umphotography wrote in post #17283514
Anyone with a 1/2 a brain can learn how to use these camera and get awesome results. Good enough sells to about 82% of the market right now.......and the figures are there to back the percentage figure
This is a straight off the camera file in Jpeg format in AV mode. The cameras are phenomenal these days.
But that picture is NOT awesome or phenomenal. The camera has done a pretty good job of exposing and focusing etc., but it takes far more than that to get "awesome" results. Even the focusing is not that great as the camera has focused on the wing and the head is soft, where a decent photographer would have focused on the eye.
To me, that is a very poor image. It would get pulled apart by any judge in even a local club competion and is not what I would call a saleable image. The camera has done a good job, the photographer has done a poor one. There is way too much clutter, the out of focus branch down the right hand side and across the whole lower third of the picture and is very distracting, especially as it is so bright. The out of focus bright blobs are also distracting. There are so many distracting elements that draw the eye, and so much clutter, that it takes a little time to actually find the subject, and then it is in an uninteresting pose, just sitting there, and the eye comes straight off it again. A professional, selling images, would need to do a lot better to make a living with their camera.
You use that image to make the point that anybody buying a camera can produce "good enough" images, but that isn't "good enough", not to my eye anyway. To me, you have made the opposite point. That image says that anybody can take a modern camera and get pictures that are well exposed and focused etc. but it takes somebody with a good eye for detail, lighting and composition to take "awesome" results.
As has been said, if you are truly worried about competition from people who have simply bought a camera and are offering cheap services, then you are targetting the wrong market. The people who pay for work of that low a quality will never pay decent money, and would get "uncle Bob" to do the shots if they can't find a cheap photographer.
I don't see how somebody buying a camera that way equates to them producing a cut price service either. If they are in business they will assess the cost and how it will build into their costs and pricing structure. I doubt they will look at something that increases their costs, and plan to lower their prices because of it. If they do, don't worry, they clearly are struggling to find ANY work and are so bad at business they will be gone very soon. For relatively new businesses, with a competent and experienced photographer, regular loans can be hard to find sometimes. OK, this one is a bit expensive (it is a lease though, so has big benefits in being 100% tax deductible, unlike regular finance) but if I needed an expensive specialist lens for a job, and knew that I would need it four or five times a year perhaps, is it better to rent it every time or lease it over two years, with a cheap buyout at the end to allow me to keep it? So long as the profit from the jobs I need it for (and which otherwise I would have to turn down) is high enough to justify the expense then it is not a problem. But that involves getting good money for the work, not selling it at cut price as you claim will happen.
If you are a good photographer, but unable to get cheaper finance options, this can allow you to get specialist equipment and open up new, profitable, avenues. If you are a poor photographer, buying equipment that you hope will make you a good photographer with this package, then you will still turn out a product that you have to price low to sell it. Either way, this is just an option for getting goods, it doesn't affect how much a photographer can charge for their work.