mike_bisom

<p>I would say the 40D would be a good back up. One of the advantages (drawback) to the 50D is the 900,00 pixel. The 5D does NOT have this. Going from a huge high-rez dsiplay (50D) back down to the 5D is annoying- at least it was for me. And the value of the 40D is hard to beat right now (for Canon shooters ;) )</p>

<p>Bruce, what is the basis of the comment against the 20D? We owned 6 over the years and they weren't any better or any worse than any of our 30D's or 40D's. All of them essentially have the same metering. Af may have improved somewhat but nothing to write home about. I would however avoid a used 20D just because it's getting rather long in the tooth.</p>

<p>You should discount the idea of shooting a wedding with a P&S, Raw or not. Next, have you read this:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</p>

<p>Several links and advice on equipment. If you are being paid to shoot a wedding then one thing to keep in mind is that you will need back up equipment of everything: body, lens, flash. Canon makes a few bodies under $1000. The XS, XSi, & 40D. While Nikon only makes one that I would use for weddings and that's the D90. More important than the body will be your lenses. I would start with one standard f/2.8 zoom (17-55, 24-70 etc). Add a fast prime. Ideally, you will want another f/2.8 lens as back up but you can probably get away with a kit lens to start. And, you will need a flash, preferably variable power. A Nikon Sb-600 or a Canon 430. Going Canon will certainly be cheaper but with a single camera/lens (other than kit lens)/flash, you will be pushing the $1000 mark. With Nikon, the camera alone will be $900. Of course there are some advantages to the Nikon, but cheap isn't one of them.</p>

<p>Well for me, I have all the apps and OS on one drive. All the media is on different drives. I use one drive for iTunes, single hard drives for my photo libraries, single drives for my video projects, a single drive for client files, and various back up drives. I use a 3x Mac Gurus 5-Bay Burly Towers. I do this because accessing data on separate drives is better than accessing all data on a Raid 0 set up. What I mean by this is that if I had all my images, all my music and all my client files on let's say a 3-drive Raid 0, I wouldn't have any speed benefit at all. I have more benefits by keeping all that data on it's own drive. You really won't see any type of real world performance increase using separate drives as scratch disks, just use the data drive or any drive other than the OS/App drive. At one time I used two Raptors in a Raid 0 as a boot drive. When one drive failed, I never bothered to re-create the Raid 0- it simply wasn't worth it. Yes, the computer would boot faster and programs would load faster... but once booted/launched, I never noticed a real world difference. Also keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between a software Raid (common and not so great) and a hardware Raid (rare, but far better). </p>

<p>I am just curious as to why you need a PL or ND filter on a foggy/rainy day? Other than that, what brand of filters? There is a difference between a Tiffen and a B+W.</p>

<p>I don't know about the 1.8 but our 50mm f/1.4 was my FAVORITE lens. No doubt better than out 24-70. Now I suspect our 24-70 wasn't the best copy out there, but we had two 50mm f/1.4s and both were great. Getting the 50 calibrated can't hurt.</p>

<p>Hi Nadine.... I wouldn't rent it for color/contrast/sharpness; those would just be a bonus! I remember using a 50 f/1.8 once at a Bar Mitzvah because both of my 50mm f/1.4 were being used at weddings that day. OMG, to say I was disappointed would be an understatement. That lens hunted for an eternity (OK, maybe not an eternity but it sure felt like it!) before it would focus. The lack of contrast at any venue means AF will be more difficult. That is why I would want the 17-35: faster to focus. </p>

<p>I would rent the 17-35! This lens will not hunt to focus as much as the kit lens. It will also be a sharper and have better color, and while that is great, the primary reason I would rent the lens is so I don't have to constantly wait for it to focus in lower light. In my minds eye, you will have someone there with a point & shoot. This P&S will take a moment to focus (maybe longer!), I don't want to be the Pro that shows up and my camera has to hunt to focus. It can't cost more the $30 to rent? And you can try it and see for yourself.</p>

<p>Just keep in mind that the recommended formatting for a Mac hard drive is OS Extended (Journaled) and not DOS. You might want to post this questions on Apple's own discussion boards. I am pretty sure you can just connect the two computers via an ethernet cable (network) and your Mac will "see" your PC, at which point you can just copy the files over. Personally, I would NOT use a USB drive, but rather a Firewire drive. However, if copy files from a PC (and not via the ethernet as I think possible), the PC may not have a Firewire port.</p>

<p>A) back up camera/flash. If you are being paid, then the expectation is to deliver images, not excuses.<br>

B) Canon 17-55 f/2.8. Buy one, rent one, borrow one, just get one (or third party equivalent). This is your standard lens. The 50mm will be too long in a small room and that is the only other decent lens you have.<br>

C) Construct and use your own ABBC (a better bounce card). You can make your own for under $5.</p>

<p>Your competition here is anyone else shooting pictures at the same event. Your images have to be better than any of the snapshots someone there takes. Anyone will take pictures with a kit lens and non-bounce flash. You have to work the crowd. Get groups of two/three/four together to get a shot. You need to essentially become their friend in 10-seconds or less. It is easier for a co-worker to get a few people together and take a picture than the "unknown" photographer. </p>

<p>Let me just say that you should approach a RAID set up with caution. In the MacWorld example, one could achieve similar results simply by having a drive dedicated to the OS and applications on one drive dedicated to the media. This is easier, safer, and typically faster than a <i>software</i> Raid 0. A software Raid puts the overhead on the processor. On the other hand, a hardware Raid has it's own dedicated processor which will make it quicker and ultimately much more expensive (the Apple Raid card is $700 with good reason). In between, you have a firmware Raid solution. And of course there are various types of Raid. The reason Raid 0 looks good for speed is that you have two drives working as one: two read/write heads, multiple platters, etc. Again, the same thing can be achieved without any processor overhead simply by keeping all the data on one drive and the OS/Applications on another drive. And a Raid 1 is a complete waste of money in most small business circumstances. As are most other redundant Raid configurations (Raid 5 etc). If you want personal experience, I have one software Raid 0 of three drives left. I did this back in the day when when I labored under the common delusion that all Raid 0s would be "faster". It was put together for video editing purposes. I can assure you that even with three drives in a Raid 0, I get better throughput with 3 individual drives and keeping media separate. By that I mean, all my audio is on one drive, all me video on another and all my support files (LiveType, Motion, PSDs on so on) on a 3rd drive. If all of these files were on the Raid 0 drive (3-drives), my timeline playback would be spotty at best. In the end a software Raid configuration simply isn't worth the efforts compared to putting together a solid overall system. Of course everyone is free to believe what they would like (Wizards First Rule!), but I would suggest talking to someone who <i>knows</i> about Raid systems and set ups. Not someone who is trying to sell you something or someone who has an emotional attachment to their gear (which I frequently do!). And for the record, back in my does of delusion, I configured a Raid 0 boot drive with 2x Raptors on a G5 (which required a dedicated Sata card to get the drives to boot). I had a Granite Digital 8-bay Raid 5 tower. I used several Raid 0 and 1 set ups using my Mac Gurus Burly Bay towers and now the only one I have left is a legacy Raid 0 with three drives that I just haven't gotten around to taking offline. If you want to invest the money in a hardware Raid, then by all means do so. But take take my word for it- talk to someone who isn't interested in selling you something.</p>

<p>Definitely more Ram. The more the better. That kinda one of the reasons to get the tower!<br>

I would also investigate a better storage solution. Either internal drives or external eSata towers and get away from the hodge-podge of external Firewire drives. And depending on how these drives are connected (hubs, daisy chained, on their own FW PCI card, etc), this might account for some of the slowdowns. I don't recommend a software RAID 0. As a matter of fact, the only RAID I have left is a software RAID 0 of 3 hard drives for video editing and it's no faster than individual drives so far as I can tell. There are some dedicated RAID solutions (CalDigit comes to mind: http://www.caldigit.com/).</p>

<p>In addition to all the above, make darn sure the brides knows of your lack of experience and the expectations are in line with your experience. Brides will usually have a fairly high, often unspoken expectation. Read these sites:</p>

<p>http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/<br>

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>The note to use rechargeable is good.... but change flash batteries often. Fresh batteries help keep recycle times fast. Don't be afraid of the higher ISOs (800 & 1600) on the D90. This too will save flash power/batteries. And you made no mention of lenses? Kit lenses are usually bad indoors! You need some fast primes or something along the lines of a 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

 

<p>#1- I would purchase one or two fast primes before anything else. The 16-35 lens is a great lens and I think you would miss it going to the 17-55. The 50mm f/1.4 is a relatively inexpensive lens that is very nearly a must have prime and covers what you would be missing from the 17-55. After that, you could pick up the 85mm f/1.8. Both would cost you right around $700.</p>

<p>#2 Full frame cameras are great for weddings. As to whether it's worth it for you, I can't say.</p>

<p>#3 I always try selling items on Craigslist first, it's free. eBay will kill you with fees, but will be the most popular site visited by potential buyers. Others have recommended right here at Photo.net, but I have never tried it.</p>

<p>For me I need to qualify what you mean by photojournalistic? For me that means trying to stay inconspicuous and capturing the day as it unfolds. It means moving quickly and ready at anytime for anything. By that definition, then no, the Quantum flashes would not be my first choice. I would want something like a Nikon SB900 (my wife likes the size of the SB800 if you can still find one). And the Nikon flashes can still be used with a Quantum turbo battery for nearly instantaneous recycle times. On the other hand, I love the quality of light I get from my Quantums, but I never use them on camera/bracket; I always use them off camera and that <i>usually</i> means taking some time to set up the shot I want. Which would NOT be photojournalistic IMHO. The few times I did try to use my Quantums in TTL I wasn't happy with the result. Now I only use my Quantums in manual.</p>

<p>No one can say but you. An IS lens is good for hand holding a lens with a slower shutter, often required when shooting indoors. However, IS will NOT freeze motion. To freeze motion requires a fast shutter. We often shoot indoors at longer focal lengths in which case an IS lens is nice to have.</p>

<p>It does depend on the circumstances of the wedding: beach, church etc... For "formal" attire, I wear a dark slacks and a dark silk "dress" t-shirt. I usually have a dark sportscoat as well, but often never put it on. I refuse to wear a tie anymore (and I have a nice collection of about 25 ties)- but I just move around too much and carry too much gear. I don't like feeling restricted in a tie. </p>

<p>Canon has 2 Mark III's: the 1Ds Mark III and the 1D Mark III. The 1D Mark III would be the sports photographer's camera. First, either of the Mark III's has Canon's better AF and metering. Any other Canon body uses a system similar to your 40D. Better, faster AF are certainly something you want as a sports shooter (better metering never hurts either!). You will get a faster frames per second- another hallmark of sports photography. All of this on Canon's best body. Again, anything Canon camera below the 1D Mark III (in the Canon line up) is a less professional camera.</p>

<p>To shoot a wedding for us you need two digital camera bodies, a main and a back up. I am really not too particular on the body (we have gotten beautiful 16x20 from 10D/D70). I have found however, that the body says something about the photographer: there is a difference between a Rebel and a 50D and a 5D. You need at least two variable power flashes. And although I don't require diffusion, I highly recommend an ABBC or similar bounce card (if you have a style of hard light lighting or natural light that works for you AND I think we can market it, I'm OK with that). You need at least 1 decent piece of f/2.8 glass. Typically in the range of the 17-55 or the 24-70 f/2.8. You need at least one fast prime. And you need some sort of back up glass. If shooting a wedding for us, I would be supplying the memory cards and I would make sure you have 2x what we think you might need (and I require shoot Raw + JPEG). One of my "rules" is to NEVER format/erase a memory card in the field. NEVER, EVER do it. Memory cards are cheap, buy more than you think you need. Nothing good ever comes from formatting or erasing cards in the field. Not only do you need plenty of batteries for flash and cameras, you need to change them from time to time. One of my pet peeves is hearing "my flash lasted all day on one set of batteries"....... When someone tells me that I hear "I didn't change my batteries because it wasn't important enough for me to do so. I was waiting for the flash to die completely in the middle of something important. And besides, a fast recycle time with fresh batteries is overrated". Moral of the story: change your batteries BEFORE you need too. And I require a lens pen! There are cheap too (I usually give you one). Based on what we require, you need at least one more flash, one piece of decent zoom glass (17-55, 24-70 f/2.8)- your current zooms could be regulated to back up, but I really don't see any need for the 70-300.... I am not sure where you would use it? And enough memory cards to avoid downloading in the field. Beyond that, I recommend bringing plenty of water & some sort of snack food.</p>

<p>In general, an internal drive will be faster than an external drive. In an external drive, eSata would be the fastest but would require an eSata port (more than likely you would need to add a PCI eSata card). Firewire 800 would be the next fastest, followed by FW400 and finally USB- which would be the slowest and least desirable. Keeping all of your media on a 2nd drive dedicated to storage is generally much faster than keeping everything on the same drive. With two drives, one is free to operate the OS and programs while the other read/writes you media files. Finally, a RAID 1 is typically a waste of money. The ONLY thing a Raid 1 protects you from is ONE hard drive failure. Any good disaster recovery plan means you will have a back disc of your files. Since you already have a back up of your files (correct?), a RAID 1 does nothing except cost you more $$$ for the 2nd drive.</p>

<p>Maybe this was brought up earlier (?), but shooting digital is far different than film. With film, you selected the film you wanted for the look you wanted and the lab did all the work (or you did it in your own darkroom). Shooting digital means you are responsible for the "developing" of the image via your computer darkroom. This is a pretty big switch. I know of a few film photographers who made the switch to digital and all they shoot are JPEGs- they feel this is the closest thing to their old workflow: metering correctly for proper exposure, create the image, done. However, most professionals see the advantage of the Raw file. This means even more post-processing and DAM (digital asset management) as well. All of that said, I think the current crop of cameras have at least matched, it not exceeded films latitude. The D700 is one tough camera to beat. Of course it will be heavier due to all the electronics. The sooner you start shooting and maintaining a digital database, the sooner you will learn the ins and outs. Eventually everything will be digital as it becomes harder and harder to make a profit making and selling film!</p>

<p>We do both photo and video (different crews). This will be the first year we will be exploring adding some video clips from a D90 to a video production. But I can't image where a still camera will ever replace (or come close to replacing) an actual video camera. As pointed out, audio is a huge consideration and not only is the audio on a still camera horrible, there is no means to improve upon it. A professional microphone will use XLR plugs and I don't see that being added to any still camera! I haven't attended a wedding yet where stereo was a concern. Most churches and DJs blast two channels of mono. If I want to pick up the vows, I need a wireless mic on the groom. If I want the brides vows to come out of the left speaker I will pan that left in post and the groom's can be panned to the right. And that's just audio. For video consideration you have to take into account the ability to hold the camera steady. There are a variety of tools for camcorders to aid in this but a digital camera doesn't lend itself well to be held steady for long periods of time. And unsteady video will not always look bad, it can come back to haunt you later in post when trying to re-compress to another format. Then there are frame rate issues, compression issues and more. In other words, it will be a long time, if ever, that a still camera replaces an actual video camera. But as a run and gun novelty, it can't be beat!</p>

<p>I agree with Mark, our 24-70 was brighter with better color than our 24-105.</p>

<p>We went the other way, Canon to Nikon. For us, video on a camera is more of a novelty. If I was hired to do photography, do I really want to stop using my camera to takes still so that I can capture something on video? Probably not. I will need my camera for all the really important stuff. That said, I typically shoot with a D300/90 combination. I did do a wedding where the bridesmaids broke out in an impromptu dance in the coat room prior to the grand march.... I did use the D90 to capture a bit of video (less than 60 seconds). To truly capture video you need a dedicated system. Otherwise, it's just a novelty; at which point I don't think I would want to give up a D700 (and all that entails such as switching to Canon lenses etc) for the video feature of a Mark II. It would be easier and probably not any more expensive to get a D90.</p>

<p>You could use PowerPoint for a basic slideshow. ProShow Gold is one of the better slideshow softwares out there:<br>

http://www.photodex.com/products/proshowgold/<br>

for a reasonable price.</p>