$1000: new lens or back-up body?

12/06/2004 03:46:58 PM · #26

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

$1000 isn't going to get you what you need. Personally I'd feel totally vulnerable going to a job with only my 28-105 on a 10D. It's nowhere near wide enough for tight group shots, and certainly inadequate for low light, no flash situations. It is, however, quite a sharp lens compared to the cheapie zooms. I have one and it takes a bit of contrast adjustment to get up to my 17-40, 50 or 70-200 standard but it's highly usable.

I've got the 28-105 and a 75-300USM that I use in combination for each wedding (the latter being borrowed). I'm yet to have a problem, except as you said, in really low light - I'm left having to boost levels in post processing much of the time. I do however, shoot all my others jobs with just the 28-105. Now you see my reason for needing a new lens. What does the 50 1.8 go for?

Thanks, that's some great advice, I think you're right about the cheap film body...now....if I only knew how to put film in it.......

crabappl3

12/06/2004 03:47:27 PM · #27

Thanks for the offer, but I don't drink :-)

If you're going to go pro then you need to invest in equipment. There will be times where borrowing the required lens/body won't be available and then you'll be stuck. You may not be able to start out with everything you need, but I do feel it's in your best interest as a professional photographer, to own/lease the equipment you use. You'll know the condition of the cameras and lens as well as how to best utilize them for your shoot. If you end up borrowing a lens or camera and get to a shoot and find out that it's broken or something, then you're going to be put into a tight spot.

Being a professional photographer has a cost associated with it. You may need to talk with a bank and get yourself a loan so that you can have at least a second body and a couple of good fast / sharp lenses in your bag (and maybe a flash too).

-danny
(drinking his diet lime coke)

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Sorry Danny, have a scotch and relax :-) I don't believe I at any point stated I shot weddings without back-up. I absolutely do! But my back-up cam broke at the last wedding (which I did say). I do have the use of a fast/sharp lens but it's not mine..again..I stated that I share equipment...but can't do that forever. I do think weddings are about good quality images, but they're not the same as something for print. Which you also said, and that's what I'll be shooting for if I get these jobs: print.

12/06/2004 03:47:56 PM · #28

Originally posted by Photobabble:

It was just sounding too cool to taking only photos of bands and buildings for job!! I want that job too!!

I'm hiring an assistant if you're interested :-) Master of the English language not required.

12/06/2004 03:51:15 PM · #29

Not the same as shooting for print? What? If you're making prints for weddings there should be no difference in standards between that and shooting for magazines etc, unless of course you've entered a parallel universe where wedding clients don't expect prints.

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

12/06/2004 03:54:05 PM · #30

Originally posted by crabappl3:

If you're going to go pro then you need to invest in equipment.

Danny, honey, isn't that what we've been talking about?

:-)

I make just enough money at my day job to keep me above the poverty line, I studied music (my other love) a few years ago which put me in debt to my eyelids. Rent here costs me an arm, my car costs me the other arm (though I do need it so..the car..not my arm) and all my equipment was paid for by assisting another photographer. There is little blood left unsqueezed from this stone.

I hear tiny violins playing....

Edit: why yes, I'd love some cheese with that whine.

Message edited by author 2004-12-06 15:59:57.

12/06/2004 03:58:13 PM · #31

Looky, I found a parallel universe. Yea me!

From my own experience, you don't need expensive gear to have great results from weddings. Not having great lenses for low light is part of the reason I no longer book weddings, well not evening weddings that's for sure.

And the print I was talking about was magazines, that sort of print. I'd been told that they require higher quality images than what I can currently produce with my equipment. If I'm wrong, by all means enlighten me.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

12/06/2004 04:01:34 PM · #32

No, you don't need expensive gear to get results for clients who haven't ever experienced professional results. Show up to my wedding with a 28-105 and I'll show you the door, plain and simple.

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Message edited by author 2004-12-06 16:05:53.

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

12/06/2004 04:05:57 PM · #33

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

What does the 50 1.8 go for?

about 70 bucks USD, not sure what that is in Canadian dollars.

12/06/2004 04:08:53 PM · #34

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

No, you don't need expensive gear to get results for clients who haven't ever experienced professional results. Show up to my wedding with a 28-105 and I'll show you the door, plain and simple.

my site
my cousin

95% of the images on both sites were taken with that lens. Not a single complaint - ever.

P.S. Implying I don't provide professional results is tacky.

Message edited by author 2004-12-06 16:10:51.

12/06/2004 04:15:55 PM · #35

No not overreacting. Yours is not a valid argument - someone willing to hire someone without professional equipment isn't going to complain. That work is good, I'm not saying it isn't. However, you need professional gear to do a really professional job. Noting more complicated than that.

dwoolridge

12/06/2004 04:16:33 PM · #36

Assuming you're still in Calgary, you might consider purchasing a very fine piece of glass and leasing a 20D (or other). Leasing costs are (in this case) full tax deductions, whereas outright purchase of a camera leaves you with crappy CCA deductions over the next billion years. You can count the lenses as accessories and probably find a way to get a 100% deduction for them in the year they're purchased.

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/06/2004 04:36:24 PM · #37

I think it really depends on the type of work you are going to do. If you are shooting situations that can be duplicated without additional expense, then you can survive without the backup body. If you are shooting events, like weddings, you must have a back-up. In a bad situation you could finish out a wedding with a back-up body and a 50 f/1.8 (x1.6=85mm, popular for weddings) if you had to. You would be challenged by groups that required a wide angle, but at least you would be able to document the event with some high quality images. Without a second body you could not product anything.

magicshutter

Nikon D70

12/06/2004 05:30:14 PM · #38

As a person without a macro lens it's hard for me to say this but, I would have a backup body so i wouldn't have to change lenses as often. Takes too much time.

Joe

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/06/2004 05:37:53 PM · #39

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

For the jobs I'm talking about, a second body would be critical, but so is a good lens. The question is, which to get first? I"m leaning towards the lens. I'm talking about top designer firms and larger bands than I've been working with up to this point. My big break potentially. (without getting my hopes TOO far up there just yet).

But for my wedding jobs, a back-up body is important.

I'm so torn...

(P.S. I'm only shooting weddings in 2004-2005 .. it's not what I really want to do ...but I feel I owe the clients I have booked to at least have a back-up).

OY!

The question you must ask yourself -- what if you get your big break the same day your camera does?

If you are shooting weddings, a backup body is a must. There are no second chances.

You can work around the limitations of a lens much easier than you can work around a dead camera.

-Terry

magicshutter

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/06/2004 05:42:51 PM · #40

goldberry, jimmythefish.

Both of your arguments are valid. People who know what crap is, are not going to want your POS camera or the prints from them. Most people who are getting married (in my experience) want enlargements. You can't blow them up large enough unless you have the MP. You don't need a great camera to take great pictures. But, when they want them bigger and you can't ablige, it's your name that gets mentioned.. not the camera.

Jimmy, if you think the type of lens used makes one bit of difference in quality or composition your mistaken.

The thing about weddings is this... The one writing the check is the one bossing you around. Find out ahead of time what the expectations are. Create a contract so you don't get stuck refunding for something that wasn't forementioned. And by all means, if you are going to sell yourself or your work as a professional, you better be able to give them something worth paying for. You could have the greatest shot ever, but if I can't see it on anything but a 4x6 then it sucks.

joe

12/06/2004 05:50:47 PM · #41

Type of lens used not making any difference in quality or composition? Ummm...you're the one who's mistaken. I could spend time explaining effects of aperture and the value of perspective and good glass vs. cheap glass but I can't be bothered.

Originally posted by magicshutter:

Jimmy, if you think the type of lens used makes one bit of difference in quality or composition your mistaken.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/06/2004 05:59:08 PM · #42

hey magicshutter, I know what you're saying about enlargements, that hasn't been an issue for me thus far with either the 10D or D60, and for that matter the $200 28-105 lens. The quality, of course, can always get better .. no matter how good equipment you have there's always better.

So that's where I'm at right now, wanting to produce better quality images, but at the same time cover my *ss with a back-up. I think I'll do what was suggested earlier and get a cheap film body and good wide lens. We'll see!!!

Thanks,

Lori

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

12/06/2004 06:37:26 PM · #43

Ahem...it's a nightmare combining film an digital on the same shoot...not to mention that your costs are going to go up and you lose the flexibilty of cjanging ISO on the fly...I could go on and on! ;)

magicshutter

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/06/2004 06:45:09 PM · #44

Jimmy, are you trying to tell me that everyone who 'wins' on this site has top of the line lenses, cameras, computers etc? Obviously quality of equipment goes along way, but to suggest that someone couldn't do a wonderful job on your wedding because they have a particular lens you don't like is just insane. I take offense to the judgement of my work based on the equipment I use. Like I stated before, if you want to do pro quality work, you need pro quality equipment. But don't say people without expensive crap are incapable. Which is basically what you said by saying if they came with that lens you would show them the door.

goldberry, I wasn't suggesting that your work suffers from lesser quality cameras. I was only suggesting that the camera should fit the work. I use a 4MP camera at work. Much smaller than most of the today pro digitals but it fits what that studio does. I use the D70 and that works great for what I do. I was more of less agreeing with you about talent being sufficient in most cases. Only not in enlargements which most of the wedding parties I've worked with.

Joe

moodville

Nikon D100

12/06/2004 07:10:40 PM · #45

Originally posted by magicshutter:

Images that win on DPC cannot be compared to the printed quality of professional images. Images on DPC win for numerous reasons and can win despite technical flaws. You are also viewing 640px images at 72 DPI. Image quality of DPC images can change just by looking at them with different monitors.

'Cheap' lenses can still take good images although you battle with softness, low contrast, bad bokeh etc. I'm not sure about the whole showing up with 'cheap' lenses automatically meaning that the images will be bad. The photographer could be excellent and know the limitations of his/her camera/lenses and work with what they have and also have excellent photoshop skills for the rest. Likewise, even the most expensive cameras and lenses can still produce bad images in the hands of a poor photographer.

That said there is a reason why people pay 3k or so on a 'good' lens. Image quality is better, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, depth of field etc can all make a difference in a final image, especially when printed in 8x10 or bigger. A soft image is really noticeable when you're printing out large prints or having them published in a magazine.

When you're a professional image quality has to be consistent and excellent in order to get more work.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/07/2004 11:06:11 AM · #46

Originally posted by moodville:

When you're a professional image quality has to be consistent and excellent in order to get more work.

One bad job can really put a damper on future work, especially if you are just starting out.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/07/2004 11:30:50 AM · #47

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by moodville:

When you're a professional image quality has to be consistent and excellent in order to get more work.

One bad job can really put a damper on future work, especially if you are just starting out.

This I know, hence the thread :-)

the 17-40L is a great lens, but what about non-L glass, is there a Canon lens that is comparable in quality but may less expensive?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

12/07/2004 11:32:35 AM · #48

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

the 17-40L is a great lens, but what about non-L glass, is there a Canon lens that is comparable in quality but may less expensive?

Have you considered the Canon 50mm f/1.4?