| Author |
 Replies: 6 / Views: 2,094 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1173 Posts |
OK...I've got Christmas paid for, my credit card balance is zero, and I've got my son's college loans whittled down to about half their original level. (He's still in grad school...and will be able to take care of the rest when he graduates.)
So...the burning question...should I take a couple of grand that I've managed to squirrel away and buy coins (always a good thing to do) or should I splurge on a Canon 40D and a 100mm macro lens?
The coins will, if cared for, increase in value over time. The camera won't. The coins, on the other hand, aside from looking pretty, sit in the safe 99% of the time. The camera would come along with me almost everywhere I go (for fun, anyhow), and that 100mm macro lens takes fantastic coin shots.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
936 Posts |
I would go for a less expensive camera and buy some coins also! There are some great point and shoot cameras that will take quality pictures of coins. A decent copy stand or tripod, some practice and I think just about any camera will take a quality shot.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1984 Posts |
The only way I would spend that much on a camera is if I were planning a new career--or any career for that matter, since technically you have to have a career and then leave it in order to get a new one--in photography.
I wouldn't find that much joy in an expensive camera personally, but it's got to be your call.
The good news in your post is your financial situation--good job!
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Realistically? Take half of it, duplicate my setup, and spend the rest on one or two key coins. My 350D is now $484 from my usual dealer, including the 18-55 kit lens. The XTi (400D) is $130 more, for what amounts to negligible improvements. The equivalent 40D is $1500, and the 100mm Macro is about $435 either way. Unless you're an experienced SLR photographer, it will take you two or three years to begin stretching even the 350D's limits, if at all. Yes, the 40D is a better camera, but those differences are unlikely to be relevant to an "average" photographer. Not to mention, you'll be a lot less heartbroken if it gets stolen or dropped.  |
|
New Member
Finland
4 Posts |
Just buy a 350D or 400D with the 100mm. You get equally good shots with them as with the 40D. The 40D comes handy when speed and more extreme situations come to question and I suspect that you are not thinking about becoming a pro photographer in the future?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1173 Posts |
No...I have no intentions of becoming a professional photographer, so I know I really don't need the 40D. The reviews of it, though, are so good! I suppose the XT or XTi will suffice.
In the old days, one could buy a high end camera, and it would retain some value. Technology didn't change that fast, and a pro-level camera was rugged and reliable. Today, with ever-improving technology, you can buy a lot more camera for the money (in some ways) but it seems to be replaced by even better equipment in just a couple of years. (The computer syndrome, I suppose.)
I confess that I have always had a penchant for buying "better" than I could really justify, whether it has been cameras, cars or coins. My only redeeming feature is that I've always paid off my loans first, and only bought "toys" with cash that wasn't otherwise committed to retirement, etc.
Well...I'll just have to think about it some more. (That's at least half the fun...debating with myself what to buy. In the end, I often end up buying nothing because I can't decide!) LOL
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
668 Posts |
Well I do fine with my S5 IS and my macro lens, not as good as superdave, but it works
|
| |
Replies: 6 / Views: 2,094 |
|
Posted 12/03/2007 5:51 pm
