How Much Will You Spend?

[M.M.]

As long as I’ve been into aviation photography, most shooters have been content with middle-of-the-road equipment: “serious amateur” camera bodies and lenses with f/4 or f/5.6 maximum apertures.  This gear was reasonably-priced for what most of us considered a hobby, and the results were good enough for personal or magazine use.  You’d rarely see big white lenses or hear someone snapping away at 8 fps.

If FC’s forums are an indicator, today’s enthusiasts are setting their sights much higher.  In the same way that Cadillac Escalades and Hummer H3s have supplanted minivans and 58” flatscreen TVs have superseded 27” console models, a lot of people seem to be considering, if not buying, top-of-the-line gear like EOS-1D Mk III bodies and Nikon 200-400 f/4 zooms instead of 30Ds and Bigmas.

So what’s changed?  Has the “good enough” standard risen in an era where we can examine 10 MP images at actual pixels and compare our shots via the internet with shooters around the world?  Or has “reasonably priced” changed, so that dropping $5000 or more for a single piece of gear is no longer a big deal, even for amateurs who will never earn back the cost?

And the easy question:  What’s the most you’re willing to spend for a camera or lens?   

-M.M.

[skippyscage]

well I could never afford anything in the past - but now that I've had a good paying job for more than 10 years, own my house and live somewhere where the cost is cheaper, I can afford the more expensive stuff - it's called getting OLDER! 

[Carswell Dude]

I am thinking of selling a kidney to get the Mk. III   

[MaxIt]

First of all: too many think that for achieving good shots they should own the most expensive camera... The most we spend the most we can have top quality images. It is not true according to me! 
So, I consider firstly my value as photographer before an expense or evaluating the amount of pictures I could take with a new lens or camera. When I realized that the technology could add a little (or a lot) to my pictures, I thought to buy a digital, the same when I've bought a second hand 24-105 f/4 IS, a zoom that I've used a lot recently, more than my 17-40mm.
At the moment I feel to need a second camera body (digital) because for years I've always used two with film, but I think to spend not more than for a used Mk II N.

[RichardVM]

I am thinking of selling a kidney to get the Mk. III   

wait a couple days. All the rumble on the internet regarding Nikon indicates it may be a bad time to buy into a system right now. The rumors http://nikonwatch.com/ seem to indicate we'll know by the weekend, and rumors here and elsewhere indicate Nikon may be trying to win back some more shooters with something pretty awesome. Can't wait to see what's coming down the pike. Semi-official rumors on a couple sites are saying Canon is going to announce a 1Ds MkIII at 21-22MP for the cost of a small house. Seems to lend creedence to a Nikon announcement since Canon often tries to throw something out at the same time. Some (not so) small part of me hopes we see something from Nikon that will produce a collective head-slap from those who have moved away.

Get the feeling it may be a good year for shooters of both brands? I get the feeling it will be the year to test the "How Much Will You Spend?" question....

Richard

[Roger]

As little as possible   I'm cheap, out of necessity...

I always stay behind 1 or 2 generations as far as bodies go.  Since I'm behind 3 generations at the moment, it might be time to buy something "new" pretty soon.  I am torn between a 1D MKII (good build quality - excellent focus system - but a bit more than I'm willing to spend) and a 30D (cheap!).

I think I might end up with a 1D MKII, since I'm sick and tired of all my out of focus shots, plus it will last me a long time with my limited amount of shooting.

Lenses is the same, only that never buy used, only new.  L glass is preferred, but 400 F2.8 and 500 F4 lenses are out of my league.  Renting those is the only option.

Roger

[Tonyz]

I spend what I can afford that helps me enjoy myself.  Funny thing is that people won't blink at spending 30K on a boat that they use three times a year to go fishing with....yet 1,000 for a camera is silly.

[skippyscage]

Funny thing is that people won't blink at spending 30K on a boat that they use three times a year to go fishing with....yet 1,000 for a camera is silly.

exactly - no vehicle payment and small mortgage = can spend more on travel and photography 

it's all relative 'innit?

[markol]

If you can't afford to buy the big stuff, especially if you are rarely using it, may I suggest renting it instead. You can rent even top of the line stuff for only couple of hundred a week, or less than $100 for the day. Then you get the uber lenses to play with.

Check out our site: www.borrowlenses.com

[BillF]

I don't play golf, so that gives me carte blanche to spend a bazillion dollars on anything else I want. No one questions the boaters or golfers.

With practice, I can get better with my composition, my panning skills and my post production. But no matter how hard I try, I can't make up for lousy equipment. All of my purchases have been made to ensure that I am the weakest link and not my gear.

Yes, I've spent too much, but even worse, I'm not done yet.

[Engine15]

And the easy question:  What’s the most you’re willing to spend for a camera or lens?   

-M.M.

I'm willing to spend far more than my wife will let me!

[Dave O'Brien]

I'm willing to spend far more than my wife will let me!

oh, so true. I'm in the same boat. I always have to point out that what I'm buying isn't top notch, even though it's not cheap

[CAVU Mark]

No more than list price.

[rawman]

I have a 40D and 100-400 IS L, and a 70-200 2.8 IS, and I consider those to be pretty expensive. (Those 3 items combine cost more than any car I've owned except my current one which is a 10 year old Honda Civic).   I suppose I could justify more expensive purchases, since I have no mortgage (can't even come close to owning a house around where I live), I don't have a boat, don't golf, don't hunt,  don't drink, don't smoke, car is paid off and work in Silicon Valley in the telecom world.  I just need to work on my skils before I can justify any  more photography expenses.

[Hans Rolink]

You know, in the days of analogue photography you would shoot negs and make pretty 6" wide prints and that would be it. Once in a while, you would make a poster or two. Or you would make slides and project them or look at them with a 50 mm lens held front to back. In case of projection however you would need a rig consisting of a heavy projector table set exactly horizontal using a carpenter's tool for checking that out, while pasting the silver screen to a wall using a flat iron to make it exactly flush. Of course, nobody did that so lens flaws went undetected for years.
Than came the digital bodies and we would look at the smallest detail with our viewing software, all of a sudden discovering those nasty chromatic abberation defects the lens always had.
I think this played a major role in the Canon L or Nikon ED lens purchases. At least, it did for me. I remember the days when we felt ourselves well equipped with 200 mm telephoto lenses....

Hans.