Did you ever stop to consider......

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Cameras' started by Golfhacker27, Nov 2, 2017.

  1. Golfhacker27

    Golfhacker27 TalkEmount Regular

    48
    May 15, 2016
    how much you have paid per photo?

    So. The new A7RIII (or A9) has got a lot of us twitchy. And our current A7x’s are twitching and wondering if they are Ebay fodder.

    But did you ever stop to wonder (or calculate) how much each ‘keeper’ photo costs, after you have taken into account how much the equipment cost you to purchase?

    As a pure hobyist, I count ‘keeper’ images as those I print (my home walls are decorated with photos, and I also have to factor in what I paid for a decent A3+ printer and paper and frames into ‘purchase cost’) or those that I use as screen savers on my PC’ phone and tablet.

    So even with my low cost set up (A7, second-hand adapted Canon 17-40 and printer), each keeper represents a considerable outlay (for a hobby, for an ordinary wage slave keeping 2 kids at university, etc, etc).

    And thus, my reaction to the new A7RIII or even a s/h A7Rll or real Sony lens is.....
    a) I could spend the 1-3 thousand euros upgrading from my current set up, but then what would the price of each keeper leap to.....?
    b) I could spend the 1-3 thousand euros on a couple of great trips (Amsterdam + Bruges; the Brittainy coast; Tuscany) and gain a lot of memorable moments and keepers....

    So, my battle with my inherent GAS is won. For now.....

    I guess it really comes down to many personal factors - demands for disposable income, how important your hobby is in your life, etc, etc. And how many keepers you arrive at (and in what form, use, how often do actually LOOK at all those photos?!?!). I would love an A7RIII and a bag full of GM/Batis/Zeiss glass, but really.....the cost per keeper is insane, even for someone with a wall of keepers.

    Ramble finished :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Yep, film was much cheaper. I used my Nikon F3 cameras for 15 years and image quality constantly improved with every new Kodak, Fuji or Agfa film type. I had a Nikon 1.4/35 AI as well and I have used it only once for an almost pitch dark event where I used Fuji 1600 color negative film, F3 with MD4 grip, f/1.4 and 1/15 s. Pictures came out nicely, I put about 10 in our family album. That's about € 90 per picture for that lens. My present FE 1.4/35 is already cheaper per keeper :).
     
  3. AlwaysOnAuto

    AlwaysOnAuto TalkEmount All-Pro

    Feb 17, 2015
    Now that's an interesting way of looking at it.

    If I applied that reasoning to my wife's hobby of quilting I wonder how it would work out. All my camera equipment has yet to equal the cost of one of her computer driven sewing machines, of which she has two, to say nothing of the mechanical machines and quilt frame itself. She hangs a lot of her stuff on the walls. In fact, they change with the season/holiday etc on a regular basis, so I guess you could say she has a lot more 'keepers' than I have.
    I have all of 5 photos hanging in our house.

    Maybe I should demand more wall space...
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  4. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I'm having fun, and I never buy any camera gear that I can't pay off at the end of the month. So the cost of it all is kind of irrelevant to me. But my "keepers" are anything that I decide to post here and/or on Flickr, not just what I decide to print. So I bet my "cost per keeper" rate is substantially lower than yours, Golfhacker27.

    I still have trouble justifying a 42MP-sensored camera to myself, not just for the cost, but for the chore of importing, editing, storing, etc., all of those files. So my guess is that the chimerical A7III will be my next camera body, not the A7RII or A7RIII. And that will probably free up enough cash to buy another lens that I don't need. :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    With that train of thought regarding the cost of digital photography, let's not leave out processing and archiving portions of it. The ever increasing need to upgrade computing power, new software, and long term storage strategies. Some now have home servers rivaling businesses in capacity, noise and electricity usage! :D Human beings have a knack for obsession. Whether it be golf clubs, Porsches, italian hand-made steel racing bikes, jewelry, watches, SHOES, cameras and lenses (no, I don't have a problem!), and personal electronics.
    One has to add those monitors, Adobe software subscriptions, banks of HDDs and SSDs, multi-cored desktops-laptops-tablets, drones! Now see what the cost per keeper becomes. :D
    In the end, it was still worth it. Why, because you can't take it with you. So, spend it on what you love, and on who you love.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Exactly.

    I'm told this is a Scottish proverb, but Mike and Paul should feel free to correct me if it's not: Be happy while you're living, for you're a long time dead.

    Or as I like to say: Life is short, eat dessert first.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Top Veteran

    959
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    Nearly all hobbies when taken seriously are expensive and difficult to justify on purely economical grounds.

    People in my corner of the world love hunting and fishing. I do not participate, but have picked up on the cost of these activities over the years, and let me just say that for those who are really into it, even high-end photography looks cheap by comparison. As for the food aspect - the cost per pound would make you choke on your game or fish. (Like photography, you can do it with less expense, but many do not.)

    We have hobbies for other reasons. As long as you avoid debt (please) and keep spending to a reasonable portion of your budget, I do not think anyone should feel guilty for spending on a hobby. There are much worse ways to 'waste' money. Just keep your budget and priorities straight.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. chalkdust

    chalkdust TalkEmount Veteran

    425
    Sep 25, 2015
    Bert Cheney
    I avoid calculating my photographic "price per" because I have never found a large enough denominator.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  9. mstphoto

    mstphoto TalkEmount Top Veteran

    532
    Feb 26, 2016
    Aberdeen, NE Scotland
    Mike Stephen
    Sounds about right but its pronounced "a lang time deed" :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  10. mstphoto

    mstphoto TalkEmount Top Veteran

    532
    Feb 26, 2016
    Aberdeen, NE Scotland
    Mike Stephen
    The Mike of old would be running to the nearest photo store and pre-ordering the a7riii but recently I've been using my a6300 more than my a7rii which makes me wonder why would I want to upgrade?
    The Mk3 looks tempting but although it won't improve my photography, some of the new features would be welcomed.
    As for printing, I rarely print my images these days.
    Really should though
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Nino Xerri

    Nino Xerri TalkEmount Veteran

    244
    Jun 13, 2016
    Nino Xerri
    The gear I have at the moment suits me fine for my level as a "hobby photographer" and I find it unjustifiable to purchase anything else. The focal range albeit it overlapping is all I need. The "price per photo/print" has never been a consideration and yes I do print my images and have some of them hanging on my study wall.
     
    • Like Like x 2