cliff_henry

Steve,

I have owned a 24 TS-E for many years. I don't use it much now - shooting mostly weddings - but when I was shooting landscapes it was my most used lens.

Like you, I have seen many on-line reviews that run the range from bad to excellent. While I have never done any real test on my lens, I find it to be of "L" quality both in construction and resolution. Keep in mind it is 24mm's wide and there will be some distortion at the edges.

If you are serious about your landscape work then the 24 TS-E is a must have lens.

Cliff

Grey Barnes wrote: "Until it arrives at your door Canon are responsible for the camera, if FedEx have lost it then as far as you are concerned Canon has lost it and should be responsible for solving the problem to your satisfaction."

I don't believe this statement is true, although I'm not a lawyer. The law use to be that once a company invoiced and shipped an item it then became the receiver's property. That partained to new merchandise of course; not sure how it would cnange with repaired items.

Once Canon received your camera they were responsible for it until returned to you. Does assigning it to FedEx to deliver to you constitute delivering to you and Canon's responsibility has ended at that point? Not sure. Canon should have insured the camera with FedEx, if they didn't then I think they again become responsible. FedEx lost your camera and Canon, because they were the shipper, must file a claim with them. When the claim is settled, which as you stated could take several weeks, FedEx will pay Canon for the lost camera. At that point Canon is responsible to pay you or replace to you a camera of like value to the one lost.

How Canon handles dealing with you while waiting for FedEx to settle the claim is a matter of company policy. If you are able to impress upon Canon your status in the photographic community and your need, as a professional, to have your camera immediately, then, IMO, you might get Canon to send you another camera before the claim is settled. Personally, I would not accept a refurbished body and I would insist on a new body.

IMO, now is not the time for letter writing to Canon but a time for phone calls. In my experience in dealing this larger corparations, if you can talk to the right person your problem can be fixed on the spot. If you don't get Canon's attention then your claim will have to trickle through Canon's bureaucracy and you could receive a refurbishted body in a few weeks.

Nadine, time to get on the phone to Canon and don't take no until you talk to someone that will solve your problem. You will probable have to talk to someone several layers up the command chain until you find the right someone.

Good luck.

Cliff

Stacy,

I've used the Canon 100 2.8 Macro for my wedding detail shots for years. I always use it on a tripod when shooting the close-ups of rings and flowers, etc. It also doubles as a great short tele on either FF or crop body. In my experience it is a great lens.

Cliff

I've never had a camera lost but I have dealt with FedEx and UPS over lost shipments and it always seems to take a loooog time.

Maybe you could get a loaner body from Canon's professional service division.

Sorry to hear of your troubles.

Cliff

This may help a little:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FMjs

William W,

You wrote: "'Photojournalist Wedding Coverage`, an oxymoron: but it seems such a title gives carte blanche to the bearer to ignore basic rules of art, composition, and especially the technique of rendering an easy passage for the viewer`s eye to maintain focus on the key subject, tone and flavour of the image."

AND

"`Photojournalistic`, but for many it seems a catch phrase to excuse any discipline and training."

I agree with both statements. Unfortunately, this thread is too old to get any attention. Maybe you should start a new one on `Photojournalist Wedding Coverage' and state your views again. I for one would like to read the reactions.

Cliff

William W,

You have a very succinct way of cutting through all the chaff and adding clarity to the heart of the subject.

Nice job!

Cliff

Doug,

I agree, most retailers use a percentage mark-up. I'm retired from the retail consulting business and I've been shooting weddings for fun and profit for the last few years. Before I retired, the SBA listed retailers as the second most failed type of business. One reason for those failures is most retailers are selling commodities, brand names that their competitors are also selling, and are unable to get the mark-up (profit) they need to stay in business.

I am not trying to mislead anyone! I never said you had to shoot

only "high society" weddings - I only referred to top photographers - to set your pricing based on preceived value. Nor did I say you should set your prices to eliminate 90% of the buying public. I find it interesting that when talking about preceived value pricing most people want to relate that to "high society" weddings.

What I'm saying is most people are to close to the pricing structure in their industry. This makes them very price sensitive and that sensitivity seems to influnce their ability to use a large enough mark-up percentage. By thinking in terms of preceived value you are seeing the value of your product based on the value your customer places on it rather than thinking a certain percentage of mark-up is all it is worth. I think this concept can be applied to any price range a photographer decides to positions himself in.

Cliff

Doug,

In my experience, I spend 35 years in the retail/wholesale and retail consulting business, most opinions are worth what you pay for them. As a consultant to the retail industry, I was paid handsomely for some of the opinions that I am giving away on this forum.

The arguments between calculating your profit based solely on a flat percentage mark-up or base on preceived value is an old one. I'm not a good enough typist to want to engage in that argument in this media. I will simply say that experience has proven the preceived value concept to be a profitable one.

If you are selling commodities then you are forced to use a flat percentage mark-up. The problem with commodities is that you will always be forced to set your selling price based on your competitions'. Given the flux of the business, i.e., new photographers coming into the business with low prices to capture business and established photographers reducing their prices to meet the new photographers' prices, pricing will take a downward spiral in any given market.

My argument for the preceived value concept is to not make the photographs and services you are selling a commodity.

There are many other factors that must also work to make this concept a successful one. One of the main factors is the quality of your product. In the long run, if you do not have the quality, you will be unable to maintain a high preceived value.

As to using a percentage mark-up, I have one question for you. Why do all of the top photographers charge high fees? Their cost are not really that difference from other photographers that charge much less. My answer: because it's not the photo paper and ink they are selling.

Cliff

Having worked for Leica, Fujinon, and Nikon, at different times over a fifteen year period, as a manufacturers' rep, I had the benefit of good technical training. I've also been a serious photog for 35 years.

Peter Lyons' explaination is correct and close enough for government work.

Kevin Corville's explaination is precisely correct.

See my post here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DRlX

to get a better idea of "preceived value".

Lou wrote: "I don't set prices based on what it costs me. I set them based on what I think they are worth."

I would change his statement a little to read: "...based on what the buyer thinks they are worth."

All successful resellers, e.g., retailers, follow Lou's thinking. Many refer to the concept as "preceived value". How much an item cost you, the seller, is of no matter. The only thing that matters is what the buyer "preceives" the value of the item to be.

If a 8x10 print cost you $10.00 and you sell it for a flat percentage mark-up of 100%, $20.00, the buyer may think the price is cheap or he may think it is expensive. However, if you can change the buyers preception of the value you have added to the print by pointing out the artistry and quality they can't get elsewhere, then they may preceive the $50.00, or whatever price, you are charging for the $10 8x10 to be cheap. Many time that preception is influenced a great deal just by the seller's attitude. If you think your work is worth a certain price and your attitude conveys that message, then why would your buyer think your work is worth less?

Raise your prices and act like your clients are getting a bargain. You might be surprised at the results and I guarantee you'll make more money.

I took a trip, not around-the-world, in which I wanted a light kit, so I took my film body with a 24 T/S 3.5L and 50 1.4. I was shooting mostly city landscapes with big buildings and monuments and the 24 T/S was perfect of these shots. For low light in museums and faimly snaps the 50 worked great. I suppose I could have gotten by with only one of these lenses but I would have a lot of leaning building images and would have missed some shots in low light where a flash was not premitted. There were a few shot where I felt I needed something longer than 50mm.

Your choice depends a lot on what you plan to shoot and your style. If you want to limit yourself to one lens, why not take a good P&S with a zoom. If you are going to lug around a SLR, advantage is interchangable lenses, then one or two small primes take up very little space.

Have a good trip.

Video of photog falling off pew remined me of:

I had a bride request a close-up of ring ceremony and minister gave me okay to move in close behind him to get the shot. After getting std. processional shots I moved into a very tight space behind best man and with a 5' single pedestal, double candle stand, with two 2 1/2" ~ 3" candles on it, between us. As long as I didn't move there was no problem. When ring ceremony started I had to move in for the shot and of course I bumped the stand. As the stand swung back and forth, I'm sure to the max limit it could swing without falling over, the best man turned and look at me and the stand and I just watched the stand; expecting it to fall over at any time. The few seconds that it lasted seemed like forever as the stand moved back and forth several times. Lucky for me it did not fall over - disaster averted.

I have my EOS5 listed here:

http://www.photo.net/gc/edit-ad-3?classified_ad_id=665551

Breaks down like this:

Canon 50mm 1.8 w/hood $65.

VG-10 grip $40.

Majic Lantern book $5.

EOS 5 body $149.

Have a look here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GFuJ

Tim,

You don't have to use the foam inserts. Pelican also sells an adjustable divider that, IMO, is better than foam and much easier to set-up for your eq. or change later. They also sell an organizer for the lid. I use the camera divider in my 1600 w/a lid organizer and just the foam bottom pad and full foam, to hold everything secure, in the lid for my 1500 set-up.

See my set-up here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FVcW

Tim,

I'm sure they will fit. I carry an EOS-3 w/PB, an unmounted 70-200 2.8, two 550EX, and several other smaller items in mine.

EOS-5 - It's up for sale.

EOS-3 - It's up for sale.

EOS-1VHS - I'll never part with this one.

Steven,

For many years my standard kit for weddings was an EOS-1VHS and EOS-3-HS. A couple of years ago I added a 20D for several reasons: 1) Studio I contract with wants only digital. 2) I didn't want to be left behind in a technical void. 3) To be able to offer brides for my own wedding work a choice and appear to be on the leading edge of their precieved trend.

When shooting with the 20D, I use the 1VHS as backup or sometimes as a second body to shoot B&W film, which I prefer to converted digital files. Having used both bodies for sometime, I don't find switching between them to be a problem. I love the 1V and miss its features when using the 20D. I would prefer a 1DIIN over the 20D, to more closely match the 1V, but can't justify its cost because of the number of pro shoots I'm doing these days.

I scan my own negatives, but if you don't own a scanner your lab can scan them for you or you can just provide proofs and prints from the negatives and digital files. I don't find the work flow to be a problem.

Good luck,

Cliff

Having been the victim of camera theft at a wedding several years ago I am very cautious these days.

I use Pelican cases and cable lock them to some solid object. I keep a couple of lenses in a small shoulder bag with me as I work and exchange any lenses I need from the Pelican case.

Keeping back-up gear locked in your car trunk, as many have stated, doesn't lend its self to quick access if a back-up item is needed. Murphy's law says gear will fail only at worst possible time. Some shots can be restaged and some cannot! Besides, electronic eq. does not stand up very well to the heat in a car truck that we experience here in June.

Film and memory cards stay on my body at all times.

Cliff

Delanza,

I use two, and sometimes a third for lighting a dark background, 550EX flashes. I only use more than one flash when shooting the formals - one on camera bracket and one on a light stand. As stated above, you have to be careful with a flash that is off the lens axis causing unwanted shadows, especially with larger groups. I have

tried using the ratio settings and found my control is inconsistent. Now, I set one flash about 15 degrees off camera and slightly forward to insure its seeing the master flash and firing. I use Sto-Fen's on both flashes and set off camera flash aimed up about 65 degrees and on camera flash amied up about 15 degrees. Both flashes are set to E-TTL. I shoot from a tripod with a remote release in manual mode and set shutter to under expose background by about one stop and set aperture for DOF wanted.

I find this is a simple set-up and gives me consistent even lighting.

Cliff