New to Digital need a Camera for weddings.

[NCHornet]

Why do you call these bodies cheap? We don't abuse our equipment and take very good care of it. I have never had a problem with Minolta's bodies, or their lenses for that matter. Just because a camera gets used a lot doesn't mean it is abused. I gave you the website for the prices I quoted above, there are several of them that are close to that price as well. I don't know, that's why I came here and asked some questions. I would also appreciate if somebody could explain the image cropping sensors.
Thanks
Kevin

 

[Big Mike]

You have to be careful when checking prices online. As mentioned, many are a type of 'bait & switch' scam. Check www.resellerratings.com for feed back before contacting these stores. I would personally recommend that you use the two stores linked to at the top/right of the page...B&H Photo and Adorama.

As for crop sensors....that has been discussed many, many times on here...a search will turn up plenty of good info.
Basically, most DSRL sensors are smaller than a frame of 35mm film. So if you imaging the image that is projected by the lens, into the camera...the smaller sensor only sees the middle portion of that image...effectively 'cropping' the image. That's where we get the 'crop factor'. For Canon it's 1.6. So if you use a 50mm lens, the image will be cropped and you will end up with the field of view that you would expect from an 80mm lens. It's not something you have to worry about when shooting...just know that the FOV for a given focal length will be different on a 'crop' DSLR than it is on your film cameras...it's just a comparison. It does make it harder to get a wide FOV, which is why there are several 'digital only' lenses with shorter focal lengths (and smaller image circles).

 

[soylentgreen]

Why do you call these bodies cheap? We don't abuse our equipment and take very good care of it. I have never had a problem with Minolta's bodies, or their lenses for that matter. Just because a camera gets used a lot doesn't mean it is abused. I gave you the website for the prices I quoted above, there are several of them that are close to that price as well. I don't know, that's why I came here and asked some questions. I would also appreciate if somebody could explain the image cropping sensors.
Thanks
Kevin

That's just one person's opinion Kevin, so you have to take everything into account. Though the semi-pro bodies do lack some features that the more high-end bodies have, that should not detract someone from using them if it suits their needs. Not everyone can or should consider a pro body.
Case in point, I just came from the store where a lady dropped $11,000 on here first camera sytem EVER!!! 1Ds Mark III, EF 24-105 f/4 L, two 8GB cards, battery, flash, etc. A bit much for a newbie, but she wanted "the best". Coming back for more gear and might hire me to teach her how to use the stuff. I kid you not.
That said, the 40D uses the same processer as the 1Ds Mark III. Just one cpu instead of the two 1d's use and a 1.6 crop sensor as oppose to FF and a few more tid-bits. I know plenty of a few people that use 20/30/40D's for weddings. Works just fine. Nikons have been using crop sensors until the release of the D3, so they seem to be doing okay. I think you should concentrate on the lenses and system at this point over the bodies. That's where the quality will show. Most semi-pro bodies are in the 8-13 MP range so the print is up to 24x36 and have the same features. You have to go to the store and handle them to see how they function for you since you are the one using it. Pay attention to comfort, menu layout, etc. The cameras you mentioned are all good, but funtion will be the deciding factor.

 

[NCHornet]

Thanks Mike,
I actually found the website you referred me to about 45 min ago and found all the places on shopcartusa.com are fraudulant, therefore all my prices above are no good and I am back to square one. I have delt with B&H for years and will check them out. So far the D80 might be the only one in my price range, the 5D is more than we can swing right now, The A700 is going to be 2 grand plus, by the time I buy a flash and media, which was at the upper most of my budget, I will have to check the others now! I am glad I did some more research because I was ready to order the 5D or A700 tomorrow.
Thanks for the info on the crop sensors, if I understand this right, and I will do a search, it basically has to do with what you will get out of your lenses as compared to the 35mm, but as for actually taking the photos, what you see in the viewfinder will be what you see in the final photo. But if we got by with a 70mm lenses before we may need a 100mm now, is this correct?
Thanks again, sorry for the dumb questions.
Kevin

 

[usayit]

Any major change in the way a particular business delivers its service is exposing yourself to risks. I think what JIP is trying to say that making your business move from Film to Digital takes a substantial amount of funding. Making that change and skimping due to the lack of funding exposes yourself and your business to a high amount of risk (and disappointed Bridzillas). How much risk you are willing to take is all up to you. If your clients are expecting to pay thousands of dollars to cover a wedding, you'd better have some good reliable Digital equipment to back up your pay (and reputation).

Going digital also involves other things...
* Changes in workflow
* Computers to process the images
* A printer or print service to produce the prints
* Backup and storage for archival

are just a few.


As already posted, 9 out of 10 online photography websites advertising low than normal prices are complete scams. Just pick one and look them up on www.resellerratings.com (search for store ratings). You'll find Horror stories.. LOTS OF THEM. You'll also find similar complaints filed at BBB. The reason why you are seeing several websites advertising the same/similar low prices is because many of these websites are all run by the same group of scammers. You are more than welcome to try them out.. but don't say we didn't warn you.

I am most familiar with Canon. The most often DSLR I've seen on the wedding circuit is the 5D or a rare 1Ds MarkII. Full frame, excellent build.

 

[usayit]

Oh yeh.. one more thing..

There is no reason you need to make the transition in one shot. If you can only fund a single DSLR body, it would be wise to always be ready to go back to film (or shoot both) at a moments notice. You never know if the transition introduces a snag in your operations or a camera failure.

 

[usayit]

,
But if we got by with a 70mm lenses before we may need a 100mm now, is this correct?
Thanks again, sorry for the dumb questions.
Kevin

Other way around.. If you want a FOV equivalent to a 70mm on a 35mm body on a cropped body, you'll need something like a 45mm lens.

45mm *1.6 crop = 72mm.

The main issue people have with cropped sensors is how it impacts the FOV of wide angle lenses.

 

[usayit]

Case in point, I just came from the store where a lady dropped $11,000 on here first camera sytem EVER!!!

I visit a nice high end camera store quite frequently... no matter how many times I witness it, it always shocks me the available cash people can throw at a camera. I've seen $15k ringer on a register once... granted it was Leica goodies.. but sheesh.. that is a lot of money.

Then again.. my photo buddies probably say the same thing about me (its all relative).

 

[NCHornet]

Thanks for the reply. I do understand what you are saying, our reputation in the area is excellent. I wish we could get thousands for a wedding, but not in our small Southern town, folks simply don't have it. I am very comfortable with staying with 35mm as we know what works there. I was simply looking to take advantage of some of the benefits of digital, mainly with the ease of getting the proofs to the client and taking and fulfilling orders. My lab offers a very nice hosting service, where they host the photos the clients are given a password to view the photos and they can order directly from their website, the lab uses my studio pricing for enlargements, deducts their fees and simply deposits the balance in my account. Right now I spend hours pulling negatives and filling out orders. Plus the advantages that come with tweaking the photos afterwards with different software, many of which I can do with film it just takes a few extra steps, and the luxury of being able to view the photos right away. However I am not in a position to spend sevral thousand dollars to do what my 35mm set ups do nicely. The digital market is still changing and prices are dropping rapidly, maybe it isn't quite where I thought it was and we need to stay with film another year or two. I was simply looking for a digital SLR camera that takes equivilent photos to my 35 mm, but as I said it is not worth spending thousands to accomplish this. I will still take the two hour trip to the nearest decent camera shop and take a look at some of these in person. I do appreciate everyones help though.
Kevin

 

[Rhubarb]

Thanks for the reply. I do understand what you are saying, our reputation in the area is excellent. I wish we could get thousands for a wedding, but not in our small Southern town, folks simply don't have it. I am very comfortable with staying with 35mm as we know what works there. I was simply looking to take advantage of some of the benefits of digital, mainly with the ease of getting the proofs to the client and taking and fulfilling orders. My lab offers a very nice hosting service, where they host the photos the clients are given a password to view the photos and they can order directly from their website, the lab uses my studio pricing for enlargements, deducts their fees and simply deposits the balance in my account. Right now I spend hours pulling negatives and filling out orders. Plus the advantages that come with tweaking the photos afterwards with different software, many of which I can do with film it just takes a few extra steps, and the luxury of being able to view the photos right away. However I am not in a position to spend sevral thousand dollars to do what my 35mm set ups do nicely. The digital market is still changing and prices are dropping rapidly, maybe it isn't quite where I thought it was and we need to stay with film another year or two. I was simply looking for a digital SLR camera that takes equivilent photos to my 35 mm, but as I said it is not worth spending thousands to accomplish this. I will still take the two hour trip to the nearest decent camera shop and take a look at some of these in person. I do appreciate everyones help though.
Kevin

My personal take on your situation is that if you do want to dip your toe into the digital world without significant investment, either go with the Sony or consider the Nikon D80.

I don't actually know a lot about the Sony A700 but I suggest it because you will be able to use your Minolta lenses on it; which is going to save you bucks.

I also recommend the D80 as it has pretty much the same internals as a D200 (which is considered to be a semi-pro body) in a plastic body (albeit a very nice plastic body) minus some features. And IMHO the D80 is the best bang for buck for someone entering the digital world.

Keep your film camera on stand-by in case of any malfunctions or other unforeseen problems.

Once you become intimate with the digital world and work flow, upgrade. Any of the top brands will hold there resale value very well.

As for buying I have found that B&H or Amazon typically have the best prices.

 

[JerryPH]

With the reease of he D300, the price on D200's (new or very little useage) should be starting to drop some.

A D80 as a professional backup is more than acceptable, but I would not want to place my hands in it exclusively if I was a pro.

D200's are better at many levels, especially focusing and processing the images.

Lens choices are plenty and more than adequate to meet your needs.

Your budget will decide which to get, but since I own a D200, and know it pretty well, I Can guarantee that you would not be unhappy with that as a choice.

 

[NCHornet]

I don't know about holding their value, my neighbor paid $500 more, 6 months ago, for a D80 than I can get one now for, and he really shopped around!! I would never get rid of film, we always have at least three cameras on site. The thought was to move our primary to digital, then as time goes on and technology changes the first digital would become secondary, etc.. as we buy new digital cameras. If I lived in an area where we could charge several thousand dollars for a wedding I could swing the D5, but that isn't the case. If I am going to make this move the quality must at least stay the same, quality is #1, over ease of processing and saving me time, so will the D80 or A700 be equivilent to the quality I receive now from my 35's? At this time I believe the Canon EOS 40d, Nikon D40X & the D80 as well as the Sony A700 are all within budget. Considering a new flash, lense and media will all be added to the cost of the camera.
Thanks Again
Kevin

 

[NCHornet]

Jerry,
Yes the D200 would be basically the same price as the A700, however I would need lenses with it, we could still do this though. The D200 uses the older CCD processor while the A700 uses the CMOS which I have heard so much about. Many reviews of the A700 claim that Sony is making the processors for Nikon? I don't expect the Sony to have a avid following on a photograhy forum, like Canon and Nikon do, but every review I have read claims it to be a very nice unit.
I think I need to clarify our usage, as I said we are a small town photogrpaher so our volume is not what some might think a wedding photographer to have. Business is 4-5K and personal maybe 2-3K which assuming an increase with the new camera. I wanted to calrify this because some have claimed the D80 would not handle the type of volume I am likley to process.
Thanks so much for all your help.
Kevin

 

[Iron Flatline]

A few comments: buy camera bodies and lenses only from reputable dealers. B&H comes to mind. They earn their money off accessories, so their camera prices are as low as is reasonable. There are a LOT of tricksters out there.

You have lenses that fit the Sony Alpha 700, stick with that. Sony will be a major player in digital photography, every time they've entered a market they become leaders in it. It is a smart system to invest in.

The lenses available for the Minolta mount are fabulous, and used ones are MUCH cheaper than comparable products from Canon or Nikon - take advantage of that while it lasts.

That way, you will be able to use the film as a back-up or to shoot a different style at the same event.

Yes, Sony makes Nikon's sensors. They are the same. For how long remains to be seen... as soon as Sony is seriously competing for the market segment they will stop delivering the newest goods to a competitor.

 

[End Game]

OK, as I'm nowhere near the level of knowledge these guys have of cameras, I have a great knowledge of software *It makes up for my horrible photographic skills * A cross between CS3 and Elements, if you can't afford CS3 and you want more than Elements, try Corel Paint Shop Pro XI *Don't do X2, the extra $60 are SO not worth it, trust me* It still isn't as professional as CS3, and what I'm about to say is kinda hard to explain--It has the same functions, but less of them. CS3 has a function for EVERYTHING, PSPXI has an overall function that's exactly the same, and takes a few more seconds to get to where you want it. Take Hue and Saturation layers for example. CS3, you can tell CS3 what you want to get rid of and what you want to replace it with, with PSPXI, you have to move do reds, yellows, etc., then move the slider to what you want to replace it with. I suck at explaining, and I just wasted 2 minutes of your life. Sorry.