I always tell my friends who are in their early phase of discoverying photography to just stick with what they have (usually kit lens) and only invest more if they feel limited by the kit .

Then they come to a forum like this, read a few threads which gives them ideas and they immediately start to feel limited by their kit. Even if the shots they've taken are just to make sure the camera works.

You get a black fuzzy picture, I don't get it?

Really, at what aperture does the kit lens produce a black fuzzy picture?
You sound like one of the people I refer to in my previous post.
Just because someone posts that using the kit lens is a definition of cheap, it's not necessary to take them at their word.

[icywarm]

Still getting used to an auto focus lens. I like my old school M 75-150 f4. I can focus and zoom with the same collar on the lens. I was out shooting on Monday and all my 'missed shots' were with my DAL on full auto. About 3 hours into the evening I was getting a handle on using it is full manual. I was focusing with my ring finger and using my middle and index for the zoom. Now mind you it was hockey and my first time shooting it with a DSLR and having played and refereed for years I knew where the action was going to happen, but couldn't make the camera do what I wanted.

I am hoping with the 70mm prime, I will be able to forget about zoom as I am at ice level anyways and be able to just worry about focus and composition.

But generally speaking the black fuzzy pictures with kit lenses are no better or worse than the pictures I would get with my P&S or cell phone which I have used for the last 5 years well supervising refs at the rink. Stopped down to get a DOF that I can use to teach with, plus fast enough to stop the action just tends to mean dark photos.

Some times it is not able a 'better' more amazing lens, as with me all my 'non' kit lens are old school M's & A's with the 70 being my first lens I actual only bought because I thought I needed that range. For me it is about basics and control. Maybe on the Kx I prefer the Ap setting on the collar vs a two button combo and by eye I can usual get photo +/- 0.5 EV sans light meter.

[pingflood]

Stopping down to get more DOF and getting "dark photos" makes it sound like you aren't exposing properly. Also, if you need to stop down the kit lens to increase DOF you'll need to do the same with any other lens -- a better lens isn't going to change the laws of physics.

[icywarm]

All true! Thanks for popping the bubble that was my self made excuse for buying some different lens

Might as well go back to 100 ISO disposables, they might have been at the cutting edge of the tech I could actually use!

[digitaldevo]

I am an ex-pro that is hobbyist only now. I am also very frugal, even when I was a pro. My equipment wasn't supplied by anyone, so it came out of my own pocket. That meant if I wanted the utmost return on my investment I had to keep costs down. Hence my frugality, lol. But one thing I never did, and will never do, is sacrifice quality to go cheaper!! One can still be frugal and buy top performing equipment. It just takes more research, more patience, and tends to require more skill and effort on you as the photographer instead of relying all on your equipment to do it for you.

I kept frugal by going with older M42 MF lenses, worked well since I already had quite the lens line up from shooting M42 & K mount film cameras too. . One big way I kept frugal was by selling all my Canon equipment and switching to Pentax with the release of the K10D. No longer did I have to spend hundreds to thousands of $$$$ extra for IS on lenses, this alone saved me a fortune. Even with AF lenses, I did my research and tested many lenses and worked up a list of top performing 3rd party AF lenses like Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma that performed as well(sometimes even better) as OEM lenses. I even went as far as comparing their results in large print form and this is where I realized that even if one can see a slight difference on the PC at 100%+ viewing that in print many of the 3rd party lenses look equal to the more expensive OEM lenses! So, yet another way I saved lots of $$$$.

I also tend to purchase as much used equipment as I can. You would be surprised how great of deals one can get on practically new equipment! I picked up my Sigma SD14 for $400 brand new in box with full warranty! Snagged many lenses, Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro $120 shipped all but brand new, Sigma 170-500mm RF for $250 all but brand new in box, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro + Sigma 24mm f/1.8 DG Macro + 2x Sigma TC + Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX 1:1 Macro for $500 all practically brand new. . I bough my flashes used and went with older ones that I found that perform excellent.

Could I go spend a fortune on equipment again, like I did with the Canon? Yep, could, but chose not to, as there is no reason to IMHO. I don't need the latest and greatest. I don't mind having to work a little for my shots. As long as the equipment can pull its weight is all I care. .

After all, it is NOT the equipment that makes the photographer, but the photographer whom makes the equipment.

[stevebrot]

This is such a funny thread

I consider myself frugal, but not cheap and am generally happy with my kit(s) for both film and digital. While I can't give a simple formula, here is my general philosophy:

80% of the bang for 60% of the buck

The key to the above statement is that the incremental increase of quality (optical and/or mechanical) for most things results in an exponential increase in price. Case in point might be the FA 31/1.8 Limited vs. the almost extinct FA 35/2. While the FA 31 receives "godlike" respect in most circles, is it really 2-3 times better than the FA 35? (I can feel the heat of the incoming flames...)

Another maxim:

Be aware of both the plus and minus aspects of a gear purchase

To expand...Are you sure that what you have been jonesing for is going to meet your needs. For a long time I was pretty sure that I wanted to buy the Tamron 70-200/2.8. The plus side is pretty obvious, but when I actually handled the lens I realized that it is bulky and has a very short focus throw. (I like a more precise focus) A little introspection into my actual shooting style and I realized that I very seldom shoot beyond 135mm. Great lens...bad fit.

And finally:

Be aware of your photography goals

Some people are gear heads, some artists, and some collectors. Many of us are a combination of all three. To enhance frugality while satisfying the needs:

• Do an honest evaluation of why you buy gear
• As an artist, identify your "pain points" and tailor your purchases to realistically meet those needs
• As a collector, stifle the desire for "completeness" at all costs
• Also as a collector, avoid handling nice vintage stuff...to touch is to want...to want is to buy...
• As a gear head, realize that your equipment only become obsolete when it ceases to work or when supporting technologies (e.g. film, lenses, etc.) are no longer available

As for myself, here are the high points of my frugality:

• Purchase of my K10D (huge bang for the buck)
• Resistance to buying a K-7 until the K10D starts to die
• All of my film bodies save one (the KX)
• All of my M42 lenses
• All of my Russian glass
• FA 35/2
• FA 77/1.8 Limited (once in a lifetime deal...new for $525 USD)

Low points:

• Pentax KX film camera...spent much more than I originally intended in order to get a pristine example...scratched the top plate while shooting the third roll through the camera...
• Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED scanner...great performance...cost almost as much as a K-7...

Current artistic "pain points":

• Need something better for wide angle and/or larger sensor
• Better high ISO performance (sub-acute pain)
• More compact/lighter camera (sub-acute pain)

Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 01-27-2010 at 10:30 AM.

[slinco]

"Frugal but not cheap"? I guess I fall into that category. I've got the money to spend on a big pile of gear, but I choose not to. I can't put my finger on why....I guess maybe I'm just a minimalist at heart. Or, more likely, It's got to do with the way I started in photography. Back in 1974, at age 14, I saved up my paper route money (and Mom and Dad kicked in a healthy amount) and I bought a brand new Minolta SRT101 with a 50/1.4 lens. Over the next 5 or 6 years cars and girls took up all my money so acquiring more lenses never happened. When I finally did get a wide angle and a telephoto they mostly sat on a shelf and gathered dust. Having different focal lengths available to me just didn't live up to the hype, at least for me. I was able to, and am still able to, make 95% of the pictures I want to make with just a "normal" lens.

My current film camera is a Fuji GW690III I bought about 10 years ago. It's a medium format rangefinder with, yes, a fixed lens, slightly wider than "normal". I've made lot's of great photos with it and never once wished it had a different lens on it.

I've had access to wide angles and telephotos and zooms over the years, even bought one or two of each. The only thing they've taught me is they don't have any effect on how good my photographs are. Sure, if I was a pro I'd need them, but as an advanced amateur I feel my work is just as good with a single focal length, and the size/weight/portability factor is enormous.

As far as digital cameras being "obsolete in 6 months", well that's all in your head. I just retired a Nikon D100 that I bought in 2003. Seven years of good service. 95% of that time it had a Sigma 20/1.8 welded to it. A little wider than my ideal, but it served me well. Lot's of great photo's, lot's of enjoyment. If I didn't make large prints, and only showed photos on a monitor, it would still be plenty good enough and I wouldn't have replaced it. But I do make large prints, so I've recently replaced that rig with a new one - a K7 with a DA35Ltd lens. This is truly a compact and versatile setup that I can see living with for a very long time. Not the cheapest body and lens, but pretty darn frugal I think considering it's ability do everything from macro to portrait to landscape, all with first class image quality. As far as todays DSLR's go, this combo hit's the sweet spot for me - I have no desire for more lenses right now, and that's frugal indeed. I guess I'll spend the rest of my money on cars and girls.... (don't tell my wife )

This is kind of a long post, but I'll mention one more thing. I think spending money on a REALLY GOOD image editor is a frugal thing to do. Photoshop, for example, is the price of one really good lens, but if you're willing to take the time to learn it it will do 100 times more for your photography than a single lens ever could. That fit's the definition of "Frugal, but not cheap" perfectly.

[stevebrot]

...I think spending money on a REALLY GOOD image editor is a frugal thing to do. Photoshop, for example, is the price of one really good lens, but if you're willing to take the time to learn it it will do 100 times more for your photography than a single lens ever could. That fit's the definition of "Frugal, but not cheap" perfectly.

+1 on that one!

Steve

(BTW...that SRT 101 was a great camera...super sturdy and feature rich...)

I think spending money on a REALLY GOOD image editor is a frugal thing to do. Photoshop, for example, is the price of one really good lens, but if you're willing to take the time to learn it it will do 100 times more for your photography than a single lens ever could. That fit's the definition of "Frugal, but not cheap" perfectly.

+1 on that one!

Steve

(BTW...that SRT 101 was a great camera...super sturdy and feature rich...)

Heck, why bother buying a lens at all? There's plenty of free images on the internet, all you need is them and Photoshop. I've just realised, you don't even need a camera, or a tripod, or a bag.

[Itai]

Great photography requires great gear but it does not have to add up to an expensive hobby by choosing wisely.

Here's an example. I know of very successful photographer that shoots exclusively with an SLR with a 50mm lens. A good 50mm but that's it. Now, he can't take any kind picture but that is he has his style and he found something that shoots well.

I also happen to know some photographers that simply buy every brand-name lens that fits their camera. Before going out they have to decide what to bring an inevitably leave some behind and still carry a huge bag during the day. Carrying that much gear gives you more possibilities in framing lets say but it also limits you in other ways. It is hard to go far and to be discreet.

All this to say, that the budget is going to depend on your needs, but whatever you buy always buy the best quality of it. That is how you'll make super sharp images that can be printed large. The temptation many people have it to try to cover all the cases and they buy too much gear and pay too little for it.

- Itai
Neoluminance | Fine Art Photography

[slinco]

Heck, why bother buying a lens at all? There's plenty of free images on the internet, all you need is them and Photoshop. I've just realised, you don't even need a camera, or a tripod, or a bag.

This is very true, at least as far as practicing and learning are concerned. I've done a lot of that over the years, and learned a ton along the way. Actually it goes way beyond practicing and learning - lot's of folks create wonderful art using Photoshop and "found images". I do as much of that as I do straight photography, and I've learned way more about Photoshop that way.

To take your comment even further, you don't even need "found images" from the internet - just start with a blank canvas and see where Photoshop takes you. Draw, paint, illustrate - most of the techniques you learn will translate to better photographs. Plus, if there's even a little bit of an artist inside of you waiting to get out, it's just so much fun!!

To paraphrase a famous Bandit...."Camera? CAMERA?? WE DON"T NEED NO STINKIN' CAMERA!!!"