bb photography

<p>Meh. Keep the money, and forget about doing anything further. As an attorney, I have to deal with people being angry all the time. You'll get over it. Plus, it's not worth it for you to have to deal with them constantly.<br>

Since you have everything in writing, I wouldn't bother hiring an attorney to draw anything up to send to them; a lawyer isn't going to get you anything extra plus you'll pay more than the fee to have a lawyer send them the letter.<br>

I would just keep the cash and move on. You have a contract for a reason.</p>

<p>Julian,<br>

Why would there be concern of a lawsuit? A contract should always limit damages to the price of the contract. Even if it didn't, what would the damages be? There is never a guarantee that a B/G will get p<em>articular</em> photographs. I just fail to see where a lawsuit would be a worry here.</p>

<p>That said, a backup shooter is always necessary.</p>

Try #2...

5D MkII, ISO 400 1/200 f/2.8 Pocketwizard off camera flash.

<p>I have been to a few weddings where photography was prohibited - by the congregation. I recently shot a wedding where the congregation was told no flash, but I was given free reign to shoot at my pleasure.<br>

Checking before hand with the officiant or coordinator will prevent situations like this....he may have only meant no photography for those in the pews.<br>

As to staying, it's my feeling that giving the b&g something extra will go a long way with referrals. I typically give the b&g something "extra" (I typically work something in to make it look like I am giving them a deal) so they will be happier with my work. Let's face it, people want the most bang for their buck. Giving people "freebies" make them feel like they are being treated special, and will be a lot more likely to refer.</p>

<p>I own the 70-200 IS 2.8 Mk II, had a Mk I and have used the 4 non-IS for various purposes (from weddings, to seniors, to kids photography).<br>

If you are going to be in low light at all (i.e. a church) don't short-change yourself, and get the 2.8. even the non-IS version is fantastic in those conditions. And on a 7d, the results are even better.<br>

The f/4 version just doesn't give you enough light in low light conditions when hand holding. If you are having to crank up your ISO to keep your shutter at a desirable speed, you will get too grainy on the 7d. If you go too low with the shutter...you know the result. It doesn't seem like it should or would be that different, but after shooting with the 2.8, then the 4, I was surprised by how much better the 2.8 is.<br>

Even if you have to scrape for the 2.8, you'll be much happier in the end. Good luck.</p>

<p>I've wondered why so many photographer's on the forums continually complain about handing over copyright?<br>

Many (not all) clients now want to be able to have digital access to their photos for publication to mediums like Facebook. Not releasing any digital copies serves no one any good, as it causes hard feelings between the Photographer and B&G. And hard feelings usually mean no referrals. I certainly understand the concept of art. (Trademark/Copyright classes in Law school taught me a little something.) However, it seems to me that since the game is changing (no more long hours in a darkroom, or money spent on darkroom supplies. Not to mention the ease of image editing) the photographer must adapt or face the consequences of not booking jobs.<br>

I think that if you want to book more jobs, rather than sweating the details of one, raise your price to reflect the copyright release, keep the B&G happy and get more jobs. Seems to me that having work should be a more important factor than preventing people from printing their pictures at Target.</p>

<p>Don't feel too bad. I had mine stolen from me last weekend while I was shooting a wedding. :( The worst part is, I was shooting at a marina of which my family has been member's for about 15 years. People don't just steal things like that there. Or at least I thought they didn't.<br>

I hope you can salvage it. </p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Thanks for all the responses. I ended up going with the 2.8 IS, and the conclusion is this: I won't regret it. I know now that had I gone with the f/4 I would likely have regretted it down the road. Not this lens. Its phenomenal. Here's a pic I took with it over the weekend. Thanks again for all the responses.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Thanks for all the responses. I ended up going with the 2.8 IS, and the conclusion is this: I won't regret it. I know now that had I gone with the f/4 I would likely have regretted it down the road. Not this lens. Its phenomenal. Here's a pic I took with it over the weekend. Thanks again for all the responses.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. @Yuri, you're right, the decision is up to me, and unfortunately, I am a bit indecisive. :) This is a big reason why your input is so valuable to me. I also really appreciate your insight into the backpacking issue, as that will likely be something that will come up for me from time to time.<br>

@Faleh, I know, it's almost a sin to pair the 5dmkii with the 75-300, but I am relatively new to this, and the 5dmkii is my second camera. (the first is an XSi). I was lucky enough to be able to get a 5dmkii recently for a cheaper price and although the lens issue was in the back of my mind, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to get my hands on the 5d. I figured I wouldn't need the long lens right away, but I have now booked 3 weddings for next year and making sure I have the lenses (and know how to use them!) is becoming more of a pressing issue.<br>

So, I think after reading everyone's responses, and given the new rebates with which Canon just came out, I think I will go for the 2.8 IS, and if I find down the road I need the 4, it won't be too much of a hit to my wallet. Thanks again everyone!</p>

<p>I know this question tends to pop up a lot on these forums. However it seems most people want to know about bokeh, or IQ differences. It also seems to me that most people tend to come to the conclusion that these lenses are all outstanding in those terms, so I will leave that question to other posts.<br>

My question is a little different. Currently, I am shooting a 5dmkII with a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (which, as you can imagine, is frustratingly slow to focus, and not great in terms of low light performance). I am shooting mostly weddings, portraits, and sports. Now to my actual question...can anyone comment on the real world performance differences of the four 70-200mm lenses in low light settings? (i.e. a church) And their performance with a teleconverter? Is the f/4 a good performer in a lower light situation, or would it be more frustration than the saved money is worth? <br>

If I can "get away" with the f/4 non-IS, I would be happy. But I am a bigger fan of being happy with my lenses and images. :) Thanks for any comments.</p>