Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$1200 To Spend...What Camera To Get???
- Thread starter AvSRoCkCO1067
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
Since you already enjoy taking macro's I'd recommend a lens that is at least somewhat good at taking macro, as well as being a good walk around lens.
My official recomendation is the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro. Its a sharp lens, has a good range, and does 1:2.3 for near macro performance.
It will run you about $350
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn1...+Lens+for+Canon+Digital+EOS+=28SG1770F24CA=29
Spend the rest on a camera body. I'd try for a 20D, but you might have to settle for now on a Digital Rebel XT.
Don't worry about tripods and other gear right now. Just get started and then see if you need the other stuff.
My official recomendation is the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro. Its a sharp lens, has a good range, and does 1:2.3 for near macro performance.
It will run you about $350
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn1...+Lens+for+Canon+Digital+EOS+=28SG1770F24CA=29
Spend the rest on a camera body. I'd try for a 20D, but you might have to settle for now on a Digital Rebel XT.
Don't worry about tripods and other gear right now. Just get started and then see if you need the other stuff.
Earendil
macrumors 68000
jared_kipe said:
I agree... If you have an extra $350 laying around. Otherwise this lens will not work for the shows you want to shoot (and make money off of). Make some money and keep this lens on the extras list for down the line.
The kit lens (18-55) isn't a great lens, but I've come to do some pretty amazing things with it. It is good enough for the wide angle daylight stuff.
~Tyler
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
Ok then Sigma 18-125mm $235form said:
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn1...Lens+for+Canon+Digital+EOS+=28SG18125F35CA=29
Nuc said:
The who;e point of an SLR is through the lens viewing. No LCD screen can ever have the reolution and detail of just looking with your eyes.
in-body IS is good for short focal lenght lenses but I doubt it could ever work with a longer telephoto lenses. Just work out the numbers of how far and how fast the CCD would have to move tocancel the vibration of a hand held 500mm lens or even for a 300mm lens. Next work out the focus error when the CCD is shifted to those distances. Only basic trig is required here..... Basically the in-body IS is limited to relatively small and not-to-fast lenses.. The longer, faster lenses have to use an element that tilts.
Nothing wrong however with using both in-body and in-lens IS in the same line of cameras
Camra shake is not really an issue untill the shutter speed is longer than 1/(lens focal lenght) So if we assume a 30mm lens for a typical indoor snapshot would you really want to shoot slower than 1/30th. IS is most importent with tele shots and in-body IS is least effective for those focal lenghts
jared_kipe said:
That is a f/5.6 lens. It.s what many wopuld call "way slow". If budget iis very small then he'd have to compromise and get something like an f/5.6 lens or buy something used. But with $1200 to spend he can do much better. The 80-200 f/2.8 is available for $800 new and good used examples for about $650 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm
Have you ever bought a component stereo system? Given an unlimited budget you would buy the best of everything but assume a $1200 budget. Would you buy a $1100 ampliphier and a pair of $50 speakers? Likely not. Many audiophiles would suggest spending half the budget on speakers, buying two $300 speakers or $600 for the pair.
Same here with a limited $1200 budget. Putting a $200 lens on a $1000 body would not be the right balance. You will see better results half or more of the money is in the glass.. The trouble is that $1200 is a darn low budget for a profesional system. I'd think $2K would bring a better value. Then you could get the 80-200, a 18-70 a what ever body still fits in the $2k budget.
sjl
macrumors 6502
AvSRoCkCO1067 said:
It depends on what the effective field of view was on the Minolta. Assuming its widest angle had equivalent field of view to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera, 7x optical zoom means you're looking at 28-196mm. If the widest angle was longer than that (which I would consider unlikely), you're going to be looking at something that's accordingly longer.
The thing about lenses is, if you're going to compromise on price, you'll also be compromising on something else. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and all that. 2-300 dollars won't buy you much.
My personal preference, money aside, would be for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. Sufficiently long, fast glass, and superb image quality. Unfortunately, the grey market pricing in Australia is nearly $AU2700. You could go down to the f/4 version of that lens ($AU990) - it's a bit slower, so you might need to bump the ISO a bit, but you're not compromising on the image quality.
I'd recommend staying clear of the 75-300 that others have recommended. It's not a good lens, and is likely to disappoint. I took one look at a shot I took at 300mm, wide open, and sold the lens - too much chromatic aberration, very soft, not capable of producing good quality images (so I'm without a telephoto at the moment - sigh). You might do better with it stopped down, but then there's the issue of shutter speed to contend with.
There may be decent choices in the Sigma lineup; I can't comment on that.
All the above assumes that you're staying in the telephoto range. If you used the full length of the Minolta, zooming all the way out to the wide end then back in to the long end, the 70-200 won't do the job; you might have to consider getting two cameras with different lenses on the bodies for the different purposes (believe me, I've seen pros do just that - I saw one that had the 70-200 on one body, and the 24-70 on the other.) Which would definitely push the whole package outside your price range.
Edit to add: oh, remember as well that anything less than a 1Ds or 5D will effectively make the lens "longer". On the 20D, 30D, and 350D, a 200mm lens becomes effectively a 320mm lens (it's a crop factor, not a focal length multiplier, but it's close enough for this discussion). That means that, to stay within the limits of the Minolta, you'd need a lens up to about 125mm. I would still recommend the 70-200, though, if you have the funds.
What a great thread...I'm proud 🙂
Thanks so much for everyone who has contributed, and please continue to contribute in the future!!! There are so many parts to buying a decent camera that I believe a thread such as this will be of great help to not only myself, but other future camera-buyers as well.
Anyway, I think it is important to step back for a moment and observe what I have now. I have a Minolta "fake-dSLR." It takes about 1-2 seconds to focus, but has an extremely fast shutter (we're talking 7 frames per second...). But - at 7 fps, the pictures come in at just under 2.8 megapixels.
Now, I've tried to snap singular shots of the horse jumping at 5 megapixels. Unfortunately, half the time I snap too early or too late, and it takes about 10 seconds for the camera to save a 5-megapixel shot to my card anyway.
And finally, the color quality on my camera is vastly worse than my sister's point-and-shoot Olympus. That camera makes fantastic shots.
Now, all I really want is something better than what I have now in terms of quality. People can purchase 8x10s from me, as you know, and I feel guilty selling them one with a 2.5 megapixel quality...
At these shows, by the way, I take over 1000 pictures - which explains why I'm looking into a 2 GB card (I have a break in the middle where I could upload the pictures to my computer).
All I want, then, is something that I can take pictures of horses with...that's really all it comes down to 😱 .
If it's a Point and Shoot, I suppose that's fine...although at 1200 I sort of expected that I could afford an entry-level dSLR...
I do, also, want a monopod...I just think that it would help me take better pictures and avoid a cramp. I'm out there for a solid 4-5 hours in a row, so a monopod would be nice.
I really, really appreciate everyone who has contributed so far, especially those trying to stay within my price range (rather than recommending something like the D20...). At the moment, I'm still hesitant on whether or not I can go with the Canon (as the lenses are extremely expensive) or whether I should stick with a Nikon/Olympus...
Thanks so much for everyone who has contributed, and please continue to contribute in the future!!! There are so many parts to buying a decent camera that I believe a thread such as this will be of great help to not only myself, but other future camera-buyers as well.
Anyway, I think it is important to step back for a moment and observe what I have now. I have a Minolta "fake-dSLR." It takes about 1-2 seconds to focus, but has an extremely fast shutter (we're talking 7 frames per second...). But - at 7 fps, the pictures come in at just under 2.8 megapixels.
Now, I've tried to snap singular shots of the horse jumping at 5 megapixels. Unfortunately, half the time I snap too early or too late, and it takes about 10 seconds for the camera to save a 5-megapixel shot to my card anyway.
And finally, the color quality on my camera is vastly worse than my sister's point-and-shoot Olympus. That camera makes fantastic shots.
Now, all I really want is something better than what I have now in terms of quality. People can purchase 8x10s from me, as you know, and I feel guilty selling them one with a 2.5 megapixel quality...
At these shows, by the way, I take over 1000 pictures - which explains why I'm looking into a 2 GB card (I have a break in the middle where I could upload the pictures to my computer).
All I want, then, is something that I can take pictures of horses with...that's really all it comes down to 😱 .
If it's a Point and Shoot, I suppose that's fine...although at 1200 I sort of expected that I could afford an entry-level dSLR...
I do, also, want a monopod...I just think that it would help me take better pictures and avoid a cramp. I'm out there for a solid 4-5 hours in a row, so a monopod would be nice.
I really, really appreciate everyone who has contributed so far, especially those trying to stay within my price range (rather than recommending something like the D20...). At the moment, I'm still hesitant on whether or not I can go with the Canon (as the lenses are extremely expensive) or whether I should stick with a Nikon/Olympus...
-hh
macrumors 68030
Earendil said:
...to which I'll kibbitz 🙂
I'm not familar enough with horses to know how critical it is/isn't. I do know that animals in general are faster than humans and thus, are harder to anticipate. As you allude to (soccer, baseball), it takes practice to catch a particular type of event, no matter what it is.
RE: another CF card.
I wouldn't shave the cost. you will easily shoot 100 pictures at these events, I'm sure. Check that though with what you currently shoot. I'm betting you won't be shooting less. For reference though 1 gig should do you. On 8mp jpg Fine you will be getting 240 or so shots. That should be plenty.
This is pretty much what I was thinking...dropping RAW for the time being improves burst durations to roughly 20 frames, and the 1GB CF he already has will hold 200+ shots.
No contest there. Overall, I leaned away from it for a couple of reasons, none of which were particulary strong. For example, while we might complain about the 75-300 being slow on focus, I don't suspect that its probably any worse than what he's been previously using. Similarly, I'm not sure if the 200mm is a long enough telephoto for what he's looking for, even after it gets its sensor crop. Finally, I'm also thinking ahead, beyond the current budget constraint, to the 'ultimate' lens which is probably being the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which if that indeed is the potential future, this means that the resale loss of whichever lens being bought today can also be a factor to mull over.
-hh
PS: found the monopod box: Bogen 3016. I don't know if this model's still offered or not.
Clix Pix
macrumors Core
AvSRoCkCO1067 said:
If you had bothered to run a search you would have found many such threads here since the beginning of this forum.....unfortunately, many people seem to think that the Digital Photography forum is set up specifically to make recommendations for camera purchases. It really is not, but we've obligingly answered the same questions over and over....
I am going to be bluntly honest here. I've looked at your website, and yes, while there is potential, at the moment IMHO you really have no business charging people any money for the images that are coming out of your current camera. They are in no way professional. You need far better equipment than you've been using so far and you also need to to learn a little more about exposure, etc.
Get some decent equipment and learn to use it....and THEN start charging people for your prints.
Clix Pix said:
Of course, I appreciate the brutal honesty - it's better to be blunt than to smooth the truth over 😉 .
I do, however, believe that at the prices I charge, the photos people receive are genuinely a good deal. I make most of my money off of horse shows (although I make about 20% of my money from specific, one-on-one appointments), and while I don't have as nice a camera as some professionals, I charge tens, even hundreds of dollars less than they do for the same-size photos.
Example: my sister is a competitor in a number of shows (hunter-jumper), and at each one there is a photographer on hand to take pictures of each rider. To view and order photos, you can simply visit the photographers site and pay for them online. For her past two shows, she has purchased 6 pictures (2 8x10s, 2 5x7s, 2 4x6s) and paid over one-hundred dollars. It took about 6 weeks to receive the photos in the mail. The photos, however, were slightly blurry and, in one specific photo, you couldn't see the eyes of the horse as the shadows were so dark. All in all, the quality of the photos was not overly-impressive, and the photos were taken with a professional camera (this was, of course, a professional photographer...)
I have little trouble sleeping at night, feeling guilty for selling photos at 2-dollar price points. The shows that I take pictures at do not already have another photographer available - in other words, I'm not putting a professional photographer out of business. I enjoy taking photos, and there is a huge market for people wanting pictures at these shows, so I don't understand why I couldn't charge at least 2 dollars to pay for my time and effort in taking them and the cost of the pictures themselves??? 😕
Your point holds true, however - I need to look to upgrading my equipment, especially if I ever were to raise prices...😉 😛
EDIT: I sincerely apologize for creating this thread since there are other threads that contain the exact answers I was looking for. I did a search, and while I found some terrific information (including a thread on buying a dSLR for under 800 dollars) it would be even better if you could post a few useful links as well. I thought that the 'digital photography' forum was actually a good place for this type of thread - in which forum would you recommend I request it be moved to?
One more thing...
From my website:
I really don't want to be thought of as a 'professional photographer' - I am not a professional photographer by any means. I have worked a summer at a professional photography studio and, to put it simply, 'you get what you pay for.'
My Senior Photos cost nearly 2000 - and they were undoubtedly worth every penny. The quality of the prints and the effort put into making the pictures amazing is immensely superior to what I put into making my photos look good. But please, don't think that I'm trying to be something I'm not...a lot of teenagers come on this site, pretending to be 'web designers' or 'kids building a new operating system' - I'm definitely not that motivated.
Rather, I think it's time to upgrade...although I'm having second thoughts...🙁
From my website:
I really don't want to be thought of as a 'professional photographer' - I am not a professional photographer by any means. I have worked a summer at a professional photography studio and, to put it simply, 'you get what you pay for.'
My Senior Photos cost nearly 2000 - and they were undoubtedly worth every penny. The quality of the prints and the effort put into making the pictures amazing is immensely superior to what I put into making my photos look good. But please, don't think that I'm trying to be something I'm not...a lot of teenagers come on this site, pretending to be 'web designers' or 'kids building a new operating system' - I'm definitely not that motivated.
Rather, I think it's time to upgrade...although I'm having second thoughts...🙁
AvSRoCkCO1067:
Lighting, color and contrast may be slightly off in some of your photos, but this can be fixed easily with some image processing. I'm not sure that Clix Pix's comments were particularly warranted, and you should not be discouraged by them.
Instead, why not set up a meeting with an art or photography teacher in your school, review some of your work with the teacher, and ask for constructive criticism?
It all starts with a good eye for composition; most everything else can be fixed digitally later on, especially if you shoot RAW.
As for a camera outfit in the $1200 range, I would recommend a Nikon D50 or Canon 350D body and one or two off-brand lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina). For example, the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is a great performer and only around $350. This leaves enough money for either something wider or something longer.
Lighting, color and contrast may be slightly off in some of your photos, but this can be fixed easily with some image processing. I'm not sure that Clix Pix's comments were particularly warranted, and you should not be discouraged by them.
Instead, why not set up a meeting with an art or photography teacher in your school, review some of your work with the teacher, and ask for constructive criticism?
It all starts with a good eye for composition; most everything else can be fixed digitally later on, especially if you shoot RAW.
As for a camera outfit in the $1200 range, I would recommend a Nikon D50 or Canon 350D body and one or two off-brand lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina). For example, the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is a great performer and only around $350. This leaves enough money for either something wider or something longer.
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
I'm just gonna add my 2 cents since everyone else has added theirs. 😉
You're not a true professional, but you do offer people decent photographs for a great price. In that case, a camera like the D50 or 350D are both fine. However, if you do go with Canon, I'd listen to the people who tell you to get the 70-200 f/4. It's a one-off purchase, and will more than pay for itself. It'll be the only lens you need for what you do. Yes, a 70-200 f/2.8 would be better, but it may not even be important in horse jumping. 😉
Get just the Canon 350D body, and buy the 70-200 f/4 if it'll mean you stay under budget. The 70-200 f/4 is likely a minimum for what you do. I wouldn't go with a 70-300 mm or 75-300mm or any other lens that's borderline, because I think you're gonna see a lot of blurry photos. Yes, you'll take hundreds of photos, but if 40% of them are slightly blurry, and 55% of them are sharp, but crap, you're left with 5% of photos that are good enough to sell. This doesn't leave you with many options.
If only 10% are blurry, and 55% are still crap, at least you have 35% that's sellable. 😉
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: If you look at past photos you've taken, tell us what focal lengths (the numbers with "mm" beside it) your lens is, and what focal length you use in 30 random photos you took at horse shows. Its difficult to translate this into information we can use in the DSLR or SLR world, but there are assumptions we can make. 😉
You're not a true professional, but you do offer people decent photographs for a great price. In that case, a camera like the D50 or 350D are both fine. However, if you do go with Canon, I'd listen to the people who tell you to get the 70-200 f/4. It's a one-off purchase, and will more than pay for itself. It'll be the only lens you need for what you do. Yes, a 70-200 f/2.8 would be better, but it may not even be important in horse jumping. 😉
Get just the Canon 350D body, and buy the 70-200 f/4 if it'll mean you stay under budget. The 70-200 f/4 is likely a minimum for what you do. I wouldn't go with a 70-300 mm or 75-300mm or any other lens that's borderline, because I think you're gonna see a lot of blurry photos. Yes, you'll take hundreds of photos, but if 40% of them are slightly blurry, and 55% of them are sharp, but crap, you're left with 5% of photos that are good enough to sell. This doesn't leave you with many options.
If only 10% are blurry, and 55% are still crap, at least you have 35% that's sellable. 😉
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: If you look at past photos you've taken, tell us what focal lengths (the numbers with "mm" beside it) your lens is, and what focal length you use in 30 random photos you took at horse shows. Its difficult to translate this into information we can use in the DSLR or SLR world, but there are assumptions we can make. 😉
njmac
macrumors 68000
AvSRoCkCO1067 said:
Woah, wait a minute.... I am sorry that I got the ball rolling on the undercutting from your website. I did not want to discourage you. It really didn't belong in your thread but I thought is was worth a mention. Don't get discouraged by clixpix, take her advice and improve! Post pictures here and keep learning.
You have a nice website and you take decent pictures and you are actually doing it AND MAKING MONEY! That should be your encouragement right there! You've paid for your equipment once, you'll do it again.
I still don't agree with calling yourself Peters Photography, and offering "affordable" services. I don't like on your Site where you ask - why pay a sitting fee?, why should a 4x6 cost $30, why should I wait for my photos? Because when you hire a pro, you are paying for those services otherwise there would be no pro photographers. That's how they make a living. The way you put on your page does implies that those fees are crazy and why would anyone in their right mind pay those when they can pay you and get the same caliber. No, you don't say it, but you sure are implying it.
Clix Pix
macrumors Core
Here is the article I mentioned
This was sent by someone in another forum in which I participate: for anyone who is currently a professional photographer or anyone interested in entering this field, there is a lot to consider, especially in the context of this particular discussion.
The Professional Photographers' Perfect Storm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ran across a book written by Henry Oles entitled "The Professional Photographers Perfect Storm". This short book is used as a sales piece for his scene machine but he has some interesting information in it. The following are quotes from his book.
"The fact is people just don't seem to be as interested in professional portraiture as they once were, and therefore, sales are declining for all kinds of photography... Even though prices are rock bottom, Walmart and Kmart type studios are not as busy as they once were. Many photographers are retreating to working out of their homes, mostly to save on expenses. Look how many studios disappear every year? Try this. Call 20 studios listed in any yellow page section during business hours and see how many calls are answered by an answering machine."
"PPA membership rolls may be growing, but that membership growth is mostly made up of part timers, many of whom are brand new to photography. ... While most recent national PPA convention was packed, we see an erosion of attendance by photographers at some local conventions and training schools. The Rocky Mountain regional convention was nearly canceled because of poor advance registration. It went on but it was a small show. Many trade shows are shrinking. Even many week long professional schools are showing declining attendance."
"Like many organizations, PPA almost never publishes anything negative about the profession nor do they do much market research. The magazine articles we read and the programs we attend talk in glowing terms of success, even when some of the writers or speakers might be on their last legs. Those photographers who business die along the way are ignored."
" We must always keep in mind that many of the images that we see in print competitions are contrived just for competition and are not prints that actually sell to everyday customers. I fact, at the PPA convention I closely examined the Kodak gallery award prints on display. Very few of them would be sellable. There were almost no portraits."
"Our customers are far more choosey today then they were just a few years ago in what they expect from a professional photographer. At the same time, they are more accepting of less than perfect results from themselves and their family. If the price is right, they will accept more candid type shots as "good enough" "
"What do professional wedding photographers do? Today's brides get mostly "snaps" which professionals call photojournalism which opens the door to rank amateurs because this is exactly what they do also. It's hard to tell the difference. Neither the amateur nor the professional pose people. They just shoot.
"It's not just the traditional studios who are feeling the pinch. School photographers are having problems, especially if they produce traditional school day photos. Photo Marketing Association International tells us that the school photography market is growing much slower than it has in past because of population trends. plus , the percentage of school kids actually buying school photographs is down. This is because parents can duplicate the prints they purchase and mostly because they can take their own photographs of their kids."
" I talk to many people in the industry who privately are very concerned about the state of the industry, and what is to come. Unfortunately, most everyone is afraid to talk about their feelings publicly. That's the problem. Not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It's not a pretty picture for professional photography as we know it."
"We take more and more of our photographs in public parks, where amateurs can also work."... The professional magazines that we read that once upheld high photographic standards for what they printed on the cover, instead feature amateur type images. Many of the articles and prints inside our professional magazines have little to do with the business of photography.. Our print judging standards at competitions are seen to be changing and in some respects going down. Prints submitted include fewer and fewer images that could be sold as portraits and more non-portraits that often would not sell at all."
" When many photographers today do weddings, they emphasize a photojournalistic approach and try to avoid anything that takes real effort, like formally posed photographs or creatively posed photographs.. because the public sees less and less quality professional photography on display and sees more and more amateur candid photographs, they start to see candids as acceptable for enlargements. Professional photographers react by moving more and more to photojournalistic style which is similar in many ways to amateur type work."
"Could it be that our organizations spend too much time on ribbons and social activities and not enough time on everyday problems that face all photographers?"
".... there really is a blur between the amateur and the professional. The professional is becoming more amateur like while the amateur is becoming more professional. Somehow we seem puzzled by our drop in business. Duh!"
"If the perfect storm hasn't reached you yet , take note it will... the winds are blowing , the rains are falling, and we wonder how bad the storm will become. But this storm is also different in that it will never go away. Digital cameras will never go away. The public's "do-it yourself" attitude is, if anything, intensifying.
-----------------------------------------------
This was sent by someone in another forum in which I participate: for anyone who is currently a professional photographer or anyone interested in entering this field, there is a lot to consider, especially in the context of this particular discussion.
The Professional Photographers' Perfect Storm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ran across a book written by Henry Oles entitled "The Professional Photographers Perfect Storm". This short book is used as a sales piece for his scene machine but he has some interesting information in it. The following are quotes from his book.
"The fact is people just don't seem to be as interested in professional portraiture as they once were, and therefore, sales are declining for all kinds of photography... Even though prices are rock bottom, Walmart and Kmart type studios are not as busy as they once were. Many photographers are retreating to working out of their homes, mostly to save on expenses. Look how many studios disappear every year? Try this. Call 20 studios listed in any yellow page section during business hours and see how many calls are answered by an answering machine."
"PPA membership rolls may be growing, but that membership growth is mostly made up of part timers, many of whom are brand new to photography. ... While most recent national PPA convention was packed, we see an erosion of attendance by photographers at some local conventions and training schools. The Rocky Mountain regional convention was nearly canceled because of poor advance registration. It went on but it was a small show. Many trade shows are shrinking. Even many week long professional schools are showing declining attendance."
"Like many organizations, PPA almost never publishes anything negative about the profession nor do they do much market research. The magazine articles we read and the programs we attend talk in glowing terms of success, even when some of the writers or speakers might be on their last legs. Those photographers who business die along the way are ignored."
" We must always keep in mind that many of the images that we see in print competitions are contrived just for competition and are not prints that actually sell to everyday customers. I fact, at the PPA convention I closely examined the Kodak gallery award prints on display. Very few of them would be sellable. There were almost no portraits."
"Our customers are far more choosey today then they were just a few years ago in what they expect from a professional photographer. At the same time, they are more accepting of less than perfect results from themselves and their family. If the price is right, they will accept more candid type shots as "good enough" "
"What do professional wedding photographers do? Today's brides get mostly "snaps" which professionals call photojournalism which opens the door to rank amateurs because this is exactly what they do also. It's hard to tell the difference. Neither the amateur nor the professional pose people. They just shoot.
"It's not just the traditional studios who are feeling the pinch. School photographers are having problems, especially if they produce traditional school day photos. Photo Marketing Association International tells us that the school photography market is growing much slower than it has in past because of population trends. plus , the percentage of school kids actually buying school photographs is down. This is because parents can duplicate the prints they purchase and mostly because they can take their own photographs of their kids."
" I talk to many people in the industry who privately are very concerned about the state of the industry, and what is to come. Unfortunately, most everyone is afraid to talk about their feelings publicly. That's the problem. Not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It's not a pretty picture for professional photography as we know it."
"We take more and more of our photographs in public parks, where amateurs can also work."... The professional magazines that we read that once upheld high photographic standards for what they printed on the cover, instead feature amateur type images. Many of the articles and prints inside our professional magazines have little to do with the business of photography.. Our print judging standards at competitions are seen to be changing and in some respects going down. Prints submitted include fewer and fewer images that could be sold as portraits and more non-portraits that often would not sell at all."
" When many photographers today do weddings, they emphasize a photojournalistic approach and try to avoid anything that takes real effort, like formally posed photographs or creatively posed photographs.. because the public sees less and less quality professional photography on display and sees more and more amateur candid photographs, they start to see candids as acceptable for enlargements. Professional photographers react by moving more and more to photojournalistic style which is similar in many ways to amateur type work."
"Could it be that our organizations spend too much time on ribbons and social activities and not enough time on everyday problems that face all photographers?"
".... there really is a blur between the amateur and the professional. The professional is becoming more amateur like while the amateur is becoming more professional. Somehow we seem puzzled by our drop in business. Duh!"
"If the perfect storm hasn't reached you yet , take note it will... the winds are blowing , the rains are falling, and we wonder how bad the storm will become. But this storm is also different in that it will never go away. Digital cameras will never go away. The public's "do-it yourself" attitude is, if anything, intensifying.
-----------------------------------------------
nospleen
macrumors 68030
I would get the Nikon D50 or Rebel XT and a good lens. I would probably go the Nikon route because you could spend better money on your lens.
I say have a great time taking your pics and if someone wants to pay for them, let them. Do not let anyone else discourage you from doing something that you enjoy.
Best of luck to you!
I say have a great time taking your pics and if someone wants to pay for them, let them. Do not let anyone else discourage you from doing something that you enjoy.
Best of luck to you!
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
ChrisA said:
Thanks Captain Obvious. And its an f3.5-5.6, but I was making recommendations based on wants and budget, not on some mythical fairy land. I would have recommend the Canon 17-125mm f2.8 L for $400, but I figured it was over budget. 🙄
Earendil
macrumors 68000
jared_kipe said:
He was suggesting a lens that is, according to him, used for about $650. How is that a fairly land?
A quick search shows a rebel refurb (with full warranty) going for $610 on Adorama.com and that includes the 18-55 kit lens. Presumably with an option like this he has close to $600 to spend on a solid lens.
I think what "Captian Obvious" was saying was, that with $1200, why would you spend $200 on a lens, if if you did, what are you going to use the other $1000 for, a camera body? a 20D? That's what he was saying, don't buy an overkill body and put a cheap lens on it. Buy a solid body and put a nice lens on it.
I'm still voting for a refurb Digital Rebel + kit lens for $610 and than add a Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L for $545.
That set up is only $1155, toss in a CF card and you haven't broken the bank. Also, there isn't much past this setup that he NEEDS now(that I can think of?), and can't buy as he makes $50 here and there for the smaller items.
Ah yes, one more helpful thing, Dpreview.com's review of the rebel XT, very comprehensive!
Cheers, and let us know what you decide. I promise not to get too mad if you don't side with me 😉
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
First of all, the lens he is recommending is for Nikon cameras, and is not useful for macro work (1:6).Earendil said:
I wasn't aware the guy was looking for a telephoto lens. I don't see much of a point for getting a camera body and a long lens, very very limiting.
I don't see how the 20D is overkill. I also think it is hard to give recommendations based on "refurb" deals or used prices. For instance there is a 20D with a Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lens up on the seattle craigslist for only $1200, and includes a tripod and memory card. If you take out the lens then the 20D is only costing ~$800.
Earendil
macrumors 68000
jared_kipe said:
If you read the entire thread you'll notice that, though he mentions macro being fun, he makes money shooting horse shows. visit his web site and you won't see an macro shots of horses 😉
Also, and this is just me, the rebel comes with an "ok" kit lens. The Nikon cameras come with an even better kit lens and can be had for similar prices. Though $650 may push his budget there, I still don't think it's beyond consideration.
I have no problem giving recommendations based on Canon refurbs with full warranties from reputable and well known camera dealers. I don't consider this beyond the scope of discussion when someone is on a budget. However if you don't want to spend the time doing a search for someone else that is okay (I'm not patronizing). Besides I searched Adorama for "rebel XT" and it was a top hit, wasn't looking for a deal or used equipment. I wouldn't ever buy used equipment that wasn't checked out by canon and had a full warranty.
I think I may understand his situation(I'm NOT saying you don't) as I am only 2 years ahead of him in school. Just 3 weeks ago I was on a similar budget (a little more money) and had to make the same trade offs while still getting quality equipment that would do what I wanted it to do, and do it well.
I am without things like an extra CF card, an external flash(which I would use a lot) an extender so I can get a little bit closer to the birds I love to shoot. But you know what? In the mean time I have a setup that makes me very happy, and the pictures that I do take are very high quality and wouldn't be ashamed to sell.
Earendil
macrumors 68000
jared_kipe said:
I missed a part and should clarify. But one thing first. I'm not making any attacks on you, Jared, so don't take anything personally 🙂
You just happen to be provoking ideas, comments, and suggestions from me, and part of that provoking is stirred by me having a contrary position to you at times. But that's okay, right? 🙂
Anyway, I called the 20D "overkill" if all you have left is $150 for a telephoto lens. A 20D on that kind of lens is overkill.
A 20D on a 70-200 USM L lens is not over kill ;-)
~Tyler
andiwm2003
macrumors 601
Earendil said:
what exactly is you setup and how much did it cost? i'm in the market as well (although purely for fun, nothing professional at all).
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
I think the higher end kit lens that comes with the D70 is better than the kit lenses that come with both the D50 and Canon 350D. But I just can't really recommend Nikon DSLR's at the moment, I think Nikon is somewhat foolish to continue to use CCD technology when Canon's CMOS has proven that if everything else is equal CMOS provides lower noise images.
I seem to remember that back when this thread started there were a few people who were looking to upgrade. So I was giving advice based on what I consider to be generic needs. If someone is only buying it to take pictures of things at telephoto distance, then buying a telephoto lens is just fine. However horses are big animals, and usually let you get pretty close to them, so it isn't like they couldn't use normal focal lengths. Or even crop a little bit.
I think that for most people's needs, having a good body (I'm not recommending a 5D or D200 or D2X or 1DmkII) with a decent lens and working up in lens quality is perferable to getting a lower end body and a really good lens. That said, the lower end camera bodies are close to the high end bodies in everything but ergonomics.
That said, I don't consider the 17-70mm or 18-125mm sigma lenses to be crappy lenses. They are very sharp lenses, less so on the wide end, but certainly sharp wide open when you get past 24mm or so. As I've said before, even with my nice f2.8 lenses I rarely shoot anything wider than f5.6 unless I'm trying to isolate the subject from the back or foreground.
I seem to remember that back when this thread started there were a few people who were looking to upgrade. So I was giving advice based on what I consider to be generic needs. If someone is only buying it to take pictures of things at telephoto distance, then buying a telephoto lens is just fine. However horses are big animals, and usually let you get pretty close to them, so it isn't like they couldn't use normal focal lengths. Or even crop a little bit.
I think that for most people's needs, having a good body (I'm not recommending a 5D or D200 or D2X or 1DmkII) with a decent lens and working up in lens quality is perferable to getting a lower end body and a really good lens. That said, the lower end camera bodies are close to the high end bodies in everything but ergonomics.
That said, I don't consider the 17-70mm or 18-125mm sigma lenses to be crappy lenses. They are very sharp lenses, less so on the wide end, but certainly sharp wide open when you get past 24mm or so. As I've said before, even with my nice f2.8 lenses I rarely shoot anything wider than f5.6 unless I'm trying to isolate the subject from the back or foreground.