick with it for the long run and i tend to take better care of my stuff (i treat most of my things like crap >.<). also, it forces me to make a better attempt to learn b/c i can get really lazy.


----------



## Overread (May 23, 2009)

bored makes a valid point (since we are talking about this again) one can grow into better gear and the basics of camera operation for a 300D are the same as they are for a 1DM3 - aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Sure the more expensive camera has way more features that will take time to learn to use, but it will last a long time before the person wants to (or even can) upgrade to a better model.
Of course if your not going to go out of auto modes the lower end cameras are better since they have more auto modes - a 1DM3 good as it is is more limited as you can't tell it to go sports mode - something that newer people moving up from point and shoots where all the controls are by mode selection and not settings, don't understand or even expect.


----------



## usayit (May 23, 2009)

manaheim said:


> ACK!  Who revitalized this thread?!  A pox on you!



mike134 is the proud recipient of the manaheim "pox".   

Anyways...  Beginners with expensive cameras keep the used market alive and saves me a load of cash in the process.


----------



## KmH (May 23, 2009)

usayit said:


> ......Anyways... Beginners with expensive cameras keep the used market alive and saves me a load of cash in the process.


 
Good point.......

In response to a previous post.

To go from 6 MP (D40) to 10 MP (D40X) is a substantial increase in MP, 40% and easily cost justified. 

Whereas, an increase from 10MP (D40X) to 12 MP (D90) is only a 17% increase and justifying the cost difference just for MP gain is harder to justify. Of course, that wouldn't count the improvement of going from a CCD sensor to CMOS.


----------



## NitroDC (May 23, 2009)

I started off with a crappy $100 Samsung Digimax 201. It didn't even have a slide-out lens or any optical zoom. Then I went to a Fuji A400, which was much better, but still a P&S. Then I found a deal on Circuit City, the K100D kit for only $300. I was going to buy the Canon S5 at the time. I had a hard time deciding because I was a newb and needed a flip-out live view screen, easy controls, didn't like looking into viewfinders, but I decided to go with the Pentax because of the superior image quality. I haven't regretted it yet. Although the camera's getting iffy because my flash won't work wirelessly with it. That's why I'm planning to buy a new one this year. I've outgrown the lil K100D.


----------



## silguy (Jun 2, 2009)

I believe this question is very subjective and would, obviously, depend on the individual.  Not everyone thinks like you.  Why don't we all signal when we turn? Why don't we all go to college?  Why do people always discuss off topic subjects in these threads?  

With the information given on the internet, we all perceive to assume we're knowledgeable and experienced enough to use higher spec equipment.  It also has to deal with culture.  Why don't kids play basketball w/ 20 dollar wal mart shoes as opposed to $150 Jordans?  They're not Pros.  Why don't we all start off w/ $10 Holgas to learn about positioning and being at the right place at the right time?  After all, isn't that what people claim to be about 80% of photography anyways?  I'm sure we all are in a noob state at some point.  But I believe the answer lies in how we portray ourselves.


Personally, I just bought a used Nikon D80 for $600 off my friend to start on my learning curve.  I'll just rent lenses.  At this point in time and my usage and needs, I'll be keeping this camera, forever and don't see the need for me to buy a different one (~knocking on wood~)


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

skyvue2 said:


> ...come on, people....I fear this poor thread will become infinite simply because the "better than you are" that have "better equipment than you do, simply because I am richer than you are" individuals that keep posting in here just HAVE to have the last word. Obviously part of a silver-spoon-in-mouth upbringing, teaching them from a very early age that they are soooo special and the entire rest of the world is scum and beneath them. Such a shame, and exactly what I have been talking about for the last 100+ posts in this thread.


You really have no concept of reality, do you?

So if you have enough disposable income to buy a $1000 camera, it only stands to reason you were brought up with a silver spoon in your mouth and were spoiled rotten and were told you were special?

That's about the most ignorant thing I've read in this thread thus far.

I certainly didn't grow up with a silver spoon, I earned my own money.  I was never told I was special, I was mostly ignored and the few times I did get the attention of a parent, it wasn't for fun and games.

So your baseless broad brush inflammatory comments about those you're clearly jealous of are sophomoric at best and completely off mark.  I've never read a single post on this forum where someone with a $1000+ camera told another member they were better than them because of the value of their equipment.  What I have read is your silliness, which is nothing more than blatant jealousy culminating in hateful posts.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 2, 2009)

Hmmm, can't help feeling that all the ground that needed to be covered in this thread has already been gone over. Is it time to pull the plug on it?


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Hmmm, can't help feeling that all the ground that needed to be covered in this thread has already been gone over. Is it time to pull the plug on it?


I think that's a great idea.  20 some pages is enough I believe.


----------



## Dao (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Hmmm, can't help feeling that all the ground that needed to be covered in this thread has already been gone over. Is it time to pull the plug on it?




:thumbup:  Pull the plug


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 2, 2009)

Call it done then.


----------

