need strait advice choosing a professional camera

[jeff262]

I am starting to get back into professional photography. i would like to start to take baby portraits and maybe a occasional wedding. when i left the business i was using my t2I canon. i have gone to my local camera store trying to get info on what full body camera would be suitable for my needs and of course its always the most expensive one they carry. then i tried to read reviews on different cameras and every review says that camera is the greatest. i was hoping someone could help me on what camera would be a good entry professional. i hear alot, "how much do you want to spend" well i dont want to over pay for a camera and lenses that are only a few percent better then one thats $2000 less. i have read that the new 50mp cameras are hard to manage with the raw size but is going from 24 to 36 to 50 mp really that much better? i looked alot at the nikon 750D but at only 24mp is seems to be outdated already. any help choosing a camera would be great. i have had my basement studio remodeled and just ordered lights and backdrops now i have to choose a camera. and yes i would like to spend the least amount on a great camera

 

[480sparky]

No offense, but perhaps you should be better off learning posing, techniques and lighting instead. Having fantastic gear will not make you a professional any more than spending lots of money on a race car qualifies you for the Indy 500.

 

[jeff262]

thanks for your reply but i did it professionally for 10 years before i left. i assumed that was obvious when i said i left the profession just the cameras have come a long way since then...not sure why you would even reply with that answer...

 

[Dillard]

thanks for your reply but i did it professionally for 10 years before i left. i assumed that was obvious when i said i left the profession just the cameras have come a long way since then...not sure why you would even reply with that answer...

Not to be rude, but it may because you mentioned using a T2i before you got out, which isn't what most would expect a professional photographer to use.

You have to realize there is so much more to a camera than simply the mp's. Canons 1Dx is a 18.1 mp camera, where the Nikon D4s is a 16.2 mp camera. Hell, the new D5 is predicted to sport a 20mp sensor.

The D750 is a killer camera for anything you would need, short of high action sports where you will need the extra frame rate. It's far from out dated

 

[480sparky]

thanks for your reply but i did it professionally for 10 years before i left. i assumed that was obvious when i said i left the profession just the cameras have come a long way since then...not sure why you would even reply with that answer...

Then you really already know what to look for in a camera.

 

[jeff262]

480 sparky how are you helping? your answers are what makes someone like me never come back to this forum again... i never said how long i left.... when i did leave we were still using film cameras for the magazine and the t2i was my every day personal camera that has been my exposure to dslr's and yes i have gone back to school and took classes on lightroom and photoshop just there was nothing to take on cameras. there are lot of online classes for specific cameras but i first need to choose one so i can take the class

 

[Dillard]

It comes down to what you think you need. For weddings and babies, you could honestly get away with any of Nikon's Fx bodies with the proper glass. The D610 can produce wonderful images in low light with the right glass in front of it. Since picking up a D750, my D600 rarely gets used unless I'm shooting with 2 bodies.

I wanted to more advanced AF that the D750 offered, but that's the only main "noticeable" difference between the two to me. I'm sure the D750 handles noise better, but I rarely push it to those limits since I shoot mainly natural light races and events.

 

[cdryden]

Are you dead set on a full frame? Do you prefer a particular brand? What is your camera budget?

 

[480sparky]

480 sparky how are you helping? .....

Well, if you want some help, perhaps letting us know what you truly need in a camera besides just pixels and price.

Have you determined if FX is best for you, or DX? Or maybe both?

What type of lighting are you using in your studio? Incandescent or strobe? What's the wattage?

Is true low-light capability of paramount importance? Or is 'an occasional wedding' better served with simply renting an appropriate camera? Will these weddings be mostly 'natural lighting' or will you be providing your own lighting for most of it?

What lenses will you be using? Is a high frame rate required? Will wi-fi offloading be needed?

 

[Designer]

i looked alot at the nikon 750D but at only 24mp is seems to be outdated already.

That camera is new, not outdated. I assume by now you've learned that camera bodies are NOT measured by megapixels only.

Check this out: DSLR and HDSLR Cameras | Compare Digital Cameras | Nikon

Notice the left sidebar is a selection tool. click on "professional cameras".

 

[astroNikon]

The main concept is first which type of body to get
Full Frame or "Crop" A Full Frame (FF) has a sensor size equivalent to a 35mm film shot Where as a crop (canon in particular) is 1.6x times the size of the FF
Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The size of the sensor can affect the Depth of Field; light sensitivity.
Newer camera bodies have better digital converters, etc chips in them.
More "pro" bodies are much more rugged which if in adverse conditions can be of benefit.
the list goes on and on.

If you are doing indoor portrait stuff you'll probably just want a Full Frame camera.
Whether it's 24megapixel, 36mp or 50mp I think is more or less a coin flip.
Keep in mind you need the computer power and storage to process those photos too.
I'm not familiar with the newer Canons. But the d810 would be a great studio/wedding camera, so would the d750.
The Canon 5dmarkiii was a defacto standard but now the body is dated.

With the higher mp cameras (36+) the lenses really become important.
but .. I'm not a pro so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[tirediron]

...If you are doing indoor portrait stuff you'll probably just want a Full Frame camera.
Whether it's 24megapixel, 36mp or 50mp I think is more or less a coin flip.

Not as much as you might think; I find myself reaching for the D3/D700 a LOT because at 12 MP, it's got all the resolution I want/need, and processing 20+ MP files for images that are only going to be used electronically or printed at less than 11x14 is a waste. Granted, for portrait work and large prints, I still like the D800 but for most daily work it's pointless.

 

[TCampbell]

Getting into photography as a hobby need not be expensive. But charging clients for photography implies an obligation to deliver polished results. This means not skimping on the gear.

A professional photographer has backups of every piece of gear. The backup isn't necessarily identical to the primary gear, but it does have to be good enough to meet the requirements of the event.

Typically the gear list might include:
- main camera body -- and this is probably a professional grade camera body (not an entry level body nor a mid-level body) and it probably costs in excess of $2500 for the body only.
- backup camera body -- this might be the camera body that used to be the 'primary' body before the photographer upgraded the camera, but it probably at least qualifies as a mid-level body (not an entry body) but current standards. In other words it's probably roughly a $1200-1700 body. e.g. if a photographer's primary body is a Canon 5D III then maybe the backup body is a 5D II (even though that body isn't still made -- it's close in performance to a 6D, but with a better build quality than a 6D).

- lenses... and there are two that every professional wedding photographer owns
1) A 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom (expect to spend $2k or more)
2) A 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom (expect to spend $1800 or more)
Those are sometimes called the "bread & butter" lenses -- they are the most popular lenses in use by pros.
There are also a number of other lenses that a wedding photographer *might* have such as an 85mm prime, maybe even a 50mm prime. Some photographers will have an ultra-wide zoom such as a 12-24mm. (expect to spend $1200, but Canon's new 11-24mm is $3k)

These are not cheap lenses. The thing is, these are very high quality lenses with low focal ratios, usually very fast and responsive focus motors, well-rounded apertures, and optics that do a good job of controlling unwanted optical issues such as flare, CA, distortion, etc. and yes... it does make a noticeable difference in the product you can deliver.

And then there's the lighting... typically a couple of high-end strobes and triggers for off-camera use. Light modifiers such as soft-boxes, reflectors, perhaps umbrellas, grids, etc.

This is not a complete list (there are lots of other things such as tripods, light stands, a gray card, flash brackets, etc.)

The computer MUST use a color-calibrated monitor and that means buying a monitor calibration device such as an X-Rite Colormunki or a Datacolor Spyder.

BTW, megapixels only need be high enough to produce quality results... once that's attained, having "more" megapixels is not necessarily what the photographer is after. ISO performance and dynamic range are often better with lower density sensors. The 50MP Canon 5Ds is not intended a wedding event camera.

Anyway, you asked... so there's the list. You can see it's not a cheap list. It's easily $10k worth of equipment.

But far more important than the gear is the knowledge to use it that takes study and practice. I am fond of pointing out that if I go buy a concert grand piano it will not transform me into a concert pianist -- that's a skill I have to learn on my own.

With that study and practice usually comes some realization of what you can and can't do with a given piece of gear... and an understanding of why having some specific piece of gear would be advantageous to the situation.

I must gently point out that if you sensed a certain tone with some of the replies in this thread, the reason for it may be that if someone has invested the time to develop their skills to the point that they're ready to go shoot weddings, then they would have almost certainly learned what sort of gear would likely be necessary and would not be asking such a broad or generic question (they might ask a question which is a bit more specific... such as the difference between two products. e.g. is the $1300 Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is as good as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8.)

Both Canon and Nikon have somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 lenses available for their camera systems. Each lens is still marketed for a reason. Some of that gear is designed to be less expensive and more attractive to entry-level customers. Some of that gear is designed to meet the demanding needs of professional photographers. Trust me when I say that if a professional though they could get the same quality out of an entry-level 55-250mm zoom that retails for $299 that they can get from a professional grade 70-200mm lens that retails for $2200... they'd go for that $299 lens. There's a reason the pro spends the money high end lens.

If you do a portrait shoot and the images don't turn out then it's possible that you might be able to re-shoot the portraits at a later date. But if you shoot a wedding and the pictures don't turn out... you've just ruined someone's wedding photos. Naturally the pressure is a bit higher for the wedding photographer.

 

[DB_Cro]

thanks for your reply but i did it professionally for 10 years before i left. i assumed that was obvious when i said i left the profession just the cameras have come a long way since then...not sure why you would even reply with that answer...

Not to be rude, but it may because you mentioned using a T2i before you got out, which isn't what most would expect a professional photographer to use.

My Flickr profile (signature line) disagrees.

We can't all afford high-end gear, a T2i was 3 of my paychecks 5 years ago, had to save up for almost a year.
It would have been 5-6 average paychecks in Serbia or Bosnia. Gear doesn't make a pro.

#3rdWorldCountryIssues

Also, to the OP, you really didn't post enough info and the stuff you posted suggests you don't know what you need/want but you know that the D750 is not for you? The D750 is probably the best value FF dslr on the market right now and it's what I'd buy if I could aford it.. to replace my T2i. I would literally rather get the D750 then the more hi-end D810.

 

[TCampbell]

We can't all afford high-end gear, a T2i was 3 of my paychecks 5 years ago, had to save up for almost a year.
It would have been 5-6 average paychecks in Serbia or Bosnia. Gear doesn't make a pro.

Absolutely true. Ansel Adams reportedly once said “The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!”

You can use any camera body that allows you full control over exposure settings and a single low-focal ratio prime lens to learn a great deal about photography.

My first digital body was a Canon Rebel T1i. It was a great camera -- as long as the shooting situation wasn't too dark. High ISO shots were very noisy (I quickly learned about the Noiseware Pro plug-in for Photoshop and I definitely got my money's worth out of that add-on.) So I needed adequate lighting. BTW, lighting in a church is never adequate. If you look up the definitions of the term "church" in the dictionary, you'll see that the 2nd or 3rd definition will say "a building designed specifically to frustrate photographers by providing inadequate lighting for wedding photography" -- I swear it's true!

So... I did click the link to look at your Flickr images, saw an attractive image, selected it, looked at the info listed below the image, and noticed that you did indeed shoot it using a T2i.... while using an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens (sort of making the point about using quality glass.)

While I own a lot of nice gear "now"... I don't know very many people who buy $10k+ worth of gear all at once. It took me years to acquire the gear I use today.