On Professional Equipment

 

 

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm curious to know how folks here feel about "professional" equipment. It seems like there are basically two schools of thought; on the one hand, there are innumerable full and part time professional photographers that use prosumer/consumer equipment, and clearly you can produce work to a professional standard with such equipment. The justification from that side usually seems to be something like "Why should I spend $5k on a camera body and put a dent in my bottom line/savings/etc when I can be commercially successful with a $1k body?". On the other side are the folks that say "I buy the best there is/I can afford because it gives me a competitive advantage, allows me to differentiate my work, and takes physical abuse better." Personal experience indicates that better autofocus and sensors, faster glass, and higher-end lights and modifiers give you additional options in many situations, in some cases allowing pictures to be made that wouldn't be possible with lesser equipment.</p>

<p>This issue is particularly relevant for me at the moment; I'm fairly seriously contemplating leaving my stable corporate job and building an event/wedding photography business (yes, I've lost my mind). I have some experience shooting music and events (no weddings yet) and find it vastly preferable to avoid on-camera flash (which means high-end bodies and fast lenses) when working the event itself, but also enjoy thoroughly producing portraits (which usually means significant lighting gear). Buying the gear effectively reduces the amount of time I can live without worrying about being profitable, but not buying it may prevent me from offering the type of product that I want to offer.</p>

<p>So how do you weigh the financial impact of better equipment (however you define it) against the benefits? </p>

<p>Any thoughts would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

sb</p>

 

 

<p>Candidly? If the cost of a few thousand dollars' worth of equipment is significantly going to impact your lifestyle over the first couple <em>years</em> of running such a business, then it's probably too early to jump ship - since that sounds like classic undercapitalization, and a recipe for trouble.<br /><br />It sounds as though you've answered your own question about whether more capable/reliable equipment is going to give you the opportunity to handle a wider variety of work.</p>

<p>Personally - I get great results with Nikon D300's and off camera flash - both SB 800's and studio lights. </p>

<p>For me - it was a matter of what I could get my spouse to accept as a spend. It was much easier to convince her that I could spend $3000 and get 3 cameras as opposed to 5k and 1. Or 15k and 3....</p>

<p>Would I like to have 3 D3x's or D3s' or D3's? Absolutely - I'd love it. Is it required? Nope.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>PS. I haven't jumped ship on the corp world / job yet. but hoping to at some point in the next 5 years.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>you might want to consider renting the better body/glass on an as-needed basis which frees up your cash</p>

I would tend to agree with Howard. It may be a good idea to rent whatever bodies/lenses you need and then as you build up your experience (and hopefully capital), you'll know soon enough what you need whether it's a $5k camera or a $1k camera with $4k worth of glass and lighting :)

<p>Fair advice...thanks guys. </p>

<p>I don't think I'm being too irresponsible in my financial projections...budgeting for three years of no income, which is hopefully pessimistic, since by the end of year two I expect to be ready to re-enter the corporate world or making some amount of income (or at least progress) as a photographer.</p>

<p>You need to balance your passion and desire to do this full time with a good dose of reality. Patience plus a good strategic savings plan is the best answer. The more you compromise necessary costs the more it will cost you. (Been there - still there).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Seth,</p>

<p>First, I urge you to get the terms "professional equipment" and "prosumer equipment" out of your head completely. These are marketing terms, designed to sell cameras to people who don't know any better. Today's professional camera is next year's prosumer camera, and a starter camera for the year after next. You've GOT to achieve a level of confidence in your equipment that is based on the prints you produce, and not on the ratings at dpreview.com or somebody's idea of what is or is not a "pro" camera.</p>

<p>The right question to ask is, what equipment do you need to do the kind of photography you want to do, and (presumably) to do it well? This is an open-ended question with a fairly large number of valid answers.</p>

<p>There is undoubtedly a place in wedding photography for expensive, full-frame digital SLRs. But an awful lot of great photographers manage to do their jobs well with less expensive bodies. Consider the following. </p>

<ol>

<li>There's always something better, available either today or tomorrow. You shoot with the best full-frame DSLR because you think it provides the best quality? If quality is all that matters, why not use medium-format? And even if you get something that makes you really happy today, something better is coming tomorrow.</li>

<li>Unless you're a millionaire and money simply isn't a consideration, you're going to have a budget for equipment purchases. If you spend less on bodies, you can spend more on lenses (or whatever), and/or you can get a newer body more frequently. </li>

<li>Every purchase you make involves a compromise. Big cameras not only cost more, they are also larger and heavier. You may or may not find it desirable to be carrying a couple larger cameras around all day long.</li>

<li>Don't forget that a backup is a necessity, and depending on your m.o. and the kinds of lenses you use, you may want to have a second camera with you at all times. It's more important to have a couple good or very good cameras than it is to have one great camera. </li>

<li>My guess is that 95% of the photos you will take, can be taken as well with a very good APS-C sensor camera, skillfully used, as with a full-frame camera. Actually, the percentage of photos where the full-frame camera was NOT essential to success might be even higher than 95. As with everything else, the full-frame camera may make certain things easier. But it doesn't necessarily make possible what was impossible without. </li>

<li>The idea that you're going to be able to escape the need to use (and thus learn) flash by buying a more expensive camera is wrong. Actually, the single most powerful way to improve your event photography is to get better as using flash, especially off-camera flash - learning to control the light. </li>

<li>If you can't take really good pictures WITHOUT a D3x, you probably won't be able to take really good photos WITH one, either.</li>

</ol>

<p>You said you haven't shot a wedding yet. My advice would be, shoot a few weddings first and then reconsider. Do a couple gigs for free for friends or relatives. Work as a second shooter. Even for these training gigs, you'll want to spend time considering your gear, working on technique including flash technique, etc. But you'll learn a lot from doing that you simply can't learn by asking for advice. </p>

<p>One last point, about "competitive advantage." Your clients don't know what kind of gear you use and, generally speaking, couldn't care less. Competitive advantage right now comes from your ability to succeed as a businessperson, not as a photographer (assuming you've achieved an intermediate level of competence). There are mediocre photographers doing very well and great photographers doing poorly. It's a tough biz and a very tough market.</p>

<p>Others will disagree. Good luck.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>The deciding factor for me is ISO performance. I try not to use flash as much as humanly possibly (only in the darkest of reception halls do i ever need/use them) So spending 2.6k on the nikon d700 when it came out was no question. Now the D3s is out and that will be the next purchase. BUT this is my style of shooting, i hate to use "photojournalism" but that's the approach i take. And that differentiates me enough that i can be getting payed more per wedding and afford better equipment. Some people use flash on everything, more documentary style, just capture the good stuff, and that's great too, but you don't need a $5k camera that can shoot at 52,000 iso for that. Figure out what you want to do and go from there</p>

<p>I always found that making a priority list after honest perusal of how I shoot and matching that list up to gear points to a clear path re gear (disregarding the pro/prosumer categories), particularly choice of cameras and lenses. You might look up the following Master Lesson article by Marc Williams.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V98v">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V98v</a></p>

<p>In particular, look at and do the 'assignment' at the end of the article. It will tell you a lot about how you shoot, sometimes totally discounting what you always thought you'd need. I agree that it would be too soon to jump into the gear buying stage without actually shooting some weddings. You won't really know how you shoot a wedding if you haven't shot some.</p>

<p>I would also advise you to read the Master Lesson by Neil Ambrose, on reportage wedding photography. While you most certainly can shoot weddings without using flash, it is preferable to know how to skillfully use flash, rather than avoid it altogether, even if you don't use it a lot. If you haven't already, read the articles at Neil van Niekirk's website about using on camera flash. He also has a book out.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo</a></p>

<p>You can certainly buy only the best and know that you can handle anything. Or, you can figure out what, exactly, will suit you and your style, which is a lot more painful and requires a lot more honest assessment of your personal style and methods. You don't even know what the latter methods are yet.</p>

<p>You are really just starting into the biz -- a first timer with weddings. A 20d / 17-85 & a flash would be under $600 used >> practice first with the gear . I don't shoot much past ISO 500/640 >> rely more on available/bounce strobe. So whats b<em>etter</em> , to some, does not always equate to a higher income. Just a higher cost to you.......... </p>

<p><p>My lastest purchase was a used 40d -- set me back nearly $350. Produces all the pro results I need for our clients. No one has ever asked for an equipment list > for a wedding. After you have accomplished a few more skills with exposure /flash ... you can always wait for a fine used camera , in a few years. </p>

<p><strong><em>“Any thoughts would be much appreciated”</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Some other comments specific on your impressions:</p>

<p><strong><em>“I have some experience shooting . . . and find it vastly preferable to avoid on-camera flash (which means high-end bodies and fast lenses) when working the event itself”</em></strong></p>

<p>I disagree.<br>

If you choose to work without Flash then you should be able to master 80% to 90% of most Weddings with a camera which gives acceptable ISO1600 or ISO3200.<br>

With exposure accuracy, skill in post production, and a few fast Primes Lenses, (<em>not necessarily very expensive</em> Prime lenses, but fast yes).<br>

Most “just above entry level DSLR cameras” can do that and make a saleable product.<br>

I would however suggest you learn on camera and off camera flash techniques.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>“but also enjoy thoroughly producing portraits (which usually means significant lighting gear)”</em></strong></p>

<p>Portraits can be shot with Natural Light.<br>

Displaying a passion for AL shooting the Wedding and not wanting to use Natural Light for Portraiture seems odd, to me – but I might have misinterpreted your meaning – you might mean “Studio Portraiture”.</p>

<p>Well that too can be shot with natural light, though these days, not many Studios are set for Natural Light.</p>

<p>One good, powerful, variable output Flash head, with modelling light and large enough Brolly can be more than adequate for Studio Portraiture for a Family of Four.</p>

<p>Some people starting out building a studio, buy three or four <strong><em>underpowered</em></strong> Flash heads and also never learn basic one-light techniques.<br>

They then do not understand why they are futzing around at F/4 or F5.6 at ISO 400 and have innumerable bad shadows, everywhere – so they buy another Flash head to give them more light, which only makes it worse.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Buying the gear effectively reduces the amount of time I can live without worrying about being profitable, but not buying it may prevent me from offering the type of product that I want to offer. </em></strong><strong><em>So how do you weigh the financial impact of better equipment (however you define it) against the benefits?” </em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Simple:<br>

0. Devise a “Final Kit” which suits all purposes you believe you will encounter.<br>

1. For Weddings ascertain what is necessary to account for 80% of all the situations you will likely encounter 80% of the time.<br>

2. Buy equipment so that you have those scenarios covered three different ways. That does not mean you need three of each item – it means you need to be able to do the wedding three ways using different gear you have. It does however mean you will need three camera bodies.<br>

3. For Portraits (assuming Studio / Flash) buy two good quality Flash heads and additional stuff like quality stands and brolly as described above – use one head only until you master it.<br>

4. Reconnoitre the location of ALL weddings prior to the event and RENT any gear you need specific to that venue.<br>

5. Have a plan and a time line of “next to get” equipment – this is based upon your “Final Kit”; your Prioritization of your next “need” and your experiences. Note that this Prioritization of the next “need” is fluid, but the capital being put away each week is not. If your business plan dictates that $200 each week is put into Capital Equipment then that does not deviate – though what gear you spend it on might constantly change priority. The key is you MUST do enough jobs each week such that the $200 (or whatever) is available.</p>

<p>I agree 100% with Matt Laur, in that under capitalization is common with many start up businesses.</p>

<p>In my experience, it is not so much that the <em>initial </em>capital injection is underestimated, but the capital injection is not ongoing to grow with the additional contracts and jobs a growing buisness will usually snag, because of its lower selling prices, enthusiam and drive of the operator.</p>

<p>Also the capcity to recognize the total outgoings over the first two years or so, is often greatly underestimated and the Captial Plan goes to "Paying the Bills", which is usually not very good.</p>

<p>I strongly advise you to do the exercise at the end of Marc Williams' Master series on Equipment as best you can estimate for Wedding work. The answers should form the premise of you "Final Kit".</p>

<p>I have a particular passion for using a Dual Format DSLR Kit as this can leverage the Lens Cache and it requires fewer lenses for the same output, for most circumstances. If you want more of that, then use the search function - I am most vocal on this particular topic.</p>

<p><br />WW</p>

<p>I say go big or go home. You can always eat ramen noodles when you're broke. I recently spent every penny I had upgrading my gear. I was saving up to buy land to build my family a house. That can wait :P <br>

If you are charging people money for pictures, the photos should at least be as technically perfect as your equipment can possibly afford. People complain about pixel peepers and "back in the film days we had to live with grainy ISO800" blah blah blah. It's 2010 already. </p>

 

<p >Land Value is actually quite stable over time and usually appreciates, save for catastrophic events. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In most developed countries, (partial) ownership of land can be used as collateral for a Tax Deductable business loan which can then be directed to Capital Expenditure.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >By contrast, a 1 Series Canon DSLR Camera depreciates, the moment it is taken out of the box. And the very best Lenses, whilst they might be able to be sold for 90% of their purchase price, they are not assets, recognized by most banking and finance institutions; at least where I work.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

<p>WILLIAM W ---- exactly why I buy the latest /greatest.... about 2 years later. The camera is only the tool. If one exposes properly & has their post skills down >> how much better can a 8X print look from a 40d vs a 1DMkIV ? Especially if there are not two shooters , at the same wedding, to compare ?<em> Think how much I would have to raise my prices ~ to carry a $8k camera around my neck :-) <br /> </em></p>

My additional advice is that you'd better get to grips with the business of photography as well as the craft. Your post is mainly about the craft, and arguments abound RE wedding equipment. You need only do a search on this forum. Also, please read the links Nadine has provided, as well as http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/ ...Your equipment should be dictated by your style. The old adage still holds true: you can take great photos with a disposable camera, or horrible photos with a 1DsMkX.

<p>As has been said, you don't need to have lots of studio lighting equipment to make portraits. Just ask David Hobby :) Indeed, portraiture is one of my key genres yet I've never, to date, shot a single portrait with studio lighting, let alone inside a studio. Ditto shooting sans flash. For the wedding photography masters (Jeff Ascough for one) who shoot entirely without flash, they still do so with the knowledge and understanding of how flash works before they decide to shoot AL (Available Light) only.

<p>Being in the corporate world, you know that the bottom line is your business must be able to sustain itself at least, and hopefully grow. You and yours have to eat, sleep, live :)

<p>@Caleb: You must have a very understanding family ;-)

I think a lot of pro's, perhaps the ones being in business for a long time know that weddings aren't the only way to make money in photography. For example, a week before Christmas, Craig, my foto partner, and myself shot an aerospace company in Burbank, just north of Los Angeles. We shot about 300 or so products. This one photo shoot paid for the 1Ds Mk 3, although this camera has been paid for in full when I bought it around 2 years ago. These are simply tools needed to get the job done right.

 

Some people such as Marc Williams often uses medium format digital cameras, with a sticker price of several thousand dollars. Why? Because these are the needed tools.

 

You don't have to have top of the line gear, but it surely makes your life a lot easier if you have all of the gear to get the job done. The price you pay for photographic excellence.

 

It's just not the cameras and lenses that are needed to photograph places like what we did, but lighting is as important, perhaps even more. We showed up with about 8 or 9 lights and used 7 of them often for just 1 single shot. When photographing reflective metal objects you have to get the reflections dead on perfect. I'm sorry I can't post any images due to my contract and their contract.

 

Without all of this gear the final results would have been very difficult to achieve.

 

I'm sure someone with a simple used Canon Rebel, or a 4 or 5, megapixel camera, maybe even without a flash, can shoot a wedding. The same people can also shoot products. You have to ask yourself honestly what you can do to give the bride and groom the finest images they deserve. After the wedding when viewing your work, if you are not satisfied with the results well you failed. You have to ask yourself what would have made the wedding perfect, a tripod, strobes, not having the right lenses, defective flash cards, because your camera only has one flash card slot, and you shot with a 16 gig card.

 

Therefore this question is pretty hard to answer. I believe it's a moral question that cannot be answered as a group giving advice, but only you as a person.

<p>Seth, the problem with questions like this is that it tends to gravitate to exaggerations or extremes. Like the difference between a $1,000. body and a $5,000. body (I'd advise neither for a start up venture). Like thinking available light with no flash, or flash for everything ... or no studio flash for portraits.</p>

<p>Shooting music performance photography and non-wedding events like you've been doing isn't the same as wedding photography.</p>

<p>The other issue is that because you have not shot a wedding, you really do not know what you really will need based on consumer demand in you specific geographical area. While we can evoke the names of a successful wedding photographer in England, or a successful portrait shooter somewhere else ... it doesn't mean it can or will work for you starting out with a zero base of business.</p>

<p>Speaking of that, the other extreme is that of leaving your job with no base of wedding business. Why not start the wedding business now, and quit corporate work a year from now? At least you will have started the "word-of-mouth" ball rolling to help with your first year out as a full time photographer. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry, I wanted to add specifics concerning gear, and not mix it up with the general advice in my previous post.</p>

<p>C Jo and others touched on something that is very important to consider: <strong>using informed judgement and reputable</strong> <strong>sources</strong> to purchase used gear at a fraction of the cost of new gear. There are a ton of people on the "upgrade train" who buy the latest greatest and dump last year's gear like changing underwear. I'm one of those ... primarily because I can afford it, (<em>or at least used to be able to afford it before going full time as photographer last year </em>: -)</p>

<p>For example, I give the same advice to my assistant/second shooter. She just secured a mint Canon 20-35/2.8L for 20% the cost of a new 16-35/2.8L. The 20-35 is known to be a great performer, and 20mm is more than enough field-of-view when used on her mint used full-frame Canon 5D ... a camera that she paid less than the price of a new bottom of the line Canon crop-frame camera.</p>

<p>Same for start up studio type lighting gear ... or at least some of it. Stuff like light stands, umbrellas are relatively cheap especially used. Even established pros like Nadine and myself use good old solutions for off-camera lights. I think Nadine uses Sunpak 120Js, and I use something very similar for my portable lighting kit. Unless you seriously plan on shooting advertising product or industrial photography, you don't need big lighting and a ton of it ... which is really expensive if you buy the best.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your investment needs to be a lot more than the equipment.</p>

<p>If you're starting from scratch you need to build product, brand, reputation, presence and customers. I'm assuming you're already skilled at photography, but if not, then you'll need to develop in that area too.</p>

<p>All of those things cost money. To be honest, camera equipment is a mere drop in the ocean and probably one of the least important elements. Based on personal experience if you want to make the transition from corporate day job to photography career you need to have the equivalent of a year's salary in your current employment position to invest. Your primary expenses in the first few months will be everything except photography equipment.</p>

<p>A product centric approach:<br /> 1. What product/products do you intend to offer your customers?<br /> 2. What specification and type of equipment do <strong>you</strong> need to produce that product?<br /> 3. What knowledge, training and experience do you need to be able to produce that product consistently?<br /> 4. What level of redundancy, warranty and expedited service do you need to be able to fulfill your obligations?<br /> 5. What do you need to own and what can you rent or borrow?<br /> 6. Consider your business plan and the investment and financing needed to acquire what you need. If needed go back to step 1 and revise your product offering.</p>

<p>You could also think in a market centric approach which would be to consider what the market needs and how you can fill that void and then go to step 1 and think about your product offerings.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A while back I discovered, the Bing, "cashback" program (a.k.a Microsoft Live). It pays anywhere from 3-25% of your purchases depending on when you buy and where. If you start building a $10k+ kit this really adds up.<br>

I used to scavenge around the used gear forums like a homeless person in a trash bin only to find I could now get new gear for the cost of used. At the very least is always pays for shipping on any given day.</p>

@Marc, thanks for your usual diplomacy :) I am in total agreement with what you, Neil as well as the numerous other seasoned shooters have said.

<p>@Seth, it's probably a lot more information and cautions than you probably anticipated :) It is a very useful discussion too, and I will permanently bookmark this thread for when I finally make the jump to full-time shooting ;-)

<p>PN is a great resource indeed.

<p>I suspected that there would be a lot of different (and strong) opinions on this, and certainly appreciate all of the information, so thanks again, everyone. I intentionally didn't provide much detail about my current situation because I wanted the discussion to be as open as possible.</p>

<p>The first pictures I got paid for (coverage of a parade for a local paper shot on spec as a freelancer) were shot with a borrowed Canonet GIII QL17 35mm rangefinder, a camera that cost maybe $125 and didn't even take interchangeable lenses. The newspaper where I worked part-time as a photographer in high school used Mamiya TLRs. My first SLR was a $100 Russian-made Kalimar with a very soft lens but the girls I shot senior portraits for (and got paid) loved the look. Even after I moved into full time work at daily papers, many newspaper photographers in the 80s preferred the Nikon FM over the more expensive F2 or F3 bodies because it was "disposable" -- replace it rather than repair when it was broken. To me, a "professional" camera is any camera you shoot pictures with that you get paid for, particularly if you do so full-time or on a regular basis. It could be a D3x or a Holga as long as it gets the job done and your employer/customer/client hands over the cash.</p>