need strait advice choosing a professional camera

[DB_Cro]

Yeah, I borrowed that lens.. I used 17-50 and 55-250 f4-5.6 until literally 3-4 days ago.
I just bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 after saving for 9 months. :-/

Light is an issue and I'd say over 50% of my shots need ISO at 800 or above so yeah, I'm having a very hard time
with the T2i doing that. :-/ Would be less of an issue with even the entry level Nikon D3300 right now, that thing
handles high ISO great.

 

[Scatterbrained]

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 i looked alot at the nikon 750D but at only 24mp is seems to be outdated already.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

You're getting the kind of responses you are because of the nature of your post.
Key takeaways from your post:
"I want to shoot pro"
"I shot pro before"
"I had a 550D before" ("I was using a T2i when I left the business" is a pretty unambiguous statement)
"I want to shoot babies in the basement and ooh, maybe even a wedding"
I don't want to spend any money on gear"
"just ordered lights and backdrops" (implies you didn't have them before)
"I don't have a clue what kind of camera to get even though I was shooting "pro" as recently as 4-5 years ago" 4-5 years ago we had 21mp FF digital cameras 18mp APS-C, and 40mp digital backs for medium format. Now we have 24mp APS-C, 45-54mp FF, and 80mp MF.

Looked at from that perspective it should be a bit easier to see why your post garnered the responses it did. I can't imagine someone getting out of professional photography and selling off all of their lights, cameras, etc. Maybe you did, but if that's the case you should still have a pretty good idea of what kind of camera will work for your needs. Let me give you a little anecdote. I was out with my girls the other day and I had my camera with me (1Dx with 24-70L). I hear one of the moms (I was grabbing some shots at the dance studio) see my camera and make a comment to another mom. The second mom replies that "yeah, she used to be a pro photographer". She said that when she had her daughter (now 4) she got a Rebel and started taking pictures. People like them so she "went pro". After a while she got tired of it and stopped. This means that in the span of less than 4 years she acquired her first SLR, learned it, when pro, and then "retired". It is a far from uncommon scenario and is exactly why your post gets the kind of responses it does. Because here on this board we see that kind of thing regularly.

Maybe provide some more useful info like what exactly you are looking for, what your budget it, etc. and we can be of more help.

 

[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.

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.

Oh no, I agree 100%. The gear doesn't make the photographer by any means, although I do feel that there is a certain expectation when declaring yourself a professional, as with any field. I would expect the photographer of my wedding to have a quality body, as well as fast glass. Just like I would expect a professional contractor to have the proper tools to build my house.

You can use a Nikon D40 and produce beautiful images, although it isn't the norm for professional photographers. Like scatterbrained stated, we live in a world saturated with "professional" photographers. Many of which picked up their first dslr on Black Friday and are already thinking about charging for photos after making a Facebook page for their work.

I skimmed through your 500px page, and you have some wonderful photos. I would argue that you make up a very small percentage of people who can work outside these norms

 

[DB_Cro]

Aw, thanks <3, I had to learn to use what I had since.. $$$ issues.
But yeah, I shy away from weddings even though a lot of people here do them with Canon rebels.

I know I could make good shots, I just want a body that can deal with 2 cards at the same time
for security purposes, don't wanna loose the shots. Oh well.

 

[Derrel]

Moving from a 24MP full frame to a 36MP full frame gives only an apparent 12 to 15 percent increase in apparent resolving capability, from what I've read from real experts. Despite what many people would think, increasing the MP count by 50 percent, such as 24 to 36 million pixels, does NOT produce anywhere near "half again as much" resolution! As I understand it, it takes a quadrupling of the MP count to create double the resolving capability.

Anyway...24 million pixels on the new Sony-made sensors is really quite gorgeous. The Sony-sensor cameras have, in my opinion, far better shadow noise handling than cameras made by "the other company", especially if one under-exposes, and then "pushes" the image exposure in software.

I think the Nikon D750 is a really nice camera, almost a perfect camera for the high-volume pro shooter....24 million high-quality pixels, excellent high ISO capabilities, good size, nice weight, pretty good AF system. The D610 is decent, not quite as nice a body, but a PAIR of D610's would make a nice system. Canon 5D-II, 6D, 5D-III all comparable in most ways, but not in "all ways". Canon's new 50-MP cameras...not really very compelling, really...still noise in the shadows...not really worth it with the sensor tech Canon is stubbornly staying with.

I'd want a body, a backup body, 24-70, 70-200, 85/1.8, four good studio lights, backdrops, umbrellas, a pair of gridded softboxes, three good C-stands plus three more-portable 9-foot stands, a boom stand, some grids, some mylar diffusers, a pair of pneumatic posing stools, some backdrops, some apple boxes, some posing cubes, Manfrotto trigger-lock tripod for one-handed elevation changes and squeeze-adjust-then-let-go-and-lock height adjustments, some reflectors, some grip gear to hold reflectors and flags,lots of baby fabrics, some baby posing stuff, some frames with diffusion scrims, and some gaff tape. Plus a rolling location hand truck/cart/carrier.

 

[beagle100]

Aw, thanks <3, I had to learn to use what I had since.. $$$ issues.
But yeah, I shy away from weddings even though a lot of people here do them with Canon rebels.

.

There is a good reason most people do weddings with Canon Rebels
it's inexpensive and the photos look very similar and in some cases exactly the same as "professional' cameras

.......... shocking news !!!

 

[DB_Cro]

Aw, thanks <3, I had to learn to use what I had since.. $$$ issues.
But yeah, I shy away from weddings even though a lot of people here do them with Canon rebels.

.

There is a good reason most people do weddings with Canon Rebels
it's inexpensive and the photos look very similar and in some cases exactly the same as "professional' cameras

.......... shocking news !!!

Actually, here it's because that's about as expensive as most can afford earning $500/month on average.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Aw, thanks <3, I had to learn to use what I had since.. $$$ issues.
But yeah, I shy away from weddings even though a lot of people here do them with Canon rebels.

.

There is a good reason most people do weddings with Canon Rebels
it's inexpensive and the photos look very similar and in some cases exactly the same as "professional' cameras

.......... shocking news !!!

Most people actually don't shoot weddings with Rebels. The AF isn't as good, the ergonomics suck, the viewfinders suck. Rebels are fine for casual shooting, but in a fast paced, low light environment they fall short.

 

[gsgary]

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.

You forgot to mention a second computer if one fails then there is a second car if one does not start take extra laces for your shoes they could snap, extra undies in case you **** yourself

 

[gsgary]

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.

The photographer is the pro not the camera

 

[killerseaguls]

(Eating popcorn) I've learned more reading this post than searching google for a day. Much appreciated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

You forgot to mention a second computer if one fails then there is a second car if one does not start take extra laces for your shoes they could snap, extra undies in case you **** yourself

If this is a hobby then the redundancies aren't needed. If you do portrait sessions you should equip and behave as a professional. If you do weddings then the shots cannot be remade if something goes wrong. You really must have the redundancies or you're not really behaving as a responsible professional.

I literally have two different types of backup systems. One creates a bootable clone of my computer drive. One creates incremental backups that allow me to go back about a half year's worth of history.

I once had a drive fail completely but as I had a bootable clone, I was able to keep working while waiting for the replacement drive to arrive.

I had another drive fail slowly ... the heads were getting sloppy and "writes" we're slightly bleeding onto adjacent tracks and damaging other files on the machine and I didn't know it.... until I tried to load images I hadn't touched in a few months and found they were damaged files. I switched to the clone drive but discovered it had made backups of the already-damaged files. But since I ALSO had an incremental backup, I was able to go back in history until I found the point where no files were damaged (I had to back about a month.) Since I had that second backup I didn't lose any data at all.

Now imagine these were wedding photos, you're a bride, you find out your photographer's hard drive crashed and you aren't going to get your pictures because the "professional" photographer was not responsible enough to have a backup system. How are you going to feel about that photographer?

When I shot weddings, I had safety pins and a tiny sewing kit in my bag because we had already experienced brides or bridesmaids who had a dress tear and no to way to repair it.

If you don't think you need spare gear then I'm guessing you've never done weddings -- or perhaps just not many of them to have experienced equipment failing. Your odds of wing a lottery might be pretty remote. But the odds of having heavily used gear fail at an inconvenient time are, unfortunately, much more likely.[/QUOTE]

 

[The_Traveler]

It looks like the OP has left the building.

 

[killerseaguls]

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.

You forgot to mention a second computer if one fails then there is a second car if one does not start take extra laces for your shoes they could snap, extra undies in case you **** yourself

If this is a hobby then the redundancies aren't needed. If you do portrait sessions you should equip and behave as a professional. If you do weddings then the shots cannot be remade if something goes wrong. You really must have the redundancies or you're not really behaving as a responsible professional.

I literally have two different types of backup systems. One creates a bootable clone of my computer drive. One creates incremental backups that allow me to go back about a half year's worth of history.

I once had a drive fail completely but as I had a bootable clone, I was able to keep working while waiting for the replacement drive to arrive.

I had another drive fail slowly ... the heads were getting sloppy and "writes" we're slightly bleeding onto adjacent tracks and damaging other files on the machine and I didn't know it.... until I tried to load images I hadn't touched in a few months and found they were damaged files. I switched to the clone drive but discovered it had made backups of the already-damaged files. But since I ALSO had an incremental backup, I was able to go back in history until I found the point where no files were damaged (I had to back about a month.) Since I had that second backup I didn't lose any data at all.

Now imagine these were wedding photos, you're a bride, you find out your photographer's hard drive crashed and you aren't going to get your pictures because the "professional" photographer was not responsible enough to have a backup system. How are you going to feel about that photographer?

When I shot weddings, I had safety pins and a tiny sewing kit in my bag because we had already experienced brides or bridesmaids who had a dress tear and no to way to repair it.

If you don't think you need spare gear then I'm guessing you've never done weddings -- or perhaps just not many of them to have experienced equipment failing. Your odds of wing a lottery might be pretty remote. But the odds of having heavily used gear fail at an inconvenient time are, unfortunately, much more likely.

[/QUOTE]

Truth. Hard drives fail all the time. I build computers and I always recommend a RAID set up to copy multiple stacks of everything. They are so cheap these days it's almost dumb not to if you're doing it professionally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DB_Cro]

Aw, thanks <3, I had to learn to use what I had since.. $$$ issues.
But yeah, I shy away from weddings even though a lot of people here do them with Canon rebels.

.

There is a good reason most people do weddings with Canon Rebels
it's inexpensive and the photos look very similar and in some cases exactly the same as "professional' cameras

.......... shocking news !!!

Most people actually don't shoot weddings with Rebels. The AF isn't as good, the ergonomics suck, the viewfinders suck. Rebels are fine for casual shooting, but in a fast paced, low light environment they fall short.

You're replying to that out of context.
It was about people around where I live.