anhaga

Cheers guys, advice much appreciated!

 

J

Hi,

 

I've recently inherited a whole load of 35mm and medium-format film equipment, some of which is in unused

condition. I'm a landscaper through and through, and within this load of bits and bobs was a Metz MB 28 CT 5.

Basically, I'm never going to use it and am thinking of going to trade it in for something I might actually use.

The question is - does anyone have any idea of how much it might be worth? It is in absolute mint condition, I'm

not sure it's ever been used. I don't want to go into a camera exchange store with no knowledge and get ripped

off. I've tried google searching, but nothing seems to come up. So, I guess, now we get to find out if the

collective knowledge (and generosity!!) of photo.net users is better than Google.

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks,

 

James

Personally, I'm gutted about the 5DMkII.

 

Having to build on the successes of the 5D, with a hell of a long time to do it, I can't believe this thing doesn't even have a microwave oven, or weather-altering vibration unit, for those wasted grey sunsets. And what about a version that folds out into a miniature motorised scooter, they could have at least looked into that.

 

Yep, it might not have everything, but that's where the producers of Lego shot themsevles in the foot - making and selling a product that never has to be replaced, and can be used infinitely. These guys aren't working to an unlimited budget - they have to make a camera that can replace the 5D - so better specs, but still affordable for the keen enthusiast or pro-on-a-budget. Nor are they stupid. Sticking everything required into a cheap body would, eventually, backfire on them. It's not supposed to be perfect, but for what it is, I see a seriously slick offering with some very neat, original tricks to boot.

p.p.s - based on your p/f, you're miles ahead of where I was when I shot my Sister's wedding. I'd say go for it, just with a flash you're comfortable with and have had for a while. Maybe ask for the couple to go halves with you on it as your fee, and in their interests...!

Jacob

 

My first ever wedding was shot for my Sister - with a Canon 350D (Rebel XS to the Americans I think?). Whilst now I look back and cringe, my Sister loved the shots - she doesn't understand what noise is in a photo, but she does appreciate something being well lit/sharp - so I'd say you should definitely look into a flash and learn to use it well before the event. Stick to the 10D unless you've got months to get into another camera. You've got some fast lenses that should do you proud, but there's no substitue for fill-flash or bounce in darker rooms. If I were you, I'd offer two options

 

1) Suggest a pro to cover just the ceremony - a lot of the important shots are there, from guests arriving to the B+G leaving to the reception. This would, in my book, be the minimum coverage I offer for a booking, and so the cheapest. Then, you shoot everything else - preparations if wanted, and then reception and so forth. This way it's cheaper, and you get to relax - the most stressful parts of the day are all in the ceremony, as you can't afford to miss any of those shots. Herding cats is a bit far for what goes on afterwards - you just have to make sure you're heard for group shots and that you act as cheerful as possible - no matter how long you've been waiting for Aunt Mabel to put her drink down, check her hair, adjust her dress and such forth.

 

2) Do it ALL yourself, and spend a lot of time researching shots and locations, so you know exactly what you are dealing with. Two or three visits at least, maybe even with a few friends in tow so you can practise with them. But brace yourself for a long, tiring and stressful day. You won't have any time off if you want to do the job properly, but if you pull it off you'll be very happy with the day - I didn't feel like I hadn't enjoyed myself or relished the fact my Sister was getting married.

 

It's up to you - safer bet is number 1...

 

Good luck!

 

James

 

p.s. - Final point - my one criticism of my own first wedding was that there weren't enough guests shots - don't get caught up in the desire to make your sister look stunning in every shot and miss the photos of family and friends that don't stand out to you. As a stranger at a wedding, everyone is interesting. To you, many of your relatives may be boring as hell and you wouldn't think twice about them during the day. This was my error during my first attempt...

By "unfairly...criticising the photograph itself' I mean simply stating that a photograph does not merit enlargement or printing without offering either constructive feedback or considering, as discussed above, that photographs differ in their personal appeal to us as individuals.

Technical issues with re-sizing / sharpness aside, it is probably worth asking why is it that the friend wants this particular image. If it's all about individual memories or emotions attached to the place, I doubt the friend will be too upset by a slightly un-sharp photograph. Posing this question of sharpness to a bunch of photographers is obviously and understandably going to lead them down technical routes, and, as some have unfairly gone, into criticising the photograph itself. It may be that the friend has feelings attached to the location or representation within the image, at which point issues like a slight lack of sharpness or standard composition become irrelevant. Fundamentals like the dust spots and level horizon do need correcting, because leaving them unresolved will always stop the friend being able to fully immerse themselves in what might be a visual represenation of a personal memory. But if the friend is set on this image for personal reasons, just check with them that they're aware that a large-size print won't look razor sharp up close. If they're not phased by this, go for it. Ultimately, a perfect photograph isn't purely defined on technical points such as sharpness, colour or exposure, but the individual assessment of each viewer that sees it.

<div></div>