Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:42 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:12 pm 
The title may be a little misleading, I don't have one booked in the near future, but wedding photography is a field I would really like to get into, however, a second DSLR with backup lenses and the like, an obvious necessity, is far out of my budget and will be for a good 4 years (university you see). So would a superzoom or bridge camera, what ever you want to call them, would one be an acceptable backup for my A230 if it goes belly up part way through the reception.

Also, are the Sony superzooms any good? I know they all lack a hot shoe, which is a massive disadvantage compared to camera like the F200 EXR, but I would like to use a sony as they use the same battery as my A230.

Thanks in advance.
Sam.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:30 pm 
Don't buy anything until you need to. You don't need a second camera at a wedding, it's more of an insurance policy in case your primary camera fails. For the first few weddings you do, you can just as well do it with one camera. With the money you make, you'll be in a better position to buy better kit.

Unless you're thinking of going into photography professionally in the short term, save your money.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6953
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
Yeah, if there's no need for a second camera yet, don't get one. Try investing in some quality glass instead.

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:10 am 
As was implied camera bodies drop in price overtime, lenses do not (actually some may get more expensive).


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:07 am 
Hi Sam Lewis,

and a belated welcome to the forum!

Allow me to offer a slightly dissenting answer to my esteemed co-posters.

I believe that it is necessary and also very useful/helpful to have a second camera body as a wedding shooter.

There is the obvious concern that your primary somehow fails you. There are no second chances and if you can't cover the whole wedding because your one camera stops working, not only are you hooped, but you will have a very sad and frustrated couple wishing they had hired someone else. And if you actually care about your clients, you cannot allow such a situation to occur. This is their one day - in some cases THE most important day in their young life....well you can imagine. Of course, this is about riding the odds here. How often does a camera break - not often.

But beyond regular equipment failure, there is drunken uncle Bob, grabbing your camera cuz he wants to see it and dropping it in the punch-bowl..lol.

Secondly - and this to me is the real reason why having to is better..much better: You can be ready to shoot with two different lenses at once.

Indoor weddings sometimes, even often, takes place in poor light. Especially the party after. For that and creamy bokeh, one camera may be mounted with a very fast lens - say an affordable 35 or 50mm F1.8 prime. The other may be mounted with lens with more reach.

Or, whether it's well lit or not, one may be mounted with a wide (say Tokina 11-16 F2.8 constant aperture) for the group shots and the other with a lens with more reach (say 85mm F1.8 AF-D) for example.

As a professional wedding photographer - eventually commanding $1.500 and up for a wedding - I don't think there is any excuse for not getting the images because the camera stopped working.

But that is just me..

Cheers :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:17 am 
LahLahSr wrote:
As a professional wedding photographer - eventually commanding $1.500 and up for a wedding - I don't think there is any excuse for not getting the images because the camera stopped working.


Key word here is "eventually". You're not going to start off charging top dollar. If you did, you'd better provide top dollar service and results.

If you're just starting, you really do not need a second camera either as a backup if all fails or attached to a 2nd lens. There is no need to hobble yourself with unrealistic expectations.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:18 am 
Thanks for the replies guys. I am well aware that I, as some one who has just started taking pictures of any quality, will not be in a position to charge for my services for some time.

Considering the amount of time it took me to save for my DSLR, and considering the amount of money I won't be making during university a second seemed a tad out of reach, but I was forgetting to take into account how much cameras fall in price over time.

Thanks again guys.

Rather than start a new topic:
Oh and Bjorn, You had the Zeiss 16-80 didn't you? I know you weren't that amazed with the build quality, but I am working with the kit lens, to me it will be amazing... But what did you think of the picture quality?

Sam.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6953
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
Sam Lewis wrote:
Rather than start a new topic:
Oh and Bjorn, You had the Zeiss 16-80 didn't you? I know you weren't that amazed with the build quality, but I am working with the kit lens, to me it will be amazing... But what did you think of the picture quality?

Yes, I did. Build wasn't bad back when it was my only lens, in fact I was quite satisfied with it. But then when I got the 70-200mm, I learned what good build was, and I wasn't that happy with the CZ16-80mm anymore. Too small, to lightweight, no SSM (bit ironic I'm now considering using primes only). Anyway, the image quality was more than satisfactory. Sure, the Zeiss 24-70mm is better, but sharpness was very good for my uses. Didn't ever check much for CA's and stuff, usually I'm not to worried about that. :)
So if you ever have some money, you don't know what to spend it on, I'd recommend the CZ16-80mm. Others might suggest the Sony 16-105mm. I'd suggest reading a couple of reviews on both of them to compare 'em. I don't know whether the Sony matches the Zeiss' quality...

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:18 pm 
Sam Lewis wrote:
So would a superzoom or bridge camera, what ever you want to call them, would one be an acceptable backup for my A230 if it goes belly up part way through the reception.



Not unless you plan on shooting it for free.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group