I used to think that those with photography as a hobby had the most expensive obsession. As purists, they insist on film. And not only do they own top grade cameras like Leica, but they own multiple cameras, and more than one brand or size. The lenses and filters can easily run over 10 grand. Throw in the cost of a darkroom, accessories, lighting, tripod, etc., and you are talking big bucks.

Most of us in this forum chose videography as our hobby or profession. OK, the video camera (Pana DVX100) is only 3 grand, and there's only one of them in my bag. The PD150 belongs to a pal. But now that I have a better camcorder, what's to stop me from buying:

1. A better tripod
2. Anton Bauer stasis shoulder support
3. AB battery system and charger
4. Temperature matched lighting
5. Better filters
6. Pro-quality mics
7. Sooped up editing system
8. Steadicam system
9. Dollies, tracks, and all that stuff

This is at least 9 grand over the cost of the camcorder. So who is a bigger nut, the photographer or the videographer? I could shoot training films for the next two years and still not be able to pay off the equipment. Not unless a disaster falls in my lap, and I'm the only person with a camcorder at the scene of a newsworthy event. My luck, the batteries will be dead.

Been there, done that.

Videography is more expensive than still photography by a long shot.

I have about $60,000 in equipment (replacement value, I didn't spend that much because some of it was used) acquired over the past 8 years. Even that is hard to pay for with video jobs.

Makes one understand why there really cannot be any $500 weddings, doesn't it?

I'd be betting that most of the wives don't know this. Now just how would you explain to a spouse that a microphone costs $700 ,a mixer costs $1000 or a piece of colored glass 4" by 4" is worth over $200.

Still photography was cheaper but not as much fun.

I'd be wondering about what some of us tell the better half when fedex come a knocking. here in Canada they want the sales tax on delivery and that's 15%

Interesting question, but the logical answer is video equipment. I mean, they don't even make a $6,500 USD tripod for still photography. But there are considerably more advanced amateurs or semi professional photographers, spending considerably more dollars on their equipment.

I can go to almost any major photographic hot spot (Yellowstone, Florida, Smoky Mountains, etc.) and see 20+ still photographers with $5,000+ lenses on $3,000+ bodies, on $1,500+ tripods and a camera bag full of lenses and accessories worth $3,000+. At the same time I see relatively few videographers, maybe one to two and their equipment is worth a few thousand dollars.

I think there are many times more still photography enthusiasts willing to spend $10,000 plus dollars on equipment than there are video enthusiasts willing to spend the same.

Well, I guess the attitude to this question solely depends on personal priority.
For my case - I'm long-term still photography fan shooting over 7 years but just recently (having history of about 4-5 months) got hooked to video.
I took a plunge and invested into GS100 (yeah, still consumer cam, but for my needs anything more expensive can hardly be justified), perhaps in some future (when will have enough to invest into learning videography and editing) will invest into good external mike, but I'm sure it will still keep lower profile caomparative to my photo investments, even though they are still quite moderate:
Canon EOS-3 + 28-70/2.8L + 70-200/2.8L + 550EX + good tripod, monopod, accesories, bags, + high quality film scanner ...total estimated approaching 4k$ (though cam and lenses purchased used in Mint condition).

So I guess this issue is personal, and as Jeff stated correctly, I personally, given additional finincial abilities would invets into still photography (some additional lenses, may be body) rather then additonal video cam or expesive accessories that are not must.

Alex

I do both. For me the cost is about the same because neither my SLR system nor my video equipment amounts to very much. But I think that really getting into video can cost more than really getting into photography. With photography, you can get away with a good, used camera and 1 good used lens. Include a couple of filters, a flash and a bag---it won't break the bank. A camera that is 35 years old will still take great pictures, but a cam that's 35 years old? With videography, quality (and demands) have improved over the years---and what are we going to do with our cams when TVs go HD? (Trashcan)

Good observation about cameras, Frank. Until just recently still cameras could have lasted a lifetime. But the digital revolution in still photography is forcing people to at least think about upgrading bodies every few years.

Video people are used to seeing (or should be) there camera investment go down the drain. The plus side is the tremendous improvements each new video camera bring to the market. I look at what a $500 video camera does today compared to $30,000 cameras ten years ago. Wow. No comparison in many ways and comparable image quality. The sound quality being limited by the cheap mics on $500 cameras.

For amateur/prosumer equipment the cost might be close - but it's no contest when you consider that videography is far more time intensive.

In the professional arena, video equipment just blows photography out of the water when it comes to cost!

Either way photographers and videographers are both nuts :-p

Either way photographers and videographers are both nutsYes; because with both, you point and shoot, and sometimes get into ridiculous stituations and postures just to get that shot (or that clip). And I've used every stupid comment in the book to answer those asking me, what are you shooting? Is that legal? :)

Michael, I think you're underestimating the cost of some pro photo gear. I know a local wedding pro that has probably $50,000 in his wedding camera package. Many of the pros have gone digital and a back for their medium format cameras start at around $15,000. My friend has two, uses one as a backup at weddings etc.

As far as time goes, both endeavors require considerable time and effort to pursue at a high level of competence. Photography is no less time consuming than video.

Hey Bryan...don't feel too bad. Some of us video/photo wives have a tough time explaining to our computer geek hubby why gear is so pricey. But when he went out and plunked down $5000 for a Mac laptop that pretty much ended my having to explain anything :-)

Video is definitely more expensive on the gear end of things. But because photo is so much more portable it's easier to spend gobs of $ on the back end as well as gear.

I have been a still photographer for 20+ years and in film/video for about 15 years. It all evens out some how. They are both AWESOME professions and one I wouldn't trade for anything.

Do both and enjoy it! Life is too short to do a job you can't stand. So many folks spend their whole lives trying to save for retirement. HA! I say take less salary if it means doing what you love and enjoy life now! Who cares about what you *might* get to do in retirement. Experience stuff while you are young and never retire. That's the answer! IMHO

When it comes to costs, I say spend the money in stages. You'll still spend a fortune over the years, but each outlay will be like a small bite out of your flesh. Just ask the people who get into boating, har har. My immediate priority- deciding on whether to spend the next 3 grand on a Steadicam or a Powermac G5. Ouch. Both can do a tremendous amount to make the finished product look better. This will be a tough decision. Wish my cousin worked at B&H so I could get things wholesale.

You get to live one life. Why not spend your money and time doing something fun? Consider how much money you fork over for things you don't like? Sales tax, real estate tax, cars that disappoint, insurance, bad dinners, overpriced concerts and ballgames, and so forth.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Michael, I think you're underestimating the cost of some pro photo gear. -->>>

Yeah I think I might have been comparing apples to oranges, I was thinking more of fashion photographers vs. professional movie makers.

In contrast - a wedding photographer vs. a wedding videographer's costs are probably more in-line with each other.

Though, I was thinking that a videographer will spend much more time after the wedding working on the material than a photographer - assuming everybody is using digital - what do you think?

Most wedding photogs ship the exposed film to a processing house and sit back and wait for the proofs to come back. When the B&G chose the prints, then the photog orders the full-sized, high-quality prints. When those are received, if the B&G are lucky, the prints are put into a photo album.

With wedding photos, you pick the good ones and give it to them, and then wait to see if they want any blow-ups. Also, large format cameras are much better for shooting weddings (and with good lighting/flash etc). A mamiya 6 with 80mm lens is just the ticket. :)

I like my old RB-67 unless I can get by with 35mm.

I had an RB67 when it 1st came out. I had the stock 80 and a 150mm, I had 4 220 film backs and an eye level VF. I was an awesome camera especially after using a Graflex XL (also 6X7 format-but a rangefinder). I had the camera on fashion and modeling composite work but for weddings I only used it for the formals before and after the ceremony, NEVER during the ceremony. Why you ask!?!?!?

It sounded like a small cannon going off. When the mirror and shutter (focal plane) opened after pressing the button the noise was like, BAM BAM!!!! (but 10 times louder)

The image was great even better than my Graflex BUT the noise could easily get you tossed from a wedding ceremony.

Today when I see someone with a medium format I ask nicely if we could keep a bit of distance between us as the shutter noise will end up on my audio track. It's not as loud as when I used one but it's still loud but its still a great image.

Don

if you think these hobbies are expensive, buy an airplane and learn to fly.

Did that but could not convince myself that buying an airplane was any better than buying a boat or an RV. In all cases, they tend to be expensive holes in the elements in which one pours a lot of money.

So I rent.

Getting the ratings was lots cheaper than running a videography business. Course I learned to fly about 30 years ago.

Since I am just beginning the financial foray into video, I guess I will have to wait a bit before I could really compare my costs. But I will say this - the investment I have in still photography is substantial! Nikon F4's, Mamiya RB67 (still my favorite peice of equipment of all time), lenses, filters, tripods, bags, film backs, flashes, etc. Jeez, it is starting to scare me when I think of all that money - lol!

The good thing is that at least some of that equipment comes in handy now as I start to do video. I currently have a Sony TRV-320 that fits quite nicely on my Bogen 3047 head tripod. And it fits real well into my Tamarac bag :) So, at least for the time being I am keeping my costs low. But I have a feeling all that will change when I purchase an XL1S in the next month or two.

BTW - to Don Bloom. Reading your account of wedding photogs and RB's had me rolling. Can't tell you how many times I just wanted to duck out of the church after snapping a shot and watching the Priest and guests craning their necks around to glare at me. LOL! However, the bride and groom sure appreciated it when they were picking out their 16 X 20 print :)

ONe could always keep the mirror locked up and use the sports finder. :-)))

Can't you pre-release the back and use a leaf shutter lens (like Hasselblad)?

Yes. I just cannot remember if one can keep the mirror locked up.

It is a leaf shutter system.

If memory serves me, the early RB's didn't have mirror lockup, but the later (Pro S) did have mirror lock up.

I have the earliest RB-67 I know. The first one sold in Northern California. It has mirror lockup.

Shoot. Now I'll have to go get it out and make sure I'm correct. But I do remember shooting with the mirror up before.

IIRC I bought my RB in 1975 (maybe 76) and I don't remember it having a mirror lockup, and yes it was a leaf shutter,sorry, I havdn't used the RB since 1979 or 80 so my memory is a little rusty.
I did like it almost as much as I loved my Nikon F's and my Leica Mll but my all time favorite was my Graflex XL. Couldn't beat it for weddings fashion and portraits. Nikons for news and sports, Leica for going to the street and pretending to be Alfred Eisenstadt.
Really the only one I wish I still had was the Leica.

The only camera I ever used that gave a better 8X10 than a good 6X7 was and 8X10 Dierdorff with a Zeiss lens. Didn't own one but got to use one for 2 years at a place I contracted too doing catalogue work. I even used an 11X14, what a monster.
Don

Yea.

I keep thinking I should sell my darkroom equipment, the RB and just keep the F3.

Wow, quite a question to ask. I mean, any die hard fan will say that their equipment is more expansive than someone elses, or better, and so forth.

I know from all of the equipment that I've bought, and equipment looking to get in the next few months, I've probably spent up to $15,000 I never thought in my life I'd be spending so much money on something, but I did.

Now, that money was for my camera, an xl1s, batteries, light, wide angle lens, good filters, dv tapes, tripod, LCD display, bags, hard cases, the MA-200, good mics, and so forth. Plus my deck. Then, going on to revamping my editing system, which will be another $3500. Plus, all of the audio equipment I've bought, too.

Mean while, my photographer has so many different cameras, lenses, dark room, this, that. All of her equipment probably cost close to my stuff.

I think in the long run, videograpgy will be more expensive. I think just the editing system will be more expensive. Either ways, it's never ending. I know that I'm always looking for another lens.

Heh...anyways...I guess after all of that, videopgrahy is more expansive than photography!!!!

I used to think my car club friends spent the most money on a hobby. In comparrison, I was wrong. :)

I blew by my car restoration project with the DSR-300, lens, batteries, charger, and tripod.

Wish I had time to finish the car.

The multi-coated filter discussion has been moved to here. (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16715)

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : I blew by my car restoration project with the DSR-300, lens, batteries, charger, and tripod.

Wish I had time to finish the car. -->>>

Oh I hear you there, if I pumped in the same $ into my ride, it would be one hell of a beast by now. So much fun to drive!