Originally posted by monochrome As in cars, people can choose to buy a more modest phone and use it until the software stops working - but few are so disciplined.
I literally know
one person out of literal hundreds that spent more than 700€ on a phone. Most have bought in the 4-600 range, and another good chunk in the <200 range (like myself). The thing is that a camera does NOT replace any other machine, while a decent phone replaces camera, tablet, watch, and in some cases laptop. Trying to compare cameras and phones in price range is utter nonsense.
---------- Post added 02-18-20 at 12:05 AM ----------
Originally posted by monochrome I think we all need to accept that hobby / non-professional photography with Interchangeable lens cameras is only affordable for what in the US we call the Upper Middle Class. I classify the lower bound of UMC as 2x the Median HH Income, or about $135M, but really it is closer to $200,000. It is a hobby for wealthy people..
With this, I agree completely. The only reason we have the cameras we have at home is that we have no kids, generally live frugally¹, really play the second hand market, and mostly use older gear (the two only modern lenses we have are an EF 24-70/4L and my D FA 28-105, bought for about 300€ each).
¹: if you spend
24/7 most of the day at work, you don't get too many opportunities to spend too much money