Jump to content

what do I buy?!


melissa_arcuri1

Recommended Posts

<p>I am starting to shoot weddings again after a two year hiatus. I still shoot film(which I always will for my own stuff)

and realize that I need to go digital by the summer. I have read all sorts of stuff, most of which I dont

understand. I am not trying to sound pretentious,even though I will, but bottom line...I am a good photographer. I have

the ability to anticipate a great shot. My downfalls? I have little to no knowledge of the technical jargon, despit

e my degree in photography. I dont care about it. I read these posts about the best cameras and I don

t understand what the heck people are talking about.</p

>

<p>I want a SIMPLE explanation to why any given camera is the "best".</p

>

<p>Can anyone help me?</p

>

<p>I have two requests...it must NOT have an on camera flash and must be full-frame.</p

>

<p>THANKS!</

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>What sort of film camera are you using? Are you already invested in lenses that might cross over nicely to the Nikon or Canon full-frame bodies? That's a good place to start your thinking. Otherwise... a pair of Nikon D700 bodies, if you're looking for rugged. Perhaps the Canon 5D MKII, if you're more of a Canonite. You really need to physically pick these two bodies up and touch them. They'll both produce stunning output, and work in low light situations that you (as a film shooter) will find remarkable. But wedding work is about speed and having the equipment not get in your way. The physical ergonomics of the camera would strike me as central to your decision making. You've got to touch them, see where the external controls land under your fingers, etc. And of course, the lens issue. <br /><br />You may also find Nikon's remote strobe capabilities to be extremely useful. The D700's built-in flash (which you don't have to use as part of the exposure!) can control their pro speedlights, off-camera. Very handy. But there are many ways to tackle that issue, and more every day.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unfortunately for the OP, the D700 has a built in flash. And as Matt points out, it's great for controlling remote speedlites if nothing else. Unless the OP has Canon lenses, I would have said the D700 was perfect: Nikon's "best" metering, AF points (as opposed to Canon's 2nd best in the 5D Mark III) and a more rugged build- but it has the undesired built in flash. That leaves the Sony A900, the Canon 5D Mark II or the Canon 1Ds Mark III. Personally, I would keep it between Nikon & Canon for various reasons. And that leaves the two Canon cameras. The 5D Mark II is more of a (very good) prosumer camera while the 1Ds Mark III would be a pro camera. The difference being that the 1Ds is better built and has Canon's better metering system and AF system.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not entirely sure why the built-in flash (especially if unused) is a show-stopper. The reason to look at the D3 (over the D700) isn't the lack of the built-in flash/controller, but the presence of the second CF card slot and the permanent vertical grip. Otherwise, it's really more of a sports camera. The D700 is ideal. And that built-in flash can actually save your bacon, sometimes. Otherwise... just don't ever pop it up!<br /><br />The lens and budget issues seem like the drivers here, and we don't know what the back story is.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matt,<br>

THANK YOU as well. All your info is helpful and easy to understand. I currently have a nikon n80 with a few lenses and a flash. I do prefer the least amount of equipment that is possible.<br>

You are so right, everyday I read or hear something new and different and more mind boggling than the day before.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I promise I'm not letting my personal Nikon-ness polute my thinking here, Melissa... but the fact that you're a Nikon user already (which means you're used to the way their lenses mount, handle, etc), means that juggling bodies/lenses in the heat of battle at a wedding while using something like a D700 would feel completely second nature to you. That's a strong factor, here. If you plan on getting into these new tools before your coming season, the last thing you want to do is introduce any more variables than necessary.<br /><br />If you're not planning on buying two bodies initially, getting a D700 would also allow you to use the same glass on your N80 as a backup solution. That's not a trivial consideration.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What's the problem with having a built-in flash?</p>

<p>Personally I think they're great. For the most part you'll never use it and of course you can't even see it since it's collapsed into the prism housing and is entirely invisible. But when you've dropped your speedlight and broken the head, and your back-up speedlight has run out of power, you might just be glad there's a plan C ....</p>

<p>If you use a N80 now, consider a D700. The controls are very similar, in fact the important ones are basically exactly the same. It's a nice small size (for a pro full-frame body) and is untouchable in low light and has faster more accurate focus than either Sony or Canon. Plus you can still use your existing lenses. Older D primes are superb - much lighter and sharper than most zooms. Resolution is 12 Mp - more than enough for weddings. You can make 30" prints if you needed to quite easily.</p>

<p>If you want dual card slots think about a D3 - basically all the same features in a larger body with benefit of redundancy.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am not adament about the built in flash, just a preference I guess. More importantly is how easily it is to learn to use. I am partial to Nikon but once again I hear so many people tell me different things I am easily swayed toward Canon one day and than back to Nikon the next. Than I recently read a very positive review of the Sony a900. I appreciate everyones contributions.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I recently read a very positive review of the Sony a900.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, they're all great cameras and have all gotten great reviews. The quality of photography from them will have much more to do with the photographer than any of these cameras compared to any of the others. Pick one and practice with it and test the various setting combination to see what you like.</p>

<p>From the other details you've mentioned, I would tell you go with the D700 too. Don't worry about the built-in flash (you don't have to use it but it can be a nice feature in certain cases). Cost + physical size + Image quality + you already have some Nikon gear = the camera for you.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Melissa, I don't think anyone here can make the decision for you on what's "best" for you to purchase and use. There are a number of great cameras that have been listed here and all would be great tools for you to use.</p>

<p>I'm a bit puzzled, though, about why you insist on full frame and no built-in flash, and yet you admit you're baffled by the technical jargon, coming from the analog world of film. It seems to me you had better get a good handle on the digital world and what all of this technology entails before you just settle on one of the listed cameras and start shooting weddings again without a clue on how they work.</p>

<p>Price is a very big factor in these high-end cameras. Do you want to spend $7000 on a body alone, and then a few more thousand on glass for it? Or can you be profitable and make money shooting weddings, and produce perfectly fine images with a half-frame sensor in a less expensive camera (which will have a pop-up flash that you don't have to use). I've chosen the latter route, using two Sony A700's and glass from Sigma and Minolta. I shoot weddings all the time with this platform, and do very well, and never once do my clients have the slightest idea that I'm not using a full frame sensor, nor do they care. Again, you really need to understand all this technology better to make a decision for yourself.</p>

<p>If you're just stuck on full frame, you can either spend $7000 or more on a high-end Canon or Nikon like the D3, or you can spend $3000 on the Sony A900 with the same 24 megapixel sensor as the Nikon (Sony sells these to Nikon). The Sony will also have stabilization on the sensor itself, unlike Nikons and Canons which have to use stabilizers in the lenses themselves. What does this mean in lay terms? When you're shooting handheld in low lighting, your hand movements and vibrations can produce blur in your images without stabilization. With the Sony, every lens you use with it can benefit from the stabilizer, which compensates for these vibrations. With Nikon and Canon, you have to buy the more expensive IS stabilized lenses to get that technology. It comes down to how much you have to spend and what tool you want to use. Again, you really need to study this stuff and come into the digital world with the rest of us before you go plunking down big dollars based on our recommendations.</p>

<p>And, if you start buying high-end full frame cameras, you'd better have plenty of huge memory cards, a very fast computer with terrabytes of storage space, redundant backups, and powerful processor to handle these huge digital image files these cameras produce. An 800 image wedding shot in RAW file format on a full frame camera will result in many gigabytes of data to store, process, and manage, and you'd better have a good batch of pricey software to be able to deal with all of that data. It may be in your interest to lower your sights a bit and work up to full frame cameras by starting with some of the good half-frame models. I doubt that you as a novice would even be able to tell the difference between full frame and half frame in the results, save for the difference in file sizes.</p>

<p>If you read and study this forum, and pose questions on what confuses you as you learn about the digital world, we will be happy to help you along the way, so you understand this technical stuff better.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve...once again alot of what I know is based on what I have read or heard from others. I TOTALLY agree that I need to have a much better understanding of the digital world and I truly appreciate your advice. I am considering going back to school and taking a digital class. I am easily overwhelmed by the barrage of info that is out there and honestly just want someone to say...buy this camera. I also know that is not the best way to go about this process. the info regarding what is needed for a full-frame camera was VERY helpful.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Melissa, Steve's advice is well-grounded. With a $4k budget -- just for the bodies -- that eliminates a lot of the recommendations. A question: Is that budget for bodies and lenses, or bodies alone? What Nikon lenses do you already have?</p>

<p>Your insistence on full-frame propels your minimum 1-body purchase into $3,000+. What about the 2nd body? Lenses? $4k is not going to cover it.</p>

<p> Minimum lenses would be the Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($450) and Nikkor 80-200 non-VR, ($1,100), and you'd need at least one fast prime, but maybe you already own one.</p>

<p>That $1,500 for the lenses leaves 2500 for the bodies minus the cost of the 2 flashes: $800. So....with a $4k budget, realistically speaking, that leaves you just enough for 2 D90s.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The on camera flash thing is completely without merit. This is something manufacturers do for marketing purposes, many times--I would discount the presence or absence of it on a camera.</p>

<p>Wanting the camera to be full frame has merit now, particularly if coming from film. Less to deal with re different format--the focal lengths and DOF, etc.</p>

<p>Then, since you started with Nikon, basically the camera of your dreams is the D700. I shoot Canon, but if I were to be buying now, I would certainly give that camera a hard look. So I'd say you can't go wrong buying it.</p>

<p>You can, however, also take the time to learn more before buying. I came from film, and researched and learned all I could before buying. But that's me, and I know there are other, equally valid ways of dealing with the issue, such as buying the most likely camera and learning as you go.</p>

<p>Still, I would sit down and make a list of priorities. One thing was paramount for me--image quality. And there is a difference between Nikon and Canon. Not that one is better than the other, but things like noise response, etc. I don't know why, but when I look at a Nikon image, it feels more 'transparent' to me than a Canon image. I'll probably get flamed for talking nonsense but there you have it.</p>

<p>The other thing that is very important to me is handling FOR ME. I can learn to work just about anything, but if I take a camera and it just doesn't feel right to me, I won't buy it. So making a list of priorities can be very eye opening. I would suggest it before proceeding further.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You've gotten some good feedback ...</p>

<p>Pick out three camera stores, actual camera / photography stores - not Best Buy and such, and set a day to go visit them.</p>

<p>Ask to see the top two models for Canon and Nikon that are in your price range. Touch them, feel them and see what might "fit" for you. Don't buy on the first visit.</p>

<p>Think it over for a week or so and do some online research to narrow the choices. It's more about the "feel" of the camera since you've got "skills" as well as the fact that you know you don't want a pop up flash and that you do want full frame. Go touch them and shoot some in the store. (Which is probably what you are already planning anyway ... smile.) </p>

<p>When you buy something come back and tell us what you bought and why you bought it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>We can be a helpful, albeit opinionated bunch here, but we're glad to help where we can. You really have to make a decision on what brand you're going to settle on and then work within that brand. In our profession, the top camera manufacturer names are Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, and Sony, not in any order. There is also Olympus, Sigma, and some lesser names, but I gave you the top names that have the widest appeal and broadest product/lens support. Fuji cameras use Nikon lenses and hardware, so they fall in the Nikon category.</p>

<p>You need to just study up on these cameras, talk to some pros about specifics (we're a good place to start), and get your hands on some of these cameras to get a feel for them. And as I said earlier, don't let full frame and no pop-up flash be your only criteria. There are other more important areas to learn about and consider, such as quality (and quantity) of glass available, high ISO performance (the better the performance means less graininess and digital noise when shooting in dark churches), high-speed shutter capability (this function lets you shoot in bright sunny conditions with fill flash that will sync above 1/250 sec. to do shots you could not do in the film days). and good ergonomics with a well-placed button/function layout so you can make adjustments fast as you shoot. I particularly like the Sony platform, because it's got discreet buttons for all the most-used functions, where many cameras bury the functions in a rotating wheel or menu.</p>

<p>Again, do your homework and you'll pick something good. Several years ago, I could not imagine what great gear we'd have to shoot with today, so these cameras all have a lot going for them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I am considering going back to school and taking a digital class"</p>

<p>What is the difference between film and digital.....? Use a CF card instead of film. Ability change ISO on the fly (where using film falls flat on its face). Composition and exposure is identical for both. So in terms of using a digital SLR versus a film SLR there is about 5 minutes worth of learning - how to load a CF card and how to navigate the menu. Job done.</p>

<p>Learning the post processing side is much, much more involved. Very expensive too, you need to budget for a beefy computer if you don't already own one. Then there is Photoshop, Lightroom or whatever you choose to edit you pictures in. In particular, learning how to use Photoshop is not an inconsiderable task. Every single digital shot requires some sort of post processing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hey Melissa,<br>

I agree, the jargon can be confusing, and I didn't think it was important either. I read up on all the cameras in my budget, and learned the jargon out of self defense. Google was my best friend. Then after settling on two (Canon Rebel and Nikon D80) I went to the store and tried them out. The sales guy was great - he even let me test it out outside - he came with me of course and he put different lenses on the bodies so I could really get a feel for it.<br>

After I made my choice (Nikon D80) I promptly forgot all the jargon and just enjoyed taking photos.<br>

You might consider a class though, I am just discovering shooting RAW and post processing...and I have to say, I find that more overwhelming than choosing a camera. <br>

Good Luck!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...