| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2007 05:48:49 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by rsvirani:
do you think the 50mm 1.4 is worth the money over the 1.8? |
oh yes... you could take a photo inside a closet with it. :-D The AF abilities in low light for the Canon 1.4 USM are far better than the 1.8.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:51:32 PM · #27 |
As much as I love my D80, a warning. Unlike the D200, the D80 changes focus in between shots when you use burst mode.
In other words, if you center your subject, half-press prefocus, and then move the center point area off the subject, the second through N shots on a burst will no longer be in focus on your subject.
Also, because of this, burst shooting is very slow, even compared to my old Rebel XT.
So I never use burst mode anymore. But if you wanted to do that for a wedding (to catch the action, or catch the right expression, say during the cake cutting or the throwing of the bouquet, you better use manual focus.
And the 18-200 is an awesome lens. I do highly recommend it. If you are using flash, the 3.5-5.6 shouldn't be a major issue. If you are shooting natural light, it might be.
And the D80 is noisier than my rebel XT; but the noise isn't objectionable for the most part. |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:55:41 PM · #28 |
thanks again.
shapiro, what about the argument that the 18-200 will slow me down for wedding photography? are you saying this lens IS fast enough? |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 06:24:13 PM · #29 |
Is there any place in your area that rents equipment? This may be a good short term fix before you decide what you want to purchase. A friend who would lend you a camera as your backup might be another option to keep your costs down if no rental equipment is available. Don't ask, don't get.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 08:18:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by rsvirani:
thanks again.
shapiro, what about the argument that the 18-200 will slow me down for wedding photography? are you saying this lens IS fast enough? |
First, I don't shoot weddings, so I can't really comment on "focus speed". The focus speed of the 18-200 is very fast. But I think most people, when talking about "slow", were talking about aperture. Because it's a F3.5-F5.6 variable aperture lens, it's not as good for natural light. It may be as much as 3 stops slower than an F2.8 lens at the longer end of its range. Of course, you probably aren't going to be using the 200mm range at a wedding. (You'll have to search online to find out "where" the 18-200 changes F stops. I don't recall.) |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 08:49:10 PM · #31 |
I've only shot the one wedding, and it was a low budget one (spoken: free!), but I had some success with the D80 and the 50mm 1.8 on it while using a backup D70 and the 18-200VR.
What I learned was that the 18-200 was plenty fast using the SB-600, but it couldn't compare to the 50mm prime for speed and sharpness.
I didn't use the 200mm end of the range much, but it was nice having the 18mm end for the wide group shots. |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 09:00:19 PM · #32 |
You need fast, because a LOT of churches won't allow flash during the ceremony. Also, if you are using flash, you can forget burst mode. So, you definitely want something in your bag to cover your arse.
There are a lot of people now that seem to think you must have zoom lenses now days?
But, why? For years and years and years, only amateurs would even consider a zoom. Yes, they have improved, and become quite sharp and some are even fast, but you definitely don't need zooms.
And you definitely do not have to cover every possible focal length between 18 and 200mm.
Get yourself roped into shooting a low light wedding with no flash just one time and you'll sell your soul (or at least a kidney) for a f/1.8 prime or f/2.8 L zoom.
Max aperture, in this case, is MUCH more important than focal length range.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:40:18 AM · #33 |
I can't see using consumer grade bodies and lenses when you are having someone pay you to capture what should be their most important day of their lives (sans the birth of children)
The bottom line is the slowest lens you should have in your arsenal is f/2.8 Right now I use my 24-70 f/2.8L as my main lens, and I also have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 alongside the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L
Next month I will be ordering the 35L 1.4
I use a 5D as my main body with a 20D backup.
I have a 580ex, as well as a 580exII.
I have 16gb worth of CF cards.
With wedding photography, the name of the game is Back up back up back up. You can't take a chance of something breaking on you, and you not having a backup incase something does happen.
My advice would be work as an assistant until you can purchase at least PROsumer gear (30D, 40D, 5D or Nikon Equivs) along with backup equipment. Things break and accidents happen when you least expect them to.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:24:42 AM · #34 |
My 2 cents
- get a fast lens, but definately get a nice zoom - the best part about my experience to most of my clients is that I'm up in the rafters somewhere out of site sniping shots with my big clunky and inexpensive 70-300 4-5.6 mounted on a tripod
first shot with my 50mm 1.4 handheld 
second - cheapy quantaray 70-300 
for wide angles of family I use an 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 zoom |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 09:08:46 AM · #35 |
You scare me.
What you say scares me. There are no retakes on weddings, and people will sue if you screw it up. From your attitude you will lose a court case- the bride is sympathetic and you are not prepared.
It's not nice to screw with people's emotions and lives - and that describes a wedding to a "T".
If you are going to get a job working for someone then talk with them on what to get.
If you are 'getting into weddings' on your own, then you are STARTING A BUSINESS. And to be successful will require a $20,000 to $30,000 dollar investment and at that level of investment, about 3 or 4 years till you make a living at it, if even then.
Gear:
camera, and backup camera (40D, 20D used, $2000)
4 batteries, tripod, remote release $300
canon 580EX2 and sigma EF500DG super (backup) ($500)
lenses...
17-50, 28-75 tamrons ($750) (one backups the other)
70-200 2.8 IS (you will not get the shots needed with a cheaper lens, sorry) (1700)
50 1.4 for low light and some portraiture $300
85 1.8 see above $300
10-22 wide angle (fun shots, tight spaces) $700
15Gb or so of CF cards
That adds to about $6700.
Optional things:
AB800 for the formals at the church, and wireless trigger for it, stand, etc - $700
A bag to carry your gear in! It's a lot and heave, do get a big roller bag - $250
A refelctor might be nice, huh? $60
Gonna use a bracket? Or stofen or flipit?
And I could go on and on...I now have about $12,000 worth of stuff I take to weddings. And I want other gear for certain situations, so Jan 2 I'm spending about $2100 more on gear. If you can't get the shot (you need, you envision, the bride asks for) then you're an amateure not a professioanal and not worthy of being paid. Harsh words? No, realistic words. If you're paying a professional to cut your hair or pull your teeth or paint your house and they said " I can't do that cause I don't have the right equipment" you'd not be happy and not recomend them to other people. Plus, to them it's lost money. Never put yourself in a position to have to tell a client "I can't do that".
A computer, photoshop CS3, microsoft office, a laser printer. $2000
Color calibration gear for the computer, $300
A backup computer would be nice...even a laptop. A laptop's screen isn't good enough for professional level photo editing.
while you can make do with that software, you will be more efficient with:
QuickBooks for your accounting 400 plus some accounting help
InDesign for your price lists and such 600
FotoFusion or Yervant's album software for albums 400
BreezeBrowser Pro or other DAM software 70
$4000 give or take.
Office...desk, chair, file cabinet, files (paper as well as CD). Phone line, some shelving. Stuff adds up - catalogs, price
books, samples, paper, file folders, black CDs, toner for the printer, postcards/brochures/biz cards, etc. You need a place to keep all this.
And you need backup - DVD is nice, but an external HD - try 1Tb to start with. Yes, that large. I have about 400Gb of files from 2007 alone. I expect to shoot about 1Tb of data next year. $500
You need contracts vetted by an attorney. And it's a good idea to talk with one about setting up your company - at least to find out what's required in your state and situation ( sole prop, LLC, corp??). $400
Training/education/professional organizations - sky is the limit here, but $1200/year is a good place to start. PPA has schools in every state, about $700 for a week studying under the best wedding photogs there are.
You will want a CPA. It makes no sense to pay more taxes than needed, but having the IRS audit you isn't a good idea either.
$200 consult fee and $300/year for the tax return, more if you're an LLC or corp. Business license, fed EIN is handy to have (free), state tax ID for sales tax collection
Insuance! $500 or so a year will get you, your gear and business covered. It's important. There are some places that won't
let you work there if you don't have insurnace! Bridal shows, reception halls, etc. If you damage (or are accused of
damaging) that $3400 table at the country club when you set your camera down. Or you swing around and bump a 7 hear old in the head with your lens and mom gets upset. Or you accidentaly have a CF card issue and lose images.
We're at $12,000 total, more or less so far. And you don't have anything to show anyone!
So you need a couple of sample albums, some prints. A price list - oh yeah, a logo and colors! A website is nice, as are
business cards, envelopes, letterhead, etc. There are cheap ways to do this and not so cheap ways. DIY costs less but takes more time. Sample albums...$60 to $900 - depends on what you want to sell. You'll do better to show big albums (in format and thick too). So figure $300 a sample, and you'll want 3 - two big ones and a parents album, all with different weddings in them. And in a year or 2 you'll replace them as you get better, or prettier brides or fancier weddings. And every 2 or 3
years bridal dress styles change. You may not notice, but the bride to be will know you're showing old work. they want to see CURRENT work.
Remember - you are not the only photog they meet with. If you samples, work, materials, etc are amateure and cheap, your prices better match. Want to get $4000 for a wedding? Then you need nice, high end handouts and the like. It takes money to make money. Always has and always will.
Except for your website you've done no advertising...oops.
How about a bridal show! $400 to $1000 for a table. And you need something to go on that table. And you'll need handouts to the brides to be. And you MUST follow up from the list they'll give you of attendees - mailings at least once, better if you mail 3 times. At $1.00 per (postage, envelope, biz card, and something in the envelope!) Get a brochure printed up - 1000 can be had for $230. Perhaps some postcards as they're cheaper to mail.
SO here is why you need $20.000. And you can spend $10,000 more in a hearbeat. Buy better lenses, better bodies, better flashes.
Can you shoot a wedding with less gear? Yes. I can build a house with a pen knife and a rock to hammer with, but the house
will take forever and suck when it's done. Same with weddings - the gear will make the final product better and easier to get. That translates into better images (more money), less stress and more success.
I said you're starting a business. So that means 70% or more of your time is spent on the business, NOT shooting a single flippin' photo.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 09:11:41.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 11:36:21 AM · #36 |
*waves to chris* At least one of us had the time to write that all out haha.
I agree with Prof_Fate fully. If I had the time last night to write out the full description, I would have. Bravo to you chris for doing this man the favor.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 11:54:32 AM · #37 |
Question for jmlelii and Prof_Fate: What gear did you use on your first "real" wedding. One that was solely shot by you.
Just curious how you think it turned out. I remember on my first wedding I was more nervous than the bride and groom. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 12:28:51 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Lonz:
Question for jmlelii and Prof_Fate: What gear did you use on your first "real" wedding. One that was solely shot by you.
Just curious how you think it turned out. I remember on my first wedding I was more nervous than the bride and groom. |
I've always photographed weddings with at least my 20D's. Even when I assisted, I had backup equipment. Batteries, Hard drives, everything. You simply can not fool around when it comes to this stuff. As prof_fate said, everyone is Sue happy these days. You have to be preparred for the worst unfortunetly.
Everyone is nervous for their first wedding when they go solo. I was nervous for the first 30 minutes or so, but then I realized that I had been well preparred via my mentors and fellow wedding photographer friends.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:25:54 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by rsvirani:
do you think the 50mm 1.4 is worth the money over the 1.8? |
I use to have the 50mm 1.8 and I dropped it at a wedding and broke it. It was cheaper to replace it then to have it repaired. I went ahead and got the 1.4 version. It is a much better quality lens. Even at 2.8 and 4.0 I have noticed a differents in sharpness and contrast.
For what it is worth, I shoot weddings with the XTi as my main camera and a XT as a backup. I currently use the 17-40 f4.0 for outside stuff and well lit indoor shots (with a flash). I also use the 50 1.4 if there is not enough light indoors.
Next I plan on purchasing the 28mm 2.8 prime for closer indoor shots and the 85mm 1.8.
I have a indoor wedding in Febuary the is only going to be lit by candle light. I plan on renting the 70-200 2.8 or the 17-40 2.8. I wish I would have spent the extra for the 2.8 version of my current L lens.
You mentioned you where in central FL. What area? I am just north of Tampa. I dont mind letting you try mineout before you buy one.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 13:27:42. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:29:55 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by JenniferDavidGA:
I have a indoor wedding in Febuary the is only going to be lit by candle light. I plan on renting the 70-200 2.8 or the 17-40 2.8. I wish I would have spent the extra for the 2.8 version of my current L lens. |
You might want to look at faster primes before the wedding. 2.8, even at iso3200, is barely workable in very low light situations. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:37:31 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by JenniferDavidGA:
I have a indoor wedding in Febuary the is only going to be lit by candle light. I plan on renting the 70-200 2.8 or the 17-40 2.8. I wish I would have spent the extra for the 2.8 version of my current L lens. |
You might want to look at faster primes before the wedding. 2.8, even at iso3200, is barely workable in very low light situations. |
I will have the 85mm 1.8 by then. I know that will work for the ceremony so I don't have to use too much flash. I planned on the two 2.8 zooms during the reception (still low light) with the flash.
I will be going to the location a month before during a different wedding to get some test shots. They are using the same light as the later wedding.
If you think I am way off here please let me know. This is my first candle lit wedding. :) But I think I am covering myself.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 13:38:43. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:43:48 PM · #42 |
| Don't know. It's good you can test drive the venue beforehand. I know from shooting bands in small clubs under stage lights that the 2.8 lenses just don't cut it. I assume stage lights are a good deal brighter than candles. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 01:57:32 PM · #43 |
I would suggest a SONY A100 with the Zeiss 16-80 its cabout the sharpest lens around
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:07:13 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by JenniferDavidGA:
I have a indoor wedding in Febuary the is only going to be lit by candle light. I plan on renting the 70-200 2.8 or the 17-40 2.8. I wish I would have spent the extra for the 2.8 version of my current L lens.
|
I think you probably are going to have to use one of the primes. I agree with routerguy... the 2.8s probably aren't gonna cut it. The 85 1.8 does really well in low light.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:13:47 PM · #45 |
What is the lowest ISO acceptable with that 1.8? Under candle light.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 14:14:06. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:18:56 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Lonz:
What is the lowest ISO acceptable with that 1.8? Under candle light. |
Well... that would depend on the noise levels of your camera. Ofcourse a 5D is going to do better than a Rebel. But, you know... it's better to have noise than blurry or under-exposed photos.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:30:30 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
many words |
While I agree with most of what you wrote... not everyone can afford a $2000+ photog for their wedding, and there aren't many photographers with $30k in gear that would be willing to shoot for under $500. As long as the customer is made well aware of the risks associated with hiring a cheap photographer, I don't see anything wrong with it.
I will say this though: even if I was only charging a couple hundred bucks, and the couple was ok with the fact that things might go wrong... I would be absolutely terrified to shoot with one body and one crappy zoom. You can rent a 70-200 2.8 for $30 (or less) a day. A no-brainer, IMO, and before you know it youll be making enough to finance your own.
Message edited by author 2007-12-28 14:43:25. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 02:47:15 PM · #48 |
| Inexpensive wedding photogs can make good money - albeit not sole income money, but to pay some bills and buy some new toys for your camera its a great way to go. The business license is cheap (under $100 in Ohio) and many people simply can't afford that kind of photographer - I have shot 5 weddings this summer and averaged $500/each - all of my clients were pleased with the outcome and couldn't believe I was so inexpensive. The end result is the happiness of the client. Everything else is for the "what ifs." I have a contract that has never been viewed by a lawyer, because I can't afford it. You make due with what you have and eventually you will get there. Wherever your "there" is. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:27:02 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Lonz:
Inexpensive wedding photogs can make good money - albeit not sole income money, but to pay some bills and buy some new toys for your camera its a great way to go. The business license is cheap (under $100 in Ohio) and many people simply can't afford that kind of photographer - I have shot 5 weddings this summer and averaged $500/each - all of my clients were pleased with the outcome and couldn't believe I was so inexpensive. The end result is the happiness of the client. Everything else is for the "what ifs." I have a contract that has never been viewed by a lawyer, because I can't afford it. You make due with what you have and eventually you will get there. Wherever your "there" is. |
What are these clients getting for $500? Please say anything except a CD of images...
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:42:21 PM · #50 |
What are these clients getting for $500? Please say anything except a CD of images... [/quote]
Color corrected images on a disk. I than include copies of side by side edited versions and they can purchase prints. |
|
