Addictive...

[tienm23]

Anyone else finding that photography is putting a serious strain on their wallet?
So many products, each with their own benefits...

i.e.

Tamron 17-50 vs Canon 17-40L vs 17-105 F4/IS vs 16-35 2.8L

So many great choices...I wish I could just have them all. I've spent over 3K on photography equipment this month and I there is still lots on the wish list !!

[goofball]

Nikonians called it NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome). No known cure as of yet. :lol:

[nden]

Yes. It's addictive.

Let's all win 6/49. I'd buy every lenses :)

[NiMSo]

In sum, I've traded about 20K worth. I currently own about 6K worth of equipment.

[KorruptioN]

I just spent around $1400 on a new Sony A700. Waiting for it to arrive.

[nden]

I just spent around $1400 on a new Sony A700. Waiting for it to arrive.

Nice. where did you order?

[KorruptioN]

Nice. where did you order?

From Sony Canada ;) (shh)

I've already built up a collection of awesome Minolta lenses... "addictive" is a good word.

[N_Raged]

Nikonians called it NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome). No known cure as of yet. :lol:
haha yes. What a great disease.

[Mystix]

don't catch the L disease now :lol:

[rubberband]

I've always loved taking pictures, but only convinced myself that I could afford new equipment in the last couple of years. I went from a 2.1mp P&S Nikon to a D50, and never looked back.

I probably own about 5k worth of equipment, acquired over those two years. NAS is a very, very expensive problem.

I find the best thing to do is research the hell out of any new toy you're considering. That way you either a) know plenty about it when you bring it home or b) lose interest and don't buy it after all. My kit is definitely more expensive than I'd ever intended, but I don't really have much stuff that I don't use at all..

[TenzoR]

It's addictive taking pictures but not to buy.

[rubberband]

It's addictive taking pictures but not to buy.

Yup, not a fan of the buying part when I see the bill.

I've also met people who are more interested in what's in my camera bag than the photos it's taken, which is always disappointing. And there's definately no joy for me in buying spare batteries, a vertical grip, etc..

There is something special about trying out a new lens for the first time though. I got my Sigma 70-200/2.8 used right here on RFD. I took it to a tournament that weekend and was genuinely excited about it. I had expectations for what I could do with such nice, fast glass, and I was thrilled when I saw the results. The whole process from research to acquisition to results was immensely rewarding in that case - I think that's what really fuels the "buying stuff" addiction.

[ryan_lau100]

Def a big problem for me since im still a student. im still eyeing that 70-200 f2.8IS.... bh has it for 1600USD... and to make matters worse i have family coming up from the states who can bring it for me... getting very very close to just biting the bullet.... ugh...

hey does anyone know how long those rebates take? is canon fast with those things?

[rubberband]

Def a big problem for me since im still a student. im still eyeing that 70-200 f2.8IS.... bh has it for 1600USD... and to make matters worse i have family coming up from the states who can bring it for me... getting very very close to just biting the bullet.... ugh...

hey does anyone know how long those rebates take? is canon fast with those things?

If you don't need the IS, you should consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8. Same speed, fantastic build quality, optically almost as good as L glass, but half the price. I got mine (Nikon mount) for $750 used, which is a pretty common price. They're less than $1k CAD new.

[ryan_lau100]

If you don't need the IS, you should consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8. Same speed, fantastic build quality, optically almost as good as L glass, but half the price. I got mine (Nikon mount) for $750 used, which is a pretty common price. They're less than $1k CAD new.

Ya ive been thinking about that for a while. ive decided though that i am going to follow through with this as a side business so i might as well just invest now and get something i wont ever have to buy again. IS does make quite a difference too esp at the 200mm end. i dont think they offer the MIR if you buy it from the US. I think i can get it as cheap as 2100 here + 150MIR in canada but $1600+8% tax from BH.... ugh....

[CSAgent]

Ya ive been thinking about that for a while. ive decided though that i am going to follow through with this as a side business so i might as well just invest now and get something i wont ever have to buy again. IS does make quite a difference too esp at the 200mm end. i dont think they offer the MIR if you buy it from the US. I think i can get it as cheap as 2100 here + 150MIR in canada but $1600+8% tax from BH.... ugh....

If you're doing it as a side business, I highly recommend getting the IS. Its an investment in the long run, for business you're going pro and you don't want to use cheap equipment do you?

[ryan_lau100]

If you're doing it as a side business, I highly recommend getting the IS. Its an investment in the long run, for business you're going pro and you don't want to use cheap equipment do you?

well its all about purpose right. i mean from what i hear optically the sigma is pretty much on par with the canon. the only reason i would opt for the IS is because i will most likely be in low light situations. i would get it for that not because the sigma is considered "cheap". im not going to the arctic or anywhere very hostile so i dont think i need the added protection... but as i said before the price is at about 1600 so i would rather buy pay the extra for the IS option over the sigma.

[KorruptioN]

I'm kinda glad all my lenses offer some sort of stabilization. CCD-shift stabilization :D

[2000fordfocus]

^^^

I am glad none of my lens has VR or IS!

[KorruptioN]

^^^

I am glad none of my lens has VR or IS!

Why so?

[NiMSo]

"This thread is useless without pics!" :razz:

Here was the peak of my collection:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/875/allxd2.jpg
A lot of that's gone now... :cry:

[KorruptioN]

That's a lotta primes http://www.genmay.com/images/smilies/drool.gif

[2000fordfocus]

Why so?

I dont like the idea of a moving element in my lense... A good optics require precision craftmanship and many years of know how from manufactures. I dont know, adding a element like that and letting electronic gadget taking over, well, that is not the way to go, IMO... being said that, I am not into telephone, so the benefit of having a VR lense at mid to wide isn't benefit enough for me I guess.

Besides, Hassy/Mamiya never have them... my dream camera is a Mamiya AFDII ZD

[NiMSo]

I dont like the idea of a moving element in my lense... A good optics require precision craftmanship and many years of know how from manufactures. I dont know, adding a element like that and letting electronic gadget taking over, well, that is not the way to go, IMO... being said that, I am not into telephone, so the benefit of having a VR lense at mid to wide isn't benefit enough for me I guess.

Besides, Hassy/Mamiya never have them... my dream camera is a Mamiya AFDII ZD


That really doesn't make sense. IS/VR hardly affects image quality and usually improves one's ability to get good results. I've owned 4 different stabilized lenses and never had a problem with them - they are very reliable. And I'm sure nobody can tell the difference between a shot taken by a stabilized vs. non-stabilized lens (assuming lens/camera shake is not involved).

If you're worried about the purity of optics, etc., then I would naturally assume you also oppose the use of zoom lenses too, right?!

[N_Raged]

then I would naturally assume you also oppose the use of zoom lenses too, right?!
Nothing wrong with someone who shoots only primes.


I am not into telephone, so the benefit of having a VR lense at mid to wide isn't benefit enough for me I guess.
Unless you meant telephoto, it would be a hassle to write a letter to everyone you need to briefly speak to. :)

[CSAgent]

I dont like the idea of a moving element in my lense... A good optics require precision craftmanship and many years of know how from manufactures. I dont know, adding a element like that and letting electronic gadget taking over, well, that is not the way to go, IMO... being said that, I am not into telephone, so the benefit of having a VR lense at mid to wide isn't benefit enough for me I guess.

Besides, Hassy/Mamiya never have them... my dream camera is a Mamiya AFDII ZD

Adding to that, digital cameras are all electronics. With your logic, I assume you shoot film then?

[KorruptioN]

I dont like the idea of a moving element in my lense... A good optics require precision craftmanship and many years of know how from manufactures. I dont know, adding a element like that and letting electronic gadget taking over, well, that is not the way to go, IMO...

They (Canon and Nikon) do outfit high-end primes with stabilization. Let me as you this: Would you rather have no usable picture at all, or live with the theory that stabilizing elements affect final IQ? The high-end news agencies make it obvious...

[NiMSo]

Nothing wrong with someone who shoots only primes.

How is that relevant? That was NOT even the point of my comment. Re-read my entire post. It had nothing to do with choice of lenses. I was trying to illustrate that the fear of VR/IS is unwarranted if the primary argument is that the optics are inferior (the difference, if any, is likely un-noticeable). Similarly, if we all thought the same way then we should also be afraid of zooms too because they are not 'precison crafted optics', but clearly that is not the case with many amateurs and pros alike.

[N_Raged]

How is that relevant? That was NOT even the point of my comment. Re-read my entire post. It had nothing to do with choice of lenses. I was trying to illustrate that the fear of VR/IS is unwarranted if the primary argument is that the optics are inferior (the difference, if any, is likely un-noticeable). Similarly, if we all thought the same way then we should also be afraid of zooms too because they are not 'precison crafted optics', but clearly that is not the case with many amateurs and pros alike.
How it that not relevant? You closed with a comment accusing him of not using zoom lenses, so my remark was just to build on that. I don't care what your point was about VR/IS even though they are completely valid.

Your argument is with this purist, not me ;)

[NiMSo]

How it that not relevant? You closed with a comment accusing him of not using zoom lenses, so my remark was just to build on that.

I was being sarcastic as I'm aware he has used zooms before. Therefore I was merely poking at the conflicting idea of: fearing VR/IS, but not feeling the same way about zooms (when it comes to optical purity).

It doesn't matter anyways... this is already off topic!...