[fairweather friend]

I don't even want to know! I am down-sizing right now... trying to get rid of anything I own that doesn't have value or meaning to me... trying to get rid of tons of clutter and humongous piles of stuff. In regard to photography, that means selling vintage film equipment and going through boxes and boxes and boxes of 35mm slides and prints. I was brutal. I threw out well over a thousand slides and sold vintage lenses and camera bodies and accessories for pennies on the dollar, just to be rid of it. I don't mind if someone else can make a few bucks off my stuff, I did my research and got what I consider to be fair prices for an expedient sale. I even returned two recent purchases to Costco that weren't exactly what I wanted... even after a fair bit of use in the field. It's been tough, but it's been liberating, too. Mountains of weight are coming off my back. I'm not done yet, though, not by a long shot. (Tons of antiques still to be sold!) But I am getting close to finishing up on photography stuff and I am left with a few random thoughts: 1) Wow! I've spent a lot of money over the years on photography, and I'm not even what I would consider to be a "serious" photographer. 2) A lot of the photos I took were meaningless. Shots of the Parthenon on an overcast day... who cares? The photos I was most likely to keep were of friends and family, not places I've been. 3) But there were exceptions, too. While going through my slides from a two-month trip to Baja in 2000, I was struck by how great my photos were, even though I shot them with a crappy waterproof point and shoot! By contrast, my photos from a 5 month trip to AUS and NZ in 1984 and a 3 month trip through Europe in 1993 were pretty mundane. Not much there of interest at all, really. And I was lugging around 20 pounds of photography gear back then, too. Go figure. 4) Thank God we're all digital now! Digital clutter is a problem for some, no doubt, but it is absolutely nothing compared to physical clutter. I do not miss film photography one tiny bit! I commend all you who pursue this art for whatever your own personal reasons. For me, it's just the challenge of capturing a special moment and also to help me remember the wonderful things I've been able to see and do in my life. Our friends and family have no idea how much time and money we spend to produce these photos, but they always like to see themselves and their lives chronicled, as well. Especially now in the age of Facebook. (Thank God for selfie sticks... let them snap away!) What are your thoughts?

[joker]

I sure wish I could get a digital back for my Mamiya 7// because the lenses are awesome and it is incredibly light for a medium format camera. I've been pondering clearing out some of this sort of old gear, but at this point I short of enjoy it as "collectibles." And maybe someday I'll want to use it

[NacMacFeegle]

I don't really want to think about how much I've spent lol! All I'll say is that the profits of many summers of hauling hay in the blazing heat have disappeared down the bottomless well that is photography equipment! I never really experienced the age of film photography, for me it's been digital all the way. Digital storage of photos is indeed preferable to film, sorting and storage can still be problems, but with Lightroom and other software the sorting problem can be largely solved. I have collected several boxes worth of old lenses and film camera bodies from my relatives who no longer have any use for them, and I one day hope to use some of the lenses on a digital camera. If, that is, I can find one that does well with old lenses; I've heard good things about Sony's new A7 cameras in this regard. Even though 75% of my photos are technically junk, and only a fraction of that can be considered good, I could never bring myself to delete any of them. They are memories; with almost every one I can bring back vivid memories of the time when I took it. Frankly, I take so many photos that if you lined them all up by date in a gigantic flip book you'd have a startlingly complete stop-motion movie of my life!

[Ski]

too much. 20 years ago I was spending maybe $200-$300 a month at R&K photo in Auburn for film/processing/cropping/printing/enlarging. sold the whole set up (two Nikon FG20 bodies with an assortment of lenses and other accessories) for $150 to a guy in Lakewood who sells the stuff on EBay. after that: went with a $150 digital Nikon "Coolpix" point and shoot that's set on "full auto" - I still haven't read the instructions - seems to take decent pictures - only additional expense has been for AA batteries. cheap! it works! takes pictures! I'm not Ansel Adams - I don't care!! gets the job done.

[touron]

Less since Ivey Seright closed their doors.

[Snowbrushy]

[Cyclopath]

[gb]

I had a few relatively inexpensive film cameras back in the day, the best of which were a pair of Rollei's. I consider my photography to be analagous to my travel diaries and have continued that record from the early 70's to the present. Over the years I collected 20000 slides (appx), which means I probably shot 60000 at considerable expense - around $15 per roll. Beginning in 1982 I gradually outfitted myself with a Nikon FE and a number of premium primes (about $2500); thought I'd never change. Photography became an artistic outlet as well as documentation. But in 2014 I gave in to digital and purchased an Olympus EM-1, choosing this time mostly zooms, which are in this age, higher quality than my Nikon primes were. I just completed my Olympus gear with the Olympus F1.8 fisheye and used it the past couple of days with great satisfaction. So, I'm about 6 grand into Olympus, but my pictures and capabilities are so much better than with my old Nikon gear; I'm very pleased. So far with Olympus I've kept about 5000 pictures, which probably means I've shot around 15000-18000 just in 1-1/2 years. Much cheaper than film, which would have been $2500 just for the 5000. Of course, were I still in film, I would have shot but a fraction of that....the photography with the Olympus gear is much more enjoyable. And I've cut my photographic weight from about 15 pounds to between 3 and 6 pounds, saving weight on lenses and on the tripod, with the obvious improvement in quality.

[Jim Dockery]

I try not to think about it (and could never calculate it after 45 years). I've also had three camera bags full of gear & film stolen out of cars (only once covered by insurance) Like gb I took a lot of slides BITD and have gone through and tossed thousands of those (I also had a Rollei 35). When I first got into digital I thought I would save money over film after the initial investment, but I'm afraid that even though I fight it (often for years) I'm susceptible to the Moore's Law of digital photography - the improvements each year put your mid level camera down into the lower tier and the new latest and greatest is simply amazing! I read too many photo web sites and magazines I'm a tech nerd who has always wanted to achieve the high standards of the past masters whom I've greatly admired, most of whom shot 4x5 or 8x10 film. For my 60th birthday I finally got a full frame camera (Sony A7RII) and don't have any more excuses (technically).

[spamfoote]

[spamfoote]

[Jim Dockery]

spamfoote, In most respects I agree with you on the waste of money and weight going full frame for most people, esp. if all you are doing is jpg, web viewing etc.. That was part of why I held off for so many years, but yes, I do print large (I've done panoramas up to 6 ft. across) so more pixels are better, and can allow you to crop after capture and still have a printable image. Also the latest full frame cameras are much better dealing with noise, which aids in astro photography, which is one of my main interests. I have yet to make what I feel is a truly great star/landscape and that is one of my photographic/hiking goals which this new camera should help me realize. If you are happy with your cell phone though more power to you! You'll certainly save $$, weight, and time.

[spamfoote]

[joker]

Well, the newest (last few years) full frame cameras have finally crested a meaningful threshold with respect to taking night photos - allowing for photos that simply couldn't be captured in the past. If big prints and milky way shots aren't a big deal to you, then don't waste the $. But after being quite willing to watch the generations of new features pass me by, this latest generation pulled me in due to hitting this threshold. Some people spend discretionary $ on things like boats, cars, clothing, cooking gear, etc. I get a good deal of enjoyment out of photography, so I don't feel at all bad about the total $$$ I've spent over the years. I'm sure glad there are folks like you who help keep the prices up for when I sell my older gear . Though I now see that I could go much lighter with the Sony mirrorless full-frame system, I'll stick with my big-ass SLR for some time for the shooting where the sensor will really matter to me. At some point I'll weaken and go for something along the lines of the Sony that Jim got, but not for a while I think. Here's an example of a shot that I couldn't have gotten with my older gear, either film or digital, nor with my newer compact digital which has a great sensor for a compact:

YAB-2

Maybe not amazing, but it pleases me to have taken this shot. That said, my last magazine sale was shot with my little Lumix LX5. It wasn't National Geographic (though the magazine's editor described it as "the National Geographic of Oregon" ).