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



## jdramirez (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

The first lens I bought......


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

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... 



tolusina said:


> 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.
> ...


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Feb 7, 2015)

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 (Feb 7, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> .....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 (Feb 8, 2015)

tolusina said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > .....If you didn't have camera, would you still the pc?......
> ...



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 (Feb 8, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


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


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 8, 2015)

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 (Feb 8, 2015)

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


----------



## Tinky (Feb 8, 2015)

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 (Feb 8, 2015)

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.


----------



## lintoni (Feb 8, 2015)

Tinky said:


> 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.


EOS 5 was my 3rd SLR, also bought used (£30, if memory serves), bought so that I could shoot transparencies with one body and b&w or negatives with the other.


----------



## Tinky (Feb 8, 2015)

Haha!

Did yours creak as well?

I loved mine. I had the vg-10 and felt like a pro. I couldn't brlieve how great the ecf was, or the dof cf! 
And a decent a-dep mode, point focus, point 2 focus....th..na perfect depth of field. Except for the parallax and firld curvature shift...


----------



## CowGummy (Feb 8, 2015)

This is kinda fun to consider... 

I got my first SLR in 1998 - a Minolta Dynax 505si, it was a 18th birthday present. The kit lens was pretty limited I seem to remember so within half a year I'd bought a couple of Sigmas and a Flash, so probably about 1999 for me.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Feb 8, 2015)

wow I first thought digital then oh first a FTb-n with 50 1.8 was my first slr cost was after the Speedlight 133 cat. it had rings that mounted to the lens to fix distance for the flash. also the canon booster that sat on the hot shoe and plugged into the battery socket for low light metering.


----------



## Speedster (Feb 8, 2015)

Interesting question. I suspect my 10D, bought in May 2003, might have been slightly more expensive than the 24-70L I bought at the same time (not 100% on that though) I bought a 70-200L 2.8 IS 6 months or so later, which would definitely have breeched the threshold.


----------



## lintoni (Feb 8, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Haha!
> 
> Did yours creak as well?
> 
> ...


Yes, it still creaks! It was very much my 2nd body though - the 30 may only have a 1/4000 max shutter and a plastic body, but in every other way it was a better camera - the ECF was a generation on and much improved, as was the metering. Unlike you, I never did get a EOS 3, though I certainly aspired to owning one! 

Just to clarify, I had a EOS 3000, then EOS 30 - to which I added the EOS 5.


----------



## Click (Feb 8, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> The first lens I bought......



+1


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 8, 2015)

I have (almost) only bodies, lenses and bags, and if lenses are not considered to be "accessories": I'm still on the safe side.
If lenses counts, I exceeded the cost when I bought my 2nd lens.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> I have (almost) only bodies, lenses and bags, and if lenses are not considered to be "accessories": I'm still on the safe side.
> If lenses counts, I exceeded the cost when I bought my 2nd lens.



Lenses are so integral that I don't really consider it to be an accessory... but that is up for interpreation. I would say a cpl or nd filter are... a rubber hood, a lens bag, maybe a teleconvertor...


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 8, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > I have (almost) only bodies, lenses and bags, and if lenses are not considered to be "accessories": I'm still on the safe side.
> ...


Yupp, it's bloody hard to get a good shot without a lens, or a memory card for that matter.
I bought my first dSLR after realizing that during 1-2 years I had spent more on photographic magazines than what a decent standard lens would cost. I was very determined to make my choice on what to buy after getting the best/most possible information. So, very rarely do I buy any item just because it looks good, but I could easily (if I had the money) spend loads on various accessories that I could make good use of.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> Yupp, it's bloody hard to get a good shot without a lens, or a memory card for that matter.
> I bought my first dSLR after realizing that during 1-2 years I had spent more on photographic magazines than what a decent standard lens would cost. I was very determined to make my choice on what to buy after getting the best/most possible information. So, very rarely do I buy any item just because it looks good, but I could easily (if I had the money) spend loads on various accessories that I could make good use of.



You could use a pin hole lens. You have your SLR, a body cap, drill a hole into the cap, then tape foil over the hole and then prick a pin hole. It looks awful... but it is still on par with the kit lens...  Just kidding kit lens enthusiats.

I found a deal for two Nikon zoom lenses... it was a price mistake from Sears and I got two 55-200's or somethng for 38 bucks... So I was going to get a Nikon body... probably the d3000 because it was reportedly user friendly for a beginner... then I saw a deal for the XS and I was sold... and consequently sold the two nikon lenses. So I was THAT close to being a jerk.


----------



## lintoni (Feb 8, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > I have (almost) only bodies, lenses and bags, and if lenses are not considered to be "accessories": I'm still on the safe side.
> ...


No! No! No! It's only the sensor that matters!


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2015)

lintoni said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > DominoDude said:
> ...



I laughed... because it is just so sad that this conversation continues. I was thinking the other day... how long have the Canon sensors been behind the competition... it doesn't seem like it has been generations... just the past few years... and god forbid someone else takes the lead for what maybe a momentary blip on the timeline of the technology. But... I don't want to turn this thread into THAT topic of conversation.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 8, 2015)

My 1st DSLR was the entry level EOS 1000-D so it was quite easy to exceed that outlay.

Besides the obligatory memory cards and extra battery, I think the first relatively large accessory expenses were the Tripod Kit - Manfrotto (190-CX-Pro4 tripod + 054 Mg Ballhead + Q2 quick release. That easily out-values the 1000-D.


----------



## lintoni (Feb 8, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


Yes, it's crazy. The funny thing is, this thread has got me thinking about how old some of my kit is. My 100 macro is getting on for 15 years old, and.is still a perfectly good lens. Certainly not outclassed by the newer L version optically. If you're buying a camera system, things like that matter. I'm not sure that people buying Sony cameras now will be using that system in 5 years time, let alone 15, 20 years...


----------



## Tinky (Feb 10, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Yes, it's crazy. The funny thing is, this thread has got me thinking about how old some of my kit is. My 100 macro is getting on for 15 years old, and.is still a perfectly good lens. Certainly not outclassed by the newer L version optically. If you're buying a camera system, things like that matter. I'm not sure that people buying Sony cameras now will be using that system in 5 years time, let alone 15, 20 years...



This is exactly why the Sony a7 cameras are not 'all that', and why so many end up in the used section with a few hundred clicks. 

I scoff at the short-termism.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 19, 2015)

Before buying the first DSLR! I bought an upgraded laptop, which was due to be upgraded eventually, but I could have gotten several more years out of it doing the usual light word processing, spreadsheets, and internet.


----------



## brad goda (Feb 21, 2015)

in 1998 when I switched all my lighting to ProFoto… from norman.
besides the hasselblad that switched to Fuji GX 680III system… hoarsman and lindhoff 4X5 and 8X10
my SLR rig was eos 1 and F1n
I love all the responses to this string… yah after switching to digital add in all the computing and more and more
profoto lighting color meter filters gels scrims stands boxes rotalux and octabanks ladders clamps pins duve muslin
poles cables cables cables tape tape tape drives smaller cheetah lights more ex-rt 600 more pro 7b and acute 600
custom modifiers…OH YAH… tripods heads camera and lens mounts screws lens caps replacement lens hoods hot lights sensor cleaning bags cases carts …..…
does repair count? what about van and 4Wdrive… storage… assistants fees ;D 
OH MY GOD


----------



## aussielearner (Feb 21, 2015)

My first dSLR was a Canon 20D that I purchased in 2011 after the birth of my first child (the Powershot G6 just wasn't cutting it). I paid AUD$240 for it and spent AUD$120 for a 50mm f1.8 for it 

This was ok but after 2 months I realized that my shutter speeds were too low and I was getting motion blur with indoor pics of the baby. 

Spent AUD$249 for a Speedlite 430EXII 2 months later.


----------



## jcarapet (Feb 22, 2015)

EDIT: It was an OM-2, not 3

Oh, this is a fun game. 

My first SLR was a 1978 Olympus OM-3 that I inherited from my dad. So I went over cost after buying my first roll of film. 

First DSLR system was a t4i with kit lenses I got in late 2012. I spent a couple hundred on camera bags, SD cards, and cleaning stuff, and still stayed under the mark after a 50mm 1.4. 

Finally blew past it when I got a 5dIII kit. Quickly followed a few months later by a 70-200 2.8. I am looking to get flashes next.

I am now consumed with the terrifying reality that if I put my laptop in my bag, I basically have a very carryable 10 grand of equipment for the enterprising young burglar. I am sure that all of us feel this way.


----------



## Triggyman (Feb 23, 2015)

I once said after finally acquiring the 24-70II and the 16-35 f/4, "that's it - I'm done".

Well, not so. My latest purchase was a Gary Fong Sphere collapsible version 5.

Now I'm thinking about abandoning my purist self by buying a UV filter for the 24-70II.

Oh, yeshhh. I'm going backwards by thinking of pick up a Rebel T5i for those trips when I don't want to risk bringing the 5DIII. Wait...pentamirror - just a few hundreds more might as well get the 70D. Oh for a few more hundred the 7DII looks good. Then I will look back and regret I went nuts.


----------



## MJ (Feb 23, 2015)

Well... since I got my first SLR as gift, the cost was exceeded by the very first lens purchase I made, which also happen to exceeded the value of the SLR


----------



## slclick (Mar 8, 2015)

Mine was the original Rebel and it was about $850. So since lenses are not an accessory, I have yet to pay more for one than my first dslr. (I don't have an RRS tripod)

If you include lenses then it was after I picked up a T2i I also purchased a 70-200 f/4L. That would have been a tie.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 9, 2015)

First SLR was a Yashica FXD with Tokina 35-105 zoom in high school, then came OM 4Ti, 1, 2n, 3, 4T, briefly a Nikon F3HP, Pentax LX for underwater, Contax RTSIII once OM went bust, then 5dmkII as my first dSLR. At $2.5K for the 5dmkII, not easy to exceed that with non-lens accessories. I think the 300/2.8 IS was the first lens to exceed the 5dmkII. But I also had an F-Distagon 16 mm CY from Contax, which works with a Haoda adapter on the 5dmkii, and that was in the $4-4.5K range.

If you consider stereo and compound microscopes as "accessories", that will dwarf any other accessory, including studio flash systems. Think decent car. Incidentally, my first digicam (non-SLR) was an Zeiss Axiocam HRc, peltier cooled microscope camera, running about $13K. The rest of the microscope systems still exceeded the Axiocam.

The first non-lens accessory exceeding the FXD was probably the OM T-32 twin macro flash, maybe 4 years after getting the FXD.

I don't think about the cash expended. Looking forward to seeing my images on display at this year's orchid show at the Smithsonian. Second time in DC, first time was in the National Aquarium. Now that is priceless. In both senses of the word, for non-profits, I donate my images.


----------

