What's your approach to gear?

[Tbini87]

Hey guys,
my wife and I are in the process of starting a small photography company. We are planning on doing everything from portraits to newborn to wedding to sports. As you all know there is a lot of work that goes into it, and a decent amount of money being spent on new gear. In researching choices for cameras and lenses and all I am really torn between 2 different approaches.

The first approach is buying decent gear but not top of the line. This would include stuff like a D90, or sigma or tamron 17-50 2.8 lenses, etc. Some of this gears seems pretty legit, but definitely not top notch. Is this the gear we can have as backup or 2nd shooter gear? This approach saves a lot of money, but will probably leave us looking to upgrade within a year or two.

Approach number two is shelling out the extra cash now to enjoy top notch gear throughout our startup. This may help our image quality a little bit and will avoid the "need" to upgrade for possibly a long time. The downside is that this will be eating up a huge amount of our budget and there is definitely a limit to our cash supply.

So, what approach would you professionals recommend? I will give you a list of current gear and then a list of stuff that we may be looking at. Feel free to start any discussions that you feel is important to this topic, or just how you personally dealt with this situation. Thanks.

Gear we have:
D40 with kit lenses (pretty much useless for wedding work no?)
D90 gripped, 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8
SB-600 speedlight

Gear we are looking into:
17-50mm zoom 2.8 (Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma)
50 (80)-200 zoom 2.8 (Nikon, Tamron)
Wide angle zoom 2.8 (Tokina 11-16mm, nikon)

Any general thoughts, specific gear recommendations, etc are totally welcome!

 

[SLRJoe]

Not that I'm a professional photographer, but if I was to start my own photography business and was doing it on a budget to begin with, I'd probably stick with what I've got initially, wait until I've got a few contracts in, and then spend the profits from them on improving the gear.

I would then probably try to buy a good condition refurb or 2nd hand D300/D3, the latest version of Photoshop (I know you can use Gimp for free, but after using photoshop for years, I personally would find it would save me hours using what I already know how to use).

I would probably - when funds allow - purchase the best quality lenses I could afford, but wait until I've got money coming in before I start splashing the cash. Once i've got the top quality kit, i'd then rise my prices a bit.

 

[Overread]

Refurbs aren't a bad idea - most are just a good if not better than new (since they undergo individual inspection instead of just batch inspection.

One thing I would say however is that you are trying to possibly hit too many areas all at once - I don't know your experience level so I can't comment on how good each of your are within the respective areas you're intended to photograph for - however it would make your budget easier to manage if you focus down into select areas that compliment each other. For example focusing on portraits or sport but not both at the same time - thus your setup can focus to that need - letting your spend what you do have of your budget on higher end gear for that aim.

 

[Derrel]

I've had the good fortune to use various levels of equipment,and had many friends who were avidly into photography,in the decades of the 1980's, 1990's,and now the 2000's. I have owned and used equipment made from the 1950's to the current date. Here's my opinion on gear. Gear is gear. There are multiple levels of gear. Some of it is very basic, some middle of the road, some of it is advanced. Some equipment has very high specifications and looks/seems good on paper, in the catalog, or on the web. But specifications are NOT always a good guideline; they need to be tempered with real-world performance evaluation, personal preferences, user experience, and the acid test of practical use for their intended (or not-intended) tasks. Many times, better gear makes life one hell of a lot easier.

There is a lot of equipment available used,as well as new. Look at the D40: with kit lenses, it's not much of a wedding camera, in my opinion. BUT it DOES have one overriding feature that MOST other cameras do not have: the ability to synchronize flash with daylight with "regular" flash bursts, at shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 second. Use a PC cord, and the D40 becomes one of the BEST fill-flash-in-bright sunlight cameras since the Hassy 501C...and 6MP is enough resolution for most wedding snaps these days,especially if the lenses are GOOD. With Nikon's top-grade lenses, the D40 is a capable camera....but with kit lenses, it's not that great. See how that works? Good or great lenses can leverage a D40 or a D90.

I dunno...have you ever used a professional Nikon body? It is hard to understand the added degree of responsiveness, the better viewfinder, the much more powerful autofocusing motor in the camera, the much,much more-powerful autofocusing module,and the overall handling benefits of a true "professional" Nikon camera, compared with the low-end D40, and the consumer D90, or even the pro-sumer level D300 type cameras.

For many photography assignments, the camera itself is not super-critical to success, but the lenses ARE critical. But I'd say in about 20% of situations, the camera body can make the work much,much,much easier than fighting a body that's not really up to the task. And in maybe 10% of situations, a pro-level or state of the art camera can make a HUGE difference between getting lots of good shots, and fighting the equipment, or continually bumping up against its limitations and having success "some of the time" instead of ALL of the time.

For "professional" jobs that are demanding, I would not go with either a D40 or a D90 unless I absolutely had no other camera I could use. Same goes for lenses...the "kit" lenses are simply not capable,and primes like the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron you are looking at are a major step up.

The 80-200 zoom is okay, but I prefer a 70-200. If you really plan on doing "everything" on your list, I'd say buy a D3s and skip the mid-level stuff. Back it up with a D700. Buy the BEST lenses you can afford.

 

[DC-Photog]

I shoot weddings and portraits, and I would suggest expanding your equipment budget. I would recommend, at minimum, two D300 bodies, 17-55 2.8, and the 80-200 2.8. I would buy two used SB-800s, or an SB-900 with a SB-600 as a backup.

Stick with Nikon glass. You will never have to worry about it, and it will always perform. The D300 is a fabulous tool. I actually use mine more than my D3s bodies during the day. Much lighter, and I swear the final images look identical to the D3s frames.

If you are planning on a big sports business, then replace the 80-200 with the 70-200. You will improve your keeper rate.

 

[tirediron]

I would go with what you have for now, but as you buy new gear, buy the best you can. As Derrel said, until you've had a D3 with a 24-70 in your hands, it's hard to describe how much nicer it is, BUT that's NOT the reason. The reason that I always stress buying the best gear you can afford is because with better gear comes better build quality, and the survival rate of D3s dropped off of counter tops vs. D40s... The same applies to lenses, tripods, and lighting.

 

[j-dogg]

I've had the good fortune to use various levels of equipment,and had many friends who were avidly into photography,in the decades of the 1980's, 1990's,and now the 2000's. I have owned and used equipment made from the 1950's to the current date. Here's my opinion on gear. Gear is gear. There are multiple levels of gear. Some of it is very basic, some middle of the road, some of it is advanced. Some equipment has very high specifications and looks/seems good on paper, in the catalog, or on the web. But specifications are NOT always a good guideline; they need to be tempered with real-world performance evaluation, personal preferences, user experience, and the acid test of practical use for their intended (or not-intended) tasks. Many times, better gear makes life one hell of a lot easier.

There is a lot of equipment available used,as well as new. Look at the D40: with kit lenses, it's not much of a wedding camera, in my opinion. BUT it DOES have one overriding feature that MOST other cameras do not have: the ability to synchronize flash with daylight with "regular" flash bursts, at shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 second. Use a PC cord, and the D40 becomes one of the BEST fill-flash-in-bright sunlight cameras since the Hassy 501C...and 6MP is enough resolution for most wedding snaps these days,especially if the lenses are GOOD. With Nikon's top-grade lenses, the D40 is a capable camera....but with kit lenses, it's not that great. See how that works? Good or great lenses can leverage a D40 or a D90.

I dunno...have you ever used a professional Nikon body? It is hard to understand the added degree of responsiveness, the better viewfinder, the much more powerful autofocusing motor in the camera, the much,much more-powerful autofocusing module,and the overall handling benefits of a true "professional" Nikon camera, compared with the low-end D40, and the consumer D90, or even the pro-sumer level D300 type cameras.

For many photography assignments, the camera itself is not super-critical to success, but the lenses ARE critical. But I'd say in about 20% of situations, the camera body can make the work much,much,much easier than fighting a body that's not really up to the task. And in maybe 10% of situations, a pro-level or state of the art camera can make a HUGE difference between getting lots of good shots, and fighting the equipment, or continually bumping up against its limitations and having success "some of the time" instead of ALL of the time.

For "professional" jobs that are demanding, I would not go with either a D40 or a D90 unless I absolutely had no other camera I could use. Same goes for lenses...the "kit" lenses are simply not capable,and primes like the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron you are looking at are a major step up.

The 80-200 zoom is okay, but I prefer a 70-200. If you really plan on doing "everything" on your list, I'd say buy a D3s and skip the mid-level stuff. Back it up with a D700. Buy the BEST lenses you can afford.

Hit the nail on the head. Lenses can make or break a shot, I ditched my kit lenses and bumped up to some decent glass. No L lenses yet but I've shot them on my digital Rebel, and what a difference. The Rebel XTi is a sort of entry-level DSLR it's not a 1ds but it isn't a cheap point and shoot.

A kit lens is good for walking around, they are usually light and plasticky, and will get you a decent shot most of the time, but compare an 18-55 to say a 24-70 L and it's like apples and oranges.

As for camera bodies, do you NEED a D3? No, my Rebel has taken shots with a little post and some good glass that rival a D3.....is the D3 a great addition to any professional photographer's stable? You ****ing bet it is, and you DO get what you pay for. The Digital Rebel can do about 90% of the stuff the D3 can do, but that 10% of things it can't do is a BIG 10%, drop a D3 and my Rebel from 5ft onto concrete I bet the D3 still works. Try to take 8 frames a second of a fast moving object like a train or a sports car, the Rebel will only get you 3 or 4 and it only has I think a 9-frame burst in RAW mode if at least 7 out of 8 planets are aligned.

Spend the cash for good lenses first, you can always upgrade your body. :mrgreen:

 

[KmH]

....I would recommend, at minimum, two D300 bodies....
.....I would buy two used SB-800s......
.....The D300 is a fabulous tool. I actually use mine more than my D3s bodies during the day. Much lighter, and I swear the final images look identical to the D3s frames......

+1

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/222897-fs-nikon-d300-body.html No returns for shutter/mirror slap noise.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/222900-fs-nikon-sb-800-speedlight.html

 

[JerrfyLube]

My approach is:

Simple. Less is more!

Theres not much you cant shoot in the way of weddings or portraits with a 24-70 2.8 and a 80-200 2.8.

Id probably throw a 3rd body in there also incase one of them takes a dump on you while on a shoot....its a matter of when, not if.

 

[gsgary]

Not sure what sports your going to shoot but 200mm is not good enough for field sports, have you shot sports because it's a lot different to portraits

 

[Tbini87]

Great Discussion so far guys! Thanks for all the input. I have been looking around at different bodies, and have never even TOUCHED a D300 or 700, so I have no idea how nice they must be. I have recently seen some talk about a D7000, which seems to be really nice, and more like a d40 or d90 ergonomically which I think my wife and I prefer. Any substance behind this big talk for the D7000?

As far as experience I have to admit that we don't have tons yet. I grew up shooting sports on my mom's film Canon with a 50-200 kit lens I think. Nothing special, but when you have 4 siblings that are all incredible athletes (all 3 sisters got scholarships to D1 schools for field hockey) then you get used to taking plenty of pictures on the field! I have also been shooting wakeboarding for 3 or 4 years now during the summer. We have been the "photgraphers" of family gatherings for a few years now, and have done 3 or 4 real shoots for seniors and family portraits. We have a newborn shoot coming up in 2 months which we are not ready for, but I have also been looking into off camera flash options with our SB-600.

 

[Derrel]

Any substance behind this big talk for the D7000?

Check out Thom Hogan's web site for his early comments on the D7000; he says it is the best HIGH-ISO crop-sensor body he has ever tested, from either Canon or Nikon.

I've seen one side-by-side on-line comparison of the EOS 7D with 24-70 L zoom versus the Nikon D7000 with the low-cost 18-105 zoom; the Nikon was "brighter" in terms of actual exposure by 1.20 EV values than the 7D at ISO 3,200, and had much better-looking image quality, with much,much less noise than the 7D, so the D7000 does appear to have a pretty good overall image quality for an APS-C body. Price is quite good too.

It's not even on the market yet though: Best Buy let some out early,and was reprimanded.

 

[Tbini87]

Thanks Derrel,
we will certainly be looking into this camera in the near future then. Would this be considered a "pro-grade" camera that would be usable full time for wedding shooting?

 

[KmH]

Not sure what sports your going to shoot but 200mm is not good enough for field sports, have you shot sports because it's a lot different to portraits

+1.

The Multi-CAM3500DX AF module with 51 auto focus points, 15 of them cross-type focus points in the D300 is SWEET.

For field sports - daylight only..http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/222898-fs-sigma-150-500-mm-hi-power-zoom.html

 

[Derrel]

Thanks Derrel,
we will certainly be looking into this camera in the near future then. Would this be considered a "pro-grade" camera that would be usable full time for wedding shooting?

Well, frankly, no, it's not a "pro-grade" Nikon. It's an advanced-level d-slr model, but Nikon's "pro-grade" cameras always have their top-tier autofocusing system. I personally think that APS-C sized sensor cameras are not the best choice for wedding photography; to me, the full-frame cameras are the "pro-grade" tools. Many people do not share that sentiment,however.

The D7000 has a brand-new AF system in it,with 39 AF areas, and is I would say a representation of the next generation Nikon mid-level camera. From what I have read about the D7000 from Chase Jarvis, it has a very solid feel, a magnesium inner chassis, and it "feels" very much like a higher-level camera than one would expect. The 39-point AF module is different,and newer, than the 51-area AF system used in the D300,D700,and D3s cameras. I suspect that the D7000 with a quality lens (zoom or prime) would be a more than adequate wedding camera under most circumstances. The thing is, there are the REAL, true, "pro-grade" Nikon bodies, and then there is everything else, beneath them.

The D7000 is not as good as the D3s is at high iso settings. It simply can not be as good. But that does not make the D7000 a bad camera, or incapable. The fact is, the flagship Nikon bodies have the best performance, the best of everything; all the other cameras have,well, less...as cameras advance, the mid-level bodies get better and better and better. Many people never need anything more than a higher-end mid-level camera. The D7000 represents the next generation mid-level Nikon; I expect the D400 and D4 to be significantly better that their current counterparts. What the D7000 represents is like the Canon 7D to its family: a shifting of gears, a moving-on-up-to-the-East Side generational shift.