Home Forums Gear Photography Pro DSLR suggestions?

My daughter is going to take up wedding photography. Which DSLR would you suggest? Thanks...

Either a high end Canon or Nikon. Lately, the pros seem to be leaning more toward Canon.

Much depends on her budget. Any of the Canon 1 series with the EOS-1Ds Mark III at $7K being the only full frame (35mm); two other 1D cameras are $5K and $4K or the EOS 5D Mark II at $2.5K being the other full frame DSLR. Then there are lenses, flash units, studio lighting if she intends to do portraiture even if that is done in home. I know someone will say you don't need studio lighting for that. Your daughter COULD also shoot with a point and shoot. Depending on the camera she decides on I can't see anyone getting into wedding work as a JOB to earn money for less than $10-15K. That is just equipment. Figure another $5-7K for soft stock or custom printing and $1-3K if she intends to print herself. Getting wedding pictures done at Wal-Mart don't cut it. Good Luck BTY how many wedding photograpgers are in your area (within 100 miles)?

Be happy to help you out but need to know what budget you are working within. There are great options from both canon and Nikon. Let me know if I can be of any help

2 Canon 5D Mark II DSLR's and 50mm 1.4 prime, 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS. If you have any money left after that I would go with 14mm 2.8F. Then you will need lighting and a good pro tripod...

Schiller's in St Louis can rent you anything you need so she can see what she likes and don't...

9240 Manchester Road
Saint Louis, MO 63144-2636
(314) 968-3650

http://www.millerslab.com/

Miller's Columbia
1712 East Pointe Dr.
Columbia, MO 65201

When you use there lab you can get free on-line classes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She will like this alot!

My son got married in Sept. The photog put all the photos on her web site where viewers can order prints. Sounds risky, but she used such a low resolution that even clicking 'view image' causes them to pixelate. Not much problem with anyone being able to steal those & make use of them. Prints, of course, are made from a very high resolution image.

Computers sure have changer how the shoot is presented to the paying customer. Used to have to print a proof set which cost money then to final set more money. Now with a lap top or large touch pad you can show them just what the final will look like even adding matting and framing choices. Makes things so much easier. A very low res CD is also a way that is very inexpensive. I don't have any family who are technical enough to run a secure website for me and I find that that as an outside service is an expense that I don't wish to incur or pass on the customers so I do in shop showings or the CD. Usually both.

For wedding work, I would go with something like the Nikon D700. It is roughly half the price as the D3s and as far as I can tell, it has the same basic image quality. I know several successful freelance photographers that use the D300 and the D700 appears to be even better.

It offers the "new" FX format, which is a 35mm format, not the smaller DX format that became the standard for about 10 years. I say go with the new format because not all megapixels are the same. A 12meg FX format image is higher quality than a 12 meg DX format and for wedding pictures, you need the quality. I would probably start with just one body and if the business takes off, buy a second.

For longer glass, I would go with the Nikkor 80-200...not the newer 70-210 VR. The 70-210 is great, but the 80-200 f2.8 is far more budget friendly and the glass is just as sharp. Basically you don't need to pay for all the bells and whistles offered on the 70-210 for wedding/portrait work...you just don't need them.

For wider glass, I would go with a Nikkor zoom in the 24-55mm range, again, f2.8. You need the speed of the 2.8 lenses for low light that weddings are plagued by. I really don't see a need to go any wider with the FX format.(DX is a different story) Cheaper off-brand lenses are tempting due to price, but the quality is not the same no matter what the manufacturer says, that's why they are cheaper.

For lights I would say go with something like White Lightening's Alien Bee series. Two small, lightweight kits and she will be set. White Lightening has a very solid reputation for both quality and superb service.

One thing I will say about marketing. Make sure the prints are made with archival inks such as Epson's chrome inks on premium paper. (For serious work like big portraits, I like the look of acid free art paper instead of regular photo paper. It gives you a more snooty product to offer, and will set her apart from the rest of the pack...that's what it's all about) Also, I would be with them when they choose the images for prints. It is a lot easier to sell somebody a bigger (read: more profitable) print if they are sitting beside you.

Even though I have a photojournalism degree, 25 years of full-time pro experience in photojournalism, have covered everything from a civil war (twice) to sports to homicides to the occasional freelance wedding, I still worry about being laid off constantly. So trust me, I have been looking at gear that will make a living for me. Overspending or underspending on gear are just bad business practices.

Nikon vs. Canon? Six of one, half dozen of the other. Both are high quality. I just use Nikon because that is what I started with in college and it is also what my company buys for me. Also, I know 10 times more shooters who use Nikon, so it makes it easier if I need to borrow a lens from a friend.

Again, this is just for wedding/portrait/travel type work. If she plans to shoot sports that's a whole other animal, but I doubt that will be the case.

Hopefully, this novel-length reply helps! (LOL)

Not that you want to hear any more from me, but I started thinking more and would feel guilty if I did now write this.

There is a huge glut of pro photographers out there. People with tons of experience, degrees, some even have a Pulitzer under their belt, who have been laid off from wire services, newspapers, etc. These folks are shooting weddings, portraits, sports...just whatever they can to make ends meet.

Not to discourage her, but it is tough out there now.

Just something to think about when deciding to do this part-time vs. full-time, or when she takes a good look at her potential marketplace. This obviously is not the case in all markets.

Either way, I wish her the best and hope she is very successful!

Good advice, I think skwerlkiller pretty much nailed it, although that's the first time I've ever heard of a D700 being compared in any way as equal to the D3, that said I think it was sound advice for him to steer you to the D700 range.

I would suggest she go in some stores and get her hands on some different models in the better brands, see what fits her hands and feels the best to her, then call Camerland

Lots of websites have comparisons, here is an independent one that tests the sensors of many different cameras while removing the variable of what lens was used which makes it easier to compare different brands, they also test lenses and camera/lens combo's


http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/485|0/%28appareil2%29/441|0/%28appareil3%29/436|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Canon


Lots of info on a lot of different cameras on this one

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

Even entry level DSLR's are getting so good that more and more people are doing their own photography now. Posing the shots is harder than getting the photo quality. Our daughter had the groom's brother and me take all the shots at their wedding last year. Between us, we got some very good stuff, even though we're both rank amateurs.

Canon 1D3. Killer ISO latitude and low noise,coupled with insane burst rate and fps,for the ultimate in catching action. Easy to say that ain't "interesting",until you've a body that allows same.(grin)

Not much of a FF Guy,though I drive a 1Ds too...............

A couple of questions.

1) What camera and lenses does she have now?

2) what kind of photography has she done?

3) Is she experienced and proficient in editng soft-ware such a LightRoom and/or PhotoShop?

4) Does she have a job now and does she have enough in the bank to support her as she establishes her name and style?

5) Does she have any business and/or people skills --- just as important in being a succesfull wedding photographer as being a great photgrapher. Most will tell you that until you can "sell" you may be a great photographer but you won't get much work.

I don't mean to throw cold water on her dream but wedding photographer is a very hard and competitve field for someone just getting started.

And consider this --- more and more weddings are being shot with video.

Irrespective of which brand you opt for wedding or portrait work is where you want full frame. The Canon 5DII should be replaced this year so they are priced right at the moment. You may want to look for a lightly used 5D MK II or a Canon refurb. The standard lens here would be a 24-70 f2.8.
The Nikon D700 and the 24-70 would be another option but slightly more $$$.
Add a flash for either set up and she would be off to a good start.

Couldn't trade 1D3 buffer and frame rate for the 5D2...let alone the paltry AF.

I barely even shoot my 1Ds and FF is a buncha fluff on the average..............

In general I agree but buffer rates won't do a thing for a wedding photog. The 1D MKIII had more than it's fair share of AF problems. The 1D3 is a good choice for birders and sports shooters, However IQ is where FF rules. No way around that. Having said that I'm not a big fan of the 5dMKII myself. AF is slow as you mentioned and you really get limited to the center AF point for best results. But for weddings it is the obvious choice in the Canon line (IMO).

The owner of that site is a bona fide Canon hater so take what ever you read over there with a grain of salt.
For Nikon info you might try the Nikonians web site or better yet head over to Fred Miranda so you can get a Canon, Nikon and wedding forum all in the same place.

Firmare upgrades and a mirror fix for some,depending upon the serial number. Mine is a "bad" one and it blows all doors off the 5D2.

A huge buffer and fast frame rates can NEVER hurt...so goes amazing AF.

For fun,hang your best "IQ" pic as a 5D2 selling point....................

It might be a good idea to check out the wedding forum or post a poll between the FF and crop bodies in that forum.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/48

A refurb is on the Canon web site. I'd rather pay full price but many see this as a good buy. It won't last long!


http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_214217_-1

Have shot both bodies and would rather poll me.

You ever gunned the 1D3?....................

I'll admit to being a Nikon shooter all the way and while I'd never think of shooting a wedding (to many hormones involved) it's my impression that most of the pro's who shoot "35mm" shoot a Canon of some sort -- but to take advantage of the increase in mega-pixels affored by the high-end Canon's you need to be able to nail the exposure 100% of the time otherwise you're just wasting them. I also don't care for the auto-focus on the Canon's I've tried --- slow and it's not always accurate and there isn't anything worse than an otherwide perfect image that is both over or under exposed AND out-of-focus.

I don't know how it would be for weddings but I can't think of a camera I'd rather have than my Nikon D3s but I shoot sports for my own enjoyment and it might be hard to justify a $5000 camera and a couple of $6K lenses if I had to live on the photos I sell -- it's a labor of love to take 500 to a 1,000 shots each week-end of my grand-daughter's club soccer team and then sort thru them culling out the one's that are 1st rate and editing them for color etc. I do recoup something selling bigger prints, I probably average $350 to $400 per game after I pay for the cost of prints but considering the time I spend doing it I doubt it's much above the minimum wage.

The D3s is a Speed-King that sees in the dark better than any camera I know.

Curious,have you shot any of the 1D or 1Ds DSLR's? Tough to miss focus and being able to separate metering from the focus point,do tend to minimize exposure woes.

What's your favorite glass,that you are driving currently?....................

What about the 1D III up against the 1D IV? Much of a difference? Worth the extra $$

I don't have the 4,so cain't say. Would say that at 1800 clams used,the '3 is a full fledged steal in Today's market.

Gut hunch is that there's not $2k difference in the bodies...............

On my D300 (crop body) my 70-200mm f2.8 VR-II basically lives on it and when needed I'll stick a Nikon TC 1.4EE between it and the camera which basically gives me a 135-390mm f4.0. Fast focusing with great IQ.

With the D3s I've been shooting a 300mm f4 quite a bit and will toss the TC 1.4 EE on it once in awhile depending on the angle I'm shooting --- the 300mm f4, by itself, focuses quickly but with the 1.4 TC I can notice the difference.

I've also been borrowing one of the Big Boys --- thw 200mm-400mm f4. It's a beast and needs to live on my monopod but on the FX body it nicely covers most of a soccer field. On days when I have some problems getting on the sidelines I'll sometimes sit in the stands and stick on the 1.4 TC and get a different angle. The TC has very little impact on the IQ as long as I nail the exposure.

I was also shooting some night high-school football games using the Nikon CHUB - the 200mm f2 --- but it got to be a pain-in-the-butt -- and once they started asking for insurance and free photos I quit as by the time the kids got to high school the parents weren't buying pictures anymore so the CHUB got sold.

My favorite shooting is for my grand-daughter's U12 Gold team but the best sales come from the U8 and U9 teams --- these parents aren't used to quality sports pics.

And I haven't had any problems with the focus on any Canon body but I do hear my friends who shoot Canon's bitch and complain -- I can learn from the mistakes of others without experiencing them 1st hand.--- but you're right about being able to separate focus and exposure points.

If I was starting over today I would buy a D3s and never look back. Nearly dumped Canon last fall for one after viewing images shot at ISO 102,400!! A used D3 for a wedding shooter would be leaps and bounds over a 1DMKIII (IMO) based on the recall and AF problems of the MKIII alone. Sure you might get lucky and score a good copy..... then again you might get an expensive headache. Take time to know what the factory colored dots in the body and on the box mean before you think about taking that risk.
Used D3's are running in the $2800 range. All of these are as much or more than a new 5DII.
No idea where the OP is headed with price but depending on what state you live in if you did opt for a 5DMKII you might be better off buying new. Canoga Camera has them right now for just a hair over $2300 (have to add it to shopping cart to see sale price). As long as your not in CA no sales tax so that would be a much better buy than a refurb since Canon charges freight and sales tax.


http://www.canogacamera.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=86659

The 200-400 might could be Nikon's bestest glass.

So good...they shamed Canon into trying to match it,though I'm dubious.

Hang some pics................

There's no way I could begin to put the 5D2 in a league ANYWHERE nearing the 1D3. I'd go 1Ds2,if I thought I was enthralled with FF(but I ain't,despite shooting one). The AF issues are largely hyped nonsense on the 1D3 and CPS will happily put the cure on a "bad" one,for free.

I'd liken the ISO Wars akin to bragging up digital zoom in camcorders. Buncha fluff there.

Though in fairness,I gun an open mind.....................

Speakin of exposure woes

Only have (3) 1D-Series bodies.

You've not heard me swoon the 40D.

Hint...................

Fair 40D poke though,if only to cheer you up.....................

Stetson --- I'm seeing some of the D3's with over 100,000 actuations going for less than $2800 but I haven't seen any D3s's below $4,000. And, here in Southern California it's only been the last couple of months that stores have a decent supply of them. If you know the location of low actuation D3s's anywhere below $3,000 please let me know as I'll buy a couple and pay you a finder's fee.

Everyone is getting hyped about what they're calling the "D4" as they expect it to be a wonder camera -- a D3s with a lot more megapixels and I'm guessing the way some who just bought a D3s are wringing their hands they're hoping for price around $5,000 --- Yeah! Right!

DB Bill most of the D3's I'm seeing have under 10k on the shutter @ $2800 and look new. Over 100k should put them at least a few hundred less. I have seen a few used D3s models but nothing under 4k. Don't worry about the finders fee. If I find a D3s for 3k the $1,250 finders fee will already be built in the sale price.

You guys have been putting a lot more energy into the question than the OP(who seems to be in "fire and forget" mode, not even replying to request for clarifications that would yield him a better answer). Sounds like a tire kicker that might have been scared away after seeing that being a wedding photographer ain't so cheap and easy.

The worst part being,that as of late...Canon and Nikon Model Numbers seemingly interchange................(grin)

I was a sport photographer for kids sports, back in my 'Army' days I did weddings on the side, back in the late 80's early 90's.
For weddings get NIKON. Why their flash systems works, dead on, all the time. Canon comes close but there always seems to be those shots that are over or under.

1. Especially with weddings White gowns, Black Tux's big reception halls and churches, no bouncing the light, a lot of different color light, with a flash for quick informal shots it makes color balancing easier, unless you go black and white.

2. I have been out of pro photo for three years now but at last look Nikon has the edge on high ISO. If you don't want to use flash high ISO is the way to go. Actually you should use both. No flash during the ceremony, other times Yes.

I have a both Canon and Nikon at this moment. My favorite for sports is still canon, I had/have 1D, 1DII, 1DIIn, and the 1DIII (A good one without the focusing problems many had.)Also have a Canon Ti for the car. My favorite lens for sports in an old Canon 35-350, Nikon doesn't have anything like it. Canon has more variety of lens, but you don't need much more then the basics for weddings or 'party' photography. My Nikon is the D200. Along with a pile of lens for each. I have top of the line flashes for each and the Nikon is easier to use and always dead on.

To learn about the 'equipment' go to DPReview.com.

But there are wedding photographers out there that use other stuff. Many use Olympus in fact I have a 420, great little camera. My niece 'borrowed' it a couple of years ago. Her brother wants to 'borrow' a couple of my rifles now.

But again shoot with what you know how to use, that is more important then anything else if you are taking once in a lifetime shots that people are paying you for, they're counting on you.

Good Luck

Matt

Man that was a long post.

Oh let me add something else. You don't need the newest top of line equipment. Then big 1D's and D3's are great especially if you are shooting sports fast multiple shots, weather proofing and all that. And those things are HEAVY. A wedding lasts ALL DAY. I know its ALOT of work. Good lens, a small portrait light group, Alien Bees and real good and relatively inexpensive, find a second had one generation old camera, better two bodies and you'll be set.

Matt

I just realized this other post was my first.

I joined this site for the rifles and hunting and I'm talking cameras.

About all I shoot anymore,is my 1D3.

Digging the Siggy 50mm 1.4 aboard it,for chasing ambient light...................