Canon EOS 5D versus 5D Mark II Wedding Photographer's Fee

[conraderb]

<p>I could shoot a wedding with a digital rebel better than 99% of the people on this planet could with a 5d mk2.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, there are many photographers who could shoot a wedding with a digital rebel much better than I could with a 5d Mk2!</p>

<p>fees have nothing to do with one camera or another.</p>

[conraderb]

<p>I should say that thankfully, most photographers don't market themselves based on what gear they use. I once saw some young photographer - with interesting, but not outstanding photos - talk about how great he was because he used 'top of the line' equipment (a 1d Mark 2). sure, nice camera, but it sent a message to me that he wasn't a good enough photographer, so he had to compensate in some way...</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p> I know some photographers who charge twice as much as us that shoot with 30Ds and could beat us hands down any day in a photography contest and we shoot with Mark2's. I also know photographers that shoot with a D3x and I could do better with a point and shoot. This mindset is rediculous. </p>

<p>Honestly, does someone think that a camera makes a difference?? It's a tool. My mother would take just as terrible of pictures (she's actually not that bad at all, just using an example) with a 1Ds Mark3 as she would with her point and shoot.</p>

<p>Difference in price?? Absolutely, 100% ZERO, nada, nothing. In fact I think the person thinking they can charge more because of their equipment should charge less because it shows their complete lack of experience and confidence in their abilities as a photographer so much so that they have to say their camera is what makes them good and worth money.</p>

[steve_crist]

<p>I've said it many times before: Nobody looks at a Picasso and says, "I wonder what type brush he used?". </p>

[john tonai]

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody looks at a Picasso and says, "I wonder what type brush he used?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art historians, restorers and archivists do.</p>

[kevcross]

<p>While I agree with everyone else, it's you they're paying for and not your camera...<br>

<br /> In Los Angeles a 5D rents for $150 a day and a 5DII rents for $200. So you could theoretically estimate your expenses as being an extra $50 a day using the newer body. Not much of a difference to the bottom line anyway.</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>Isn't it simple mathematics? 12.8 / 21.1 = 0.61 so take the fees that photographer X(5D2) commands and multiply by .61 = X(5D)! That was easy!</p>

[think27]

<p>MODERATOR NOTE: Major edit job done on this thread. I need to remind people that if they can't be civil - don't post.</

[William Michael]

It is indeed true some shoppers shop and ultimately buy, just on what equipment one has . . . there seems a trend (on the websites) "about me" to instruct the Prospect with a list of equipment, often with more importance than experience or other matters.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And then there are the “expert” commentators, blogs, handouts, infomercials, magazines . . . all telling the Bride what she must look for . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Crikey, its even spreading down here . . . a mate of mine was asked last week by a Potential Client “how many pixels do you shoot at a Wedding” - he said he <em>promptly</em> answered, "about eight to twelve billion, usually." That number, (or the way he answered) apparently satisfied her.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree with Nadine: I think the answer to addressing these types of clients is to be aware of the "holes" they will pick at - and there are many more "holes" than just: "what camera do you use?"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Being aware of where the prospect will pick, allows the appropriate compensations, answers and rebuffs to be ready. In fact, often some of the picking can be avoided, with careful dialogue and body language. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW<br>

 

 

</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>The one with the MK1 should charge more as they have to go through more images to get to the in focus ones.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

[mizanur_rahman3]

<p>I think the question has some practicality. For most folks, the most important thing in a digital camera is the megapixel count, followed by *X Zoom or **X Zoom, LCD size and scene modes.<br>

Given, an average person can tell a good photo when he sees one, its not always easy for everyone to find the relationship between the photographer - his/her equipment - and the final photo. People who judge a camera by megapixels and **X Zooms may also use a photographers' list of equipment as an indicator of professionalism or quality. Least, they may just find it more reassuring.<br>

As long as things like Megapixel count is the dominant perception of quality, i think one cant blame a photographer's advertising copy for being blunt. If u are pitching to an Eskimo, it is better to have ur brochure translated beforehand. :-)<br>

If a client feels photos frm a MKII is better than photos frm a MKI and I hav a MKII - why not give him/her one more reason to be happier and charge more if possible ? ;-)</p>

[primeimages]

<p>For the more discerning clients, I would think that a wedding photographer would be judged more on his/her portfolio and not his/her equipment. The next criteria would of course be his/her professional fees. There should be a thin line (or maybe none at all) between a 5D Mark I and the Mark II but certainly a world of difference between the $500 wedding photographer using a Rebel Xsi and a $5000 photographer that carries a couple of 1Ds Mark IIIs and a bagful of L lenses.</p>

<p>The only time you'd be judged by the equipment you carry is if the groom/bride happens to be a photography enthusiast:)</p>

[frolickingbits]

<p>This question is like asking if the mechanic with Mac Tools should charge more than the mechanic with Snap-On brand tools, or if the restaurant with All-Clad in the kitchen should charge more than the place next door that uses Calphalon. It's irrelevant.<br>

I have yet to have a client come in and ask for a discount because I'm shooting with a 5D and 30D, and not a pair of 5D Mark II's, and if someone did come in and ask for that, I would tell them no, and probably suddenly become booked on their wedding day.<br>

I have an equipment list on my website, but it is buried under the about me page, and is just for folks who are curious. I do market that I shoot with professional, top of the line digital equipment and backup cameras, but I don't bother to mention the camera model, as that is irrelevent. The consumer camera market is defiintely guilty of convincing most people that megapixel count is all that matters. I have printed 24x30 from a Canon 30D, as well as from a 5D, and the quality difference, while noticeable, would most likely not be immediately obvious to the casual observer.</p>

 

[JRCrowe]

<p>I think the photographer that has the latest most expensive equipment should be able to charge a premium for their services. Right? Isn't that how the world works? So no discount, but remind the customer that if you had the latest whatever that your prices would be higher. We've all heard " I could take pictures like that if I had his/ hers camera".</p>

[trex1]

<p>A guy I know, a real gearhead, told me the original 5D is a better camera. </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Peter, in trying to make the scenario equal, you mentioned both photographers being the 'same sex'. Are you suggesting one sex merits more or less payment than the other?!</p>

<p>Digression aside, as has been said, it's talent and the end result which matters. (Likewise, it would be unthinkable for me to approach my mechanic and demand a discount on the basis that his tools are not new and shiny). But I will say that when I calculate what I will charge for any given year, per wedding, my equipment is clearly a significant overhead. For example if I were to purchase another 5D as a third body I would factor that purchase into the equation, less depreciation. Last time I did that I think it worked out as increasing my cost-per-wedding by £60, which in turn affects what I then charge my customers. So, if the photographers you are comparing have entirely equal talents, equal experience, equal personalities, shoot the same number of events and produce equal results, then it would be normal business practice for the one with the higher overheads to charge a little more <em>in order to make the same profit.</em> That would be just under 3%, in my hypothetical example.</p>

<p>That is <strong><em>not</em> </strong>the same as the (otherwise equal) photographer with the lesser equipment being expected to take a cut, which is what your question seems to be suggesting, because that is absurd.</p>

<p> </p>

[digimage]

<p>the bottom price not base on equitment . if you base on 5D , D3 WHAT EVER THAT NOT RIGHT . In case customers looking for Photographer for weding day do they ask them to see their talen skill pictures to see OR do they ask them to see their equitment .</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em><strong>"People who judge a camera by megapixels and **X Zooms may also use a photographers' list of equipment as an indicator of professionalism or quality. Least, they may just find it more reassuring. As long as things like Megapixel count is the dominant perception of quality, i think one cant blame a photographer's advertising copy for being blunt. "</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The point is well articulated, and well noted. I agree with you. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My comments on this particular point might have appeared a rant - they were meant to be more tongue in cheek.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >From the marketing aspect: the written content in the "about" section of a web page - I think there needs to be a balance, which addresses the marketplace: BROADLY. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If one believes there is leverage to be gained by a note of the equipment being used, I suggest that it be included, I sense that “balance” is your opinion also.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[bob_osullivan]

<p>It's a business persons responsibility to clearly articulate to clients what is important to the final result. Megapixels being at the bottom of the list.</p>

<p>I think it should be more about results than method/tools. If a client wants 200mp files for mural size prints, I'll shoot the formals with my RB67 and scan. If they want 500mp files for wallpapering their den, then I'll shoot with my Toyo 4x5 and scan. (of course neither of those scenarios has ever happened to me)</p>

<p>I'm not going to spend $40k for a MF digital back for the one client that comes along every 3years or so and thinks they know what tools have to be used. </p>

<p>In the end, they need to look at the images for quality, then say what kind of output they'll really want. </p>

<p>Having said all that, I do price my jobs accordingly based on the equipment I'll need to use/carry/insure/possibly damage to get the job done.</p>

<p>For instance, if I need more gear than I can carry/wear I may need to pay an assitant to watch the stuff. That costs. Likewise, even though there's insurance there's also deductables. So, if I"m going to put my 5D in harms way it cost a tad more than if I can get away with the 30D. </p>

<p>Everything has a cost associated with it. Equipment, insurance, loss, protection all cost. It's reasonable and responsible to build these into job estimates.</p>

<p>But to charge more for using a 5D vs 5DII is a bit rediculous to me.</p>

[joel_sackett]

<p>I thought the original post was intended as humor. But all these serious responses? The only factors I can think of that would affect price are time, travel, assistants, and elaborate lighting. Oh, and film, if a couple wants a black and white film reportage with contact sheets and fiber prints, that's another pricing for sure, but that's getting rare. I know some top photojournalists that shoot with the best glass on the cheaper bodies 'cause those bodies are disposable.</p>

[nguyen_k_tran]

<p>None. It doesn't matter what equipment you have. Really the lens is what plays the big role.</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>I in my film days I shot medium format, people had the same arguement over shooting med. format or 35mm. It "looks" better when the pro has the best camera there. <br>

Back in my film days, no one at the wedding ever had a Hasselblad. Recently uncle joe had a better digital camera than I did, but no "L" series lens,,,<br>

to answer your question, no, should not affect the price, but the pro needs nice equipment for the "image" he projects.</p>