DSLR Costs: Impact and Weighting With In Your Budget

Thom Hogan's article Tip of the Iceberghelps put things in perspective as to how much a camera body costs in relation to all of ones photographic expenses. I've pointed my blog readers to this article and thought I'd do the same here. Taking Thom's point one step further once you add up the replacement cost of all your gear the argument for getting insurance becomes a lot stronger.

I'll add a consideration beyond insurance. Downtime.

It's one thing to have insurance and repair options, but another altogether to be without a body while awaiting a fix. In our case we can't afford to stop taking photos while we wait. Anyone on a long and expensive vacation is in a small watercraft without means of propulsion if they have only one body and it breaks or disappears. That second body can be pretty cheap compared to thousands in lost income in our case, or a dream vacation ruined for recreational shooters.

One of the first things you learn in Economics is that nominal amounts are pretty meaningless in themselves. Things are really measured in alternative cost. In other words: what are you giving up in order to have camera gear?

Are you settling for a lesser house or vehicle? lesser education? less eating out or going to movies? less expensive clothing or food? For most of us I think the answer to the above is no. This is what we choose to do with our disposable income.

I know people who have this much tied up in skiing gear, or camping gear, a home entertainment center. So what? Let's not even go into the sports car or RV level...

Not to deter anyone considering experimenting with photography: you don't have to have all these things to get your feet wet, and you certainly don't need to have them all on day-1. The cost of entry is much lower and you can decide from there if you'd prefer another lens or another season lift ticket.

Guy

Excellent point Hank. Downtime is absolutely a factor that needs to be considered.

Guy the Alternative Cost component of this is spot on as with any large purchase. It goes with out saying that having the best gear doesn't equate to the best photographs. That being said if you're on the fence or are looking long term this article might be an eye opener. As for the cost of photography or any other hobby/profession it's amazing how fast things add up.

Having thought about this some more, I do see one tendency that I think is especially afflicting nature photographers: failing to count in travel and time in the field as part of the package.

If you buy $10K worth of gear and as a result can't afford to pay for trips to where your subjects are, then you really accomplished very little

I haven't actually worked out the dollars and cents but I think over all my biggest photography-related expense may be fuel.

Guy

Guy - I totally agree about getting into it for less. As Thom said, if you aspire to having the highest quality images (maybe not the best, but highest technical quality) you probably need all that stuff, or something close to it. But you can certainly make great images, or just have fun learning (like me ) with much lesser equipment. I think my whole kit (big zoom EVF, filters, cases, slave flash, cleaning supplies, mid-range tripod and ballhead, PS Elements), which isn't too lacking for my needs, cost under $1000 (not including computer, which I already had). For now, for me (just under 2 years experience), it's still very useful, although I've been itching for the SLR move for a little while now.

So I might get to the level Thom talks about in the future, but I'm pretty happy where I am now.

Don't forget to take the tax write off into consideration!

When I switched to digital and renewed my interest in serious photography I never imagined I would have the investment in photography that I have now. I started with a vision of an ice cube and now have an iceberg! Travel costs are important, but I consider them normal vacation expenses as we would have traveled somewhere anyway. Now photography gives us a focus (so to speak) for our trips. Wouldn't trade it for anything.

You can easily pay for the flash and Better Beamer by living in a state that doesn't have sales or use tax. But it's a good think Thom Hogan doesn't use big glass...

Yes, adding up all your equipment costs for insurance coverage can be a surprise.
But, I still view it as a relatively inexpensive hobby compared to some of the "toys" or activities that others choose for their disposable income.

On top of all the satisfaction from creating images, I feel the great people that I have met through photography more than justifies all my expenses to date.

I love Thom's ending thought:
"Just buy a medium format digital body in the first place, then all the extra stuff is in the noise." The best Gitzo tripod looks downright inexpensive compared to that US$30,000 body.

Great discussion,
I too am invested financially comparably to Davis B. So insurance for me is not a huge deal. And I agree, you don't have to spend big $$ to get into this. But, I could see how, even as a hobbyist, you could get caught in the $$ trap of "needing" that big glass, on a new body, with a CF tripod. For the pro's you guys do need the high end stuff, if for no other reason then to be recognized as a pro. From what I've learned here sometimes customers are as concerned with what your shooting with as they are with the shot itself.

Also as Guy said, as far as hobbies go, this one is about par for the course. I have 8X the money tied up in triathlon gear as well as SCUBA gear that I have in photo gear. (I could easily catch the photo gear up, but I started, and invested in those hobbies long before I met my wife. When I had no one to answer to about big purchases but the credit card company )

In my opinion the article is interesting for its shock value but of little relevance otherwise. I have been making photographs for quite a long time now and even if I add up all the money that I have spent on equipment it does't come close to what the author has specified. And, that includes two functional camera systems (35mm and 6x7), a computing platform to work on, photo editing software and a 24" wide-carriage printer. Yes, it is possible to spend a fortune on photo gear (as listed by the author) but my point is that it is not necessary.

I think the thing that makes camera bodies seem so expensive in the digital age is that, while they're every bit as expensive (and then some) as the film cameras they've effectively replaced, they don't have anything approaching the same perceived shelf life. Digital cameras have become like computers; the manufacturer's built-in obsolescence quotient is a couple of years. The D300 that Thom Hogan used in his example is the successor to the D200...and was released only two years later. The point is, it's one thing to look at dropping the better part of $2000 on something you expect to use for a very long time (like a lens or a tripod/head or backpack (etc.) to remain in the photographic environment); it's another thing to reconcile oneself to spending that kind of money for something you expect to replace before the next mid-term election. Did anyone even consider replacing their film SLR every couple of years? Of course, eliminating the cost of film and developing does make this a bit of an apples & oranges comparison, but the human brain is a funny thing.

I will note that perceived obsolescence and the real thing may not line up perfectly. I own the D200, but have not upgraded to the D300 (and have no plans to do so), so I'm going to squeeze a bit more out of that purchase price...

Kerry, I believe that DSLR evolution has reached a plateau, and without a design breakthrough, many consumers will soon reach the same decision as you did - the newest models don't offer enough to justify an upgrade. I plan to skip this upgrade cycle, and possibly the next one. But I'm sure looking forward to the 1DsMk5