Choosing a Professional Camera

[camz]

There's also the prime lens approach. A canon (24mm 2.8) + (50 1.4) + (85mm 1.8) will cost just as much as one 27-70 2.8 but will deliver great results as far as IQ. It maybe bothersome to have to deal with lens changes(you can always have two bodies handy) however you will have more flexibility in low light and generally speaking primes focus faster then zooms. I haven't upgraded a camera body(I will soon) in over 4 years but the lens collection is a different story. My current setup is a 20D and a 5D and I shoot portraiture and weddings and I must say I still love my equipment b/c it serves my purpose.

You mentioned you will be covering photojournalism? I'm not sure what type but there are obviously no poses no setups so that's why I suggested fast prime lenses for you. You will be on the go and you need equipment that will deliver quick focused metering and low light flexibility. I'm not talking down on zooms b/c I own 5 but if budget is an issue then primes are definitely something to consider.

 

[musicaleCA]

You mentioned you will be covering photojournalism? I'm not sure what type but there are obviously no poses no setups so that's why I suggested fast prime lenses for you.

Unless your paper assigns you to do a profile on someone, like an athlete, or artist. Then in come the lightstands, little speedlights, gels, and shtuff. >.<

 

[UUilliam]

My suggestion:
Buy a used Canon 20D (can get it on ebay for about $350)
spend the other $3000 on glass
(28-70mm f2.8L = $1200)
(70-200mm f4 L = $1000)
then a macro (180mm) or a fish eye lens

Prices are rough guesstimates (converting from GBP to USD)
Uk prices are here
Camera Price Buster - Canon Lenses
price for lens' is based on Brand new, on ebay you can probs get them about 15% cheaper

Then buy a few CompactFlash cards (unknown as to the price but I know I can get SD cards for £5 ($8) for 4gb)

 

[Christie Photo]

...pro standard equipment like a 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 and a decent flash...

uh oh... I didn't get the memo. Looks like I'm sub-standard.

 

[Derrel]

Yup...without pro equipment, you're sub-standard.

But seriously--the new "kit lens" standards of f/3.5 at the wide end and a pathetic f/5.6 at the long end of wide-to-normal zooms, and the even more-pathetic f/4.5~5.6 found in many longer tele-zooms like 55-200 or 70-300mm tele-zooms puts the crop-frame camera user firmly on what I consider soccer-mom ground; with lenses too slow to shoot most subjects indoors using available light, and with lenses with such small max. apertures that no depth of field isolation is possible.

Heck, even a college student like Musicale has two top-drawer crop-frame Canon's, and a 70-200 2.8 L-IS and Canon's current pro wide zoom, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L...and is still in college. It's a simple fact that f/2.8 constant aperture zooms in wide and tele-zoom classes have been "standard" professional equipment for about 15 years now; I see part-timers around here using both Canon and Nikon 24-70 and 28-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses with surprising frequency. Considering a 10-year lifespan on a pro-grade f/2.8 lens, $12 a month seems like a bargain to me to be able to deliver images made with professional-quality lenses.

Camz's idea of a trio of high quality prime lenses makes some sense to those on a budget, but with a crop-body-only system, I'm not sure that 24/50/85 is really the right trio of focal lengths to choose, but then camz has a FF option, where those three lengths make a TON of sense. I read not too long ago that in the next 12 to 24 months, there will be a major push toward FF cameras; time will tell I suppose. I look at lenses as a long-term cost that brings in returns over many years,even over as long as two decades,or longer, in the case of high-quality lenses built to professional standards.

 

[Hobbes]

well everyone has to start as a newbie and has to use those crappy crop sensor cameras and pathetic kit lenses because not everyone can afford 5000 dollar + equipment but I am sure there are a lot of those so called college kids out there who are really talented and will probably become a better photographer than you will ever be. I am sure lots of people here have bills to pay while having neither a well paid job nor rich parents to make it possible to buy all those professional equipment

 

[skieur]

Consider the full frame 24 megapixel Sony A850 body at $2,000 and then put Zeiss lenses on it.

skieur

 

[jbylake]

Future Proof? No way....I remember many years ago, telling a good friend of mine, that (at the time digital was very new, limited to about 1meg pixel), that someday, digital camera's would be the "new wave". He laughed. He said that "digital would never equal the quality of film". Having grown up in a technological field, I saw many changes. We had stuff in the military, that is just NOW showing up in the "civilian" world. I've seen such a shift in technology in just the last 2 or 3 years, that in the past, would have taken 10 years. Technology is measured in hours or day's now, not years. I have no idea, and don't even want to guess what will be next, when it comes to digital photography, although, I've noticed that Hasselblad is already in the 30+ megapixle range.
I bought a state of the art laptop less than one year ago, and it's already been snuffed, as far as performance.
I think that this whole ordeal is part of the reason that my primary camera's are film.
I'm afraid to make a huge investment, only to find that something beyond my imagination, will make it "obsolete", within a few years.

In that regard, I guess that I'm glad that I'm not a professional, in as much as I don't have to "keep up", with technology, to stay competitive.

:thumbup:

j.

 

[Derrel]

Well, a person who wishes to begin a "professional" photography enterprise had darned well better have a line of credit and/or some money in the bank before hanging out his or her shingle. Under-capitalization is one thing that causes many businesses to fail, and frankly, if a "professional photographer" cannot swing $5,000 in capital/startup costs, his or her chances of making a successful go of the business are pretty darned remote. Sure, a shoestring startup has a chance to make it, but most low-ballers end up failing and quitting. Buy their equipment USED!

Not everybody elects to begin with kit lenses--there are many people who are 30- and 40-something adults who have either personal savings, or credit cards, or who take out bank loans, and who begin photography businesses with ample amounts of money invested in the equipment that many of today's serious amateurs also have...Canon 5D Mark II's, Nikon D700's, and pro-grade lenses.

 

[Christie Photo]

Not everybody elects to begin with kit lenses--there are many people who are 30- and 40-something adults who have either personal savings, or credit cards, or who take out bank loans, and who begin photography businesses with ample amounts of money invested in the equipment that many of today's serious amateurs also have...

I was 29 when I started on my own... full time. I bought a very low-end view camera, one minimal-level lens, and was lighting products with blue bulbs in reflectors. I had only five film holders. It got me by until I could afford something better. But I never bought on credit. Sure, I had a 30 day account at the camera store and color lab. But I would never recommend borrowing money to buy equipment... including charge cards.

-Pete

 

[musicaleCA]

Heck, even a college student like Musicale has two top-drawer crop-frame Canon's, and a 70-200 2.8 L-IS and Canon's current pro wide zoom, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L...and is still in college.

Only because I'm really, really lucky and got a lot of money out of a trust fund. It's a good thing camera lenses are a good investment...maybe even better than tuition?

I read not too long ago that in the next 12 to 24 months, there will be a major push toward FF cameras; time will tell I suppose.

If there is a huge push to FF, we're all idiots. High pixel densities of APS-C cameras have clear advantages in some applications, like wildlife photography. They can turn that 800mm lens into a 1280mm (!), or a 400mm to 640mm. Thinking of just how tack sharp the 400/4L is on a FF camera, let alone a crop body, the advantage is clear. APS-C will also likely stick around in the lower-end consumer cameras, just for the sake of cost.

People may call me crazy, but the smaller sensors have another distinct advantage...in low-light. The increased DoF means that the AF system can afford to be a little off and still get acceptable focus on a moving target in low-light at f/2.8, and you still get the benefit of all that extra light hitting the image and AF sensors. Sure, noise is a downside, but with the advent of cameras like the 7D (which has a worse SNR than a 5D—duh—but is pretty damn close given it's photosite size), with very fast and sensitive AF systems, having that little bit of extra DoF can be a real boon. APS-C format cameras also have a definite advantage in macro photography, because you can use longer extension tubes before you get vignetting.

Obviously though, if it's smooth bokeh, and crisp much smooth images that you're after, FF is the obvious choice. FF is also obvious for wide-angle (but again is less of an issue given the advent of lenses such as the 10-22/3.5-4.5, which are still in the ultra-wide range, even with the crop factor).

 

[jbetz]

Wow, I didn't expect so many responses so soon! This is an awesome forum! Since you have all made so many suggestions I won't respond to each individually, but it seems like I was definitely looking at things backwards.

Tell me what you think, but it seems like it makes sense to get a relatively inexpensive, but still nice, body like the 7D, and to spend the bulk of my money on lenses.

To clarify about my intentions, I am primarily a videographer and am looking to earn only part of my income through photography. I like the idea of an APS-C sensor because of the crop for wildlife work.

 

[KmH]

A basic pro kit includes 3 lenses that will cover the 14-200 mm or so range, depending on camera brand. The 3 basic pro lenses for Nikon:

Prices are for new lenses:

AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR $1900

Lenses don't depreciate like camera bodies do so it's usually a good idea for a pro to buy new and get all the warranty.

 

[camz]

Unless your paper assigns you to do a profile on someone, like an athlete, or artist. Then in come the lightstands, little speedlights, gels, and shtuff. >.<

No doubt that the op will eventually need these. Even the majority of natural light shooters have some type of artificial lighting.

BTW I sold out to the strobist side on a full shoot over the weekend. I was forced to test the Flex TT5's that I picked up. Even though they're only functional at 40ft I love the TTL feature :thumbup:. Plus I didn't want to handicap my old Plus II's useless.

 

[stepanov photography]

I use the D90 more than my D700. It's lighter, I don't worry if I drop it and at sub ISO2000 it is almost identical in IQ performance! Sigma 17-55 2.8http://www.stepanovphotography.com