On Professional Equipment

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Of course, everyone's situation is different. But to use Nikon as an example, the D700 and D3 series are considered professional standards. They are more expensive than a D90, but are built to more rugged standards, so they should outlast the D90. This would be especially true if you consider that a professional's equipment gets a lot more use (and possibly unintentional abuse) than does a hobbyist's gear.</p>

<p>Once you get to 12MP, I think much more MP's over that is a waste. Personally, and your mileage may vary, this whole MP race is getting out of hand.</p>

<p>Even more important than the body you choose, is the glass you put in front of it. Having a 24 MP camera isn't much good, if you have mediocre glass in front of it. You are much better off with a 12 MP body and top notch glass. If I were to point to "professional quality" gear, the bulk of my money would go toward glass and not the bodies.</p>

<p>There was an old film saying, which although not completely true today as the camera body itself records the image and not external film, was to get a good enough body to get the job done and put the best glass you can afford in front of it.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Way over board --but, maybe what one needed in the 80's ............. learn your craft & equipment. >> pretty much down to one camera & lens~~for 2010.....<br>

....purchase good glass , for starts. Something with a fixed , fast, F/stop and a zoom of 28-105mm <em>range</em></p>

<p>http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VFoI-200611584.jpg</p>

[hal_b]

<p>You might as well go on a carpenter's forum and ask whether professional hammers are better than "prosumer" hammers. You might get a really nice hammer for $30 that will last you the rest of your life. But if some company releases a $200 titanium hammer with night-vision and self-guided nail removal, all of a sudden some carpenter's think it's the only hammer that a self-respecting carpenter would use. Even on that forum, there would be dozens of competent professional carpenters who would swear that beyond a minimum level of quality, your hammer is just a tool and doesn't need to be any more expensive.</p>

<p>This has gotten just as ridiculous in photography. Beyond a certain minimum level of quality, improvements just don't matter anymore.</p>

[steve_in_l.a.]

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

<p>I advise you to ignore the concept of theoretical benefits of better gear. The only thing of importance in your situation should be the actual capability of what you currently have. In that sense, your challenge strikes me as simpler than that of a hobbyist because you have a defined endpoint, where hobbyists are left to judge "is that good enough? Am I happy? Hmm." Conduct a series of experiments and attempt to produce exactly the products you plan to offer. Do several complete shoots and produce the normal post-event products that wedding photographers offer, like large photo albums and some wall prints of varying sizes. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I just hired one for my 2006 wedding, so I'm familiar with the demands.</p>

<p>I think what you'll find is that it's not at all about certain pro gear being required. Certain elements of your current set up will probably get you to an acceptable product, while other elements will need replacement. And, in my experience so far, it's mostly about the lenses. But, if printing is the goal, you must test print at the desired sizes and formats to find out. I have a hard time imagining a wedding photographer who doesn't use flash, but I guess your tests will show whether it works. Good luck.</p>

[mechanic]

<p>Seath,<br>

One thing that I have not saw on this message is "Man/Woman has limitations as does your choice of eqipment one decides to use. They deserve respect."<br>

For instance, the person that buys used equipment--One question for those that suggest buying used to start a business---Why did the origiginal owner get rid of it? Quite often it was because the camera or what ever was not upto his/her needs so they replaced it with one that was. It may have simply been that they thought the life span was nearing its end because they were in this as a full time business and shoot 150,000-250,000 shots per year and can not risk equipment failure. Another fact is that Nikon and Canon FULL frame handle noise issues at asa 1600 with ease unlike the non full frame. One thing I did learn in mechanics--buy cheap tools and you loose your skin and blood when a socket or wrench slips plus you end up with bolts that just became much more difficult to remove because as I lost skin,the bolt also lost metal and wound up withh rounded edges instead of flat so after a few losses of skin, I bought Snap-on and kept my skin and blood. Poor choice in camears seldon if ever has the effect that my choice of cheap wrenches had on me.<br>

Cameras I presently use Nikon D700 and Phase 45 and 65 backs on Hasselblads and yes, I find them necessary.<br>

Garry</p>

[mark_harrington1]

<p>I don't think you're thinking like a business person here for several reasons - First you should not try to jump right into making your main source of income shooting something you don't have a significant amount of experience with. While its true you can get some good pictures with basic skills or great skills in a different style of photography, you likely don't have the experience to get out of a bind if the shooting conditions change or are different than what you anticipate, or if the plan goes awry. Producing results that are less than acceptable for your clients is the fastest way to close your business.<br>

Next, when you're able to consistently produce the results you're happy with, you'll already have the equipment needed to get you there, or you'll know exactly what you need to fill in your equipment needs. <br>

Last, there are significant tax breaks and other economic reasons to purchase higher priced equipment regardless of need. In short, you don't need anything more than the most basic equipment if you know how to use the equipment to its fullest, but you'll soon realize your equipment limitations and its impact on your business which will lead you into the equipment that makes your job easier, faster, better. Once you begin making money, you'll definately need to offset the taxman. I wouldn't overlook the hidden costs of operating a business - self-employment tax, social securtity being 2x the amount currently deducted from your paycheck and so forth. Working for "The Man" is pretty good business sense these days, being "The Man" is a lot harder than most people think.</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>To jump ship like that is really unwise. At the very least you should have savings at least for two years. A business rule of thumb says, you either begin to be profitable after two years, or you don't have what it takes.</p>

<p>But back to the question. The "why would I spend more if this does the job" vs. "have the best to be in advantage" is not really an equipment question, but a business question. You need to have the equipment which suits your business; in case of photography, your shooting style.</p>

<p>For example, I've also been considering to move forward wedding photography recently (ditched the idea for now). I'm the sort of photographer who wants to be least visible. The less sound, less flashes etc., the better. Thus, when figuring out which equipment to use, I was leaning towards small, silent cameras - Nikon D60 (which I've bought eventually), Leica M8, and most likely a blimp for my D200, plus extremely fast lenses. Of course there were other considerations too, but my equation was: better camera = less intimidating camera.</p>

<p>For someone else, this might be: more robust camera = better camera. Or less noise at ISO 6400 = better camera. Or cheaper camera = better camera. Or something. What kind of a photog are you?</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I'm fairly seriously contemplating leaving my stable corporate job and building an event/wedding photography business"</em></strong><br>

<br>

I previously purposely avoided commenting on this aspect, confining my comments to directly address on those bits I quoted. <br>

<br>

But I genuinely fear for your success. <br>

<br>

Making a definitive chop of a regular income, to begin from zero, building the business you describe, is a tall order IMO. <br>

<br>

<em>"[it is extreme to leave] 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."</em> <br>

<br>

In this regard, do as Marc suggests<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[blockphoto]

<p>Well, there are a number of factors in play...I didn't especially want to go into them, but:<br>

-I am single and fortunate to have enough savings to conservatively live for three years and cover startup costs (even if I don't make a dime in that time). I also have acquired more than enough gear (and knowledge) to get started, which is why I tried to pose my question as a general one...I do value all the feedback and apologize if it seemed like I was looking for a general critique of my approach, because I was actually just interested in answers to the question :)<br>

-I really need a change of pace; my job (and the lifestyle it has resulted in) has taken a pretty extreme toll on me. Also, it demands a quantity of time and energy that would make it impossible to build a business on the side. So I'm viewing the first 6 months-1 year as a bit of a break as well as the beginning of a business endeavor...it's an appropriate time in my life to be making this sort of shift.<br>

-The city I want to start this business in (Boston) is not the city I currently live/work in (NYC), so the benefits gained from establishing myself in NYC would be minimal, and I've found it to be a difficult (time-consuming) place to break into any creative industry, and as mentioned above, time is one thing I don't have.<br>

-I have an extensive technical skillset that I can leverage into freelance/consulting/contracting work, and I'm happy to do so if it becomes necessary.<br>

In short, I'm fully aware that my strategy seems somewhat dangerous, but I'm reasonably confident that I've mitigated most of the risks. I appreciate people bashing on my plan though...it's reassuring that no one has said anything I haven't thought of yet.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >You do not need to apologize, not to me at least, but I do think, whether you wanted to or not, giving a little more disclosure is in your best interest to keep the thread focussed, if any more comments are made.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >One must recognize that in this type of question <em >"to pose my question as a general one"</em> more often than not makes one appear as though none of the balls sorted, racked and stacked.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Generalist questions reap a variance of answers, interpretations and passion.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, you did write, and as a stand alone paragraph: <em >"<strong >Any thoughts</strong> would be much appreciated"</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I understand the four points you make. I have no concern now, thank you.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >"I appreciate people bashing on my plan though<strong >... it's reassuring that no one has said anything I haven't thought of yet."</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Apropos the bashing of the plan ONLY? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Or do you mean that no-one has made any comment whatever, that you have not previously considered?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Seems you have thought things through pretty thoroughly. However, there is one thing which you haven't 'covered'. That is the fact that you haven't been shooting weddings. As a few folks above said, including me, shooting music and events isn't the same as shooting weddings. Even if you've assisted, you will not know exactly what you will need until you start covering them yourself and find out how you like things, not the person who mentored you likes things.</p>

<p>This affects choice of gear, and also affects your present preference for no or little flash. Perhaps you'll stay that way, but then again, maybe not. By the way, low light and high ISO can be handled quite well with the mid/top gear. For instance, in the Canon line, the 85mm f1.8 is not an L lens, but is a wonderful lens, close to L quality, for about $400-500. In the Canon line, I don't hesitate to use ISO 1600 with my lowly 40D, ISO 3200 with care. I realize that ISO isn't considered particularly high anymore, but it does just fine for most ceremonies, especially for an interim set up.</p>

<p>In any case, I personally buy primary camera bodies new. I do it for the knowledge that the body doesn't have a lot of mileage on it, plus for the warranty. Everything else, including secondary cameras, I get used, low mileage gear, including lenses and lighting gear.</p>

<p>Hopefully you have read the Master Lesson on equipment. My opinion--get middle/high end gear, shoot some real weddings, renting what would be exotic, and you will soon know what you will want for keepers.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hey that's my 10:46 pm slot . . . stop doing that :)<br /><br />*** <br /><br /><strong><em>"However, there is one thing which you haven't 'covered'. That is the fact that you haven't been shooting weddings."</em></strong><br /><br />I went out on a limb and <strong><em>assumed. (always dangerous)</em></strong><br /><br />With 100% time on his hands, I assumed Seth would be doing as many as he could in some manner or another, to get the flying hours up quick smart, <em>prior to formally setting up as a business and making full commitment to any gear plan . . .</em> <br /><br />Yeah I know is is dangerous to assume anything, but I was wowed by the articulate response and reassurance he gave.</p>

<p>So don't let me down Seth - tell me you have a plan (or you have factored to dismiss the idea) of getting Wedding Experience <em><strong>before </strong></em>you set up a business which charges Clients for it.<br /><br />WW</p>

[blockphoto]

<p>WW, fair point, I was somewhat more vague than I intended to be. And in reference to my last statement, I was referring to specific comments about my strategy for transitioning into photography...I want to make sure it's totally bulletproof, and so I'm very glad for all the comments (even if they were solicited unintentionally).</p>

<p>There are definitely lots of useful perspectives here about gear I haven't thought about before, and thanks much Nadine for the equipment link. I think it presented a really balanced viewpoint, and the technical exercise seems like a really useful thing to do once I have some weddings under my belt.<br>

You're certainly correct that my largest problem is my lack of experience at this point, so I've been contacting Boston photographers to see if they're accepting assistants (or second shooters, though I don't really consider myself qualified for that yet), and am considering trying to work for Bella and/or advertising free (or nominally priced) photography for a couple of weddings to build a rough portfolio and website. I have one wedding in the bag for a friend in July, and want to make sure I'm ready to do great work, and have web presence and a brand for people to associate me with afterwards.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Good rowing,<br>

CU<br>

WW</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>no such thing as 'pro' equipment, only 'pro' photographers. expensive cameras only make things easier, but will not allow you to produce better work.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Let's see if we can add something you haven't thought of. Not being able to read minds, I have no idea whether that is possible.</p>

<p>You seem prepared financially ... and I DO understand the yearning to be free from the time greedy clutches of Corporate America (was there, did that). However, despite running mega ad agencies working bone crushing schedules, and dealing with incredible stress, I still shot weddings part time, or did photography that led to the style of wedding photography that I now shoot full time. I'd think that through a bit more were I you. However, if you are on the verge of a nervous breakdown, do what you have to do : -) </p>

<p>While you have thought about getting experience as a wedding shooter, <strong>you haven't mentioned WHY you chose that specific path</strong>. What makes you think you would succeed at it? It is very competitive ... and without experience, a defined different approach, and a word-of-mouth referrals, you'll be slugging it out with a lot of people who, like you, are dissatisfied with their situation, or unemployed, that owns a camera and did their Cousin Betty's wedding to rave reviews.</p>

<p>So, what is your plan and how do you see yourself working the plan? What, if anything, do you think you will bring to the party that will set you apart other than you have decided to shoot weddings? </p>

<p>The answer to the above question will provide the criteria for answering your original equipment question ... which no one here can answer for you.</p>

<p>BTW, I DO NOT agree with the blanket statement that pro equipment will NOT help you produce better work. Some cameras AF faster and more accurately than others. A consumer lens with a f/4.5 max aperture won't help in a church that doesn't allow flash ... and sure won't help you isolate the subject matter from a cluttered background ... and so on. Generalities don't work, specifics do.</p>

<p>The equipment criteria has to be based on your artistic intent, and the real world realities of shooting a wedding. In some cases less capable gear will serve just fine, in others it will not. Unfortunately, the latter becomes the criteria for choice. One can stop down a f/1.4 lens, one cannot open-up a f/3.5 lens to f/1.4. </p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>BTW, I also DO NOT agree with the blanket statement that "pro" equipment will NOT help you produce better work.<br>

I also was going to cite using a consumer kit zoom lens and being relegated to the back of a Church with a no Flash Rule, just as one example.<br>

I only dropped in to state that, but Marc got here first. . . and . . . Reading his comments gave me pause to think about differentiation, which I also did consider before . . . <br>

But I might be getting tardy and slack with my comment and advice or it might be that it is because my youngest is now at the age where she must be given space to fly solo, that I did not bring this matter up, myself.<br>

In any case asking yourself what makes you different and what makes you special and what is it that you will do which will make you stand out from the pack, is a good exercise to do – it is a good exercise for all of us on a regular basis, thanks Marc, for bringing this point.<br>

WW</p>

[hal_b]

<blockquote>

<p>I...have enough savings to conservatively live for three years and cover startup costs (even if I don't make a dime in that time). I also have acquired more than enough gear (and knowledge) to get started</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is the key here. Since you already have a kit of gear, and it is sufficient to get started, then there's really no question. You're already set. Point 2: since you already have the start-up capital, then why would you settle for any gear less than the best?</p>

<p>While I don't believe it is always the smartest financial decision for a beginner to invest heavily into expensive professional gear, the fact remains that the top-tier photo gear IS MUCH BETTER than the less expensive stuff. The best cameras will have the best reliability, durability, weather-proofing, life expenctancy, low noise, fast shutter burst, fast write speeds, highest resolution, etc. The list goes on and on. The same is true for the best lenses: they are the sharpest, fastest, have the best Image Stabilization, AF the fastest, are the most durable, weather sealed, etc.</p>

<p>If you have the money, then there is no question. Get the best. There's no way you'll ever regret having the best. The only reason you would ever receive different advice is if someone perceived that the difference of a couple thousand dollars could make or break your venture. In some situations, it is just impossible to invest $10k-$20k right away and expect to stay above water. For broke people, you can put together a working photo kit for $2k-$4k. It's not as good, but serviceable.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>It's simple really. Sure you can make high quality images with lesser gear. Lens design in particular is very good, even with consumer grade items. The main differences lie in build quality and feature sets. The pro grade equipment is more sturdily built and will have a feature set allowing you to get the shot that SOME amateur grad equipment will not allow under difficult conditions. Pros have a tendency to not baby their equipment and there is a need to get the shot when others can't. Pro quality gear is built with this in mind. Do you need the durability and feature set? Don't know. Only you can answer that.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Seth, just use what you like and are comfortable with.</p>

<p>I use the kit that works best for the use I give it. 5k, 1k or whatever the cost.</p>

[blockphoto]

<p>Marc, you make a fair point, and one I have been struggling with in some ways...I don't really have a complete answer yet. </p>

<p>I know that I find it fulfilling to capture people that are fully engaged in what they are doing (thus the live music/event work), and people seem to think I'm good at it. I also like "making" pictures; getting people in front of my camera and having their time and attention so I can put them in a good environment, light them well, and hopefully get them to do something interesting. It seems like wedding work leaves room for many different types of photography, and that appeals to me.</p>

<p>I also think the other parts of the wedding photography process are a good fit; I like helping people to solve problems, taking on complex projects and finishing them with every detail seen to, and the rush of being "in the zone" during a live event and spontaneously creating. It also seems like weddings simultaneously provide a concrete set of constraints (which I view as a bunch of interesting problems that change with each gig) and a lot of creative latitude.</p>

<p>I don't have much to say regarding differentiation yet because I haven't shot a wedding. It seems like succeeding in the business is as much about presenting yourself/your brand effectively as being a good photographer. In my fantasy world I have a fully developed style of photography and brand/product line that are a reflection of me, and since I'm unique and awesome, both differentiate me :). In reality, I have no idea if I'm sufficiently interesting/talented for that to happen, but I'm going to give it a try anyway and devote myself to chiseling out a style and brand that only I can create.</p>

<p>sb</p>

[scott_b.4]

<p>Hi Seth;<br>

I did not read all the responses but wanted to share my insite. I do feel having "pro" level equiptment is very important; especially today and I tell you why below. When I started out, I could not afford all the pro stuff so I rented it and slowly build it up.<br>

Here is why I think it is more than ever to have pro level equitpment. Prices on DSLRs, lenses and accessories are dropping in prices everyday. More and more people have DSLRs. At my most recent shoot, there was at least 5 people with DSLRs and two had L series lenses. I understand in the end it is the photographer and not the equiptment but there is a preception that consumers look at. If you are pro, you should have pro level gear.<br>

For example, one wedding I was a guest at, the photographer gears were not what you consider pro level. While there is not wrong with a Tamron lens and 20D but when you pay someone 5000.00, you would think they would invest some of that money on better gear. <br>

On a side note, I was also in your shoes. I had a great corporate career and an up and coming photography business. I was thinking of quiting my job and doing photographer full time. Kind of glad I did not because people today are trying to save and will not spend a lot. </p>

 

[jonj]

<p>Seth,<br>

Ansel Adams said "I don't get caught up in the gear, buy a camera and learn how to use it" I think that camera companies want us to buy the latest and greatest, but do we really need to? I use 2 D80's with SB 800s I do believe in buying the best glass you can, but it must meet your style of photography. Look at it this way Tiger Woods could beat almost any golfer with a set of clubs from Wal-mart.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Maybe not the best example ... Ansel Adams didn't shoot weddings, and he used the finest LF gear available, was an advocate of Hasselbald for roll film ... and was known for modifying the best darkroom enlargers of the day to be even better than designed. </p>

<p>If you are the "Tiger Woods" of wedding photography, then the last sentence makes sense. Golf is the worse analogy I can think of ... since every golfer I know thinks a better club will improve their game ... LOL!</p>

<p>I do agree with the notion that manufacturer hype can put a crimp in profits if you aren't careful. IMO, one should get the best they can afford not just the best there is.</p>

<p>Most of this constant gear oriented discussion is due primarily to the rapid pace of advancements in technology in a relatively short time period compared to film gear development. The rate of change has been mind boggling in just 10 years ... and so has the cost of paying for it.</p>

<p>Those just starting in wedding photography now have it easier, since most Prosumer and Pro gear has arrived at a point of being more than adequate, and further upgrades are to fulfill creative wishes not actually needs. </p>

[caleb_santos]

<p>I read a quote from a random photographer. It said, "a great violin doesn't make you a great violinist" or something like that. I have a $50 violin and a $400 violin. When I let my 1 year old rub the bow across the strings in random patterns the $400 violin sounds ALOT better. Aside from all that artistic expression junk, a better camera captures better images, just like steroids and corked bats set homerun records. --- I just had to throw in that last line for good measure. <br>

skill and performance are very distinguishable from each other. (another example came to mind, <strong>Shaquille O'Neal!! haha</strong> )</p>