Another OP Pavlov's Dog. I think it's a hobby.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How much time/money do you spend on photography?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why do you keep asking question after question? This is getting really old and really tiresome. It is none of your business what anyone else chooses to spend in the way of time or money on photography gear or anything else which interests them.
Last edited:
If you don’t like people’s answers or listen to anyones advice, why post another insincere thread? What are you trying to accomplish with these anyway?
Enjoy your powershot and post some photos on the daily thread.
Oh please lets not talk watches… I took up photography as a cheaper option than my watch addiction
As long as you spend your own money and dont put yourself in financial difficulty, then surely there is no hard limit?
Is it fair to say that photography is not your main hobby and so you don't spend so much on it? Whereas some of us on here, it is our main hobby and so we spend what we feel is acceptable whether that number is high or low?
No, referring to the method of classic conditioning
My photography is a little more than a hobby (semi-pro?) as I enjoy photography, but I also use them for my websites that I develop. I don't have to worry if I'm "infringing" on someone's copyright of an image and it is also not right to. If I could afford it I would buy the Sony A1 camera, but my Sony A9 and Sony A7RIII cameras suit my needs. For birds in flight the A9 is my go to camera and when I need that little more pixel resolution it is the A7RIII camera.
A side note - I hope this thread can get back on track as it would be nice to seen what other people are doing in the world of photography. ?
A side note - I hope this thread can get back on track as it would be nice to seen what other people are doing in the world of photography. ?
The "time on photography" part we all spend may be more interesting than the money. The gross measurement might be time in hours per week but I don't find that interesting either. It depends. It's a hobby after all ?. But time capturing an image and processing it - and what do we mean by "processing it" - can be something to chat about.
For wildlife, there's a bit more spontaneity of course because you don't know what you're going find and when and in what lighting conditions. I would assume the same for "street" or any other wildlife-like scenario. The composing and capturing of the image is usually quick with thoughts (for me) on keeping as close to base ISO as I can, though "close" can be ISO 6400 as the situation calls for. All modern cameras have excellent autofocus, even in challenging light, so as long as you know your camera well, focus shouldn't be a problem. Shutter speed may be a priority in certain situations like birds in flight and the effect you want. I'm always using manual settings for "the triangle".
Time spent capturing an image in "wildlife" scenarios is pretty quick, somewhat spontaneous. But it's spontaneity based on my knowledge of animal behavior (which varies ).
For landscape, I'm also using manual focus in addition to manual settings. If I have the luxury, I'll have scouted out a particular location or if it's one I go to often (for example Rocky Mountain Arsenal here in Denver), I'll be taking mental notes for the next trip. There's a tripod involved and usually some walking to a location - I rarely do any "back country" - so making sure that the backpack has what I need such as extra batteries or battery pack, remote cables for tripping the shutter, etc. Getting there before the light is right. Looking at weather forecasts for things like clouds that make the sky interesting (we get a lot of cloudless days here in Colorado). Capturing the image is the set up, looking at different compositions, judging light, working out focus with hyperfocal+laser or live view, depending on the camera, tripping the shutter and if I'm using filters, waiting for not only the image to be captured but the dark frame as well.
Time spent capturing an image in "landscape" scenarios is reasonably long - maybe 10 minutes on a single composition and image capture. These sorts of expeditions are measured in "frames per hour".
Post-processing: All of my images are captured with the idea that maybe I'll want to print them, because I love printing at home. It's a craft in and of itself. My wife has exquisite taste so none of my prints are in the main areas of the house so it's mostly in my work area ?. But that's what hobbies are for!
I spend a fare amount of time processing images in my raw processor of choice, usually around settings like structure, clarity, drawing out detail, maybe some local dodging, burning and the like. Maybe some luminosity masking for challenging scenarios. I may have to do some light noise reduction if I'm shooting at higher ISOs. If I decide to print, then it is a round of soft proofing with a given paper profile in place, keeping on a monitor calibration schedule, etc. I might ultimately print 1% of my images, and given I'm a low volume shooter, even with wildlife, I don't do a ton of it.
Time spent on post processing a given image can be 5 minutes to maybe an hour + another 30 minutes getting it right for print + printing.
I value the process of photography. I'm not looking for small and lightweight in most scenarios nor do I need insanely high ISOs or zillions of frames per second (though I won't turn any of that down). Most modern 35mm cameras are great at all of that as well as AF, so in a sense, it's not really something anyone has to think too hard about anymore. Pick a manufacturer and you're good. I do value image quality, workflow flexibility, color rendition, and very high quality glass. My value choices may add additional time and certainly add additional cost. Note that I don't mention "efficiency" anywhere - I try to be efficient but it's not a value thing for me.
Sorry for rambling.
For wildlife, there's a bit more spontaneity of course because you don't know what you're going find and when and in what lighting conditions. I would assume the same for "street" or any other wildlife-like scenario. The composing and capturing of the image is usually quick with thoughts (for me) on keeping as close to base ISO as I can, though "close" can be ISO 6400 as the situation calls for. All modern cameras have excellent autofocus, even in challenging light, so as long as you know your camera well, focus shouldn't be a problem. Shutter speed may be a priority in certain situations like birds in flight and the effect you want. I'm always using manual settings for "the triangle".
Time spent capturing an image in "wildlife" scenarios is pretty quick, somewhat spontaneous. But it's spontaneity based on my knowledge of animal behavior (which varies
).For landscape, I'm also using manual focus in addition to manual settings. If I have the luxury, I'll have scouted out a particular location or if it's one I go to often (for example Rocky Mountain Arsenal here in Denver), I'll be taking mental notes for the next trip. There's a tripod involved and usually some walking to a location - I rarely do any "back country" - so making sure that the backpack has what I need such as extra batteries or battery pack, remote cables for tripping the shutter, etc. Getting there before the light is right. Looking at weather forecasts for things like clouds that make the sky interesting (we get a lot of cloudless days here in Colorado). Capturing the image is the set up, looking at different compositions, judging light, working out focus with hyperfocal+laser or live view, depending on the camera, tripping the shutter and if I'm using filters, waiting for not only the image to be captured but the dark frame as well.
Time spent capturing an image in "landscape" scenarios is reasonably long - maybe 10 minutes on a single composition and image capture. These sorts of expeditions are measured in "frames per hour".
Post-processing: All of my images are captured with the idea that maybe I'll want to print them, because I love printing at home. It's a craft in and of itself. My wife has exquisite taste so none of my prints are in the main areas of the house so it's mostly in my work area ?. But that's what hobbies are for!
I spend a fare amount of time processing images in my raw processor of choice, usually around settings like structure, clarity, drawing out detail, maybe some local dodging, burning and the like. Maybe some luminosity masking for challenging scenarios. I may have to do some light noise reduction if I'm shooting at higher ISOs. If I decide to print, then it is a round of soft proofing with a given paper profile in place, keeping on a monitor calibration schedule, etc. I might ultimately print 1% of my images, and given I'm a low volume shooter, even with wildlife, I don't do a ton of it.
Time spent on post processing a given image can be 5 minutes to maybe an hour + another 30 minutes getting it right for print + printing.
I value the process of photography. I'm not looking for small and lightweight in most scenarios nor do I need insanely high ISOs or zillions of frames per second (though I won't turn any of that down). Most modern 35mm cameras are great at all of that as well as AF, so in a sense, it's not really something anyone has to think too hard about anymore. Pick a manufacturer and you're good. I do value image quality, workflow flexibility, color rendition, and very high quality glass. My value choices may add additional time and certainly add additional cost. Note that I don't mention "efficiency" anywhere - I try to be efficient but it's not a value thing for me.
Sorry for rambling.
The amount of time I spend on photography depends on what I am doing, what I want to record, and how much time I have available.
Being of modest means, I don’t spend much on photography, preferring to make the most of the modest camera I have, rather than lusting after more sophisticated gear. It might be nice to have, but in the end spending more on gear comes with diminishing benefits. What I have was adequate to provide pictures for use in the sports pages of the local newspaper where I used to live.
With many of my Sundays being involved with sport, and photographing the same, I had neither the time nor the inclination to devote any time to religious activity.
Being of modest means, I don’t spend much on photography, preferring to make the most of the modest camera I have, rather than lusting after more sophisticated gear. It might be nice to have, but in the end spending more on gear comes with diminishing benefits. What I have was adequate to provide pictures for use in the sports pages of the local newspaper where I used to live.
With many of my Sundays being involved with sport, and photographing the same, I had neither the time nor the inclination to devote any time to religious activity.
Why do you care what people spend their money on?
oh for the love of monkeyNo, referring to the method of classic conditioning
This is quite an absolute statement, and I don't think it's fair to make.
Putting aside your book collection, you have made several posts here about traveling around the country and around the globe.
I'd dare say that travel, in general, is fairly expensive.
Even if the primary purpose of your trip is for business or anything other than pure recreation, you still have expenses you over and above staying at home would be. If it's a business trip and you're, say, given a meal allowance, you certainly can spend far over and above what that allows(and many people do). You might have the opportunity to engage in recreation, such as going somewhere interesting to photograph, and that adds to the overall cost of the trip.
I love to travel, and my wife and I travel a lot, whether it's a weekend getaway or a week-long trip. Like it or not, though, even though we're typically not extravagant when we do travel(we generallystay at moderate-priced hotels-not roach motels but also not 5 star level, and eat at restaurants of about the same quality level as we'd pick at home) but the gas, rooms, food, and everything else still cost money over and above what we'd spend at home.
We all have hobbies, whether we want to admit them or not. How we choose to spend money on them is our business and no one else's.
Hobby
When I jumped in I quickly spent well north of $10,000 on gear. That investment has served me well for the better part of a decade.
![10671213_797228470329654_5812113253230301230_n.jpg]()
When I jumped in I quickly spent well north of $10,000 on gear. That investment has served me well for the better part of a decade.
I enjoy the time I do spend, but it is nowhere near all consuming. As to how much moola you should spend that's entirely your own affair, governed by how much money is available, where else it could be spent, whether or not the current rig meets ones needs, and spousal input.
Unlike the cameras and lenses I bought in the 70s and 80s, current cameras are not designed, intended, or built to outlive the purchaser. When one camera dies I look at what can best replace and hopefully improve upon the corpse. The criteria for the new are based on what I liked about and what I found limiting when working with the old.
Unlike the cameras and lenses I bought in the 70s and 80s, current cameras are not designed, intended, or built to outlive the purchaser. When one camera dies I look at what can best replace and hopefully improve upon the corpse. The criteria for the new are based on what I liked about and what I found limiting when working with the old.
I disagree with that. There were plenty of less than durable cameras in the 70s and 80s.
As today there are plenty of well built cameras. The picture of the cameras I posted above is from 2014 and they are still my main cameras. The only part that may not last the test of time is the batteries. They will eventually fail. Will you be able to find replacement batteries in 30 years? I don't know but I expect the camera body to last.
I also expect my Nikon and Rokinon lenses to continue for years to come.
Inexpensive and less durable is not new.
I gave up golf, sold all my gear...so photography is cheap.
Spend quite a bit of time and expanding into video. While I turned a hobby into a business with an LLC, it is not enough to live off of...but enough to make the taxman happy where considered a business rather than a hobby. More important, it finances nice gear that then becomes a business tax deduction offsetting income. Essentially, I don't pay anything as clients buy me gear.
Spend quite a bit of time and expanding into video. While I turned a hobby into a business with an LLC, it is not enough to live off of...but enough to make the taxman happy where considered a business rather than a hobby. More important, it finances nice gear that then becomes a business tax deduction offsetting income. Essentially, I don't pay anything as clients buy me gear.
Wonder if they will still be making compatible cards? More likely sometime long before that 30 years are up there will be some big improvement that will make most photgraphers pull the trigger on a body upgrade. Lenses may last that long but they too can be made obsolete.I disagree with that. There were plenty of less than durable cameras in the 70s and 80s.
![0c1bcf6a48ba4496143b0828f970108c.jpg]()
As today there are plenty of well built cameras. The picture of the cameras I posted above is from 2014 and they are still my main cameras. The only part that may not last the test of time is the batteries. They will eventually fail. Will you be able to find replacement batteries in 30 years? I don't know but I expect the camera body to last.
I also expect my Nikon and Rokinon lenses to continue for years to come.
Inexpensive and less durable is not new.
All of my film camera gear is at least 35 years old and most of it is closer to 50. All are still every bit as functional as the day they were purchased, should I chose to dig something out of storage and go through the hassle and expense of finding film and processing. Even so other than my Vivitar star wars flash and maybe my studio slaves, none of it is likely to ever be put to work again. The exception would be if someone finally comes out with a 4x5 digital back, that would work with my old but very expensive Schneider glass.
Hobby
When I jumped in I quickly spent well north of $10,000 on gear. That investment has served me well for the better part of a decade.
![10671213_797228470329654_5812113253230301230_n.jpg]()
You make beautiful images but THIS has always been my favourite one.
Sony : Weather sealed…..
Nikon : Hold my beer…..
