My kit so far....

[CanonGolfer]

Right now I have an XS (please don't judge me....I'm new) and in the mail is a brand new, never seen the light of day T1i. I am going to hold off using the T1i because I might be coming across a factory refurbished (straight from Canon) 40D. IF that falls through though I will be using the T1i, I am just wondering if it will be good enough to start getting into wedding photography. I am currently moving back down to Tucson and am going to try and hook up with a few photographers to show me the ropes (if they are kind enough).
Thanks a lot

Oh as for lenses I have a 50 1.8, 18-55 kit lens and a 75-300 kit lens....pretty basic I know I'm just saving up for some better glass.

[form]

Alone you need 2 bodies at all times, no questions. Based on your equipment, I wouldn't hire you or have you work under me, and I'm a budget wedding photographer. Not based on the bodies so much as junk lenses and lack of flash. You can't do weddings without a good f/2.8 standard zoom OR good f/1.4-f/1.8 lenses with reliable focus. As someone just starting, you really have nothing useful for the purpose and would be constantly having to borrow equipment.

[tim]

Wedding FAQ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604).

[Joelene]

Alone you need 2 bodies at all times,You can't do weddings without a good f/2.8 standard zoom OR good f/1.4-f/1.8 lenses with reliable focus.

Setting aside the reliable focus, because that is a given, my question is why is it necessary to have a 2.8 or 1.4 - 1.8 lens?

@OP: I slightly agree, I don't think you are ready to jump into wedding photography, not because of your gear, but because of your experience. Try getting some second shooting under your belt, job shadowing, bag carrying anything before you wake up one day and just photograph some brides day.

Regarding your gear, Kit lenses and an xti or even a 40D are not pro gear, so any wedding you photograph with your current equipment I am hoping the couple would know you are a first timer, and you are more or less doing uber uber cheap.

As someone just starting, you really have nothing useful for the purpose and would be constantly having to borrow equipment.

And your first wedding you had top of the line gear? Or are you saying that you would not be able to do a wedding with the OP's equipment? Most professionals could use that equipment and pull out a fabulous wedding, I know I could. Everyone with a passion has something useful for the purpose of what they are passionate about. What someone just starting out needs is guidance and to be educated on how to get "there". And not just be told you are not good enough at the moment. I found your post absolutely useless.

I personally know someone who has been persistent on me teaching her how to shoot. I took her out once to a mock wedding to give her pointers. She now is charging a THOUSAND dollars a wedding, giving up the disk of negatives and is shooting with a nikon d60, kit lens and a pop up flash.
I personally think she is not worth that, ( maybe she should be charging only 200.00) her photography is less than desirable, frankly it is horrible!She is shooting on automatic? Is that the term? I call it Muppet mode, not manual, not av, or even tv.. but full on Muppet mode...But guess what, her couples love them and they refer other people.. I am beside myself with my jaw dropped to the floor.. but the masses don't know any better most times now do they?

Motivation, perseverance, guidance, and a good head and you can do anything with anything!

Tim, thank you for that link! I am going to use it and actually read it...

[CanonGolfer]

Setting aside the reliable focus, because that is a given, my question is why is it necessary to have a 2.8 or 1.4 - 1.8 lens?

@OP: I slightly agree, I don't think you are ready to jump into wedding photography, not because of your gear, but because of your experience. Try getting some second shooting under your belt, job shadowing, bag carrying anything before you wake up one day and just photograph some brides day.

Regarding your gear, Kit lenses and an xti or even a 40D are not pro gear, so any wedding you photograph with your current equipment I am hoping the couple would know you are a first timer, and you are more or less doing uber uber cheap.

Thank you very much. I wasn't planning on just jumping right into marketing myself as a wedding photographer, that's why I was going to get in contact with some experienced photographers to try and learn the ropes. I'm not even sure that it is something I want to do but I want to try and experience. I did feel like form was just cutting me down right away and squashing my interest just because I don't have any L lenses or a 7D.

[RT McAllister]

why is it necessary to have a 2.8 or 1.4 - 1.8 lens?Because the priest always slaps me when I reach for the light switch?

Seriously... I'm even getting tired of shooting with a 2.8 (even though that's the fastest I have other than the poor man's 50mm). Maybe it's my eyes but I don't think the sun is as bright as it was 10 years ago. :eek:

@OP: ...Try getting some second shooting under your belt, job shadowing, bag carrying anything before you wake up one day and just photograph some brides day.I agree. Years ago when I had a life I would go to the local parks and just find couples, parents with kids, people with stupid dogs, anybody that was willing to let me shoot them for the experience. In exchange I would upload a few of the pics to a website and tell them where they could download them... all suitable for printing.

This worked out really well and surprisingly I was never arrested. Note: I *highly* recommend you do this sober.

[CanonGolfer]

Thanks RT. I never thought about doing that but I will definitely do that. As for the whole "sober" thing....that's another story I guess :D

[Joelene]

haha RT I woulda kicked your butt to the curb! Great idea though :)

[form]

When I started shooting as second, I had a Tamron 28-75, a 50 f/1.8, and Sigma 10-20, as well as two bodies, a speedlite 580EX, a fong diffuser (gag), and at least 1 or 2 sunpak 383 flashes for off camera flash. I also had some experience as a portrait and event shooter and was familiar with producing acceptable results with off-camera flash, especially for formals and so forth, for which the hiring company actually liked my work better than theirs.

My OPINION (honest opinion, not fact and never claimed to be fact) is that equipment matters a lot, as does some familiarity with light and taking photos of people. I once let someone come along to shoot second for a wedding, and she had one camera, no flash, a kit lens and a 75-300mm. I had even loaned her my 580EX flash during the shoot for a short time. She didn't produce anything of any use during the wedding, and actually evaded me for several months before finally admitting that her evasion was due to being embarrassed about how her shots came out.

If she had a flash, knew how to use it, knew how to use the rest of her equipment and had some decent lenses with f/2.8 or faster apertures, and if she was actually familiar with taking photos under such varied circumstances as weddings involve, her shots might not have come out so bad.

Is it possible to get good photos with a kit lens? Yes, but it demands knowledge of the limitations and environments that it will be usable in, some understanding of light and composition, and a considerably powerful light source or otherwise favorable shooting conditions. The ideal situation is not having equipment that is "satisfactory" and you can "work around," but instead having equipment that does what you want it to, when you want it to, and you don't have to work around it. The less you have to "compensate for equipment limitations," the more you can focus on getting the shot. Sure, many pros can do great work with entry-level equipment, but they choose to buy the better stuff because it makes life much easier, and yes it DOES actually open doors.

Back to my first wedding as second photographer: If I did not have flash and an f/2.8 standard zoom lens, they would not have hired me and I would not have been able to do the work nearly as well as I did. If you want to do weddings, you had better be able to handle the pace and have some equipment that can manage. A completely no-flash wedding would be a very bad idea for anyone who does not own a 1D IV or Nikon D3s and the fastest primes available. For the rest of us, we have to have flash for the reception, sometimes for the ceremony, and for lots of other things.

Yes, my strong suggestion is to buy a flash first and foremost. I would recommend a 580EX. Next I would buy an f/2.8 standard zoom. Next I would buy a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or maybe Canon 50mm f/1.4, an 85 f/1.8, and very possibly a Tokina 11-16mm if ultrawide is your thing. This is almost all budget equipment, not L-class stuff, mostly between $250 and $350 per piece. Ideally, the newer cameras with usable ISO6400, etc., would be useful, as well as a range of f/1.4 and f/1.2 primes, plus an f/2.8 zoom for each range (ultra-wide, standard and telephoto), plus several powerful flashes, light modifiers, etc.

I guarantee that fast lenses come in extremely useful; nowadays I use my 35L and 85L 95% of the time because max apertures of f/1.4 or faster give me more light/environmental flexibility, which I value over focal length flexibility. Really, there are many more possible shots available to you when you can multiply light gathering ability by 4x (f/1.4 compared to f/2.8). You can quadruple your shutter speed or cut your ISO down, or you can make your flash 4x more powerful. The ambient lighting in many reception venues is not enough for f/2.8. In some, it's not enough for f/1.4. Sometimes your flash bouncing source is a dark wood or distant. With up to 4x the power, you open up a new world of flexibility and have the chance to get shots you otherwise would not be able to. Maybe that means getting the shot at ISO1600 instead of ISO6400 (which you may or may not have), or maybe it means getting it at ISO400 instead of ISO1600, allowing better prints and more editing flexibility.

And you'd better know at least basic rules of using light for portraiture, and basic composition.

[CanonGolfer]

Wow not too sure what kind of a budget you are on but I'll break down the gear you have laid out for me

Canon "standard" f/2.8 zoom - rough estimate 500
Canon 580 EX - 400
Tokina 11-16 2.8 - 600
Canon 50 1.4 - 400
Canon 85 1.8 - 450
Grand total (and this isn't including a better body) $2300

Hardly what I would call "budget" for someone who is just getting into photography. But we can also throw in an $800 50D body and you're looking at over 3 large just for starting.
Apparently you misunderstood me when I said "starting up" and "learning the ropes." You seem to have been one who was very fortunate financially to acquire the kit that you started with, unfortunately I am not one of those people...

[tfizzle]

I haven't done weddings but I've done events and portraits/families.

I wouldn't think about doing a wedding without a 2.8 or faster and 2 bodies. What will you do if you have an error. Just sit down and be like, "Sorry, just can't do it".

I currently have a Tamron 28-75 2.8, 70-200 f4L, 50 1.8 40d, t1i, 2 manual flashes, cybersyncs, umbrellas, etc.

I however, would never consider doing a wedding as a second shooter with a variable aperture zoom/kit lens. You end up very crippled into shooting with only good light.


BTW - a t1i will be just as good as a 40d IMO (with minor arguing points for both). You need to invest in glass. Grab a 50 1.4 or Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 2.8. They are relatively cheap and are great lenses ($300ish+).

I wouldn't expect a real wedding photog to let me come shoot without something like:

Body - doesn't really matter...xt-1dIV can take great pics.

Lens: at LEAST something 2.8 or faster. Not the kit lenses or variable zooms.

Flash: Some kind of flash and the knowledge how to use it.

Sample Portfolio: Something that shows you can already take good shots.

[form]

Wow not too sure what kind of a budget you are on but I'll break down the gear you have laid out for me

Canon "standard" f/2.8 zoom - rough estimate 500
Canon 580 EX - 400
Tokina 11-16 2.8 - 600
Canon 50 1.4 - 400
Canon 85 1.8 - 450
Grand total (and this isn't including a better body) $2300

Hardly what I would call "budget" for someone who is just getting into photography. But we can also throw in an $800 50D body and you're looking at over 3 large just for starting.
Apparently you misunderstood me when I said "starting up" and "learning the ropes." You seem to have been one who was very fortunate financially to acquire the kit that you started with, unfortunately I am not one of those people...

Is this USD? 580EX is $260 used, standard zoom $275 used, 50 f/1.4 $300 used, Sigma 30 f/1.4 $325 used, Canon 85 f/1.8 $325 used. Start with the first one, move up to the next, and so on gradually AS YOU CAN AFFORD THEM. These are all budget lenses in comparison to L lenses; I could sell my 85L and be able to buy every single item in that list (besides the tokina 11-16) and have money left over. If you can't even afford to invest $500-$600 in equipment, you really aren't very serious about wedding photography.

I'm not financially fortunate; everything I bought was paid for through photography, and it took me over 4 years to accumulate my kit (and it is still lacking, I need a 24L, 16-35L, fisheye, pair of 5D IIs or similar, some extra speedlites, CP-e4 packs, beauty dish, etc). Nobody in my family is rich, and I am currently a starving student. I will have no money for equipment for the next 2 years, and so I am hoping my bodies will last as long as possible before shutter failures occur.

Again, when I was "learning the ropes" and "starting up," I had an f/2.8 standard zoom and a 580EX flash. Without those two things, I wouldn't have been able to "learn the ropes." Minor investment in the grand scheme of things, only about $550 at today's used prices. That's really nothing for wedding photography; it's very easy to spend over $10k on equipment just to have an "acceptable" kit.

[CanonGolfer]

If you can't even afford to invest $500-$600 in equipment, you really aren't very serious about wedding photography.

Wow...I almost forgot about the wife, 3 kids, house payments and everything else I have. Thanks for snapping me back to reality.

[form]

*shrug* Clearly you have another source of income, so your interest in wedding photography must be very minor and you have no real expectation of making money doing it. Ergo, no reason to invest in equipment either. Although I thought your original post mentioned saving up for better glass....

You wanted to know if your kit was enough for wedding photography, and I told you that it was not. I even suggested specific items, based on priority, that would be most useful for getting started, and I did so with budget in mind (580EX for $260, f/2.8 standard zoom for $275 to start). Those are honestly two of the LEAST expensive and MOST necessary tools for starting wedding photography. Somehow that seemed like too much for you. Therefore, my next suggestion is to sell your kit lens and 75-300, and with the money buy an f/2.8 standard zoom and save up for that terribly expensive $260 flash. Then you might have usable equipment to start getting involved in wedding photography. 50 f/1.8 on one camera, f/2.8 standard zoom on the other, 580EX on whatever camera you choose. If you can't find a way to put that within your reach, then I can't see how you can possibly be serious about getting involved in wedding photography.

BTW you will also need NiMH batteries and a battery charger.

Something for future consideration: If you ever decide to start doing weddings on a serious basis and actually get hired by a bride & groom, the very least you could do for the couple is invest in equipment that will do the job well. When you think about it, the couple who pays money for the service places a value on the photography and expects the photographer to do a good job. It would be downright unfair to that b&g if the photographer did not obtain equipment that was apt to fulfill the job to a reasonable level. Now, sure nobody's paying you now, but would that "Oh I forgot I have the wife, kids, house payments" argument really matter to the couple who hired you if you came to them with poor quality photos and it was partly because of your equipment limitations?

My point is, both sides invest in each other. The b&g invests money and trust in the photographer, and it is appropriate that the photographer invest money and time in equipment and skill development in order to do the job well. If you are not prepared to do that, you are not prepared to get involved in wedding photography. It's serious business to the b&g, even if it isn't to you.

[philwillmedia]

Wow not too sure what kind of a budget you are on but I'll break down the gear you have laid out for me

Canon "standard" f/2.8 zoom - rough estimate 500
Canon 580 EX - 400
Tokina 11-16 2.8 - 600
Canon 50 1.4 - 400
Canon 85 1.8 - 450
Grand total (and this isn't including a better body) $2300

Hardly what I would call "budget" for someone who is just getting into photography. But we can also throw in an $800 50D body and you're looking at over 3 large just for starting.
Apparently you misunderstood me when I said "starting up" and "learning the ropes." You seem to have been one who was very fortunate financially to acquire the kit that you started with, unfortunately I am not one of those people...

Ooooh...

CG, it looks like your reality check just bounced.

You can't even consider going into any type of photography business, whether it be sports, weddings etc, etc without investing a bit of cash on some gear that is going to do the job.

It's as simple as that.

This raises another question...(and not necessarily directed at you CG)

Why is it that people who pick up a digital camera for the first time all of a sudden think they are now a pro photographer.

I reckon I'd make a good brain surgeon.
Anyone got a scalpel?

[tfizzle]

Will it be good enough for wedding photography? That is your question.

It will be if:
1. The wedding is exclusively outside and so is the reception/formals.
2. If clouds act as a softbox with not being too dark/too light. If you have no flash for fill on small groups/couples then the hard light will make them squint while facing into the light that you would need.
3. Decide to take all portraits in shade and risk blowing out the BG.
4. Wanting all indoor photos to look flat and dull from the propup flash and allowing the camera to control those aspects.


Can you do wedding photography with your kit? Yeah, but in my estimation only about 20% of the weddings out there and only 40% of that wedding. That's just a guess but most use a reception hall.

If it's raining and dark you will not be able to deliver any better pictures than Joe Bob with a point and shoot can because you won't be able to modify the light/shoot in low light.

You asked the question. People are just answering it realistically.

So you have 2 options:

1. Start with what you have and shoot for fun (non-wedding). Do some portraits of friends. Learn your camera with the kit you have and put off thinking about second shooting at least until you have a fixed aperture lens.

2. Find money somewhere and get some fast glass and speedlights.

[-OutofFocus-]

If I want to get into sports photography and have my work published in a local college/local papers while getting paid and getting taken seriously…I would tell myself that my work must speak to those who want to hire me. But I don’t have the equipment to get the job done properly and show my work at its best in this competitive market. It’s the survival of the fittest unless your buddy or your family members plan on hiring you and making the town hire you as a favor.

I think the advice being provided here is valuable.

[-OutofFocus-]

I don't want to get into sports or weddings. I would think the info would be a stepping stool for me. If I wanted to pursue an upgrade would be required.

[CanonGolfer]

Ok here's the thing. I have zero problem with spending money on an investment (I have over 1500 invested in my golf bag) but all I asked was if the gear that I am working with as of right now was even remotely feasible to start getting into wedding photography i.e. just taking basic shots and learning how things work. Now I did encounter some encouragement but form flat out said no, no one would even consider showing me around because I have inferior equipment (I know not his exact words but you get the idea).

Am I 100% fully committed on being a wedding photographer? HELL NO! I know jack squat about anything having to do with photography but wedding photography is something that has peaked my curiosity. But to be told "you lack this and need to spend that in order to even have the snowballs chance in hell to start thinking about doing it" really makes me want to say screw it. I know I need flash but that wasn't #1 on my priority list, after all I did just pick this up a whole month ago.

I understand that I did ask this question and was to be expected that people would give their 2 cents, but all I'm receiving is words of discouragement because I don't have even mediocre gear.

[tfizzle]

you have good gear, just mediocre for wedding applications. The easiest thing to do is ask someone if you can join. But at least be realistic.

But as someone who loves photography and has been doing it for over a year I would say that any professional would have a hard time wanting someone with a months experience and a kit lens joining them on their job.

i.e.:

Hi there police officer. I just got my license but I was wondering if I could drive the police car behind you in a high speed chase. Don't worry, it's a Toyota Prius so it gets up to 90. I'll install a cb so you can communicate to me on what I need to do/learn.

I'd say take a while to build up a portfolio and then pursue it. I'd feel awkward taking someone with a month of experience and a brand newish kit on even a portrait shoot. I don't have time to go through all the variables while with a client.

Join a photo club, take trips with them, look for strobist groups/people in your area to hook up with that doesn't deal with clients. Work on that first.

Then once you have some good shots, knowledge, etc. ask if you can join with someone.

[form]

So you've only been into photography for a month? If so, equipment is the lesser of your two big hurdles to jump before weddings become something you could get involved in. It would be a bit like telling someone who hasn't even taken a beginner's skiing course to handle an expert run, and letting them try it with only one ski and a pole missing its grip. I am not the only person who didn't get involved in weddings until having at least 1-2 years of experience shooting portraits, events, etc. 1 month and limited/no understanding of equipment is completely unacceptable and anything an experienced photographer might try to teach or suggest during a wedding would go over such a person's head. This would be frustrating to the main photographer.

I wonder where your family was when you invested the $1500 in your golf bag.

[CanonGolfer]

you have good gear, just mediocre for wedding applications. The easiest thing to do is ask someone if you can join. But at least be realistic.

But as someone who loves photography and has been doing it for over a year I would say that any professional would have a hard time wanting someone with a months experience and a kit lens joining them on their job.

i.e.:

Hi there police officer. I just got my license but I was wondering if I could drive the police car behind you in a high speed chase. Don't worry, it's a Toyota Prius so it gets up to 90. I'll install a cb so you can communicate to me on what I need to do/learn.

I'd say take a while to build up a portfolio and then pursue it. I'd feel awkward taking someone with a month of experience and a brand newish kit on even a portrait shoot. I don't have time to go through all the variables while with a client.

Join a photo club, take trips with them, look for strobist groups/people in your area to hook up with that doesn't deal with clients. Work on that first.

Then once you have some good shots, knowledge, etc. ask if you can join with someone.

Believe it or not that is all that I needed to hear. Short. Sweet and to the point. Thank you.

[ETERNAL]

Do you want people to say it is perfect just to suit your desire for self gratification?

If thats what you need, then, SURE IT PERFECT. You will be a great photographer with that equipment. Don't buy anything else.

You are receiving words of discouragement (which I don't think you are, You are receiving words of CORRECTIVE criticism), because the words are the truth.
You obviously like golf. So I have a question for you:
I was at a driving range the other day and found a putter laying around, then I went to goodwill and picked up a $4 driver, a bag of tees, and a sock to put on my driver. I then drove through the golf course and picked up some driving range balls. I wish to enter the PGA. Is my equipment good enough to do this?

Your answer should be along the same lines as the answers you got from others on your camera gear. They aren't saying your gear is crap, they are saying its not the right tools for the job.

[form]

Apparently my single-paragraph initial response was not short or sweet enough.

[CanonGolfer]

Do you want people to say it is perfect just to suit your desire for self gratification?

If thats what you need, then, SURE IT PERFECT. You will be a great photographer with that equipment. Don't buy anything else.

You are receiving words of discouragement (which I don't think you are, You are receiving words of CORRECTIVE criticism), because the words are the truth.
You obviously like golf. So I have a question for you:
I was at a driving range the other day and found a putter laying around, then I went to goodwill and picked up a $4 driver, a bag of tees, and a sock to put on my driver. I then drove through the golf course and picked up some driving range balls. I wish to enter the PGA. Is my equipment good enough to do this?

Your answer should be along the same lines as the answers you got from others on your camera gear. They aren't saying your gear is crap, they are saying its not the right tools for the job.

LOL I would LOVE to go into the more detailed aspect of your golf reference but we could be there all day. But I do get your point.
No I wasn't expecting people to say "Go get 'em champ!" but even something as simple as "sure you COULD go do a wedding (not as main photographer) but your pics won't be as good as if you had X. BUT it is still a good learning experience." See nothing too fancy, but to the point and is still letting me know that "hey we were all there before just stick with it."
As a golf instructor I'm not going to tell someone that is brand new "You should go pick up this $350 driver, $500 set of woods, $800 set of irons and wedges and $300 putter if you want to do anything" you help them work with what they have at the moment. When they start to become better then you push better gear onto them.

[CanonGolfer]

Apparently my single-paragraph initial response was not short or sweet enough.

The difference was you automatically said no because of X X and X when tfizzle said sure but its going to be mediocre.

The key word in my OP was start. Not "hey I'm going to become a wedding photographer and charge people 2k a session." But just simply start. Is there anything that I can start with gear that I have since apparently weddings are out of the picture as of now?

[form]

The basic fact is...you will not find your photos coming out any different from the common snapshot as long as you don't have equipment or knowledge that would make a difference possible. Therefore, if all you want to do is take photos at a wedding, then just buy a P&S camera and I guarantee the photos will come out about the same as if you were using a dSLR.

Honestly, you could putt around with that for a long time and never get anywhere. You could do it for years and the only things you might learn are the overall pattern of a wedding and where to be to get certain shots. What significant gain is there with those accomplishments? You might as well have not done it and said you did, and your skill level and ability to actually shoot a wedding would be no different (i.e. you couldn't do it well). You wouldn't improve in any meaningful way until you have better stuff and more knowledge.

You can start by researching what everything does, what it's good for, how your equipment works, rules of composition and lighting and all that, and experiment. You will find that you need things you don't have to achieve things you can't do without them. That's why I bought everything I own: I saw a limit and a piece of equipment that helped reduce or solve it, and so I bought the equipment when I could. If I was still able to spend on photography, I would have everything in the list I mentioned earlier because they all fill gaps in my current setup that I know need filling.

[CanonGolfer]

I was at a driving range the other day and found a putter laying around, then I went to goodwill and picked up a $4 driver, a bag of tees, and a sock to put on my driver. I then drove through the golf course and picked up some driving range balls. I wish to enter the PGA. Is my equipment good enough to do this?

Ok so I lied. I will answer your question.
Do you have a 1.4 USGA Handicap or lower?
Does your equipment meet the current equipment regulations set forth by the USGA ?
If you have answered yes to both of these questions then you may qualify for the US Open

But I did like how you tried to tie in something I could relate to in order to help me better understand the point, the only problem is that Professional Golf and Professional Photography are nothing alike.

[CanonGolfer]

Thank you Form. I understand completely what you are saying and the only reason I would even try to get with a wedding photographer is to get that needed experience you can only get by shooting weddings. I am going to take your advice and do what I can to learn the basics of the basics.

[bnlearle]

At the OP. I started with ONE film body, a kit lens (18-55, or something) and a crappy telephoto (70-300, or something. Shot two friends' weddings with that. Then I got a digital camera and worked my way up from there.

To test the waters out, shoot for friends, accompany a pro, etc.? You've got plenty of equipment ;)

Bobby

[TMCCaptured]

Wedding FAQ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604).


Again Tim, you Shine as the Light bringer...Where do you come up with all of this, is your head ready to explode?

I feel a man of your calibre needs to move North to Mooloo Country

[form]

Bobby is the exception because he's actually got some innate aptitude for this kind of work. Most are not able to do that.

[RT McAllister]

To test the waters out, shoot for friends, accompany a pro, etc.? You've got plenty of equipment ;)I agree about the gear. I've been at a few weddings where cousin Cleetus was the official photographer and he had a lot less. (Of course I never saw the pics).

Gear isn't your problem right now CG (but you will eventually need a flash). You've got the cart before the horse. Keep your wedding aspirations if you want but practice and read before you spend another nickel.

[Bkolowski111]

If you buy a flash AND learn how to use it, you might be able to accompany a pro, with your current setup, and get SOME useable shots. The key here is knowing how to use it, something I am definitely working on. I remember when I got my first SB-600 and started using it on camera, bouncing the light off the ceiling, wall, whatever. The difference is huge compared to direct flash. If I was in your shoes I would buy the flash FIRST.

Then you'll want to buy a second flash, and stands, and umbrellas, etc etc. It never ends! ;)

[bric-a-brac]

I think the reality simply is that, if you wish to photograph weddings (for compensation), you must remember that you are at all times responsible for getting THE shot, each time. every time. no do overs. if you can get an in-focus, well exposed image no matter how horrendous the lighting conditions are or how much beer uncle bob just spilled on your camera, then yes! you'll be fine with what you have.

for the rest of us, we find it infinitely easier to add to existing light with flashes and use lenses capable of getting the best out of the light available. we also sleep easier at night knowing that if one of our cameras whiffs it, we can just pick up the other one and keep shooting (instead of going home and later *trying* to explain to the bride why we were paid rather handsomely for something we can neither deliver or make up to her).

for what you have right now: bring it to a few weddings as a guest. without a flash you likely won't even bother the professional there unless you're shooting over his/her shoulder or in his/her way the whole time. you won't be liable for anything so you've got nothing to lose, but photographing under the limitations of your present kit in a variety of wedding venues will possibly help you to understand why so many people are telling you that you need to make a considerable investment if you're serious about eventually becoming a wedding photographer. you have to be ready for anything.

good gear does not make good photographers. it does make things infinitely easier for good photographers to make good photographs though.

[RT McAllister]

Hey Bric! I was checking your gear list...

Canon 35mm F/1.4 L
Canon 135mm F/2 L
Sigma 24-60mm F/2.8


How often do you use that 135 on your cropped cameras?

Note: Ain't hijacking CG's thread... he can learn something.

[bric-a-brac]

Hi RT:

I use it extensively; I replaced my 70-200 with it. I like the extra stop of light. in really dark situations I use it with a monopod and I don't really find that inconvenient by any means. The only limitation would be the single focal length, which is where having another lens on a separate camera comes in handy. :p

If you find yourself attracted to primes, my suggestion would be don't hesitate to get it.

[RT McAllister]

I use it extensively; I replaced my 70-200 with it. I like the extra stop of light. in really dark situations I use it with a monopod and I don't really find that inconvenient by any means.I'm a monopod guy myself but at the end of the day my right arm feels like a wet noodle from shooting vertical.

The only limitation would be the single focal length, which is where having another lens on a separate camera comes in handy. Yeah, I thought of that. My problem is I can't picture myself hanging back with the 135 and then creeping in with say... a 50mm without missing the shot. Timing is everything with primes and sadly, I ain't got it.

With zooms though it's nice to compose 2 different shots of the same scene with the flick of the ring. They just make sense when shooting live events. Canon needs a 55-150 f/2.8 IS for us, "croppers".

I do like fast primes though. I've had my tail between my legs ever since I used an 85/1.2. A buddy let me borrow his then had the nerve to expect me to return it. (heartless bastard).

[CanonGolfer]

Well good news. Since last night was super pay day for me I went out and got some new gear. Traded in my Rebel XS kit to my camera shop, which gave me a very generous 500 for it and they had just gotten in the 40D a mere 30 minutes before I got there. So like any good person would do I quickly snagged it (body only) for 700. The body was less than 1 year old, had less then 5k shutter count and just came back from Canon for a complete systems check....all checks out 5.0
So now I needed some glass and the nice lady behind the counter gave me a deal on a brand new Sigma 28-70 2.8 for $375. Oh and I also got a new 430 EX II so now it's off to learn how to use all of this stuff.
So now I have a Canon 50 1.8 and a Sigma 28-70 2.8. What should be my next investment?

[tfizzle]

Well good news. Since last night was super pay day for me I went out and got some new gear. Traded in my Rebel XS kit to my camera shop, which gave me a very generous 500 for it and they had just gotten in the 40D a mere 30 minutes before I got there. So like any good person would do I quickly snagged it (body only) for 700. The body was less than 1 year old, had less then 5k shutter count and just came back from Canon for a complete systems check....all checks out 5.0
So now I needed some glass and the nice lady behind the counter gave me a deal on a brand new Sigma 28-70 2.8 for $375. Oh and I also got a new 430 EX II so now it's off to learn how to use all of this stuff.
So now I have a Canon 50 1.8 and a Sigma 28-70 2.8. What should be my next investment?


That's fine for now. The body isn't what was holding you back but I love the 40d.

I use the 40d and same lens most of the time. Now go out and shoot

[form]

.....so you bought from a retail store. No wonder you complained things were too expensive.

Before making any more buying choices consider online prices (and the various photography forums' buy & sell areas) before picking retail, and don't listen to what the retailer tells you about what's good. http://www.photozone.de and http://www.the-digital-picture.com offer some good lens reviews, and sometimes www.popphoto.com does as well. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/ has Canon lens reviews.

[CanonGolfer]

No not from a retail store, from my local camera shop. I trust Krista because she has been in the industry for about 15 years now. I would have picked up used lenses but anything good is pretty hard to come by at that store. But now that I have what I have I can start using the BST forum more.

[CanonGolfer]

That's fine for now. The body isn't what was holding you back but I love the 40d.

I use the 40d and same lens most of the time. Now go out and shoot

I know the body wasn't really holding me back but I do like the versatility of the 40D compared to any of the Rebel series bodies. If I want to go and shoot sports I can without fear of "missing that shot" because of not shooting fast enough or focusing fast enough. Plus the 40D will outlast anything an XXXD has to offer.

[tfizzle]

.....so you bought from a retail store. No wonder you complained things were too expensive.

Before making any more buying choices consider online prices (and the various photography forums' buy & sell areas) before picking retail, and don't listen to what the retailer tells you about what's good. http://www.photozone.de and http://www.the-digital-picture.com offer some good lens reviews, and sometimes www.popphoto.com (http://www.popphoto.com) does as well. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/ has Canon lens reviews.

Those prices aren't THAT bad. You probably paid $50 for the lens more than I would have and maybe 70 more than a 40d.

However, $120 to support a local store and the ability to go to a store and complain about it if something messes up (as well as getting the tradeout on the rebel for $500) is a good deal IMO. No hassle in trying to sell the rebel, ship it, and then wait on a 40d, used, etc. I mean, I don't think I would have done that as I'm an online type of guy and 90 miles from the nearest decent camera shop.

[form]

At the very least I would try the lenses before buying them. If she had a tamron 28-75 there I would compare it to the sigma you bought and see which does a better job optically; I am 100% sure the tamron will (if it's not a defective copy) and new prices are probably similar.

[CanonGolfer]

Those prices aren't THAT bad. You probably paid $50 for the lens more than I would have and maybe 70 more than a 40d.

However, $120 to support a local store and the ability to go to a store and complain about it if something messes up (as well as getting the tradeout on the rebel for $500) is a good deal IMO. No hassle in trying to sell the rebel, ship it, and then wait on a 40d, used, etc. I mean, I don't think I would have done that as I'm an online type of guy and 90 miles from the nearest decent camera shop.

The prices weren't too terrible for because I know that the camera came directly from Canon so there were zero problems with it, where as if I buy something online there is always a chance at there being something wrong even if the seller knew nothing about it. Plus like I said I trust Krista (she's the asst manager) and she knows what shes talking about. She personally inspects every used camera that comes in as well and their prices are pretty competitive with anyone else.

[tfizzle]

At the very least I would try the lenses before buying them. If she had a tamron 28-75 there I would compare it to the sigma you bought and see which does a better job optically; I am 100% sure the tamron will (if it's not a defective copy) and new prices are probably similar.

Depends on the copy. Same could be said of ordering it online, getting a bad copy and being dealt the hassle of trying to return it and not being able to. And then having to send it to Tamron for about 8 weeks.

I feel he got a decent deal, he can take it back to the store if it gives him trouble with someone who knows their stuff.

I didn't try the Tamron before buying it and I love it. Nor did I the 50 1.8. The only one I did was the 70-200 f4l and that's because a friend had it. I read reviews, found the best deal, and hit "buy". I did get my tamron for lke $290 BNIB when Live cashback was going.

I tend to agree with your arguments but you come off as trying to be a "know all" and "answer guru". I'd say give it up already and let him enjoy his 40d and 28-75 and flash.

That's a GREAT setup for someone to get their toes in what they enjoy doing.

[form]

Don't know it all but I've been through a lot and made some very expensive purchases (and some inexpensive ones previously), and I trust that I have learned from them. I also did lots of research and looked all over the internet for reviews before each purchase.

[RT McAllister]

Well good news. Since last night was super pay day for me I went out and got some new gear. Traded in my Rebel XS kit to my camera shop, which gave me a very generous 500 for it and they had just gotten in the 40D a mere 30 minutes before I got there. So like any good person would do I quickly snagged it (body only) for 700. The body was less than 1 year old, had less then 5k shutter count and just came back from Canon for a complete systems check....all checks out 5.0
So now I needed some glass and the nice lady behind the counter gave me a deal on a brand new Sigma 28-70 2.8 for $375. Oh and I also got a new 430 EX II so now it's off to learn how to use all of this stuff.
So now I have a Can.on 50 1.8 and a Sigma 28-70 2.8. What should be my next investment?

Download this utility and verify that shutter count on your 40D:

http://astrojargon.net/40DShutterCount.aspx

Note: this utility also works on a 50D.

What should be my next investment?A really nice big-assed bag to carry all that wedding money in. :D

[CanonGolfer]

Already did ;) that's how I knew how many shutter counts it had. Thanks though :D I already have a pretty decent Canon bag that Krista threw in for free

[form]

Wish I was still in the anabolic phase. As it stands I will probably have to sell some equipment come mid-2010 just to afford the next semester of college. First thing to go might be the 70-200...

[ShotByTom]

When I first switched to digital I did two weddings with a Rebel XT, 18-55, 50 1.8 and a Sigma 70-300 and let me tell ya...I spent a LOT of time in photoshop trying to make those pictures look good! I tried the Sigma 2.8 zooms and was happy with them until I rented a couple of Canon L's. Now I use a 5D and 2.8 L zooms and my favorite lens...the 85 1.2 L (rented..unfortunately).

The budget lenses I was happy with and would use again are:
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (~$350)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (~$300-350)
Sigma 30mm f1.4 (~$350)
Tokina 50-135 f2.8 (~$450)
And I would work toward getting a 580 EX II, that way you could use it as a master with your 430 off camera.

I missed my nephew's first kiss because my "budget" sigma lens couldn't lock the focus, and that's what pushed me over the edge to Canon's L lenses. There's no worse feeling at a wedding than watching the first kiss through a blurry viewfinder and the entire church hears zzzzZZZ ZZZzzzzz zzzZZZ ZZZzzz while your lens tries to focus!

[bobbyz]

Not to hijack the thread but I see fabulous images from David Ziser using slow zooms like Sigma 12-24mm, canon 24-105mm f4, even 18-200mm.

Somone using d3 or 1dmk3 would look down upon on folks with 5d just like they look down on somone using rebel series.

I am not saying equipment doesn't help. It helps a lot but you got to pay a lot of money for good euipment. I started my bird photography with lowly 2MP panasonic FZ1 point and shoot but it did let me shoot at f2.8 and 400mm for only $350. Quality was crap compared to my 500mm f4 IS but I learnt lot of things using my fluzzi.

[doubledragon]

Already did ;) that's how I knew how many shutter counts it had. Thanks though :D I already have a pretty decent Canon bag that Krista threw in for free

I've been following this thread and just have to say, I think it's hilarious each time the OP is referring to "Krista" as if everyone knows her. It reminds me of this guy I know who paid close to $1800 for his 70-200 2.8 NON-IS through his local camera shop because the salesman behind the counter told him it was a good deal.

I didn't have the heart to tell him I got mine for $800 when there really was a good online deal to be had.

[CanonGolfer]

Well the thing is I do know her. Sorry if I was using her name like that, didn't know it was such a HILARIOUS thing.

[bnlearle]

Future reference, buy online. Always cheaper. And not just a little. In fact, for lenses especially, buy used. I've saved thousands ;)

Bobby

[CanonGolfer]

I know to buy online, but she is a source that I trust. And like I said I feel that I got a great deal on what I purchased. When you purchase stuff online you can only trust what the seller was saying and hope that everything is ok.

[bnlearle]

Oh, I'm not trying to make you feel bad over your last purchase. I'm sure you were taken care of ;)

However, Amazon takes as good of care of photographers as anyone. You also don't pay tax or shipping. And they are ALWAYS cheaper than stores. I got a brand new 5D (way before the 5DII) for $1200 after tax and shipping because the made a mistake and credited me. I got a 24-70 for whatever the going rate was 3 years ago minus $200 for a problem we had with shipping. Amazon is amazing with customer service. Especially once they see that you use them much of the time.

Just throwing it out there ;)

Bobby

[CanonGolfer]

I totally plan on doing my other camera shopping online now. Since I have the necessary tools to begin with it's just going to be adding this and that till it all comes together. Plus I'm leaving Colorado Springs and won't be able to purchase from her anymore :)