Photography ISN'T Expensive! 🤑

💲 CAMERAS/LENSES 💲

🤘 FOLLOW ME 🤘

#photography #photographygear #sonycamera #sonycameras

[bemwells]

Where I live has a 60% tax on camera equipment. Resting in pieces

[nedkelly]

If people think photography is expensive now, they should look at the later days of film. Good film and processing ran an average of $15./roll (36 exp.) and was higher than that in pro labs. I used to shoot 200-300 rolls a year and even doing my own black and white processing was spending up to $5000./yr. on film and prints combined. THAT was shooting with some conservation in mind. Now in digital, I can go out and shoot 100s of frames in a day, come back and delete 1/2 of them, manipulate at no cost in the computer, then print 10% of what is left at home (no darkroom required), spend maybe 25% of what I did in the film days, which adjusted for inflation is maybe 10%.

[ThreeCeeProductions]

Camera bodies come and go but vintage glass will always have value.

[teabaggins]

Equipment makes huge difference. This videos are mostly for people confirm their bias. I had a6300 and switched to A7R4. Suddenly my photos started to look so much better that people stated to offer me money to photograph their cars.. Equipment is not everything but it helps a lot.

[Robert.hodgson]

I’ll also add that the a7m1 for “$450” is considered by MANY people to be really expensive. That’s a ton of money to spend on anything. So even cheap photography is still really expensive.

[khm]

Absolutely true, but sometimes for a beginner maybe a middle priced camera will make you love photography more.

[amykortland]

I'd say a good sub 500€ option is:

if you want mirrorless
Sony a6000 with 18-105mm f4 G oss (if you're lucky and can find them a bit cheaper) this lens is ridiculously sharp, has a great zoom range and is relatively inexpensive, however it'd be difficult to find these for a total below 500€

or

Canon 60D with EF-S 18-135 or EF 28-105 II USM (this second lens is an absolute bargain (<100 bucks) with great quality and should easily leave 200€ for an EF 35mm f/2 or EF-s 24 f/2.8 for example)

You could later upgrade to for example a 7D mark II which is one of the best DSLRs I've ever used or a 6D if you want full-frame, both can be found easily for under 500€

[KibaSnowpaw]

Before becoming a photographer, you need to develop skills. How do you gain these skills? By practicing consistently. Owning a $2, 500 camera without the necessary experience is often a waste of money, because your skills won't improve just because of better equipment—in fact, using an advanced camera without understanding its features might lead to frustration and even make you hate photography.

The reason I say this is because professional cameras are designed with different priorities compared to entry-level cameras. For example, if you're just starting out, you might prefer to use auto mode. Entry-level cameras are typically much better at auto mode than professional cameras. This is because pro-level cameras are intended for experienced users, and their strength lies in manual control and advanced settings rather than their auto capabilities. As a result, their auto features tend to lag behind those of entry-level models.

I can say this from personal experience. My Nikon D5100 had a much better auto mode than my D3300, and my D3300 still performed better in auto than my current D7500. The D7500 is designed for users who want a camera that feels more professional, but it's still within the entry-level price range. I eventually stopped using auto mode altogether on the D7500 because I felt like it missed focus more often than it got it right, while on my D5100, I used auto mode almost exclusively.

The takeaway here is to start with an affordable camera, develop your skills, and then upgrade when you feel like you've pushed your gear to its limits. That's my recommendation for anyone getting into photography.

[salarycat]

I understand the sentiment, but in practice, I think photography, is in fact, expensive. Buying a full-frame makes sense but one has to get the lenses that make decent use of that sensor, i.e. f1.8 primes and 2.8 zoom, which can get costly. Then we need storage to save the photos, and assuming we shoot raw since Sony only started having nice colors OOC since Mk4, a decent computer to edit the photos as well as editing software. In other words, the transition from just point & shoot with smartphone to photography for a newcomer, easily climbs to 2-3 thousand bucks.

[glssjg]

for that same amount of money I would go for an a6000 or a canon r100. a killer deal on an a6100 would be the best option. lowest I'd go on sony full frame would be the a7riii, a7iii or for video the a7c since its the first one with eye detect for video

[ChrisDarby]

People seam to forget that great photographers 15 years ago didn't have the technology of today, and even lenses of today, they weren't around 15 years ago, so you could pick up a 15 year old camera, with 15 year old glass and still get great results if you know what you are doing, can assess the light in your scene, know how to compose your images, know how to expose correctly, and so on.

[matthieuzglurg]

Nikon D300 - 60€
manual focus 28mm f/2.8 lens - 40€
35mm f/1.8 - 80€
55-200 - 50€
CF to SD adapter - 10€
couple of 16GB SD cards - 10€
spare battery : 10€

full kit for 260 bucks. Started with just the first two items (+ old 4GB card I already had + the adapter) for like 110.

Even if you have a SUPER low budget it's possible to get pretty decent cameras nowadays

[tomoakley]

I picked up a Sony a7iii preowned (body only) for about £1750 along with 35mm and 85mm prime lenses. As an up front cost it certainly punched a big black hole in my discretionary savings, but the way I see it, an amateur can invest in kit early on that's initially "overkill" for their needs, but as skills knowledge and experience come, the kit will 'unlock' more of its potential. There's something aspirational about taking that kit into the field, knowing I could use it for a decade straight and barely scratch the surface of the images I can coax out of it. Plus I always was put off by the cropping effect inherent to APS-C cameras -- full frame just has a different character because you're using the entire "edge to edge" of what the lens is picking up. But I didn't like the bulky ergonomics of the full frame DSLRs, so mirrorless became the logical leap at that point, and Sony's reputation there sold me on that big initial purchase. But I justified it by agreeing with myself to get a good decade or two at least out of it, so it's not like buying a £500 camera just because "beginners have no need for anything better", only to replace it with a higher end model once you feel your skills are enough to justify moving up in kit. Given enough time in any hobby, people will spend increasing amounts of money replacing old kit with new, one way or other. At least this way I know I have no need to "upgrade" for a very, very long time, if ever. Each to their own though, right? 🙂 If I only had a casual passing interest in photography -- and hadn't already been "spoiled" by having access to high end full frame camera kit in university -- then I probably would've mucked through with a cheapo DSLR and thought nothing of it. But y'know how it goes... once you get an itch... 😅

[DiegooFXX]

it’s true but when it comes to low light pictures or when it comes to ISO and shutter speeds then it really does matter of what equipment you have, it just all depends on the camera you have

[worgle]

It's still kinda expensive. For all the newbies - go buy an EOS RP secondhand and get some decent lenses. Don't make the mistake I did when starting off and buy an M50 or similar, some cheap lenses and then wonder why your autofocus is so bad.

[Alorscty]

My first camera was actually a canon 600d with 18-135mm lens for less than 150$ which still works for me in today’s standard

[afanasieguler]

I had A7 II which is essentially A7 with stabilisation and now A7 IV, biggest difference is consistency (AF, good viewfinder, better low light performance), if you don't make money out of it you should be fine with cheaper cameras.
Unless you're wildlife photographer, then you need to get those money out of the pocket.

[GrantStinnett]

I’d recommend a Canon M6ii. They just discontinued the line so the lenses and camera are quite affordable. Also, with a speed booster the crop sensor becomes basically a full frame sensor when you adapt EF lenses (also discontinued but still amazing and much cheaper for equivalent quality than the current RF or E mount lenses that are still being made new.) for about $700 you can have a full frame equivalent camera that shoots 15fps and 4K video in a pocket sized package. I love using mine for 95% of my work even though I have had and used the flagship cameras for years.

[gilbertofloresb.]

My experience on amateur photography:
The very first camera I bought was a Lumix fz-28, a "point & shot" camera (which means the lense is built into de camera). And I think this was the best aproach I've could get, point & shot or "digi cams" are crazy cheap (like, less than 50$ cheap), their limited tech really encourages you to fully understand the basics like ISO, Exposure, Shutter speed, aperture, composition, the files, etc
Not to mention that taking your first pictures (that for sure are gonna be bad) on a 300$ camera feels like you've just wasted your money, but starting to take good photos on a 50$ camera feels amazing

[EvanKenobi]

Compact camera with integrated lens is the most budget friendly option to start. You save a ton of money on glass, especially when you still don't know what focal ranges you like the most.