When did the cost of your accessories exceed the cost of your 1st SLR?

[jdramirez]

Many of us had humble beginnings... only to be addicted to L glass and full frame camera later down the road. But I was looking at my pile of gear... and I was thinking that my umbrellas alone (I haven't ventured into softboxes yet) cost more than my first SLR, which was the more than adequate Canon XS.

So I decided to do the math...

I purchased the XS with the kit lens and a medicore 75-300mm lens. I sold the 75-300 for a $100 and the kit lens is worth $75... so that makes my XS initial cost $237.88.

And I'm looking through my purchases... and it was mostly lenses... I even upgraded the body before I picked up accessories. I'm actually surprising myself. I bought my first speedlite, a used 430ex ii for $112... but that seems more like a necessity than an accessory...

But if we count the speedlite, it would have been in September of 2013 when I went nuts and bought additional tripods, umbrellas, brackets, etc... The body was purchase in December of 09... so almost four years.

So in the last 1.5 years... I've gone nuts... monopod, tripod, backdrops and frame, wireless shutter release, umbrellas, bags upon bags upon bags, 3 600ex-rt and the st-e3-rt, a white balance card... it is all quite overwhelming. So maybe I throttle back a little it... but it is interesting to look back and take stock of what I used to have... and what I have picked up along the way.

 

[kphoto99]

It is never a good idea to look how much money you sunk into your hobby. If you are a professional (defined as somebody who makes money from photography) then it does not matter.

Just enjoy it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Assuming you are talking DSLR's, and that lenses are not accessories, my first DSLR was a Canon Rebel right after they came out, I paid around $1000.


Eventually, I acquired three 580 EX II's, three pocket wizards, light stands, remote releases, intravalometer, several B+W filters, and probably a whole pile of stuff I forgot, like my complete Adobe suite with Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, etc. Then Lightroom 2, and then, there was my Intuos 4 pen, all acquired gradually, often used or discounted, so it was probably 3 or 4 years later that I exceeded the cost of that original body, and kept right on spending. Along the line, I had also bought a 30D and then a 5D, and a 40D about the break even time. I forgot, multiple tripods, monopods, several heads, fixed lighting, backdrop, light table, the list is endless!

It hurts to think of all that stuff.

 

[wsmith96]

My first DSLR was the T1i with the kit lens in 2009. I don't have an exact accounting, but it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I started to collect a lot of accessories. Accessories only, I think that I finally surpassed the cost of the T1i ($899) in 2013. I only recently started to collect gear for a portable home studio. Which pushed me over the top - flashes, tripod, stands, light modifiers, etc. I've had to slow down to accommodate a remodel of our master bath (curse you water leak )!

 

[Dylan777]

My 1st DSLR combo was 40d + 50mm f1.4. Bought it used through a friend for $400.

My most recent accessories to support current 400mm and up coming 600mm: http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Full-Size-Packages-Series-3/TVC-33S-Tripod-with-Full-Gimbal-Head.html

 

[Don Haines]

The first lens I bought......

 

[Marsu42]

The cost of my accessories exceed my first gear (60d) almost immediately.

I figured because I cannot compete with "big money" lenses or camera bodies anyway, I'd rather improve my lighting with rt flashes and light modifiers, including good but expensive "how to" literature. This is what shows on all print sizes, while pixel-level sharpness is certainly "nice to have", it's not paramount vs. a good overall picture.

 

[Maiaibing]

My first DSLR was the Rebel Xti. Adding to the camera price was a large memory card, extra battery and a proper strap.

I got it with a 35L, 135L, 100-400L and a 70-200L. Also a wide Sigma 10-21mm(?) zoom. On top a big Speedlight. Not sure about the prices and there may have been one more lens - but it dwarfed the camera by a wide margin from day one. But I also came from many years of SLR use and it was really about buying into the Canon system as well.

I got the Xti because I thought it would be ruined after a year - but it held up very well - and I ended getting a good resell price for it (with the kit lens which I never touched).

 

[jdramirez]

It is never a good idea to look how much money you sunk into your hobby. If you are a professional (defined as somebody who makes money from photography) then it does not matter.

Just enjoy it.

I have a reasonably accurate spreadsheet which tells me constantly how much I have in gear... so it is hard to avoid... but if I ever need to sell it all and buy a small car... I know I will have the cash to do so.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Immediately. My first dSLR was a Rebel T1i in 2009, body only for ~$700. That was less than the lens I bought with it (EF-S 17-55mm), and also less than the combined accessories I bought with it (430EX II, Manfrotto CF tripod/ballhead, and bags for camera and tripod which added up to ~$750).

The first single accessory that exceeded the cost of the T1i was an RRS TVC-33, bought in 2012.

Of course, if I answer the question as written – "When did the cost of your accessories exceed the cost of your 1st SLR? – even the StoFen OmniBounce I bought for the 430EX II did that, since my first SLR was a Minolta X-700 that was a free hand-me-down from my sister.

 

[tolusina]

Where does the cost of the PC and its software load factor into the question?
Is the PC a part of the camera or an accessory?

I'd argue that since a digital camera is pretty much useless without a PC for file management and editing, the PC is part of the camera and skews the camera's cost much higher than the body alone.

Yet, obviously, a PC does so many more things than just support a camera.
And to counter that ^, my current PC as well as those of many others here on CR was purpose built to support cameras, everything else the PC is used for is frosting.

I'd not count a commodity PC's cost as part of the camera if it's the sort of PC that struggles with editing, color management and such, that'd be a basic home use machine that just gets by.
Purpose built, yeah, part of camera cost, but is purpose building and accessory in itself?

 

[jdramirez]

If you didn't have camera, would you still the pc? If you didn't the camera, would you have softbox/umbrella/flash/tripod. The software/external hard drive maybe are an accessory, but I could not live without the computer...

Where does the cost of the PC and its software load factor into the question?
Is the PC a part of the camera or an accessory?

I'd argue that since a digital camera is pretty much useless without a PC for file management and editing, the PC is part of the camera and skews the camera's cost much higher than the body alone.

Yet, obviously, a PC does so many more things than just support a camera.
And to counter that ^, my current PC as well as those of many others here on CR was purpose built to support cameras, everything else the PC is used for is frosting.

I'd not count a commodity PC's cost as part of the camera if it's the sort of PC that struggles with editing, color management and such, that'd be a basic home use machine that just gets by.
Purpose built, yeah, part of camera cost, but is purpose building and accessory in itself?

 

[alexanderferdinand]

My first DSLR was the 300D.
No accessories. The cam was ok, but never bought something extra.

With the 5D2 it started. Lenses, bags, software because of now shooting RAW.
SO: because buying it with the kit- lens (24-105/4 IS) I think half a year.

Never regretted it.

 

[tolusina]

.....If you didn't have camera, would you still the pc?......

If I didn't have the camera I for sure would not have this PC, this PC having been purpose built to support cameras.
Most everything else I use this PC for could be done almost as well on a tablet, for sure on a far less elaborate machine.
So where does this PC fit then? Part of the camera's cost or an accessory? Or maybe cameras are PC accessories?

Just questions, food for thought. Sure not trying to challenge anyone nor get anyone's dander up.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

.....If you didn't have camera, would you still the pc?......

If I didn't have the camera I for sure would not have this PC, this PC having been purpose built to support cameras.
Most everything else I use this PC for could be done almost as well on a tablet, for sure on a far less elaborate machine.
So where does this PC fit then? Part of the camera's cost or an accessory? Or maybe cameras are PC accessories?

Just questions, food for thought. Sure not trying to challenge anyone nor get anyone's dander up.

If you bought a PC that was configured specially to use with a camera, I'd call it part of the cost. Its probable that upgrading all of my PC's to use a SSD, and having larger hard drives, and extra memory would fall into extra expenses just for the cameras. I probably bought a 6 disk NAS for the same reason, more space for raw images. I'd still have a NAS, but a smaller one would work fine if I did not have a DSLR. Certainly expensive software that has no other use.

 

[Don Haines]

.....If you didn't have camera, would you still the pc?......

If I didn't have the camera I for sure would not have this PC, this PC having been purpose built to support cameras.
Most everything else I use this PC for could be done almost as well on a tablet, for sure on a far less elaborate machine.
So where does this PC fit then? Part of the camera's cost or an accessory? Or maybe cameras are PC accessories?

Just questions, food for thought. Sure not trying to challenge anyone nor get anyone's dander up.

If you bought a PC that was configured specially to use with a camera, I'd call it part of the cost. Its probable that upgrading all of my PC's to use a SSD, and having larger hard drives, and extra memory would fall into extra expenses just for the cameras. I probably bought a 6 disk NAS for the same reason, more space for raw images. I'd still have a NAS, but a smaller one would work fine if I did not have a DSLR. Certainly expensive software that has no other use.

and software...
I am fairly sure that I bought Lightroom, Photoshop, and Autopano for photography....

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

My first DSLR was Rebel XT with kit lens, the $ 1100 price.

So I perked up and bought a TTL flash, plus a couple of manual flash, cables, pouches, and a 1 gig card for $ 700.
Soon after came a Sigma 18-200mm for $ 400, which I believed would be the lens that would meet all my needs ... :-X

... As I was innocent at that time. :

 

[lintoni]

When I bought the 550EX, which was just after I'd bought my second SLR, the EOS 30.

 

[Tinky]

My first two slr's (canon FT, eos 1000fn) were borrowed from family members, the first slr I bought for myself was an EOS 5 (a2e) which I bought used. I got a 200e speedlite for it (really cheap) and the 50mm macro f2.5, also used, but which cost more than the body.

 

[gwflauto]

My first camera was the Canon Ftb with a 50/1,8 lens. The second lens, a few weeks later, was a 400/4,5 tele, which cost much more than the original purchase.