Which canon?

[tyler_pearce]

Hey guys,

 

I currently shoot weddings, but would like to get into the

architectural/advertising markets. I have the 20d which I love.

However the lens magnification is a bother. Which canon would you

recommend that I upgrade to that is full frame? I would like the

1ds but dont have the money, would the 5d or maybe 1dm2 or 1dm2n be

worth it?

 

Thanks

[EricM]

it depends on the output needs of your clients. web pages or billboards? i'd get the 5d if you can get away with it, great cam.

[tyler_pearce]

Is the 5D comparable/better then the 1D mark 2? I hear that there is a new 20D coming out but dont know anything about it.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

The chances of the 20D's successor being full frame are extremely thin.

 

That leaves you with the option of the 5D, old 1Ds or 1D mkII. For architectural as well as advertising you want the maximum amount of resolution you can get and the ability to use true wide angle lenses would almost be a must. Add to that the tilt and shift lenses you could be using which are MF only and therefore could certainly use the large viewfinder of the 5D together with the cheap split circle focus screen and it looks like a winner. Whether you would need the bullet and weather proof build of the 1 series bodies is up to you, I would doubt it.

 

The old 1Ds body could be an option for you if you did decide that you needed a 1 series build but having owned one and now the 5D I would stronly advise against it. It would be fine for architecture but the far cleaner files, faster copy and review and far faster buffer would be big plusses for advertising/studio work and the image quality and DR of the 5D is IMO streets ahead of the 1Ds, especially for wedding work.

 

As far as the wedding side goes, the 1Ds is murderously demanding of a wedding photographer. You have to get the exposure perfect to maximise the resolution. The review time is very slow for when you're shooting fast in difficult and changing lighting conditions. Added to that ETTL flash is pretty useless and you will find yourself taking a large step backwards in flash/speed/startup/noise/AWB/review/buffer and screen from the 20D.

 

A 1D mkII body would be fine if you don't mind the (to my mind) wierd crop factor where your lenses are almost the right focal lengths, but not quite. The resolution is fine for weddings but I'm not sure if it would cut it for your advertising and architecture. The fact though is that the 1D mkII was designed as a blazingly fast sports/PJ camera and its main advantages are rather neglected in any other field of photography.

 

Personally? I would get the 5D and invest in some nice glass and a couple of the focus screens.

[conraderb]

just so you know, here are the cameras and field of view crop factors with their approximate prices in USD:

 

20D = 1.6 ($1250 or so)

1D = 1.3 (not sure)

1d mk II = 1.3 ($3500 or so)

1d mk II N= 1.3 ($3000 or so)

1ds = 1.0 (not sure - maybe $3500)

5d = 1.0 ($3000)

1ds Mk II = 1.0 ($7000)

 

if you want an actual full frame, your options are 5d or 1ds, or 1ds MkiI

 

conrad

[KenPapai]

There is no "lens magnification" going on. A focal length is a focal length, no matter your sensor. You should use the correct terminology, which is "crop factor". The 1Ds model is cheaper than the 5D body, but they are pretty old already. Maybe you meant a 1DsMkII? In any case, you have to go with a 5D considering your requirements, as the 1D's 1.3 crop factor you'll also find "disappointing" or a bother.

[chris_floden]

I shoot about 100 weddings a year (104 in 2005!) I upgraded to 1DMkII N's from 20d's in November of 2005 and they are leaps and bounds above the 20d's. Like you, I was thinking about the 5D, but I had a chance to meet with Canon design engineers during a three day class and learned how much more durable the 1DMkII N is engineered to be than the 5D. It is technically stated to have 2x the lifecycle, but in reality is closer to 5x. Since I need a reliable camera for weddings, this was a no brainer for me. I actually like the features of the 1DMkII N better than the 1DsMkII I shoot architectural jobs with. The other thing to think about is that if you intend to shoot 12M images with the 5D, the workflow is going to be slowed down significantly. I've never had a bride unhappy with less than adequate image sizes (at 8.2) from a wedding shoot. Perhaps if you shoot a lot of bridals - where larger portraits are more common - it would make sense to want larger images. Even with the 1DMkII N though, Genuine Fractals can take you to high quality 40M images.

[fotografz]

Architecture? What kind of architectural work? Advertising market? What type of advertising

work?

[tyler_pearce]

Hey guys,

 

Thanks for all the input. Im still trying to think what kind of aspects of these fields I would like to get into. I work for a architecural plastics company and I might have an oppertunity to take some photo shoots of our products for our website. I really like the work thats in Architectural Design Magazine. I would like to take shoots of buildings, and homes for designer magazines. I would also like to get into advertising, allthough i really dont know what that entails... Could someone fill me in as to what the different kinds of advertising is?

 

Thanks

[karl_knize]

Hi Tyler,

 

Many years ago I used to hang out with Sandi Hedrich,of Hedrich-Blessing in Chicago. If you're not familiar with the name, find a shot of Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater.That's Bill Hedrich's shot.Anyway,this was during my assistant days and I contemplated working for them and learning the craft, but I simply didn't have the fire or love of architecture that it takes to make the enormous commitment it requires to be a real architectural specialist.

At Hedrich-Blessing at that time in the 80's, the average was seven years before an assistant actually produced a photo with H-B on it. Of course, they were still shooting LF primarily, and took every photo to the absolute Nth degree in terms of lighting and color control of interiors. No doubt digital has made things a bit more user friendly, but in the end it remains the same discipline, requiring big doses of experience and technical virtuosity. If you're serious, you need to get in the trenches and find a job as an assistant to someone who is a genuine working specialist.You don't necessarily have to commit seven years, but in the end that sounds about right. It's the only way unless you're a true genius or a wealthy connected genius.:-)

[fotografz]

Karl knows his stuff Tyler. Architectural photography is discipline unto itself. One of my

best pals does it for high-end builders, and I've known a few others. Very precise use of

tilt/shift lenses. Lighting mastery that boggles the mind. Perfection in color accuracy. IMO,

unlike what some folks think about wedding work, an architectural photography

apprenticeship is probably a must. BTW, none of the people I know that are doing this type

work use a DSLR. Those pals that use digital capture are using $30,000. multi-shot

Imacon digital backs on pro level 4X5 cameras. Others shoot 4X5 transparency film and

drum scan it. Not for the faint of heart.

 

If it's shooting houses for local Real Estate firms or for Title appraisals, that's a different

story. But for stuff like Architectural Digest ... see above.

 

Advertising work is a bit more diverse. Simple catalog jobs for local manufactures at one

end of the spectrum, to work for collateral materials like brochures, posters, and in-store

promotions, to editorial magazine work, all the way to shooting national ads for magazine,

billboard and internet usage.

 

There are basic sources for this type work: direct from the companies themselves (ones

that have in-house graphics departments), direct from publications, and from agents

working on contract for businesses. These include design firms, Public Relations firms,

and advertising agencies. Plus, there are stock agencies.

 

Some low end catalog work can be done with a DSLR. But those featuring jewelry, fabrics

and other items with spectral highlights or intricate patterns usually require digital capture

beyond what DSLRs are capable of. However, things that are relatively simple and less

detailed can be done with a DSLR IF you light them correctly. One of my clients shoots

their own Kayaks and Canoes for 3" to 4" reproduction in catalogs right at the factory.

 

Editorial work seems to becoming more tolerant of digital capture. A writer friend of mine

shoots story images for car mags. and has started using a Pentax 1stD.

 

The remaining stuff depends on the subject matter. Food photography is a speciality and

requires an infra-structure of support staff ( like food stylists ) and special equipment.

Same with Fashion ( a wide selection of make-up and wardrobe stylists ) fast recycling

strobes, special light modifiers, changing and staging areas in the studio. At the top of the

commercial food chain is probably car photography.

 

And so on, and so on. Not quite as easy as it looks huh?

[kipling]

not quite as easy as it looks, huh? and not quite as technically difficult as some are trying to make you think. <br>

tyler, it's all (90%) about personal style, vision and selling your self and your work, the rest is how you get there. There are many photographers that have had only basic training in lighting and have done very well. (that's what assistants are for. believe me, half the assistants out there are photographers without the vision and balls to strike out on there own, they use their knowledge about equipment to make money not their brilliant qualities as photographers) several greats have never assisted, but just jumped in and worked hard at doing what they wanted. <p>

if you have the ideas, the imagination and the power, you can make things happen without 7 years training (for what?, learning about tilt and shift movements, measuring light temp., gelling strobes and filtering a camera lens? come on, more like 6 1/2 years of learning about how to carry equipment from the van to the location and back.). <p>

being a great photographer is about doing great photography not about explaining the circle of confusion to college students. okay, yes, i'm exaggerating, you have to know your equipment BUT don't be mistaken, knowing your equipment won't make you a good or a successful photographer, just a good assistant ; D

[fotografz]

Spare me the amateur wishful thinking. Tyler should know what's what. If he's determined

and talented, then the truth of what he's getting into shouldn't matter.

 

So Kipling, you think I'd hire a food shooter that has drive and determination and a 5D,

but no clue who the best food stylists are, and how to light and gel the shot to bring out

the best in the client's product, nor has a studio with a professional kitchen? Not likely.

 

If you are talented and have vision and drive, then the shooting part is the least hard part

of commercial photography. Running a business is. And it's a business that's usually

dedicated to a specific type of photography. Specific specialties are what art directors and

art buyers look for, not generalist.

 

Unless you are sleep walking as an assistant, you will pick-up on who is who in food

stylists and develop a relationship with them. Same for people shooters. You'll find out

how to cast and direct people to achieve what you're after. And so on.

 

As to having assistants do all this for you? Baloney. When you start out, you're either doing

all of it yourself, or working with less experienced assistants. The really good ones aren't

interested in working for some beginner. There's nothing to learn and usually not enough

money. Or they're already working for for a top shooter in the field they're interested in.

 

There is one "in" for beginners in commercial work with lots of vision and talent. Price. If

you can pull off a decent set of shots for simple catalog work, you can sometimes get the

job by underbidding everyone else. It's just the way it is in today's crunch economy.

[kipling]

<i> "So Kipling, you think I'd hire a food shooter that has drive and determination and a 5D, but no clue who the best food stylists are, and how to light and gel the shot to bring out the best in the client's product, nor has a studio with a professional kitchen? Not likely."</i> <p>

no, don't think that and didn't say that. <p>

i have no idea how you work marc. when i'm looking for a photogapher i look at the work they've done, i look at their book, i talk to people that they've worked for. if the work strikes me as interesting and along the lines of what i want for my client i start to dig deeper. i've never in my advertising career known anyone, or have i ever asked a photographer what camera he uses and if and how he learned his lighting techniques. its a given that when i book a photographer to do a shoot for a double page ad, he knows what camera to use - what a rediculous point. i have, and usually do talk about lighting in regards to what i want for the shot, but not about where or how the technique was learned.

<p>

<i> As to having assistants do all this for you? Baloney. When you start out, you're either doing all of it yourself, or working with less experienced assistants. The really good ones aren't interested in working for some beginner. There's nothing to learn and usually not enough money. Or they're already working for for a top shooter in the field they're interested in.</i>

<p>

you're generalizing marc. settle down. it's actually possible you aren't the authority on everything. i personally know three art directors who are successful commercial photographers, they didn't assist. they picked up stuff from art directing. when they started (and it was called for) they hired experienced freelance assistants to help with setting up complicated lighting and simply directed them. in time they gained experience. it worked out very well. i also know know two fashion photographers that didn't assist, simply jumped in the water and worked on small assignments and gradually built up a good book. i know two commercial photographers that were printers before they went professional. i've met a lot of assistants over the years and several (this doesn't mean all! they are the minority) of them were older and more experienced than the photographers they worked for (not possible in your world, but it is in mine). they didn't have the will or drive to run a business of their own, they much rather worked on the safe side, assisting in a professional and in a partner like manner with a photographer. <p>

i think i mentioned at the end of my first post that i was exaggerating my point, so yes, we do agree on one point: you can't be a complete moron who knows nothing about photography and be successful. true. ya gotta know something about what you're doing. but there is more than one path to being successful. you don't need years of experience to make it, you need to have a vision of what you want and the drive to make it happen. it doesn't matter how you do it.

[stacy]

OT- but to Kipling and Marc:

 

Your conversation has me thinking that I could learn a lot from assisting someone in fashion or a field other than weddings, but I don't know anyone. I was thinking I could perhaps scour local magazines to get names- but then what- should I send a resume? call them? What type of portfolio would make the best impression? I could not work full time and no weekends which might put me at a disadvantage so if you can think of any tips for me that would be great! Thanks!

[kipling]

stacy, it depends on in which city you live in and on what market you're addressing. i can only speak from my experience. i live in a city overflowing with commercial photographers. anyone with photographic talent, some flexibility and most importantly a good attitude could land an assisting job here. you'll need to put together a small book showing what you can do (and want to do), be bold and broad, you goal as an assistant will be to put the photographer at ease. he's not hiring you for one specific task but for ALL the tasks he doesn't want to do personally : ) seriously, the key to assisting is wanting to learn and making it obvious that you can "assist" the photographer. In europe that means: you can speak three languages, you have an advanced drivers license (are allowed to drive heavy trucks), know how to use photoshop, you're good at organizing, you can load film fast, you can make a mean coffee and have the right attitude. experience with large format cameras, digital capture and lighting are welcome but not absolutely necessary. Why? because those are relatively quickly learnable tasks, that you can pick up. <p>

marc will probably flame me for saying all this, but in my experience assisting (especially on commercial shoots with big budgets) is about being a hard working helper not about being photographically talented. take a meeter reading, set up some lights, call a taxi, run and get this, make a coffee and be fast. now you're an assistant.<br>

i'm not saying you won't learn a lot by doing it, you will, i'm saying a photographer doesn't need another photographer on a shoot, he needs people around him to do everything else so he can concentrate on his job. <p>

hope this helps.

[stacy]

Thanks Kipling,

 

I live in a large city- but it does not seem to be overflowing with commercial photographers. However- I managed to find a few that I like in the phone book (and then searched for their websites)and i have a couple of people to call to see if I can get more names. I do understand what you mean about photographers don't need another photographer- but I do think I could learn quite a bit about lighting set ups- other cameras maybe- and most importantly- meet people. So I'm happy to run errands and make coffee (I do make the best coffee)-etc. in exchange. Thanks for the tips- I'm going to try and get a portfolio together right away...

[karl_knize]

I know you aren't asking, but here's my two cents: I think you're both right. But it depends upon what the conversation is about, exactly.

 

If you're talking about fashion,editorial, people illustration and basic tabletop, depending upon which area and how talented and smart and driven and connected you are,I think you can get by with little or no assisting experience or a year or three. And truthfully, as someone who has done the full route I know that there's a reciprocal for good assistants and good photographers.

 

Good photographers often make lousy assistants because their head is elsewhere, and good assistants are often clueless about being in control creatively. And generally, assistants who have been at it for more than five years never had it in the first place or lost something along the way.

 

Yes, assisting is more often than not about schlepping and organizing,

with photography lessons learned by osmosis in many studios. This is the "Dog s**t on my heels" school, which I have experienced more than once.

 

At the other end of the spectrum there's mentoring, such as happens at Hedrich-Blessing. And mentoring for good reason because I think that architecture is a specialty unto itself and is about much, much more than technical virtuosity. The seven year process is also about education and seeing architecture.Also,when transition occurs you're vested in the company and not just hanging out your shingle in the Workbook.

 

I think the same goes for food in a way, but I don't consider it as having the overall complexity of architecture. It's certainly it's own discipline though, and not easily acquired.

 

I apologize to Tyler as I was probably throwing water on the fire without the proper caveat. I think the process is often about seven years or so for a good education, transition and building to the point where you're in business and making a living. Architecture falls into this kind of time frame, in my experience.

 

Conversely, someone with little or no assisting experience but with a personal vision can bust it wide open now with a 5D, a zoom and an Epson,mixed with some clever marketing. Witness the tide of junkie color going on right now, with probably half of these folks unaware of Joel Sternfeld or William Eggleston. Vision driven work with no great technical demands required. And I'm not saying this is a horrible thing.

 

Anyway, have to run.

[karl_knize]

Stacy, depending upon where you live and how big the market is, getting assisting gigs is usually more about persistence than talent, with some exceptions. There are some very, very good photographers out there who won't hire you ever unless you're out of RIT or Brooks or somewhere similar and have an excellent student book. These guys are usually in the three big markets.

 

Closer to home, if you go to a rental house or get manuals and learn how to use various kinds of gear without breaking it or blowing it up, have a basic grasp of lighting setups, have some photography to show that illustrates your passion, understand how to work in a completely supportive role, you can get hired. I've hired assistants many times because I liked their passion and personality, and took a pass on the RIT guy with the attitude. Just be yourself and keep calling, as photographers typically ebb and flow with work, and have favorite assitants who always move on at some time or another.

 

When I was assisting I wanted to work for a well known Chicago shooter named Jean Moss, in the worst way. I must have called her studio 100 times over a year or two, and never spoke to her personally. Never connected. Then, years later I was using an assitant who I liked personally but who I felt was marginally skilled at best. I tried to book him one day and he called me back and told me he had just been hired as Jean Moss's full time assistant.

 

Don't be intimidated and good luck.

[fotografz]

you're generalizing marc. settle down. it's actually possible you aren't the authority on

everything. i personally know three art directors who are successful commercial

photographers, they didn't assist.

 

Had to get personal huh? Can't have a spirited debate without going there?

 

I personally know a ton of art directors that are now good photographers also. You know

that is very much like assisting without all the grunt labor... but prefer to imply otherwise

for the sake of winning some sort of argument. They learn the ropes on the job while art

directing. What you implied in your original post was that someone like Tyler could jump

right in if he was talented and driven enough. This is misleading. It is a business, and

requires more than just talent to succeed ... unless someone is a genius, and loaded.

 

So the question of any value to Tyler and anyone else interested in expanding, is if they

aren't an art director or designer, and don't assist, how do they learn how it's done?

 

BTW, I've rarely asked a photographer what gear they use either. If they have samples from

former clients and the work fits the bill that's great. But my print producer makes damned

sure that they have the facilities and contacts to do our job when it's something like car,

food, fashion or any other assignment ... before the 3rd party watchdogs review the bids,

or the client shows up on the set. That's what pre-production interviews are for. It's

standard practice to 3 bid most every job these days, and every detail is contained in those

bids for review beyond an art-director's eyes alone.

 

It's not personal. It's just business.

[karl_knize]

Stacy, one thing I forgot. You can search the ASMP website which lists people in your area, also, try the workbook and blackbook sites for regional listings.

[EricM]

"What you implied in your original post was that someone like Tyler could jump right in if he was talented and driven enough."

 

Kipling didn't say that and I didn't infer that. He said start small and build a book and with vision and hard work the light at the end of the tunnel is attainable.

[lb-]

"When I was assisting I wanted to work for a well known Chicago shooter named Jean

Moss, in the worst way."

 

Jean is (was actually, she recently passed away) my girlfriends couisin!

 

small world.

[kipling]

sorry marc, didn't mean to personally attack you or anything, i leave it at that.

[karl_knize]

Lucas,

 

When Jean Moss was in her prime she did some really nice work. Some of her Esquire work was as good as it ever gets. I heard she passed away, which is sad in that she was still working and creative and not that old.

 

It occured to me after the posts that two of the photographers I mentioned are gone now. I'm gettin' old, or so it seems!