where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
My first post on this forum!
I am a landscape photographer who is starting Wedding shoots this year, I am on a course in April and am then assisting a friend with three weddings before doing another friends wedding in October. Once I have a portfolio I will start wedding fayres in November and starting to make some money!
I have the budget to buy a Pro DSLR, but am undecided, do I buy a D3S or spend more than I want to and go for a D3X?
Any constructive thoughts welcomed...
D3S would be way better for weddings.
Unless the shots will be printed at extreme sizes the D3s is much more practical and cost friendly... Use the extra money to get a good 85mm f/1.4 and the 24-70mm f/2.8
Thanks for your input.
My thought was the D3S with a 70-200 VR2 and a 24-70. The 85mm could be another option for me to consider, I do love primes but am not sure whether the zoom combo will be better at weddings?
The zooms are the way to go for weddings. A 24-70 and a 70-200 with a D3S is everything you need. You can add a 17-35 and a 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 but in all reality it would just be extra. From a business perspective just stick with the the two zooms.
....OK, maybe get the 50 1.4 for some really shallow DOF pics.
the question is do You really need d3s? I'll go for d700 at the beginning or d3x, as You ain't going to shoot w/o flash anyway, as You need at least a little bit of fill-in flash, as for lenses: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 will do the job, a nice prime (zeiss 85/1.4, zeiss 100/2) will help too
Some weddings have to be shot without flash due to venue requirements, never assume you can just use flash. Not that a D700 isn't good enough, but if you do a lot of vertical shooting with the D700 you'll end up getting the grip, so might as well get a new D3, if you can find one or the D3s and save yourself the trouble of a detachable grip.
Good point Adam. A little fill flash is nice.
Even if you don't want flash a D700 with a 1.4 can give you enough light in most situations, so that's a great option. BUT... then you run into the question of whether the D700 is worth buying right now with all the speculation of an upgrade coming.
Also you will be needing a speedlight. Such as the SB-900. That is a must. Also, another big thing to have is a backup body. Carrying two cameras with your two primary lenses (24-70 and 70-200). You could look at getting 2 Nikon D700's instead of a D3s. Make sure you have some reliable cards as well. Itd be a nightmare if you would have to get sued because your card got corrupted or broke. and youll probably end up being sued. Two bodies make the difference when you only have 10 mins to capture a ceromony.
Primes are really nice, Esp the 85 would look create beautiful brokeh on detail images of the wedding. I would get the 85mm 1.4 and 50 1.4 later on after you got your two main lenses. You have plenty of time during the reception to mess around with different lens combos on your 2 bodies. (50 and 24-70) or (85 and 50). IMO i would go for 2 nikon d700 or even 2 used D3's. a 24-70 and also the 70-200 2.8 with 2 sb-900's.
Welcome to the forum Mendi.
I'd spend less on the camera body and more on good lenses. Unless you already have all the lenses mentioned. Then I'd go with the D3S for it's very low light abilities. That will come in handy at weddings. Especially at the churches that don't allow the use of flash or at very dark receptions.
PB PM - I've done some weddings before and never had any problems with using flash.
aaron - as for using f1.4, You don't need d700 to get some nice pictures - I was able to use it on my old d200 during night w/o any problems
anyway, flash is a must on weddings
Thanks everyone. At present I have an SB900, my trusty D90 (which I will use as a second body) 105 Micro and a 14-24mm.
D3s, 70-200, 24-70 on the shopping list now and then maybe I will go for the primes and a second SB900 once I start getting some income.
adamz said:
aaron - as for using f1.4, You don't need d700 to get some nice pictures - I was able to use it on my old d200 during night w/o any problems
If you're in bad lighting, something less than a D700 even at 1.4 may not work without a flash. I experienced this with my D300 at a recent wedding shoot.
adamz said:
PB PM - I've done some weddings before and never had any problems with using flash.aaron - as for using f1.4, You don't need d700 to get some nice pictures - I was able to use it on my old d200 during night w/o any problems
anyway, flash is a must on weddings
Your a luck shooter then, because I've been to weddings where that was not the case. I didn't shoot them myself, but I did noticed that the photographer, could not use flash, even though he had a bunch.
Everybody says this, and I'm going to say it. If you have a good budget, get the lenses you want then get the camera you have money left for. You always want to invest in glass. (Camera wise I would recommend a D300s, D700 or D3s because they are very good in low light for their classes. Which would be great for receptions).
I worked for a wedding photographer who used the flash and... I was the photoshop guy who fixed his photos because he didn't know how to use his flash properly (I believe he was shooting the D200...)
knowing Your equipment is the first ting any photographer amateur or pro should do in 1st place
I'm pretty much in your position right now. I have a full time job, I don't plan on making photography a full time gig. I'd like to get into wedding photography. I'm still fairly new. (having issues still with color balance, color casts, and at times correct exposure) But, I'm learning.
I've done a wedding with a friend, and I'll be doing two more with him this summer. He is teaching me a good deal.
I have a nikkor 70-200 on the way. I plan to purchase a D700 by mid-April. I'd like to get the 24-70 2.8 but I don't think I'll be able to swing it yet. I'll likely get a 50 1.8 to use mostly until I can get it.
I have a wedding booked for Oct. (friend) I had my 1st - what - cold call? Lead? Bride to be called me today to see if I was available and to check prices. A bit dumbfounded... I got her information and called back later.
Wedding is a 2 hour drive, with the reception being in my home town. Total of 5 hours shooting, 4 hours driving.
Now the delima, What do I ask?
I want to do this wedding. I need a wedding portfolio to start getting jobs. So, I could do it on the cheap and still make out because I need to get my foot in the door.
But, I don't want to be a budget photographer. This is fine for HS seniors - I shoot a lot of seniors for barter. But, I this is not what I am looking for with wedding photography. If I start out that way, I've been counseled, it's hard to get your rates up. (is this BS?)
So, what do you guys think I should charge?
It's a tough question, Jeff. If you charge too much she might decide she doesn't want you to do it but you also don't want to look desperate for experience and charge too little. I say calculate how much your time is worth to you (BTW, I'd estimate 5 hours shooting, 4 hours driving, and probably 30 hours in post process), then quote the price based on that but say something like, "This is the price assuming you'll let me use pictures from your wedding for promotion of my business on my blog and/or website. Let me know if you're not okay with that and we can work something else out." That way she feels like you're giving her a good deal (which you probably will be) but it won't sound like you're desperate while still being honest about using the wedding to expand your portfolio.
You've put so many hours into becoming a great photographer, charging a premium once you've got a little more confidence (or now) isn't dishonest, in my opinion. You'll have to decide how much you're comfortable with charging now and in the future.
I dont know what price you should charge, But im in a simular situation where i am starting weddings BY myself too. I didnt know what to charge, i want to get more exxperience. but i set up a base charge of 800 very low, but i am currently a high school senior with 6 weddings under my belt. I charge that for unlimited hours. basically if the wedding is 10hours long, i dont mind. But, i charge an additional 500$ for the cds of the images. or a package saying if you buy 300$worth of prints. you will get the cd for free.
i suggest to go up in the 1k range. whatever you pick stick with it. You dont want to be despriate, and being a budgit photographer. My mentor use to be a budgit photographer thinking hed get more jobs being cheap, Once he raised his prices roughly to1500. He got even more jobs. Imo, charging lower makes the market look bad because professionals need to be paid for what they do. you have to pay for equipment, time, skill, the eye of the photographer and certtainlty their style of how they edit. And to top that off, the right to their work. There might be a huge demand for people needing 200 dollar photographers with a d40, but theres even better demand 1k+ photographers.
Another note on post process, Johnnyapple. Do most wedding photographers do post processing? I've met several that do not. They show proofs, and if you want any touchups, you pay $50 an hour. This seems crazy to me, because most photos need some tweaking, if only in white balance.
There are lots of business models out there, and I don't know what most photographers do. I guess I was giving you advice based on my personal philosophy, and that is that I try to edit so that I'd be happy printing every photo that I deliver to someone who hires me to do a wedding. It doesn't end up being true for every shot (I usually keep around 1/3), but I look at every one and apply at least tweaks like WB. You never know which shots a client will like best.
I don't believe I'm a typical wedding photographer. I don't advertise besides word of mouth, and I do it because I love it. I love that someone will pay me to take pictures of them on the day they spend more time on looking good than probably any other day of their life. And since its not my job, I can afford to charge whatever I think is fair for my time, equipment, and skill. Whether that's more or less than the market doesn't matter to me and it may change as my situation does.
My way isn't the only way, of course. I have a buddy who charges a lot more than I do and spends a lot(!) more time in post. I think you just need to decide how you want to operate and try to charge what's fair. If you can justify your price to your client it's less likely there's going to be any problem.
Jeff H said:
Another note on post process, Johnnyapple. Do most wedding photographers do post processing? I've met several that do not. They show proofs, and if you want any touchups, you pay $50 an hour. This seems crazy to me, because most photos need some tweaking, if only in white balance.
From my point of view it would be silly to touch up all the photos you take before the couple picks the photos they want. If you do, you are just wasting your time, time that could be used to shoot other weddings.
The bigger question with photoshopping a wedding is where to draw the line? One client may consider it a blemish, but to the next it's an unforgivable crime to remove it. The less post, the less problems...
PB PM - what You show to Your client is only up to You, but You must remember that You will be judged by any piece of work You show, so I agree with JA that every (good, from technical point of view) picture should be touched a little bit before You show it to Your clients.
charing - whatever price You gonna set, please remember that You are not the only one in this business, so save Your market and don't set too low prices. equipment and time is pricey and there's already too many morons in this business working for pennies.
You must log in to post.
