Did you think you would spend this much $$$?

Did you think you would spend this much $$$?

  • Total voters
    186
msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
9:21 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
For you hobbyists, especially, but I guess those who shoot for a living too.

I, for one, started with a Konica Auto S2 and thought that I'd never get a Leica because they are unjustifiably expensive. I just wanted a rangefinder to take pictures.

Now (one year later), I have 2 Leica's, 2 OM's, 5 Rollei's, and a few RF/SLR lenses, and some P&S's. I don't want to add up how much money I spent....I'm embarrased.

I just hope I don't get a Hasselblad bug. Building a 35mm SLR/RF system is costly enough as it is.
 
I recall, when I was shooting a D90, being completely astounded at lenses that cost a thousand bucks. Now, a grand is joke, for lenses that I want these days...
 
I've spent more than I planned going in to simplify my gear, but a good bit will come back as I sell off the excess now. When I'm done I'll have exactly what I want, no more and no less, for the photography I want to do. It won't be cheap, but I knew that starting this round of changes..
 
I voted yes, because I know if I had the money I would.
However, when I start building up one system instead a few, every new buy felt like in place and honestly, how much you really need? 2 x bodies, 3-4 lenses and you're set for life...

Regards,

Boris
 
Got back into photography about 1 1/2 years ago spent 160 more than planned but am getting some back as I sell off the 2 cameras I don't want. Then I canafford the one lens I want and I'll be set for gear.
 
When you spend a little at a time, eventually it adds up big time.
I'm told the same thing happens with saving.:eek:
 
hteasley said:
Now, a grand is joke, for lenses that I want these days...
Click to expand...

I feel similar. A 1k is reasonable for the lenses that I want. Mostly Leica pre-asph stuff.

One of my friends told me that he wanted to get a digital camera + lens and was willing to spend a lot of money. I asked how much, and he said $500.

I now think $500 for a lens is a joke; $1k, is resonable. Maybe in a few years I'll be hunting Asph lenses and $1k will be a joke.
 
hteasley said:
I recall, when I was shooting a D90, being completely astounded at lenses that cost a thousand bucks. Now, a grand is joke, for lenses that I want these days...
Click to expand...

I was the same way when I started shooting with my then-new D80. Now I think a "good price" is what I used to shudder at!
 
msbarnes said:
For you hobbyists, especially, but I guess those who shoot for a living too.

I, for one, started with a Konica Auto S2 and thought that I'd never get a Leica because they are unjustifiably expensive. I just wanted a rangefinder to take pictures.

Now (one year later), I have 2 Leica's, 2 OM's, 5 Rollei's, and a few RF/SLR lenses, and some P&S's. I don't want to add up how much money I spent....I'm embarrased.

I just hope I don't get a Hasselblad bug. Building a 35mm SLR/RF system is costly enough as it is.
Click to expand...

I started in the same way...shooting an S2, Yashica GSN, Canonet QL 17G-III, etc. Leica RFs seemed unreasonably expensive to me then.

A year ago, I snagged a local Minolta CL+40/2+90/4 for a great deal. That gear is all gone now, and I have gone through 3 Leica bodies, and a lot of lenses. Most have been sold, swapped, or traded for others along the way but I've tried a dozen or so. Some more than once!

People's eyes fall open when I tell them what I spent on my MP ("and it's a film camera?!?") and the various lenses I have.
 
Spending the money was never the problem it was the GAS that ruined the enjoyment sometimes, always looking for the 'right camera'.
I'm down to two cameras and OM glass is not too expensive. The 124G is of course not in need of any other glass.
 
I have a rule for myself- and this really to practice keeping the ego in check :)angel:)- and that is not to spend more than $500 for a body or a lens. $1000 for a fixed lens camera, for example.

I've broken that rule twice, but not by too, too much. Once, to get an M4-P; the second time was for a X100. The X100 really hurt because it broke rule No.1 and it broke rule No.2 (don't buy new at retail because "retail is for suckers") AND rule No.3 (buy used, especially for digital because the depreciation is sick). Has been worth it so far...

And, of course, I'm a cheapskate.:eek:
 
Welcome to the boat

Welcome to the boat

Yup I did the same thing. Went from one rf to seven plus lenses in less than a year. Now about to buy Nikon F :eek:
 
Never. I also just wanted 'a nice rangefinder'. I WISH I had 5 Rollei's, though. RolleiFLEXs, that is.
 
Last edited:
I've spent as much on education as I have with equipment.

I'm still learning, always looking how to get better & better.

Now that I'm pretty much retired, I still have the same philosophy.
 
No, did not imagine I would spend as much money as I have over the years on photography. My only regret is that most of it was used for equipment jockeying, as opposed to consumables for direct use in image production. Still, there are more expensive hobbies, and if you can afford it, what is the harm, especially given how much money most of us spend on general carousing and other superfluous things :)
 
5 Rollei's (all Rolleiflex's) is simply too many (for a user). Similar to the Konica Auto S2, I started with Bay I (2x), then moved onto BII (1x), then now I'm on BIII (2x) :). I will definitely skinny down some. I can't exercise all of them but I haven't figured out which ones to keep.
 
I first started amassing old gear in '91 after shooting "new gear" for twenty years. Then I found out how cheaply I could buy Nikon f gear and I was off and running! I thought I was done, but now I have the OP's nightmare GAS: I want a Hasselblad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom