Strictly as an intellectual exercise...

[danir.photography]

In your estimation how much money would a raw noobie need to sink into a wedding photography outfit. Never mind why. Someone just gets a wild hare up their fundament and decides to become a wedding photog.

There are some prereqs...

Redundancy in bodies, lenses, and flash.
Off camera flash.
Light meter required.

Digital is not a requirement and used gear is fine.

Just pop off a number.

[randplaty]

Do you mean just equipment or all the business costs too? Usually people have some sort of equipment coming into the business but if you're starting from scratch and only want to get by with the bear minimum:

2 used rebel XTi - $1000
17-50 2.8 tamron - $500
85 1.8 - $400
2 580 EX II - $600

decent computer - $1500
software $500
insurance -$500
website and blog - $500

So that totals to $5500 for bare minimum. Usually people have some of the gear already but also usually people want to do a little bit more than bare minimum.

[tim]

I added up my gear recently, new it came to a bit under $10K, I think that included a PC and Photoshop. Check out my gear list (sig link) for what I use, and check my wedding faq (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604) if you want my general recommendations.

[danir.photography]

I added up my gear recently, new it came to a bit under $10K, I think that included a PC and Photoshop. Check out my gear list (sig link) for what I use, and check my wedding faq (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604) if you want my general recommendations.
When you consider that a mechanic drops approx. $50K on his toolset and has to maintain a garage... $10K, a home office, and almost no need for pumice soap seems like a hell of bargain.

[danir.photography]

This is what I came up with for just a hair under $5K. Blasphemy in these here parts...

(x2) Nikon F100 35mm film SLR... $300.00 ea.
(x2) Nikon MB-15 battery pack for F100... $140.00 ea.
(x2) Acratech Quick Release Plate for Nikon MB-15 Grip... $40.00 ea.
Stroboframe Quick Flip 350 Bracket... $20.00 ea.
Acratech Quick Release Adapter plate... $90.00 ea.
Sekonic L-358 Flash Master... $200.00 ea.
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED ... $1430.00 ea.
Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D DC... $920.00 ea.
Heliopan 72-77mm step-up ring #141... $42.00 ea.
ExpoImaging 77mm ExpoDisc white balance filter ... $100.00 ea.
(x3) Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Glass filter ... $15.00 ea.
(x2) Tiffen 77mm Circular Polarizer... $40.00 ea.
Tiffen 77mm Neutral Density (ND) 0.3... $40.00 ea.
(x2) Vivitar 285HV strobe... $85.00 ea.
(x5) FlashZebra Item #0115 Deluxe PC to Flash Hotshoe Adapter... $14.00 ea.
FlashZebra Item #0059 1 Meter Straight Flash Sync Male to Female PC... $6.00 ea.
FlashZebra Item #0060 5 Meter (16 Feet) Straight Flash Sync Cord Male PC to Female PC... $8.00 ea.
(x2) Quantum MA2 dedicated module power cable... $52.00 ea.
(x2) Strobist Pro Rosco Color Correction Gel Pack... $15.00 ea.
Aljacobs.com Combo Black Box power pack w/charger... $175.00 ea.
Morris MTH-203 Umbrella Tilt Head... $25.00 ea.
(x4) FlashZebra Item #0041 Umbrella Adapter/Swivel... $14.00 ea.
(x2) LumoPro LP606 8ft Black A/C Stand... $27.00 ea.
(x2) LumoPro LP653 Studio Clamp w/double stud... $17.00 ea.
Westcott white satin umbrella w/removable black cover 45"... $29.00 ea.
Westcott white satin umbrella w/removable black cover 32"... $24.00 ea.
Westcott soft silver umbrella 32"... $20.00 ea.
La Crosse BC-900 Battery Charger... $39.00 ea.
(x3) Energizer 2450mAh AA NiMH Rechargeable Batteries (4 pack)... $9.00 ea.
Pelican 1510 Carry-On case w/1519 photo lid organizer... $185.00 ea.

Items in red reflect used prices. There are three UV filters (for two lenses) because one will be converted into a budget soft focus filter.

For another $1,200 I could pick up a computer running XP Pro with a 26" LCD, graphics tablet, and Plustek film scanner.

[Dorman]

I can't imagine shooting a wedding with film in this day and age. Why not grab a couple entry level DSLR's instead?

[randplaty]

uhh first of all that's Nikon gear and this is a Canon forum.. heheh jk.

But yea it'd be pretty difficult to shoot a wedding with film these days especially if you're just starting out because you're going to be spending a lot of money on film. It's also very cumbersome to be changing out gels and filters during a wedding. Weddings are VERY fast paced and you have to be able to get the shot within 5 seconds sometimes or even less if its a candid moment. I have neutral density filters and polarizers etc... but I have 0 use for them. I do that type of thing in post processing... but you can't do that as easily with film.

Also looks like you're into the strobist thing. Again you have to consider that weddings are really fast paced and we rarely have enough time to set up an umbrella except for the formals. I would go with a one light setup if you're really just starting out. It's a lot more simple and easy to set up and tear down. This is especially true if you're not going wireless.

[tim]

Also looks like you're into the strobist thing. Again you have to consider that weddings are really fast paced and we rarely have enough time to set up an umbrella except for the formals. I would go with a one light setup if you're really just starting out. It's a lot more simple and easy to set up and tear down. This is especially true if you're not going wireless.

Lighting is MUCH easier when you have an assistant, which is primarily why I have one.

For a first wedding keep the flash on the camera if you feel under pressure. I still use it sometimes, mainly when I need fill rather than for main light, but I use direct on-camera flash for a sunset shot the other day that came out great.

[randplaty]

Lighting is MUCH easier when you have an assistant, which is primarily why I have one.

For a first wedding keep the flash on the camera if you feel under pressure. I still use it sometimes, mainly when I need fill rather than for main light, but I use direct on-camera flash for a sunset shot the other day that came out great.


Agreed. We use a monopod with a 580ex at the end of it controlled wirelessly when we use off camera in order to keep it quick on the go... but it does require a second person to carry that monopod! We do have a lightstand and umbrella in the car, but it only comes out during group family formals. I don't know how we'd manage setting up two lightstands and umbrellas without a second person!

[danir.photography]

it'd be pretty difficult to shoot a wedding with film these days especially if you're just starting out because you're going to be spending a lot of money on film.

I can't imagine shooting a wedding with film in this day and age. Why not grab a couple entry level DSLR's instead?
I find these responses very interesting because they imply that film is obsolete. I can appreciate where people who think thus are coming from, but film is not in decline because it is obsolete (and it is in decline) but rather because it is not as profitable as it once was.

Both of my mentors shoot film, and they do so because the resolution of 35mm film is superior to all but the most expensive digital cameras available. As one pointed out many publications require 5,000dpi images if you are going to be published in them. But a Canon Elan 7 and a Plustek scanner can create a 5,000dpi image for under $400. To do that in digital you better have some fairly deep pockets.

Secondly, I feel that shooting film... provided that you care... forces you to be a better photographer. With it's instant feedback digital was a great crutch for my mediocrity... I could tell instantly if I'd screwed up bad enough to say 'Wait wait wait! Hold on!' and shoot again, but with film my ducks damn well better be in a row BEFORE I press the shutter. When I shot digital I cared more about WHAT I was shooting then HOW I was shooting. Now... as I drive around... I find myself paying much more attention to lighting and composition than I used to. It's somewhat like shooting a falling block rifle instead of an autoloader... with a falling block you don't have the luxury of making a mistake. Miss and there's no dinner for you!

Thirdly, film is no where NEAR as expensive as digital. Right now I am shooting a Canon EOS Elan 7 that cost me $60 and the film (200 ISO) costs less than $.03 a frame to shoot and (provided I develop it myself) not much more to develop. I can chew through a LOT of film before I get anywhere near the cost of a decent digital body! Keep in mind too that being able to develop film adds a whole new layer of potential creativity. I can only pray that one day I'll be as good as Ansel Adams in the darkroom.

It's also very cumbersome to be changing out gels and filters during a wedding. Weddings are VERY fast paced and you have to be able to get the shot within 5 seconds sometimes or even less if its a candid moment. I have neutral density filters and polarizers etc... but I have 0 use for them. I do that type of thing in post processing... but you can't do that as easily with film.
The gels are there because they're cheap and, hey!, who knows. But as far as the post processing thing, once again, once you scan the film into your PC everyone is on the same digital playground and in all probability you have more bits to play with than a RAW file ever dreamed of.

Also looks like you're into the strobist thing. Again you have to consider that weddings are really fast paced and we rarely have enough time to set up an umbrella except for the formals. I would go with a one light setup if you're really just starting out. It's a lot more simple and easy to set up and tear down. This is especially true if you're not going wireless.
I AM into the 'Strobist thing'. And while I would dearly love to go wireless right now it just ain't in the budget.

[randplaty]

I can respect that you want to use film. There are a lot of drawbacks but like you've explained... perhaps there are a lot of benefits also. Have you thought about the film vs. digital in terms of a pure business point of view? If its not as profitable are you going to be sticking with film long term? Are you going to be providing digital files to your brides?

Again, a lot of digital is about the speed. You don't need to change film. You don't need to change film to go up to 1600 ISO. Its not about the "art" of photography so much as it is getting the shot that your bride wants. It is more forgiving than film and therefore you CAN be lazier... but in a business you're going to try to do anything you can to get the shot that your bride wants. What happens if somehow you DON'T have your ducks in a row for that one shot and you blow it out? I'd rather have said, "wait wait wait" and taken another shot and GET the shot than find out you didn't get the shot at all. It's all about getting the shot no matter how you do it. If you're good enough with film that you can nail every shot, then yes go for it, but again your original post was about a newbie just getting into a wedding photography business. If you're Joe Buissink or Jose Villa and have shot hundreds of weddings over decades, you can probably venture forth into a wedding with that type of confidence.

I thought that on a canon digital photography forum you'd go in the direction canon digital rather than nikon film... hehehe

[tim]

I know one wedding photographer who uses film, it's because he doesn't understand computers and can't afford all the gear. He uses manual Nikons - manual focus and exposure.

Sure film isn't too expensive, though here at about US$6 for 24 shots that's $0.25/shot, and developing costs about the same. If you shoot 30 weddings per year at 1200 photos per wedding US$18,000/year. You'd save money if you did the processing yourself, but that takes a LOT of time AFAIK. Add on the cost or time of scanning film, and you can see why it can get expensive. Brides want all their photos on CD. Also album design is all digital, though if you do traditional albums you can get away with prints from film - though these days they're scanned then digitally printed anyway. Sure you shoot less with film - but you get the idea.

I've worked with scanned film, to make an album for a couple. Scanning was a pain in the butt, even outsourced. The image quality of that film couldn't touch digital, for resolution or quality, but I have no idea what film it was and the photographer wasn't a real professional.

I'm not trying to convert anyway, just posting a few thoughts :)

[danir.photography]

I can respect that you want to use film. There are a lot of drawbacks but like you've explained... perhaps there are a lot of benefits also. Have you thought about the film vs. digital in terms of a pure business point of view? If its not as profitable are you going to be sticking with film long term? Are you going to be providing digital files to your brides?

Again, a lot of digital is about the speed. You don't need to change film. You don't need to change film to go up to 1600 ISO. Its not about the "art" of photography so much as it is getting the shot that your bride wants. It is more forgiving than film and therefore you CAN be lazier... but in a business you're going to try to do anything you can to get the shot that your bride wants. What happens if somehow you DON'T have your ducks in a row for that one shot and you blow it out? I'd rather have said, "wait wait wait" and taken another shot and GET the shot than find out you didn't get the shot at all. It's all about getting the shot no matter how you do it. If you're good enough with film that you can nail every shot, then yes go for it, but again your original post was about a newbie just getting into a wedding photography business. If you're Joe Buissink or Jose Villa and have shot hundreds of weddings over decades, you can probably venture forth into a wedding with that type of confidence.

I thought that on a canon digital photography forum you'd go in the direction canon digital rather than nikon film... hehehe

I know one wedding photographer who uses film, it's because he doesn't understand computers and can't afford all the gear. He uses manual Nikons - manual focus and exposure.

Sure film isn't too expensive, though here at about US$6 for 24 shots that's $0.25/shot, and developing costs about the same. If you shoot 30 weddings per year at 1200 photos per wedding US$18,000/year. You'd save money if you did the processing yourself, but that takes a LOT of time AFAIK. Add on the cost or time of scanning film, and you can see why it can get expensive. Brides want all their photos on CD. Also album design is all digital, though if you do traditional albums you can get away with prints from film - though these days they're scanned then digitally printed anyway. Sure you shoot less with film - but you get the idea.

I've worked with scanned film, to make an album for a couple. Scanning was a pain in the butt, even outsourced. The image quality of that film couldn't touch digital, for resolution or quality, but I have no idea what film it was and the photographer wasn't a real professional.

I'm not trying to convert anyway, just posting a few thoughts :)
I think you are both 110% right in what you say. There are tradeoffs either way. Personally I would love to have the resources to purchase top-drawer digital bodies, but I don't. But I take some comfort in the knowledge that more weddings have been photographed on film than on CMOS and as I am sure you would both agree... photography is more about what is behind the viewfinder than what is underneath or in front of it.

[jonwhite]

I think you can easilly get away with anything between $5k and $30k depending on how you want to do it.

Regards redundancy, I definitely wouldnt shoot a wedding on my own (I always shoot as part of a pair) unless I had at least 3 bodies 2 flashes and a variety of lenses with at least two lenses capable of taking the group shots...... if youve ever shot a wedding and had a lens or body die mid wedding on you then you star to think differently about equipment redundancy.

We are in the process of changing from crop to full frame so I arent sure what our current equipment spend is but I am guessing its over the £20,000 mark now (about $30k)..... which sounds an awful lot (and is!) but a couple of 5D MKII's, 2 x 70-200 f2.8 IS L, 4 x crop bodies, 2 x mac book pros, 6 x flashes, various other expensive lenses, few software packages, training courses/literature, insurance, ..... the list goes on ... its easy to see where the money goes.

On the other hand you can get away with buying the bare minimum second hand and still get great results ... its definitely cheaper to get started in than many businesses thats for sure.

Dentist, now they would have some proper start up costs I reckon! :)

[timbop]

On s shoestring budget, assuming you're allowed some used pieces you can get by with a pair of 40D's and kit fo $5k. You need to realize that a complete newbie won't command high prices, thus lower expectations are also going to be present.

2 ungripped 40D's = $1600
1 tamron 17-50 = $375
1 70-200/2.8IS used = $1450
2 used 580ex's (original) = $550
35/2 (backup to the tammy) = $225
85/1.8 (backup to the 70-200) = $350
monopod, flash diffusers, reflectors, CF cards, bag, etc = $400

[danir.photography]

I've been dancing around on this issue trying to keep various configs under $5K. For example...


Nikon D90 digital SLR - $900.00 each
Nikon MB-D80 Multi-Power Battery Pack - $130.00 each
Nikon D40 digital SLR - $350.00 each
Impact ENEL3E Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Battery (x2) - $20.00 each
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D Macro - $364.00 each
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 - $310.00 each
Heliopan 62-77mm step-up ring #143 (x2) - $42.00 each
Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR - $620.00 each
Heliopan 72-77mm step-up ring #141 - $42.00 each
Stroboframe Quick Flip 350 Bracket - $20.00 each
Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Glass filter (x3) - $15.00 each
La Crosse BC-900 Battery Charger - $40.00 each
Energizer 2450mAh AA NiMH Rechargeable Batteries (x4) - $10.00 each
Nikon SB-600 I-TTL Speedlight (x2) - $225.00 each
Nikon SC-29 TTL Off-Camera Shoe Cord - $75.00 each
Aljacobs.com Combo Black Box power pack w/charger - $325.00 each
Quantum XK6 dedicated module power cable (Black Box to SB-600) (x2) - $43.00 each
Impact 2107 Monopod with Case - $20.00 each
Computer workstation (components itemized below) - $1,064.00 assembled
Intel BOXDG45ID motherboard w/ Intel Core2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz, 4GB RAM
Lian Li PC-V350B mini micro ATX case
Samsung 500GB HD502IJ SATA II 7200RPM 16MB hard disk drive
Lite On IHAS20-08 20x SATA super all-write DVD/RW drive
I-Rocks KR-6810bk x-structure luminescnet light keyboard USB
Genius G-Pen F1610 6"x10" drawing tablet
Logitech cordless Trackman wheel rf 3-bttn mouse
Acer 20" V203W widescreen LCD
Microsoft Windows XP Professional w/SP3


Items in red are used.

But the woman who is helping me break into wedding photography is of the opinion that you can start with two bodies, one lens, and an off camera strobe... which is incidentally how she started off.

I guess it's just depends on where you are coming from.

[tim]

Thoughts on Danir's post:
- D40 is a very low end body. If you go Nikon you'd want the D700 or better, otherwise Canon's better value for money. D90 is ok.... just.
- Cheap filters are nobodys friends.
- Stepup rings sound like a pain in the butt at weddings.
- 18-200 lens is too slow.

My call: 2x50D, 17-55, 30mm F1.4, 70-200 F2.8 IS, maybe a macro lens, two times 580EX II, plus accessories to suit the budget. Cost - no idea.

[jonwhite]

Items in red are used.

But the woman who is helping me break into wedding photography is of the opinion that you can start with two bodies, one lens, and an off camera strobe... which is incidentally how she started off.

I guess it's just depends on where you are coming from.

If nothing went wrong then you may well be able to get away with that, but if the AF breaks on your one lens in the middle of the wedding I reckon thats gonna severely impact what photos you can take. Old school peeps may be able ot go back to manual focusing and it not imapct them too much but for most people losing the AF on their lens would be a pretty big hinderence I reckon. Same for the flash, if it fails mid wedding and its the only one you have then its gonna be a pretty big hinderence I reckon and when your being paid to take photos (even if its a very small amount) you have a duty to ensure that your able to do that even if some of your equipment fails.

We had a body fail on us at our very first wedding and it was nerv racking eventhough we had 4 bodies between the 2 of us (we carry 3 bodies each now) and weve also had 2 lenses fail during a wedding as well as damagaing another one ourselves (clipped it on a door frame when slung over a shoulder) so can say for sure that failures can and do happen ..... if you dont have much kit when you start out you may well get lucky and not have any failures, but if your unlucky and have failures when you dont have backups its a great way to kill your business before you even gotten started.

[Karl Johnston]

An arbitrary question deserves an arbitrary answer:

Austin powers: 100 billion dollars.

My equipment in total is ...just about 10 grand, lighting included, nothing else.

My equipment varies for a lot of other fields, though, but in reality to put in perspective;

A guy in my area offers wedding photography on a CD for 500 $, he uses a fujifinepix something or another digital camera with no manual mode. I lol'd.

You could put together a nice enough set up for less than 3000$, lighting included.

Hell you could start doing business and nobody would really care for less than 1000$, just depends on how professional you want to be and how many 1 star out of 5 reviews you want on n49.

[bnlearle]

Danir, in terms of wedding photography, digital photography is absolutely superior to film ;) In terms of other photography? Not as sure. In my experiences, I know plenty of well established photography who have no problem shooting digital. Sure, they aren't shooting on rebels, granted, but if you NEED 5000dpi because of publishing, well odds are you could afford a 1dsMKIII. Heck, the 5DMKII is amazing at under $3k. Odds are your two mentors are longtime film users who have their egos attached to shooting film. That's fine. Plenty still shoot film. However, outside a minority of jobs out there, most do not call for any sort of film. 1DsMKIII's or 5DMKII's will do just fine ;)

Either way, the question is in regard to wedding photography. In regard to wedding photography, there is NO aspect that film holds a significant advantage over digital while digital holds HUGE advantages over film. If you're wanting to be a wedding photographer, you're causing yourself unnecessary problems by shooting film over digital. Just the exchange of negatives alone causes severe business issues...

Bobby

[collierportraits]

When I switched to digital in time for a wedding season, I actually went out and bought all new equipment, and the prices today are less than what I paid. I would say somewhere between $5K and $10K. Of course, I have spent more since, but I think I originally dropped about $7K.

[danir.photography]

How about this config...


Nikon D90 digital SLR - 900.00 each
Nikon D40 digital SLR - 350.00 each
SanDisk Ultra II 2GB SD card four pack - 35.00 each
Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX - 999.00 each
Nikkor 85mm f/2.0 AIS Manual Focus - 289.00 each
Heliopan 52-77mm Step-up Ring #147 - 42.00 each
Tiffen 77mm Haze-1 Glass Filter - 14.00 each
Tiffen 77mm Haze-1 wide angle glass filter - 47.00 each
Stroboframe Quick Flip 350 Bracket - 20.00 each
(x2) Metz 58 AF-1N TTL Shoe Mount Flash for Nikon i-TTL - 360.00 each
Nikon SC-28 TTL Off-Camera Shoe Cord - 55.00 each
(x2) Quantum Instruments MKZ3 connection cable to Aljacobs Black Box - 55.00 each
Aljacobs COMBO Two Black Box w/charger - 325.00 each
Westcott 32" white satin with removable black cover - 22.00 each
Photek umbrella swivel - 16.50 each
Gitzo G-556 Weekend 3-Section Aluminum Boompole - 95.00 each
La Crosse BC-900 Battery Charger - 40.00 each
(x4) Energizer 2450mAh AA NiMH Rechargeable Batteries - 10.00 each


Items in red are used. Coming in just under $4,200 sans shipping. The D40 is strickly a 'hail Mary' backup body if needed. Better that than asking a guest if you can borrow theirs... which actually happened to the woman who is helping me.

[tim]

D90 is what a friend of mine uses, i'm not particularly impressed. D700 is what a professional should use IMHO.

[danir.photography]

D90 is what a friend of mine uses, i'm not particularly impressed. D700 is what a professional should use IMHO.

When should I expect the wire transfer to hit my account? :(

[randplaty]

If you insist on Nikon... how about this:

D300 - $1500
D90 - $900
2x SB-900 - $900
17-55 - $1200
50 1.4 - $300
batteries, cf cards and other misc - $200

Total is $5000

Better bodies and no used gear.

[danir.photography]

If you insist on Nikon...

It's Nikon because the woman I'm working with uses Nikon which in turn confers very desirable efficiencies.

She was just notified that she made the finalist cut in a Nikon competition.

On a completely different topic...

I understand (how could I not!) that bodies are very important to some people. But to both of the people who I am working with bodies take a distant second to glass. As far as they are concerned any body... provided that you can handle it properly and that it is reliable... is fine. What matters is that you have the lenses to put on it.

And then finally... in a nod to all of you who favor Canon (personally I am apolitical... whatever works...) there's this... an 'apple' to 'apple' comparison more or less:

Items in (what used to be) red are used.

[randplaty]

I understand (how could I not!) that bodies are very important to some people. But to both of the people who I am working with bodies take a distant second to glass.

It does.

You could probably run with two D90s.

[bnlearle]

Here's what I'd say.

Used 40D - $600
Used 20D - $300
Used 17-55 - $750
Used 580ex - 300
Used 70-200 2.8 (non IS) - $1000
Used 50mm 1.4 - 300
Four 8gb CF cards - $150

$3400

This would give you a PRO sufficient setup, imo (if you're charging with contracts, website, and basically legit). You could have less if you're merely shooting for friends for a couple hundred bucks...

This is a GREAT setup and more than enough to shoot a wedding.

[tim]

Here's what I'd say.

Used 40D - $600
Used 20D - $300
Used 17-55 - $750
Used 580ex - 300
Used 70-200 2.8 (non IS) - $1000
Used 50mm 1.4 - 300
Four 8gb CF cards - $150

$3400

This would give you a PRO sufficient setup, imo (if you're charging with contracts, website, and basically legit). You could have less if you're merely shooting for friends for a couple hundred bucks...

This is a GREAT setup and more than enough to shoot a wedding.

I would suggest the 70-200 IS lens, it's way better. Also anyone with a 17-55 needs a backup lens, the Sigma 30mm F1.4 seems better on a crop body and sharper too - I had both until I sold the 50. 24GB may be excessive for a 2nd shooter... I tell me 2nd shooters 400 images ABSOLUTE MAX, which is 4-6GB. If they gave me 24GB/2500 photos i'd fire them! 20D isn't near as good as a 40D either, I shot with mine after I dropped a 40D the other day and the 40D images are crisper, and just look better.

[danir.photography]

Here's what I'd say.

Used 40D - $600
Used 20D - $300
Used 17-55 - $750
Used 580ex - 300
Used 70-200 2.8 (non IS) - $1000
Used 50mm 1.4 - 300
Four 8gb CF cards - $150

$3400

This would give you a PRO sufficient setup, imo (if you're charging with contracts, website, and basically legit). You could have less if you're merely shooting for friends for a couple hundred bucks...

This is a GREAT setup and more than enough to shoot a wedding.
I want to thank you for that because now things are getting interesting. I just wish the 40D was a wee bit cheaper...

[danir.photography]

I feel that I may finally be punching the dough down for the last time.

The bodies and lenses sourced at www.keh.com

[tim]

I would have a 17-55 F2.8 IS over the 24-70 any day of the week - I own two of them. I think it's VERY unlikely you'll use anything fiddly like a step up ring, and there's no point buying good glass then putting cheap filters in front of them. In 4-5 years of professional wedding photography i've never scratched the front element of a lens, if I do replacement isn't too expensive.

You have a Metz flash with a Nikon adapter in there. Be sure you want to go the aftermarket route. I have no idea about them. 580EX II units with Canon CP-E4 battery packs work great for me.

[bnlearle]

Agree with Tim 100%. On a 40D, a 24-70mm is going to be a 38.4-112mm. Not near wide enough.

Honestly, you have a lot of stuff in your list that you might like to use in studio, or that your mentors use for their work - but it's just not necessary when you're skipping over stuff that's WAY more important for wedding photography.

You need a wider zoom (Tim's suggestion of the 17-55 is the best), a telephoto (the 70-200 2.8 would be ideal), and a fast prime (the Sigma 30mm) - the fast prime is important, but could be last on the necessary list. You can buy the other stuff later if you really feel you need it (step up ring, filters, and all the lighting equipment).

I understand you have certain things you want, but you'll be better off prioritizing what you should get. Start with necessities and then move to stuff you feel is important. Much on your list isn't necessary for wedding photography and much that is isn't on your list. ;)

Bobby

[randplaty]

danir... where in SoCal are you located? Who are your mentors?

Don't change your list based on what we think if you really like shooting film and Nikon. I kinda feel bad that you've switched on your list to digital Canon even though it seemed like you were pretty passionate about film... and if your mentors require Nikon to shoot with them.

Agree with Bobby about the studio setup... but then again... if being a strobist is your passion... don't let us change you.

The Nikon line honestly may be better than the Canon line right now... but I know nothing about Nikon really so I couldn't say.

[bnlearle]

I hope I didn't sound pushy with Canon... I only suggested Canon because I know it (and because 40D's go used for $600 right now) ;)

She SHOULD change from film, however. It'll save her HUGE hassles just in dealing with negatives alone!

p.s. Danir, I started on and shot my first weddings on film :)

[LBaldwin]

Sorry but I don't buy your premise that film is "better". It's not plain and simple. It is really diffiuclt to compare the two in costs alone, or for that matter in rez alone. Sure you can get higher rez shots with some films over some digital cameras, but that is still comparing apples to oranges. The real diff to me is the ability to change ISO's on the fly without having to change films, moreover you have BACKUP of all images created and the ability to edit on the fly and reshoot with all parties during the event. No matter how good you are with film it cannot do that. Canon highend bodies have both CF and SD card capability, film cameras do not have that feature you would have to use a second body to get backup.

Also with digital the focal length has a much wider selection at my fingetips where film does not, if I need more F/L then I have with me I can use a crop body, If I need wider than that I can use a FF body. With film you get only one choice...

With film I depend on labs to correctly process my images, not to scratch the negs, print the colors correctly, and return them all to me safely. That has always been ans issue, as I have labs destroy entire projects even when they were split into thirds for processing, with digital I am the lab. No chemical dependancy, no snip tests, no machine issues.

Plain and simple, if film were superior in any real tangible way it would be the 800 lb gorilla in the market. Film is a niche and unless film cameras have a technology that surpasses digital, it will remain in that place.

Anyone spending 10k on a film kit and expect to gain market share in any field is fooling themselves. Your "mentors" remind me of the fools that got really upset with Canon for changing the mounting system. Either you use the technology to enhance your business or end up in the backwater of the business world.

[danir.photography]

danir... where in SoCal are you located? Who are your mentors?
We're in 'transitional housing' in Riverside through the end of February, whereupon God only knows. I'm leaning on a chap named Mark who shoots Canon and led me to get the Canon EOS Elan 7 that I am shooting now and Christine who's a volunteer here at the shelter and the wedding photog who shoots Nikon. I'm a child (metaphorically speaking) of two worlds.

Don't change your list based on what we think if you really like shooting film and Nikon. I kinda feel bad that you've switched on your list to digital Canon even though it seemed like you were pretty passionate about film... and if your mentors require Nikon to shoot with them.
I'm not passionate about film, digital is just too dear. My EOS Elan 7 set me back $60 and shooting 100 frames on film will cost about $21 which may be within my reach once or twice a month. It hasn't proved to be true so far, but hey!, who knows. And Christine doesn't require Nikon, it just seemed to make more sense given her investment in glass.

Agree with Bobby about the studio setup... but then again... if being a strobist is your passion... don't let us change you.
I appreciate that I appear all over the map, but we are surely approaching this from two radically different backgrounds. Or at the very least I hope we are. This is a fantasy exercise. I am asking my Church for the help to get started, and I have near zero expectation of success. But on the off hand chance they say 'yes' (they won't, but once again, hey! who knows!) I want to be ready. The Metz flashes... one on a frame, one on the boompole... would give me wireless TTL and lighting versatility and the aljacobs batteries would give me longevity. I'm not a photographer... I'm a fifty-two year old half-blind laid-off I.S. professional and father of eight who has seen his whole world turn to talcum powder and disappear and who is trying to turn nothing into something.

The Nikon line honestly may be better than the Canon line right now... but I know nothing about Nikon really so I couldn't say.
I know everything from words and nothing from realty. But when you have nothing you work with what you've got. You don't accomplish anything but you enjoy the illusion.

People tend to measure others by the only ruler that they have close to hand... themselves. But I've come to appreciate that that particular measuring stick is (for me) really really short and stubby.

Luck one and all.

[danir.photography]

I hope I didn't sound pushy with Canon... I only suggested Canon because I know it (and because 40D's go used for $600 right now) ;)
You weren't pushy. I had focused on Nikon because the woman who has offered to help me shoots it and my friend in Long Beach uses it. But the cost and functional beauty of the 40D is exactly why I am giving serious consideration (provided by some miracle I could afford it) to them. I got into this stuff to be a resource to my daughter and her husband, found I really really enjoyed it and... since I don't have much else that I can do... decided to pursue it as best as I was able.

She SHOULD change from film, however. It'll save her HUGE hassles just in dealing with negatives alone!
I did not intend to give the impression that I was working with Luddites, she shoots a D300 now.

p.s. Danir, I started on and shot my first weddings on film :)

[danir.photography]

I understand you have certain things you want, but you'll be better off prioritizing what you should get. Start with necessities and then move to stuff you feel is important. Much on your list isn't necessary for wedding photography and much that is isn't on your list. ;)
I really appreciate all of your (not just Bobby's) input. If you see something that you think is critical but which does not appear please mention it. The strobes and batteries are there because I thought that they were critical. Standardizing filters at 77mm is just common sense and inexpensive.

[tim]

Can I make a practical suggestion? Get a Canon 40D, a 430EX, and either a 17-55 F2.8 IS or a Sigma 30mm F1.4 prime. Drop the Speedlite if you need to. As a 2nd photographer that will be enough. Forget filters, brackets, etc.

This evening I had some gear issues and thought the $6K wedding I'm shooting in 10 hours might have to be entirely with a 40D, a 17-55 F2.8 IS, and a 580EX II. I wasn't particular bothered by that. It's about your vision, not your equipment. Give me an XT, an 18-55 and a 430EX and though I might not be happy i'd manage fine, and take photos very similar to those i'd take if I had $20K worth of equipment.

I did solve my gear issues btw, so i'm back up to full strength (gear list in sig). I love having three bodies, a range of lenses, flashes, and radio triggers, but they're not absolutely necessary.

[tim]

I really appreciate all of your (not just Bobby's) input. If you see something that you think is critical but which does not appear please mention it. The strobes and batteries are there because I thought that they were critical. Standardizing filters at 77mm is just common sense and inexpensive.

I suggest you standardize on not using filters, since they add cost, reduce lens quality, and offer little protection over and above that of a lens hood. Honestly you're overthinking things. Get a camera, a lens, and go take photos. Your personality and vision will make the difference, not the size of your filter thread.

[danir.photography]

You have a Metz flash with a Nikon adapter in there.
Whoops. Typo.
Be sure you want to go the aftermarket route. I have no idea about them. 580EX II units with Canon CP-E4 battery packs work great for me.
I think Canon gear is top drawer all the way.

[danir.photography]

I suggest you standardize on not using filters, since they add cost, reduce lens quality, and offer little protection over and above that of a lens hood.
I was under the misapprehension that lens hoods had issues of their own. And Tiffen is not especially 'cheap'. Now... Cokin I might understand.

I had my Elan in the back of our van yesterday (which I will never do again) and when I opened the hatch it rolled out and smacked the asphalt. Dinged up the rim of the filter but nothing else. I kind of love filters right now.

Honestly you're overthinking things. Get a camera, a lens, and go take photos. Your personality and vision will make the difference, not the size of your filter thread.
I'm not so much overthinking as I am underdoing. :) But there are good reasons for that. :(

[tim]

There are no issues with hoods. Only a fool doesn't use a hood, and if you have a hood on it's really hard to damage a filter/lens front element.

If a filter costs less than US$100 it's cheap. Why would you put $15 worth of glass in front of an $800 or whatever lens? Tiffen is cheap. Based on my experience B+W is a good brand, easy to clean and little effect on the image, others are harder to clean. Though hood and no filter is better again.

I had a 40D, 17-55 F2.8 IS, and a 580EX II fall one meter onto a hard wood floor a couple of weeks ago. It survived, and after fairly rigorous testing works the same as before. A year or so ago I dropped a 40D and 17-55 a similar distance and they were written off by Canon. The front element was fine both times.

Honestly I have to say you're thinking too hard and not taking the advice of the experienced photographers here. Bobby is better than 99.9% of the people on POTN will ever be, if you don't want to listen to me listen to him. Though I doubt his two 5DII and L primes strategy is for you :p

[danir.photography]

Honestly I have to say you're thinking too hard and not taking the advice of the experienced photographers here. Bobby is better than 99.9% of the people on POTN will ever be, if you don't want to listen to me listen to him. Though I doubt his two 5DII and L primes strategy is for you :p
I AM listening to Bobby, and to you. If I appear to not be taking your advice it's not because I'm arrogant or hard headed, but rather because I can't. I hope that one day the financial shackles will be removed, the crushing depression will lift, and I can live again.

Until then I just go through the motions on this BBS and I appreciate you taking the time to humor me. If nothing else what I learn will go to help my son-in-law.

Incidentally my name is Mark. The pretty girls who have served as my avatar are my daughters.

[randplaty]

Though I doubt his two 5DII and L primes strategy is for you :p

L primes all the way!!! Only advantage Canon has over Nikon right now.

[nphsbuckeye]

L primes all the way!!! Only advantage Canon has over Nikon right now.
I wouldn't go that far...

[bnlearle]

I would ;)

[s8langwo]

Two used film bodies @ $700 total
Three new Lenses @ $1200 total (zoom & prime)
Two new flash @ $300 total (cord included)
Light Meter @ $200 total
Miscellaneous @ $100 total

Half way there at $2500 and modestly but functionally equipped.

I'm not recommending this would work for everyone, but it fits the criteria of the original question.

Kevin