What would you buy with $7,500?

[aadhils]

Some people rarely use one.

Unless they shoot people and other moving objects 100% of the time (or they are Ken Rockwell), a tripod should be an integral part of one's equipment.

If you have $7500 lying around, the tripod should be amongst the ones that are typically priced around $1000+.

 

[ghache]

Some people rarely use one.

Unless they shoot people and other moving objects 100% of the time (or they are Ken Rockwell), a tripod should be an integral part of one's equipment.

If you have $7500 lying around, the tripod should be amongst the ones that are typically priced around $1000+.

:lmao::lmao::thumbdown::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

out for 270 something tripod available at bh, only 15 are over 1000$
i would never buy a 1000$ tripod. 200 are under 250$.......

 

[robbie_vlad]

If I had $7500 to spend on gear, this is what my gear list would look like:

Canon 5D II ($2000) & Canon 1D III ($2000)
Canon 70-200 2.8L (own already)
Canon 35 1.4L ($1000)
Canon 300mm 2.8L ($2500)

And I'd be good pretty much.

 

[Neil S.]

If I had $7,500 to spend (on photo gear) then I would get:

- 5D mk II
- 24-70 2.8L
- The new Canon 8-15 f/4 fisheye
- 180mm 3.5L macro

Thats close in price I think anyways. If there was any left over I would get some nice scotch to celebrate all the new gears!

 

[o hey tyler]

Weed ($7,500)

I think that's about it...

 

[SrBiscuit]

Some people rarely use one.

Unless they shoot people and other moving objects 100% of the time (or they are Ken Rockwell), a tripod should be an integral part of one's equipment.

If you have $7500 lying around, the tripod should be amongst the ones that are typically priced around $1000+.

this brings the ****ing LOLZ

 

[Infidel]

Hookers and blow.

Can't believe it took 27 posts....

 

[Derrel]

OP--I would seriously question the 24/1.4-L lens. That type of expensive exotic lens puts a lot of money into one lens, and hurts you in terms of having a well-rounded,capable kit.
A full-frame camera makes lens selection easier, and it also allows you to go higher on ISO levels with less loss of quality loss. It also allows quite a bit of cropping potential. I'd focus more on trying to create a more well-rounded kit. It "depends" what you need the equipment kit to actually be optimized "for"; if it's for architecture, a 24mm Tilt/Shift lens would be a very valuable item; for small-product an 85mm or 90mm Tilt/Shift lens would be nice; the 45mm Tilt/Shift could also be a possible item to add.

For "people" work, you do not need the absolute sharpest lenses, so the older 70-200 version 1 from Canon would actually be a great choice,and I would MUCH rather have the older 70-200 PLUS an 85mm f/1.8 prime lens than just the 70-200 Mark II.

Lighting: a small kit. 400 to 800 watt-second power supply and five low-cost light heads, three QUALITY, enclosed Lastolite Umbrella Box umbrellas, two softboxes, a 48x72 inch white reflector and a stand system, a boom stand, three heavy-duty light stands, three medium-weight light stands. ALL bought USED. Buy lighting gear used!

For camera gear: more an emphasis on wardrobe basics, rather than haute couture stuff: FF body, 24mm prime, 35mm prime, 90 or 100mm "standard" macro lens, set of Kenko extension tubes, 70-200 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8. Polarizing filters. Speedlight, one 1st party, two 3rd party models. I would rather have 3 or 4 "average" lenses from Canon or Nikon than one, single uber-speed L-glass prime like the 24/1.4-L. On a FF camera, most decent manufacturer prime lenses are amply good enough. If there was money left over, a SHARP, quality 300mm f/4 prime lens would be the last piece I would buy.

 

[aadhils]

:lmao::lmao::thumbdown::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

out for 270 something tripod available at bh, only 15 are over 1000$
i would never buy a 1000$ tripod. 200 are under 250$.......

A lot of people would NEVER spend over $250 for a Camera :greenpbl:

You probably wouldn't even need a tripod more than $50 if you never plan on going past the status of Amateur.

 

[bentcountershaft]

A good tripod is a good investment but with a $7500 total budget I don't think spending nearly 15% of it on one is that great of an idea.

 

[aadhils]

A good tripod is a good investment but with a $7500 total budget I don't think spending nearly 15% of it on one is that great of an idea.

If would knew how a good tripod affected one's photographs spending $1000+ on one (or more than one) would be a no brainer. The only photographers I can think of right now who probably will never need a tripod are Paparazzi.

 

[bentcountershaft]

A good tripod is a good investment but with a $7500 total budget I don't think spending nearly 15% of it on one is that great of an idea.

If would knew how a good tripod affected one's photographs spending $1000+ on one (or more than one) would be a no brainer. The only photographers I can think of right now who probably will never need a tripod are Paparazzi.

I can't see many situations where spending twice as much on a tripod is going to result in a picture that's twice as nice. I'm not saying it's crazy to spend that amount on a tripod but I don't think it's necessary to spend that large a portion of one's total budget on one. Bigger budget, top of the line tripod. Middle of the road budget, middle of the road tripod.

 

[Neil S.]

Some people rarely use one.

Unless they shoot people and other moving objects 100% of the time (or they are Ken Rockwell), a tripod should be an integral part of one's equipment.

If you have $7500 lying around, the tripod should be amongst the ones that are typically priced around $1000+.

No offense, but this is absurd lol...

I own the Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 legs and 468MGRC2 ballhead, and on B&H both combined cost $675.

Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 4-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod 055CXPRO4 -

Manfrotto 468MGRC2 Magnesium Hydrostatic Ballhead - 468MGRC2 -

I would consider this combo to be quite "high end", and it isnt even close to $1,000.

You can easily get a descent tripod for $200-300 by the way...

 

[aadhils]

You can easily get a descent tripod for $200-300 by the way...

That would depend on how one defines a tripod. If your goal is to just get a tripod that can hold the lens pointing straight without flopping down, then a $200-$300 tripod is fine. If your consider a tripod useful for camera shake then the $200-$300 tripod will be a miserable failure (unless you use a point and shoot/Canon Rebel and lens with a focal length of less than 50mm).

Even $1000 tripods have camera shake, just much less than their less beefier counterparts.

 

[Phranquey]

600mm f/4 AF-S ..... and there goes that budget.