Quote:
Originally Posted by simplechamp
You guys that do the digital photography, I have heard that the money spent in digital photography (for like a nice DSLR, lenses, etc.) makes RC look cheap by comparison. Is this true?
|
It's a lot like RC, depends how insane you want to go.
One of the lenses, (we call it the "nifty fifty"), is only a $120, but it has better corner sharpness and less chromatic aberration than a $1500 lens, so you can go kind of budget with it and still get great results.
On the other hand, one of the telephotos I dream of owning is a 400mm f/2.8 IS, and MSRP's for 8 grand, goes for 7200 or so on Amazon. Then there's the 800mm f/5.6 IS that costs 12K, and the super-rare 1200mm f/5.6 costs 100K (yes, really - there's only rumored to be 10-15 in the world).
A lot depends on the photographer, not the equipment, though the equipment just allows you more composition possibilities, so it can matter. Believe it or not, some of the photos in my flickr were taken with a Canon G11 which is a $450 point and shoot (that I got refurbished for $282 shipped to my door), so you don't NEED expensive equipment, but it certainly helps.
The big difference between RC and photography is that in RC, stuff loses value really quickly. In photography, not so much. Bodies usually drop in value pretty quickly because they pump out a new model every year or so for the consumer line cameras (for Canon, it's the "Rebel" line), while the higher end bodies see replacements every 2-3.
Lenses on the other hand get updated in cycles that usually are 5 to sometimes as long as 10 years, so other than the roughly 5-10% loss you see in value after you buy it new, they don't really drop much until a replacement is released.