Why is photography so expensive? I hear it all the time…
When you think of photography as a creative outlet; as a record of life’s precious moments; as a commercial enterprise; is it honestly prohibitively expensive? I think not. Even as a leisure-time pursuit, you only have to compare it to say skiing or boating.
Unless your brand of photography requires you to be in unusual situations, such as airborne or atop Everest, then photography is really not that expensive.
If you appreciate photography — enough to want to capture aesthetic digital images yourself — then buying quality DSLR camera equipment will be money well spent.
In exceptional circumstances, such as when an item fails to function through a manufacturing defect or as a result of an accident, you would have reason to grumble. But with the years of use (DSLRs are designed to allow between 100,000 and 300,000 shutter actuations), the rewards are surely bountiful.
A lens has an even greater capacity than a camera body to repay its purchase price. Lenses can survive decades. Some photographers are enjoying taking images using 40+ year old lenses on their DSLR.
Where am I going with this? I’ll explain. Assuming you can see the logic in my claim that photography is not necessarily expensive, I’m offering a perspective to help with purchasing decisions.
To begin with, let’s view the camera in its most basic form, as a recording device. When you assign it very specific tasks, such as capturing fast-paced action, some cameras will fall short. Those then left vying for your attention will include the capacity to record fast frame rates.
If your requirement is shooting in available light, cameras with greater ISO range (a measurement of light sensitivity) will need to be considered.
If you want your camera to perform in extreme conditions, you will be looking for one with durability and weather-sealing.
Perhaps your decision will be governed by the fact that the camera needs to incorporate Live View functions or that it should record High Definition video.
These are the most significant considerations. Others, such as needing an onboard flash, weight, or previewing options are most likely less influential in the overall decision.
The next serious expenditure will probably be which lens/es. Considering my arguments above, lenses typically have the potential to well outlast the camera body.
Budget with your photographic ambitions in mind and aim for the lens you believe will (a) provide the focal range, (b) have the responsiveness to light, (c) the availability within your price range. For a point of reference, take a look at this database of camera gear.
The lens you want may not be affordable to you. You may only be able to afford it as a used item. When doing your research, you may conclude that your requirements could possibly be met by an alternate lens from a different manufacturer. Alarm bells should be sounding at this point. If the object of your desire is a particular Canon lens to suit your 50D camera, it’s wiser to bide your time until you can get it. The alternatives rarely, if ever, measure up.
Peripherals, such as remote controls, filters, and so on, can be assessed for their individual merits. The bottomline is that when items are critical to the optics, such as filters, try to maintain the standards presented by the lens optics.
The same rule applies to tripods, tripod heads and camera bags — allow for growth. No point needing to shelve the item when, sooner or later, you add a new acquisition that exceeds its capacity.
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- What Really Matters in Photography Many may disagree but when it comes to photographic equipment, the thing that matters above all else is the quality of the images it produces. I hear concerns about the noise produced by the lens focusing system. I hear people worried about the physical weight of a camera or lens....
- Store Finance or Not – the Business of Photography has a Price Is the trend for some retailers to offer very expensive finance to “valued” customers, good advice or not? If you are desperate for equipment then there is a price to pay. CHOICE found consumers who opt for a lease or rental agreement may end up paying much more than the...
- Surf Photography SURF PHOTOGRAPHY IS TECHNICALLY, RELATIVELY EASY. It is, however, an unavoidably expensive hobby. Yes, you do need a 70-200mm… even though, on many occasions, it won’t get you close enough. Good gear is essential to properly photograph surfing. Massive, high quality, minimal outlay, zoom lenses are an illusion. And teleconverters...
- RED ONE Revolution in Digital Photography RED ONE began shipping its first cinema quality video camera in 2006. A groundbreaking camera, it certainly turned heads. Its unusual design and generous specifications instantly narrowed the gap between digital and 35mm film. It appears RED is about ready to take orders for its new generation of digital cinema...
- Under $25 – Essential Photography Gear There’s a number of things you can do to improve your photography. It doesn’t always come down to technique. Equipment plays a big part. So here are a few items that won’t bust the budget and will certainly help improve your images and make your photography a little easier. Mini...


Spot on about going for quality, not cheapness. I have one or two things lying around that didn’t make the grade and should never have been purchased no matter how much a bargain they appeared to be!
Is an exception to be made for UV filters bought primarily to protect the lens? Providing the filter doesn’t have a negative impact on the image, isn’t the one that is cheapest to replace the best bet?
#Colin#…
The most important part of your question is “providing the filter doesn’t have a negative impact” — in which case, you are absolutely correct.
However, the use of UV filters as “protectors” is divided. Many would argue, with good reason, that money lost on a filter is preferable to losing the front element of their lens.
Detractors include those who successfully protect their lens, using only mindfullness and lens caps.
BTW, you’re lucky to have only one or two items lying around that didn’t make the grade. The average joe, myself included, has quite a few more such redundancies.
I’m sure you have heard it before but it really is all relative. Like Dr Ross, I too purchased a Nikon FE back in the days when my pockets were shallow but still had holes in them. I had to borrow some money from an unscrupulous sole to buy a 12mm Nikkor that I couldn’t leave on the shop shelf. He’s still after me.
Comparitively speaking, any of the equipment I have recently purchased or still salivate over is no more or less expensive than it was when I had hair but my pockets are a little deeper and I have a wife who still asks the question I should well ask myself ‘Do you really need it?’
Whether it is expensive or not is determined by all those factors and we do with what we can afford with the minimum amount of pain. I would dearly love to be in the position where I don’t need to ask ‘how much’. Meanwhile, I do my calculations and figure if the next slab of glass or megapixel black box is going to do me out of a relaxed and contented life with the one I love.
#Tom#..
Good point regarding relaxed contented life… therein lies my error.