Suggestions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mac's my homie, Oct 28, 2006.

  1. mac's my homie macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #1
    Hello you photo geniuses! My fiancé is starting wedding photography and is looking for a digital camera/package for $1,300. She’s been taking pictures for a while, so were not looking for a “beginners” camera. Since you guys have been doing this for a while… any suggestions would be well appreciated!
     
  2. extraextra macrumors 68000

    extraextra

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #2
    I'd go for a Canon 400D, Canon 350D, Nikon D80, or Nikon D50. The D50 and 350D are slightly older models, but still very good. Overall, I'm leaning towards a D80 with some lens. The lens is probably going to be expensive because from what I've noticed, wedding photogs need zoom lenses with large apertures.

    Actually, you could get a 350D for around $600, and a Canon 70-200 f/4L for around $600 as well. I don't know if the f/4 is enough for indoor weddings though, so you'd need a flash, and the good one (580ex) will cost close to $400. If she likes "zooming" with her feet, then a 100 f/2 ($400) lens would work too.
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    Nikon D80 + 18-55/18-50 f/2.8 lens of some sort (from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina to save money and still get a great lens) + 50 f/1.4 + 70-200 mm f/4 (but it may be too slow sometimes.....try a 70-200 mm f/2.8 or maybe check the reviews of the brand new Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8, as it's much much smaller in size and could be more practical this way).


    I'm way over budget, but I don't think you're going to get away with such a small budget. If she's shooting for money, this is a business expense. You can't make money without spending money in this case, and if she shoots her first wedding and doesn't have the right lenses, she'll won't do as good a job as she could with her skills, and she may not get work again, or any referrals.
     
  4. mac's my homie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #4
    Perfect! Thanks extraextra and Abstract! These are exactly the suggestions I was hoping to get in response! You don’t know how much this helps! Yes, we’ve both learned quickly that this is an expensive business. Right now we are keeping the price low and explaining to costumers that we are starting a business, hopefully we might avoid some of the stuff you warned me about Abstract. thanks! I’ll let you know the final decision.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    No problem, and thanks for the pm. ;)


    And besides, I think I messed up my suggestion. There is no 70-200 f/4 for Nikon, or they're not made anymore, although still available. That's a Canon lens, and it's probably too slow now that I think about it.

    Nikon does make an 80-200 mm f/2.8 that's rather cheap, so it's a fantastic deal. But because of it's size, it's not what I'd call a good lens to carry around. I'd still consider the Nikon 80-200 f/28 or Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8 (smaller size and weight), the Nikon 50 mm f/1.4, and a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lens that's equivalent to around 18-50 mm (or something similar) f/2.8 lens. If you want to spend more money on a Nikon equivalent to these focal lengths that's also f/2.8, it's going to be very expensive.

    And like I said, spend money to make money. It's an investment. If she produces poor photos, she's not going to get referred to others who are getting married, and she won't have no photos for her portfolio, which digs her into a hole. Even if she's not getting all Nikon (or Canon, Pentax, etc) lenses due to cost, she should at least try to get the Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina alternatives, which are sometimes as good, and 1/2 or 1/3rd the cost.
     
  6. beavo451 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    #6
    Why not shoot primes? a 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 would all cost less than the price of a 17-55 f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8.

    I'd have to say though, 1300 is way to little money for a comfortable wedding photography. At the very least you need a back-up body which is going to be at least another $600. Other expenses such as memory, bags, memory, flashes, memory, insurance, memory, extra batteries, and did I mention memory? When I mean "comfortable" I mean having enough redundancy in your equipment in case Mr. Murphy decides to pay a visit so that you don't ruin some couple's special night.
     

Share This Page