Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 24 May 2011 (Tuesday) 07:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

A photographers gear

 
Southswede
Senior Member
950 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2004
     
May 27, 2011 20:31 |  #46

Massimoda wrote in post #12468687 (external link)
I mean the 18-200 is basically a "bundle" lens.

http://www.digitalprot​alk.blogspot.com/ (external link)

Maybe you should tell Mr Ziser how this lens is basically a bundle lens. But before you do, I would suggest you look at the images he creates with that lens. I suspect he can do the same work with the camera you look down your nose at too........




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Your ­ Story ­ Photoart
Senior Member
Avatar
461 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: my own little world
     
May 28, 2011 01:03 |  #47

bnlearle, IMO you're pretty brave for wanting to take this guy as a client. Maybe I'm being too harsh but he just seems like a handful. Don't get me wrong, his concerns for the quality of equipment aren't without merit but if I had a potential client emailing like this, just seems like one of those clients that will be a PITA. IMO of course.


iPhone gripped

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PMCphotography
Goldmember
Avatar
1,775 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Tasmania, Australia.
     
May 28, 2011 01:05 |  #48

Your Story Photoart wrote in post #12492878 (external link)
bnlearle, IMO you're pretty brave for wanting to take this guy as a client. Maybe I'm being too harsh but he just seems like a handful. Don't get me wrong, his concerns for the quality of equipment aren't without merit but if I had a potential client emailing like this, just seems like one of those clients that will be a PITA. IMO of course.

I got that vibe too.


Twitter (external link)
Hobart Wedding Photography (external link)
I have some camera stuff. Here it is.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yossarian22
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
May 28, 2011 01:17 |  #49

Anyone shooting with less than an RZ67 during the wedding and an 8x10 for group shots as well as not providing their own wet prints is a charlatan in my book




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Southswede
Senior Member
950 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2004
     
May 28, 2011 09:30 |  #50

bnlearle wrote in post #12492134 (external link)
Oh come on, guys. No need to act like the OP was crazy in thinking that a photographer who charges budget prices and owns a rebel/kit lens combo is probably crap. Ziser might be able to do exceptional work with such equipment -- but I doubt he'd charge R7000 for it...

Yes, the photographer makes the gear -- not the other way around -- but usually photographers that can take killer images on introductory gear can afford to buy the expensive stuff. I don't know a single experienced photographer who chooses to shoot with a rebel and kit lens, for example, who is killing it with his/her photos.

Chalk this up as a lesson in "you get what you pay for" -- and a guy charging R7000 for wedding photography is pretty much to be expected to shoot with such gear ;) But no need to act like the OP is a crazy jerk...

_______________

San Diego Wedding Photographer (blog) (external link)
Twitter (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
the Raddest Photo Trip Ever!!! (external link)

Come on the next one Dec 1st-14th 2011!!!!!

Maybe you too should go check out David's work. He makes great money shooting weddings, has top of the line equipment.......yet STILL uses and likes the 18-200. Maybe he knows something you and the OP don't?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jukas
Senior Member
469 posts
Joined Mar 2004
Location: California, United States
     
May 28, 2011 17:32 |  #51

This is rapidly degenerating into a "You can't make good images with entry level gear" topic.. pretty soon we'll have comments about images from a pinhole camera made from a animals cookie box...

It's obvious the OP wasn't happy with the work presented by this "pro photographer".. some of us (myself included) simply stated that he acted in an unprofessional manner by questioning and verbally berating the "pro"s gear.

To give the "Pro" credit, what I saw in his side of the email exchanges was nothing but professional, and as others have pointed out his price point seems to be in line with the quality of his work.

Part of the problem of pro or hobbyist photographers is we get too wrapped up in gear and accessories and technical details. It can make us boorish and pain in the ass clients.

I couldn't care 2 licks for the gear a photographer I'm hiring uses, as long as they assure me they have backups. I'd make my choice based on portfolio, referrals and if their service was within my budget.

Consumers of a service has the ultimate choice of how they spend their dollars, if you don't like what one vendor is offering move along to the next but it's a waste of time trying to give someone unsolicited advice as to how they should run their business. The market has a great way of working itself out.


Canon 1D Mark III | Canon 20D | Canon EOS 3
70 - 200 f/2.8 IS L | 24 - 70 f/2.8 L | 300 f4 IS L | 50 f/1.8 MkII
1.4x II | Speedlight 550EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cristphoto
Senior Member
960 posts
Likes: 54
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Maryland
     
May 28, 2011 19:24 |  #52

That setup would be fine for outdoor or well lit churches, but not so for scenarios in poorly lit churches with no-flash policies. A pro needs to arrive prepared for many situations. I wouldn't consider a single camera/lens combination well prepared (particularly the setup described). Many years ago I shot weddings with a medium format camera and an 80mm lens. This worked for most shots but I realized there were certain limitations and that hindered some creativity.


5D MKIV x2, 24L II, 35L II, 50L, 85LIS, 100LIS Macro, 135L, 300LIS, 16-35LIS, 24-70L, 70-200LIS, 100-400LIS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeaceFire
Goldmember
Avatar
2,281 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ - Chico, CA - Duluth, MN
     
May 28, 2011 19:26 |  #53

I think the big concern with the 1 lens/1 body set-up isn't so much the quality of the lens but the fact that if something dies, God forbid, YOU ARE SCREWED! Both the photographer and the client are up a certain river without a paddle.

I personally would have no qualms about hiring a photographer who only has entry level gear if their work was fantastic. I wouldn't, however, hire a photographer with only one set of gear, whether it be entry level or top of the line.


My Gear List / My Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Southswede
Senior Member
950 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2004
     
May 28, 2011 21:11 |  #54

bnlearle wrote in post #12496347 (external link)
I don't need to check out his work. I'm more than competent when it comes to evaluating photography gear. I've shot weddings in all sorts of conditions all over the globe -- and I don't believe that a single lens that is limited to f/5.6 at the long end is even remotely adequate by itself. I would imagine any example from this photographer with this lens will be in well lit conditions (either natural or superficial).

Whoever this guy you're referring to is (I've never heard of him and it doesn't seem he shoots weddings - at least anymore), he can love the lens all day long. I'm not saying he shouldn't. But if he is a full time, legit, talented wedding photographer, then he knows as well as I do that you need more than a single lens (especially if that single lens is crap for low light).

Either way, the OP didn't say that he doesn't want to book this guy that you like because he shoots with this lens. It sounds like he doesn't want a guy with a rebel and a single lens shooting his wedding because a) that kind of gear is a bit of a red flag and b) he wasn't blown away with his work.

Like I said, it seems the OP learned the old "you get what you pay for" lesson -- and that if you want to spend >$1000, you can't expect your photographer to have much better gear than the one described here.

_______________

San Diego Wedding Photographer (blog) (external link)
Twitter (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
the Raddest Photo Trip Ever!!! (external link)

Come on the next one Dec 1st-14th 2011!!!!!

Well then maybe you should look at his work rather than pat yourself on the back telling people how great you are. If you had looked at the link I provided you would realize how silly you look right about now. Just a thought.......then again....never mind. You wouldn't understand.

http://www.digitalprot​alk.blogspot.com/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canoned
Member
44 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA
     
May 28, 2011 21:42 as a reply to  @ Southswede's post |  #55

But if he is a full-time, legit, talented wedding photographer?!! really... are you serious? Ziser has been around for a long time, has had several photography books published, been published in just about every photo magazine known to man and has done seminars for the business of photography since the Lord was an altar boy. Yeah, I respect the mans opinion. The average wedding client couldn't tell the difference between pics taken with an 18-200 or a 24-105. Only pixel peepers can. Wedding couples don't care about all this technical stuff. They just want to look good in the pictures.
My wife's favorite picture of herself is a still capture from a Canon XL-1 video cam. Because she likes the way she looks not because it is tack sharp.


http://www.photocelebr​ation.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Southswede
Senior Member
950 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2004
     
May 28, 2011 21:55 |  #56

bnlearle wrote in post #12496824 (external link)
Sigh... I tried.

You want to make this into a "my guy is better than you!" thing. Fine. Your guy is amazing. Better than I could ever be. But whether or not this guy is amazing, it just has nothing to do with the fact that a single f/5.6 lens is a not a good set up for a wedding.

If you are arguing that a single lens with f/5.6 is a good setup for a wedding, I'm not going to argue with you. You're just wrong. If that isn't what you're trying to argue, then we don't disagree and you're just telling me how good your friend is -- which is a bit off topic.

An amazing photographer can make anything work, I'm sure. But an amazing photographer (like your friend) isn't who we're talking about. We're talking about a budget wedding photographer.

It's silly how off topic some of you are making this...

_______________

San Diego Wedding Photographer (blog) (external link)
Twitter (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
the Raddest Photo Trip Ever!!! (external link)

Come on the next one Dec 1st-14th 2011!!!!!

Never met the man so I wouldn't call him a friend. My intention is to simply point out it is the photographer first and the equipment a distant second that makes the difference. The OP doesn't seem to understand this. Though I knew you would.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canoned
Member
44 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA
     
May 28, 2011 22:01 as a reply to  @ post 12496824 |  #57

A lot of us old school photographers got away with things you'd be amazed with. We used manual Hasselblads. E-gads! 3.5 max aperture prime lenses? manual focus? manual exposure? No zooms? But guess what we used these weird things called tripods and we actually knew how to anticipate the right moments with out the spray and pray mentality. We used multi-flash set-ups to light our backgrounds.
What I am simply proposing is that if a photographer knows what he is doing he can work magic with basic equipment and talent and tenacity.


http://www.photocelebr​ation.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canoned
Member
44 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA
     
May 28, 2011 22:39 as a reply to  @ canoned's post |  #58

Actually, I'm just an old goof that shot weddings for the first five years with 1 camera, a Nikon f, 2 lenses (50 & 135) and a Honeywell Strobonar 892 flash. Never gave equipment failure a thought. Dropped the Nikon from eye level once, picked it up started taking pictures. Now I carry three Canons around my neck and pray that the one I'm using for the Bride walking down the aisle doesn't decide to err99. So I definitely understand the concern about using one camera at a wedding these days.
If the guy is using a 580EX he can probably still stop down to f8, which is probably the sweet spot for that lens, thus pretty sharp results. He should be able to bounce off a ceiling or wall or umbrella at f8 at about iso 800. Use a bit of noiseware and produce some decent images . Granted, this is not optimal, but at his price point it is reasonable. IF, he knows what he is doing. The fact that he has a second shooter at this price point is amazing and a possible bonus to clients looking in this price range.
I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone, I'm just trying to point out that if the guy is a people person. (the most important part of wedding photography) has good referrals and portfolio, covers his butt with a second shooter, then maybe he isn't so bad after all.


http://www.photocelebr​ation.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 289
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 28, 2011 22:40 |  #59

I have to agree with Bobby about the lens not being adequate in some conditions. I don't give a hoot who the guy Ziser is and quite frankly it is irrelevant to the topic. I have shot some weddings in very dark churches where no was flash allowed and the ambient light was next to nothing and the simple fact is that lens just wouldn't cut it at those weddings. Any argument otherwise is nonsensical (EDIT: Note this is talking about the equipment in question and that particular equipment's technical capabilities and limitations).

(EDIT: For above... tripods weren't allowed at one of the weddings either)

If the equipment is not capable of operating in certain conditions it doesn't matter how good the photographer is they will be limited by the equipment. Stick an F1 driver and F1 car in the Paris-Dakar rally and they aren't going to finish... your line of argument would say otherwise.

As for only having one body and one lens... that is as much a no brainier too. How is any photographer going to continue shooting at a wedding if either break and they have no backup? Borrow the disposable cameras of the tables or borrow Uncle Bob's camera? Back to the F1 analogy... car blows all its tires and cannot run... no spares... not going anywhere.

Southswede you miss the point entirely... "photographer first and the equipment a distant second" can only apply if the photographer actually has a working camera/lens. Otherwise he/she is just a person standing there doing diddly squat.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canoned
Member
44 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA
     
May 28, 2011 23:03 as a reply to  @ memoriesoftomorrow's post |  #60

Ever wonder how people got a decent wedding picture back in the old days? Back before technology and fast this and that? I would compare any of my medium format stuff to anything out today. Medium format was incredibly beautiful. Except you couldn't take all the snap shot stuff that is popular today. You know... all the shooting at anything that moves. Just beautifully lit and composed works of art. Yeah, I'm a bitter old fuddy dud that longs for the days when there was a distinct difference between the pro photographer and uncle Bob and a gazillion guests with their 60ds.


http://www.photocelebr​ation.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,624 views & 0 likes for this thread
A photographers gear
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bestbuymall
1093 guests, 275 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.