steven_praibin

<p>I am not a KR apologist, but a couple of the above comments could see someone in court. Be carefrul slagging off in public and in writing.</p>

<p>KR is not for beginners but I like his D300/700 guides. It makes setting up either of these cameras a lot easier. I also like the fact that he is irreverent...that irritates lots of people and in particular some of the so called experts on other photo sites.<br>

Anyway he is very successful and gets lots of donations. His site, guides and advice are also free, unlike some others.</p>

<p>Look at it another way...<br>

It would cost you a lot more in other marketing media. You will recover the P240 in your first wedding referral.<br>

The other thing you could do is leave one of those electronic picture albums that cycle through the photos automatically. </p>

<p>I've also been struggling with this issue too. I can buy a good used D700 for only a few hundred $ more than a new D7000. But thats only half the story. My overall direction is FX. I just have to decide when. I need two pro 2.8 lenses...17-35 and 80-200 in FX format. In DX I can also get equivalent quality. The investment in these is about $2500, so my decision is important. If I went D7000 I would have to sell these DX lenses too later on. The D700 appeals as it gets me to FX where I will stay. The D7000 appeals as its got a new generation AF and meter. Its also a bit easier to set up with the U1 and U2 menu memories.<br>

Right now I will probably go with the D700 also for the reason that its done the worst of its depreciation and my lens purchases will stay compatible with future models in FX. In two years of so I would probably get a used D800 (or whatever). I don't think I would ever buy new, as the depreciation is just brutal. Adorama have Nikon warrantied D700, refurbished, for just a bit over $2k...thats tempting.</p>

<p>Get on eBay. There is some nice Nikon glass there for a fraction of what you would pay retail. In particular, a well used 200-400. I was looking there yesterday as I have the same requirement as you.<br>

Going over 400 is going to be expensive. The Bigmas look impressive on paper, but at these focal lengths you really do get what you pay for. Read the respected reviews and choose carefully. Tele's are ok on a 2.8 lens, but slower than that will cripple your focus performance. <br>

You really need to budget $2k and get a used Nikon lens.</p>

<p>I think Shadforth is close. If you started factoring depreciation and other expenses you would never get going. I think he was only ballparking. And yes, there are all sorts of business expenses, but most are also a tax deduction, so that brings them down by 50%<br>

The costs with digital are easy to determine. By far the biggest is the initial capital outlay. But I know a very good wedding photographer who charges $2000 and he uses a D300 and a 17-55 f2.8 zoom. Thats it. $2300.<br>

One can lose sight of whats important. Having $20k worth of gear and a CPA to run your books does not make a good wedding photographer. Only the images do. and a good photographer can take good shots regardness of the platform and how expensive it is.</p>