Could photography be a wealthy man's hobby?

As many of you know I've been shopping for my first DSLR for a little while now. A friend of mine brought me to a local camera store yesterday to look at some of their cameras. After the clerk showed me a D90 and D300 he brought out a camera body that was $6800! Just for the body! Of course my reaction was, clear... this was out of my budget. The clerk made a statement that "photography is a wealthy man's hobby".

Really?

Granted I know equipment is pricey, but to be labeled as a wealthy mans hobby? What are your thoughts on this?

No, I don't think it's a wealthy man's hobby. Yes, photography can be expensive if you want all the toys and gadgets. If you want the best of the best.

But most people do not need to get a DSLR. I have seen so many normal average every day people who IMO have no need to have a DSLR. They get one because ...their friend or family member has one, someone told them bigger pixels the better, get a DSLR to take BETTER pictures. And in the end, they have no idea how to use it,how much it will cost them, and never take it off Auto.

IMO, having a DSLR means NO Auto. I understand at times, one might need to use Auto. But I have known people to never take off auto. If you are going to do that, might as well stay with a P&S. People get in way over their heads.

Well like any other hobby it can be. It is what you make of it. I personally save for what I want then get it. You can improvise reflectors and lighting and you can get great images out of budget lenses and lower end cameras. There are more hobbies that are richman ones over photography, like boating.

I just wish I had more money! Really though, is photography a bit on the pricey side? Depends on what you are shopping for. But if you save and buy right, that equipment will last you years. Then do a cost average over time and that figure isn't so ugly.

Its like any other hobby depends on how much you want to put into it.

I would say that if you are buying a $6800 body then you are not a hobbyist or are in fact wealthy. Pros can justify (in some circumstances) paying that for a body since it is a tool to make more money. It's hard to think that a "normal" hobbyist can/will pay that for a body. If you are that wealthy well then do as you please. There are plenty of options that produce excellent images in the right hands that don't cost that much.

Compared to what my ex wife is getting, my spending in photography is very reasonable!

My husband collects watches, now that is a pricey hobby!

A few years ago my hobby was night clubs, expensive dinners, etc. I think that in the end, if it really interests us, we will make it work somehow. I do like the fact that when I spend money on a lens it doesn't lose its value by the time I sober up....Just sayin'

cwightmanphotos wrote: No, I don't think it's a wealthy man's hobby. Yes, photography can be expensive if you want all the toys and gadgets. If you want the best of the best.

But most people do not need to get a DSLR. I have seen so many normal average every day people who IMO have no need to have a DSLR. They get one because ...their friend or family member has one, someone told them bigger pixels the better, get a DSLR to take BETTER pictures. And in the end, they have no idea how to use it,how much it will cost them, and never take it off Auto.

IMO, having a DSLR means NO Auto. I understand at times, one might need to use Auto. But I have known people to never take off auto. If you are going to do that, might as well stay with a P&S. People get in way over their heads.

I started out with a used Nikon film body and used lenses that were within my budget before I ever bought a new body or lens. Most of what I had before that time was "hand me down" from my uncle when he would buy something new. Like Crystal said if you don't shoot off of Auto then why bother with a full zoot expensive body or pro lens -just for the bragging rights? Go with something that meets your shooting needs and maybe a little room to grow so your frustration level doesn't go off of the charts.
Photography can be done on a tight budget if you do some research and search out the best bang for the bucks. Images can be made with cardboard cameras that you can be very proud of-I've done it on river rafting trips where i would never have taken my SLR bodies. It often times is not the instrument but the vision of the shooter that makes a PHOTOGRAPH rather than just a snapshot. Technical details aside. I am always amused by folks who ask "What KIND of Camera do YOU have ?" when they see my portfolio of images. Pro shooters need some of the features on those expensive bodies or glass to do their work. Just ask a top pro nurse or Doc how expensive their Stethescope was and you will see the comparison.
I spent several hundred dollars on my "ears" when I worked in Professional nursing because my patients lives depended on the quality of my assessments. Most top pro shooters will give you similar reasons for spending on the tools to get the images they get.

Rocket Man wrote: Compared to what my ex wife is getting, my spending in photography is very reasonable!

I bet! My wife's brother has been paying his ex wife out the window for years and I'm certain would would 100% agree with you.

Lots of good points already made. Yes, photography can be an expensive, addictive, insane hobby. It can also be fun and relatively inexpensive hobby.

I equate my photography hobby / passion to being a fisherman and owning a top of the line bass boat. Anyone here ever seen the price on a 21' Ranger bass boat with a 200hp engine? Of course you can also catch fish using a cane pole and sitting on the river / lake edge.

I am fortunate and have been able to aquire some very nice photo gear, and for the most part I understand what I need to do in order to take a good phot. Of course I can also take some really bad images as well !

Several photographers were shooting the Sow Grizzly and her four cubs this spring in Yellowstone when a very nice lady from Illinois asked if she could set up her camera and tripod next to me. She had a new Canon 1D Mark IV camera, a Canon 600mm lens, 5500 Gitzo tripod, Wimberley head .... somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000.00 - $15,000.00 worth of brand new gear! Now the kicker ... She had just purchased all the items 2 weeks before her "trip of a lifetime" and had never used the camera body, or the lens ... did not understand how a Wimberley gimbal head worked ....

Like I said, she seemed to be a really nice person, but why not test out the equipment before you go on such a trip? Sometimes the issue can be "more money than sense" or skill level.

Still chuckling over the previous post since it is so true of what some people think it takes to make a PHOTOGRAPH vs. a SNAPSHOT. I shoot next to folks who work at it for a living most of the time so i sometimes forget that there are some out there who are in way over their heads just because they have the money to do so. It also reminds me of being in Alaska on the Denali Hwy.(dirt road for the un-initiated) Setting up a shot when all of a sudden I was surrounded by a 13 member group of folks who decided that if I was set up there it must be a good shot. Sometimes it makes me laugh even now

Being a gear head is a wealthy man's hobby. You can make pinhole cameras for under 10 dollars

If I was wealthy, I tell you I would have a lot more stuff than I do right now!