How Much Will You Spend?

[M.M.]

Interesting theory, Hans.  Pixel-peeping shows you that your 70-300 f/5.6 lens isn't good enough, so you buy a 100-400 or 80-400 instead.  Then you need a better body to get the most out of the lens.  But the body shows up the limitations of the new lens so you have to buy another, even better one like a 200-400 or a 500 f/4.....

I think another factor is that people are buying gear with the intent of shooting those ever-more-distant jet demos at airshows.  Where once a 300mm lens on film gave you full-frame images of a display, now a 400mm lens and 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor doesn't.  (Doubly so since the "ideal" photo is now a distant high-G pitch up with lots of vapour and AB, rather than a profile shot taken when the aircraft is closest to the crowd.)   So people buy longer lenses, and they need bodies with better AF or a faster frame rate to ensure they get keeper shots despite the distance and camera shake.  I was stunned at the Nellis airshow, for instance, to see so much high-end glass -- most of it in the hands of people who aren't trying to make any income from photography.

I guess I can laugh that I've got more money in the bank, and can pay down my mortgage faster, by not buying expensive glass.  But when I finally get around to spending that money in retirement, there may be nothing worth shooting! 

-M.M.

[Hans Rolink]

It certainly is correct that at least I want to make different action style shots than 10 years back. The most "action" style shot were landing shots or sedate flyby's. In those days, at least European style Kodachrome shooters would cram at the best spot on the ramp shooting a plane with 50 mm in 20 fold, then hurry home to have the films sent to Lausanne. After two weeks the slides would be back, followed by an equally hurried send off of spares to correspondents. More and more you would find out that the correspondent in question already had them from somebody else the day before. On came Fence Check showing people's action shots on digital, with like Mark wrote blazing burners and lots of vapes.
The disappearing costs of having to buy film certainly spurred me into buying better glass and bodies. The operating costs of analogue equipment were high, compared to next to nothing for the operating cost of digital. Of course, purchasing-wise it's a different story, but the PC to process the images with was there already anyway. Digital versus film, another factor into spending more money on gear, I think.

Hans.

[Mike]

Interesting topic.  Another factor that I find is the pace of tehnological change, at least on the body side, coupled with the additional usage that comes with digital gear.  In the dim and distant past, I had a pair of Pentax ME Supers (hands up who remembers them!) which gave me sterling service for 10 years.  They were replaced by a Canon EOS 100 when I went autofocus in 1994, which again lasted me 10 years.  Since I went digital in 2004, I've gone from an Olympus zoom (used for static shots for a few months to learn digital and supplement my film SLR) to a Canon 300D (hated it, sold it on after a few weeks) to a 20D and 30D, all in the space of less than 4 years.

I used to shoot perhaps 10-12 rolls of film over a show weekend - say 400 shots.  Now I'll easily shoot 4-6,000.  Hence my 20D, after only 3 airshow seasons, has approaching 90,000 shots on it and is basically worn out.  Of course, the 40D is now available, so I'd probably have replaced the 20D anyway to get the faster autofocus for not too many $.............

And then, as others have commented, there are the lenses.  I originally stuck with Canon when I went digital as I had lenses.  Within a few weeks, the shortcomings of my trusty 10-year old 28-105mm and 70-300mm lenses were glaringly obvious when I looked at the digital shots on a monitor, so they were sold on with the 300 body, to be replaced with a 100-400, 28-135 and 17-40.  More $................

And now, with the new season approaching, there's the temptation of a nice shiny new 400 or 500mm.

I have to say, though, that the cost of my equipment over the past 3 or 4 years since I went digital pales into insignificance against the travel costs for airshows etc in the same period..........................  

[Mike]

Another factor that I've found is that, 20 years ago, I was content to get my photos back from a show, look at them, maybe send a few off to a friend who ran a magazine and published a few books, then file them away.

Now, with the advent of the internet and sites such as this, and instant publication of shots from shows the same evening, there is, if not quite an element of outright competition (although that does seem to be so with some posters!), certainly an impetus to continually push the boundries of what I was shooting a few years back and continually learn and improve.  Hence the desire to upgrade equipment on a regular basis.

[CAVU Mark]

Buy more Canon gear, buy more Canon stock. Spend money quick!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=CAJ&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC

Regards,

American Consumer