Rebel Rant - Re: Equipment for shooting weddings

[ibdnzgr]

I do know that moving from a third party lens to a Canon image stabilized lens that cost quite a bit more made a world of difference in my photos. Same camera body, different lens. I am actually looking forward to the XSI which I anticipate will add more credibility to the Rebel yell. And when it starts to wear out while the 5D is still shuttering, we can just go buy another one or two Rebels.

[srrf]

Matt- I'm sorry to realize that you took my comments as "a swipe" or as "sarcastic." I truly didn't mean them in that way. I think it's very hard to truly convey a feeling through a post on a board, so if I came across in a negative way, my apologies. I was just trying to state an opinion

 

By the way- I did NOT include "shooting weddings with the rebel" in my original post- that was added by a moderator. My commentary in my original post was more geared towards the general photographer, and since I have found comments on this forum that have said that photographers that use Rebels are subpar, I figured it made sense.

 

Thanks for everyone's time... it was actually useful for me to hear these opinions- I'm reconsidering how much to invest in my business, and how to do so.

[pete_s.]

I'm with Nadine. A pro uses the the tools of his or hers own preference so he/she can to deliver results that the client expects and will make them satisfied.

 

Consumer/prosumer/pro body is just marketing speak. A medium format digital back will seriously kill a "pro" D3 in image quality. And a 416 Megapixel large format scanning back will blow a puny 39 Megapixel medium format out of the water.

 

Every camera has is it's pros and cons. I haven't used a Rebel but one of the pros to any camera of that class is weight and size. If I was to shoot for 15 hours straight I would much rather carry two Rebels than two D3s assuming I could deliver what the client expected with either. I'm pretty certain my accountant would be equally pleased.

 

Peter

[Matt Laur]

Shelli... my skin is not that thin. My concern is the oft-repeated notion that equipment doesn't matter. That - at face value - is no more helpful a concept than saying that the photographer doesn't matter. It may be more complicated to couch such discussions in the real economic and technical terms that actually make them meaningful, but unless you do, you're just reinforcing some very unfortunate misconceptions. <i>Sometimes</i>, for some people, with certain skills, when only certain things matter and certain other things don't, then a 5D or a MKIII and a Rebel might indeed be interchangeable. But that's usually far more wrong than it is right (at least when you're talking about weddings and pro shooters, whether new or veteran). I suppose I'm on a bit of a mission to ask people to provide some <i>context</i> when they make statements like that, so that such important issues don't just get dumbed down into cliches and platitudes. I'm not offended. You <i>can't</i> offend me, I promise. Well, unless you talk smack about my bird dog. Them's fightin' words. :-)

[russ_konrad]

<B>"...Consumer/prosumer/pro body is just marketing speak. A medium format digital back will seriously kill a "pro" D3 in image quality. And a 416 Megapixel large format scanning back will blow a puny 39 Megapixel medium format out of the water...."</B>

<P>

And a Nikon D3 will seriously kill a Rebel in image quality. Thanks for reinforcing the point that equipment DOES matter.

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

While I agree that a 5D and other cameras will result in crisper, more saturated photos very often, I just can't agree that a photographer who uses the Rebel or anything similar is any less of a photographer.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Which of those two types of images do you believe a customer would prefer?

[pete_s.]

"And a Nikon D3 will seriously kill a Rebel in image quality. Thanks for reinforcing the point that equipment DOES matter."

 

Oh, I truly believe that all characteristics of the equipment matters to someone but it may not always be in the way the manufacturer hopes. And it depends on the photographer and the application what value are placed on those characteristics.

 

Peter

[KenPapai]

I agree with everyone here EXCEPT those who harp: "Put a crappy camera in a skilled pro's hand and you'll see equipment does not matter." Or worse: "The choice of aq camera makes little difference."

 

That's patently absurd. Photography is a TECHNICAL pursuit and most certainly equipment, in this digital age, is a huge issue. prior to 2001 pros shot film -- back then the arguments were around film and lenses.

 

So many variables go into an assigned job: the photographer's eye (composition and seeing the light); the mastery of the business at hand (prior experience); the technical know-how, both equipment related and exposure related; and especially post processing of the images gained. Any one of these can be a point of failure or a disappointing outcome to yourself and your client.

 

A good discussion all in all.

[john_h.1]

"I just had to put it out there."

 

Why? What would have happened otherwise?

 

Lets settle this one OK? A good photographer can often achieve satisfactory or even superior results with a lesser camera but it is best to use a better camera to maximize opportunities to obtain the best results.

 

Wasn't that easy?

[fotografz]

Shelli, "Uncle Bob" is a metaphor that you seem to be taking as a blanket condemnation of

his Digital Rebel ... which, BTW, is also a metaphor.

[photo_dark]

In any market there are different levels.

 

Brad Pitt isn't going to hire uncle Bob to shoot his wedding... and Sally and Joe Hillbilly arn't going to hire NYC photog Henry Chan.

 

So... based on that, i hardly think it's necessary that every wedding photographer is lumped into one big pot.

 

Of course a 1ds mk3 w/ a 24-70L is going to take a better picture than a 300D with nothing but a 50 1.8. But comparing all weddings to all other weddings isn't necessarily comparing apples to apples. Every wedding has a budget, just like every photographer (from begginner to seasoned pro) has an equipment budget.

 

There are minimums of course... one decent camera body (such as a 400D or better) with a backup, at least one flash, and enough lenses to cover the required work with sufficient quality (yea the 50 1.8 will suffice worst case scenario) and I think we can all agree that better equipment = better photos.

 

But don't forget that better, more experienced photographer will also take better photos than hobbiest joe with his rebel XT, 18-55 kit and pop-up-flash. And that's the bottom line.

[photo_dark]

And my last point was that not every bride and groom can afford $5000+ for a wedding photographer, there's plenty of room for the start-out photographer with only the basics.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

That you can does not mean that you should have to! It's the old adage that amatuers talk about bodies and lenses and pros discuss bags and straps. A pro will buy the equipment that they feel will do the job that they need. Most will ignore whether the equipment is considered pro if it does the job reliably though in most cases pro equipment is equipment that a photographer can rely on and that is why they buy it even if they could do the job with lesser equipment.

 

When I'm shooting a wedding for 12 hours I want equipment that is easy to use (I couldn't live with the lack or rear dial on a Rebel otherwise the new one could easily outgun my 20D/3rd backup), does what you tell it to do, doesn't drive me mad, lets me shoot subconsicously without having to worry about reliability. I doubt many pros would disagree with the above as the requirements for a tool which you make your living with.

 

My 5D's have a far faster review time than my original 1Ds did as well as a far bigger buffer. They have ETTL II with hi sync which means that I can leave my ND filter at home and get more reliable flash indoors or out than the Metz I used to use. I can live without the 45 AF points and weatherproofing. Therefore the 5D is a better tool for me albeit it isn't from the pro line. None of these things are crucial but when you make your living from a tool you want all the ease of use and convenience you can get. If they were to invent a metering system so accurate that you would never need to apply EC ever again, what wedding photographer in their right mind would not want to avoid that hassle?

 

Of course you can shoot a wedding with a Rebel, the new one with 14 bit processing and 10 megapixels should give a very high IQ image. However as anyone who has shot with better equipment will know, using the better equipment makes getting the shot easier be it through having a top LCD, better viewfinder, faster focusing, faster changing of settings and especially EC, etc, etc. To that extent I would wonder about a photographer who is working with a tool which to a certain extent is working against him. A wedding is hectic enough, is pressure enough without your premier tool not being up to scratch in the USAGE stakes however good the image is. I remember when I started out that none of the photographers I knew used lens caps while I studiously kept mine on in the camera bag. I knew once I didn't bother any more that I had passed into the realm of people who know what is important and ignore the rest, oh an don't bother with anything that could possibly make your job longer, harder, less reliable or just simply a pain in the neck. It's a stage all people reach as they go pro and I have little doubt that the rebels go out of the window together with the slow focusing and dim kit lenses as well as the painful cheap straps and store brand camera bags!

[todd_k.]

Some or you guys are so funny. Gear purchasing is an economic decision. The question you have to ask your self is will a D3 or whatever enable you to earn more money then a D300, 40D, D80, or a DRebel. And will that extra income cover the additional expense plus generate additional profit. Also dont forget to consider time in PP. I have found that in the long run our money is better spent on high quality lenses since the difference in image quality between most of todays DSLRs is quite small. Having said that, I cannot stand shooting with tiny cheapo cameras that require me to sift through a dozen menus any time I want to change something. Good IQ, predictable metering, image stabilization, weather sealing, and plenty of buttons is what I like. But if your providing quality service and making money with a couple of Drebels, or D80s then thats great, after all is that not why we are all here?

[photo_dark]

Todd hit it on the head. Are you going to make more money with 'x' camera or 'x' lens? If so, then it's probably a worthwhile choice... otherwise... why bother? Stick with what works, unless an upgrade offers a significant income to expendeture ratio.

[jbs]

I have to put this out there or I'll bust...

 

If "Uncle Bob" had a Sony a700 (insert your favorite camera model) in 2002 would his prints look better than Al Kaplan's using his trusty Leica? Remember, "Uncle Bob" has the "advanced" digital camera system.

 

Sounds like trolling, I know. Just pointing out perceptions.

My apologies to Al.

 

I love cameras. They are all fun and I have made money with most of mine from my first Polaroid to Argus, Canon, Minolta and Sony. No, I'm not going to do a Sports Illustrated shoot with with a DiMage7i but for local mags it's fine. Shooting a wedding with a DRebel is fine but I wouldn't want to do a $10k wedding with one. A good general rule might be: if your money up front is enough to cover 1 months rent "and" buy a new camera/lens then it's time to upgrade. ;)

 

Peace

[fotografz]

"If "Uncle Bob" had a Sony a700 (insert your favorite camera model) in 2002 would his prints look better than Al Kaplan's using his trusty Leica? Remember, "Uncle Bob" has the "advanced" digital camera system."

 

As a matter of fact, no ... even if Uncle Bob had a 1DsMKIII. Which I think is your point. Al and I have done a wedding together, and I scanned his work @ 4000 dpi. Al knows more about photography than most "Uncle Bob's will ever know because his camera has never done the thinking, Al does.

 

 

"Shooting a wedding with a DRebel is fine but I wouldn't want to do a $10k wedding with one."

 

 

Why not? Doesn't a Bride spending $2,000. feel her photos are just as important as a Bride with 10 grand to spend?

 

 

Todd, I do agree that it is an economic decision. However, I take issue with the obsession people have with buying NEW equipment all the time. Because of the ferocious rate of development, and this obsession with "new", even when you really can't afford new, the availability of lightly used PRO level gear can allow those on a budget to

"have their cake and eat it too." This is especially true for optics and accessories. It's only been in recent years that I could afford to buy new, and keep pace with the rapid changes. Prior to that I waited, and carefully bought last year's model from some Doctor who coddled the gear like it was some precious artifact. One of my

students queues up to buy my hand-me-downs every 2 to 3 years because he knows I maintain the gear. He buys pro quality at a fraction of the cost, and has never owned a D-Rebel.

[srrf]

Marc,

That's an interesting suggestion. I've been looking into buying used bodies, but have been discouraged of doing so by a few people. How can one tell if a used body is worth the price? New, of course you're paying for never used and supposedly in perfect working order, but is there a good way to be relatively sure that a body is in good condition?

[russ_konrad]

Shelli,

 

Check with your local camera shop. Most places will give you a 90 to 120 day warranty on their used equipment.

 

One of the best deals out there right now is the Nikon D200 going for around $1000 in mint condition. One of our local shops has three of them on the shelf - all of them under $1100.

[jbs]

<"Shooting a wedding with a DRebel is fine but I wouldn't want to do a $10k wedding with one."

 

Why not? Doesn't a Bride spending $2,000. feel her photos are just as important as a Bride with 10 grand to spend? >

 

Of course she does. The suggestion I was trying to make was that you upgrade when you can afford it. I wouldn't want to do a wedding with a "drebel" if I could afford something I like better. :)

[picturesque]

For camera bodies, I personally would try to buy new, unless you somehow develop a good source--someone you know personally, or a place you have observed and know that your probability of running across fraud is low. Such a place for me is the fredmiranda Buy and Sell forum. Most of the people there are honest--just photographers looking to get gear, just like ourselves. I bought my latest 5D there, and it was fine.

 

The other thing is, observe the product cycle very carefully. I never buy anything that has just come out. I want to let all the bugs get worked out of it before I get one. I also observe the product retail price and the occurence of rebates, etc. That is why I got the 5D, basically new, for less. It was not at the beginning of the product cycle, and the person selling was taking advantage of the rebates. He made a little money while getting what he wanted. Plus, just use your intuition. If someone sounds just slightly fishy, or there is something not quite right about a deal, I back off. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

 

Other than that, the best is actually examining the body and testing it. Sometimes people know how many actuations the body has processed, sometimes they don't. I don't find that local camera stores have such good deals on used gear, although it would depend, so I wouldn't discount it.

[fotografz]

Shopping for used gear is just like anything else. You have to deal. Make an offer, and if they don't bite, move on. I recently came across a demo Hasselblad 203FE body and made an offer @ about 40% of the new cost ... and the dealer groused a lot, but took my money. I Saved $1,800. on a brand new camera

with a full warranty.

 

If you feel it necessary to buy new, Nadine's point about waiting for the product cycle to come close to an end is a good idea. Look at the introductory price of the 5D, and the price now. When the 5D replacement comes it'll go down even more as dealers try to dump their stock.

 

Lenses are easier to buy used. Get it on condition, and bench test it right away. I do that even with new lenses. In the past 4-5 years I've had far more faulty focusing new lenses than faulty used ones. I buy and sell on tight-nit forums from people I know. I just sold a $22,000. MF digital package to a guy I

never met ... but have known of for years ... and was able to check out through mutual forum friends I've also known for years ... and he did the same.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

For me personally I don't buy expensive used gear for the same reason I don't buy me gear in the states eventhough the price is lower and my father lectures there 4 times a year. Warranty. I'm happy to buy with the over inflated UK prices because my gear does end up with CPS pretty often and as they are pretty good about fixing stuff under warranty unless it's hugely obviously my fault, it's very much worth it for me. I have two 5D's both about 3 years old and both still under Canon pro warranty because CPS gives a 6 month extension of warranty with every repair including just a focus tweak.

 

Of course with a 1 series body, especially the new ones with focus adjusment, there could be little reason to expect the need for repair, you have to do the math based on your expectations from experience.