1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Photo gear is so expensive

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by 86JR, 30 May 2010.

  1. 86JR

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Oct 2007

    Posts: 6,322

    Location: .

    This is like my wishlist of nikon photography that i specced up when bored, would give me the whole focal range from 14mm to 400mm...

    [​IMG]

    Going to take me a while to buy that lot, realistically a D700 will do everything that Dexter will do at my level anyway.
     
  2. p0ss3s3d

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Dec 2008

    Posts: 1,928

    You forgot two bodies...!

    Two D3's are about the same cost as the D3x IIRC. But you'd probably want one pro-body, one semi-pro for weight & versatility)

    You haven't factored in a set of lightweight lenses (like a 28-135mm or whatever)

    The peli is overpriced - (I got mine for £115 from the US)

    You would (hypothetically speaking) be better off with four 8gb Extreme III's.

    You've spent £1200 on supports- You could spent £400 and get a great tripod an monopod.

    No point in those UV filters.

    I would've choosen a 300/400 f2.8 instead of the 200-400 but that's a personal preference.

    And you've spent £350 on a tripod bag! Attach it to your normal bag. When you take the peli you'd probably pop the monopod in there.

    on a final note- stop worrying about gear!!!!!
     
    Last edited: 30 May 2010
  3. iSam

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Aug 2004

    Posts: 6,100

    The most important thing in my bag is the UV filters, crucial for protecting your front element, especially when you are paying a fortune for Nikon's top glass.
     
  4. p0ss3s3d

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Dec 2008

    Posts: 1,928

    Nahh... Just use the lens hoods. Front elements are also pretty tough stuff anyways. Personally, I've never used UV filters - even shooting motocross and rallying...
     
  5. bigredshark

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 30 Jun 2005

    Posts: 9,516

    Location: London Town!

    Get over the obsession with covering the entire range, you just don't need to and it's a waste of money because you can never carry them all anyway and you'll often not have the one you want.

    There are legions of pro photographers out there shooting with a 17-35 (or new 16-35) and 70-200 day in day out, on FX unless you're doing specialized stuff that's 95% of what you need.

    I'd forget the 14-24, it's expensive and too specialized for day to day use, the 17-35/16-35 is a better option. I'd also forget the 200-400, it's lovely but how often do you shoot at those focal lengths? Hire it when you need it, in the meantime get a teleconverter for the 70-200 and get 75% of the capability for 10% of the price. (and if you do shoot at those focal lengths frequently the primes are a better option for serious work, the 200-400 is fabulous but a luxury in every way...)

    Why one SB900, two SB600s would allow more options in most scenarios.

    Spending that much I'd want the new super fast 24mm prime as well...

    One compactflash card? one? Right....

    Two D700's would be infinitely better value here also...I could go on but I think you're just drawing up a list of the most expensive kit you can for fun. None of it will make you a better photographer, looking at what you've posted in the past you need to improve your technique a bit before improving your kit. I don't mean to be overly harsh but people are producing better results with compacts and bridge camera than you are with a DSLR, don't for one moment think spending £20k on gear is going to change that.
     
  6. GTRacer

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Jul 2007

    Posts: 1,675

    Ah camera gear wish lists... One day I'll have these:

    [​IMG]

    I didn't even include the separate 24mm viewfinder... That's an extra £570.
     
    Last edited: 30 May 2010
  7. Mr Jones

    Capodecina

    Joined: 16 May 2006

    Posts: 11,334

    Location: Dubai

    What? No 50mm f0.95?!
     
  8. GTRacer

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Jul 2007

    Posts: 1,675

    The Noctilux would be a bit too specialised - all the shots I'd take with it would probably be either a) out of focus or b) have a DOF so shallow that it becomes a hindrance than an asset. Plus it's damn huge and the Summilux can focus closer (plus I find 35mm more natural looking).
     
    Last edited: 30 May 2010
  9. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,867

    Location: Canada

    I'd essentially agree with that, it's all very well getting the fastest, heaviest and most expensive kit on the market but unless you are shooting in a studio (aside from the idea of using a 200-400 in a studio!) or a hide then most of that would be worthless. With that kit I doubt you'd just take your camera out on "the off chance", you need stuff that is right for you as a photographer. If you shoot out of a car then that may be fine for you but want to take any of that kit on holiday?...:p

    There's a reason i'm thinking of swapping most of my kit in the next few weeks, I love it and they are brilliant lenses but just a bit too big and specialised for walking...
     
  10. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    hope you enjoy lens flare
     
  11. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,867

    Location: Canada

    Yup, and personally I think, with a decent filter they are too expensive for what they do if you have more than one or two lenses. Have 3+ 70mm filter sized lenses and to equip them all with a decent UV filter will probably cost a similar amount to just getting a front element changed if you happen to damage it. Only exception is in locations where the chance of damage is much higher (such as rallies), but then you need to worry about the filter cracking and scratching the element (which has happened on more than one occasion...).:p
     
  12. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 67,373

    Location: Wish i was in .Lethal's house

    When one starts out, one often dream of getting every lens to cover all the range. the strange thing is that somewhere down the line, you will know what you want to shoot and you will only want the very best lens for what you want it for. If you look at some great photographers, they can tell you their favourite lens and the majority of their work from that particular lens. You wick not find anyone with a even percentage of shots taken across their lens range in their bag.

    Besides, the gear may be expensive but they hardly depreciate!
     
  13. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,867

    Location: Canada

    Problem is some people like, for example, landscape and nature... That means lenses from around 12mm (crop) to 70mm ish and then some long end, say from that list a 200-400 or a 400-600 prime... So essentially the entire range. :p

    It's just finding the right compromise that is the key. :D