My plan...

[Nickcanada]

OK, I've been thinking about what path to fallow in my photography gear career. I need low light focusing and speed for concerts.... and that's about all I "need" .

Here are two different routes I could go...

1st:

5D: $3 099
12-24mm sigma: wait I have that one!
24-70mm 2.8L (or 2.8 IS if it comes out.) $1 500
35mm 1.4L: $1 500
50mm 1.4: $470
70-200mm 2.8 IS: $2 100

For a grand total of $8 700... oh, and that's before 14% sales tax!

2nd:

used 20D: $900 (Or less)
12-24mm sigma: I own
17-55mm IS: $1 290
24mm 1.4L: $1 420
70-200 2.8 IS: $2 100

For a total of $5 700

Any thoughts either way? I'm open for discussions.

[cdifoto]

LOL @ "Gear Career" :eek:




As usual I have no thoughts. Except maybe that the 5D kit is a no-brainer if you have el dinero.

[Sungrazer]

Are you normally close to the stage? Would you use the 35/1.4 more than, say, the 85/1.2? Would you need the extra reach of the 20D over the 5D?

[Nickcanada]

Are you normally close to the stage? Would you use the 35/1.4 more than, say, the 85/1.2? Would you need the extra reach of the 20D over the 5D?


Well all I know for sure is that the 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera is too long most of the time. I shoot a lot of small clubs right up next to the stage. Most of the time because of the amount of people in the crowd I can't just step back.

That is why I chose the 24mm with the 20D and the 35mm with the 5D. I threw the 50mm in with the 5D just because it's relatively cheep and it's a "regular" focal length. On a cropped camera I'm not all that crazy about the 50mm focal length. Right now I don't really see the appeal in a 85mm lens. If I'm going to go in that range I think the 70-200 2.8 IS would do a good enough job, and no I don't care that it's heavy.

I could probably hold off on the 35mm with the 5D kit and save 1 500 bucks....


oops, I just noticed the 20D kit sould be more like $5 700

[Nickcanada]

Ok here is my Nikon solution... although I think Nikon is the wrong brand for concert photography...

D80: 1 060
.......... What the! Where are all the primes!? f/2 or f/2.8 in a prime will just not do it for me! and what is with their 17-55 2.8? for $1600 without IS! No thanks!

I'll stick with Canon.

[adam75south]

Well all I know for sure is that the 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera is too long most of the time. I shoot a lot of small clubs right up next to the stage. Most of the time because of the amount of people in the crowd I can't just step back.

That is why I chose the 24mm with the 20D and the 35mm with the 5D. I threw the 50mm in with the 5D just because it's relatively cheep and it's a "regular" focal length. On a cropped camera I'm not all that crazy about the 50mm focal length. Right now I don't really see the appeal in a 85mm lens. If I'm going to go in that range I think the 70-200 2.8 IS would do a good enough job, and no I don't care that it's heavy.

I could probably hold off on the 35mm with the 5D kit and save 1 500 bucks....


oops, I just noticed the 20D kit sould be more like $5 700
and don't ever let anyone tell you the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is too heavy. that thing is soooooooo awesome. i love mine....so much so i might just start making it red every time i write it on here....kinda like don with his blue tamron.

[fractalgfx]

Keep in mind that the benefits of IS will be somewhat negated by a moving subject. With a still subject, my 17-55 IS can give me good shots at surprisingly slow speeds (1/10!), but even a slow moving subject will ruin the picture. With all the commotion at a rock concert you'll never get away with speeds this slow.

I am really glad I sprung for the 17-55 IS over the 17-50 tamron, but base on my experience with the lens, I think IS might give you would be relatively useless on a wide angle lens at a rock concert (the 70-200 f2.8 is a whole another matter.)

[Sungrazer]

and don't ever let anyone tell you the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is too heavy.

Agreed. I bought it sight unseen and was a little psyched out about it. It's no 10-22, but it's just not that heavy.

[Nickcanada]

Keep in mind that the benefits of IS will be somewhat negated by a moving subject. With a still subject, my 17-55 IS can give me good shots at surprisingly slow speeds (1/10!), but even a slow moving subject will ruin the picture. With all the commotion at a rock concert you'll never get away with speeds this slow.

I am really glad I sprung for the 17-55 IS over the 17-50 tamron, but base on my experience with the lens, I think IS might give you would be relatively useless on a wide angle lens at a rock concert (the 70-200 f2.8 is a whole another matter.)

You are totally right. Most of my concert stuff is done at 1/100 and faster. I am sometimes able to to use f/2.8 at concerts so the 17-55 wouldn't be useless at concerts. The 17-55 IS would also be great for all the other stuff I shoot.

Because shooting at f/1.4 is not always the best choice let me try a kit with the soon to be master of ISO performance the 1D mkIII!

mkIII: $5 400

12-24mm: check

24-70mm 2.8: $1 500

24mm 1.4L: $1 400

70-200mm 2.8 IS: $2 100

for a grand total of $10 400

I think that would be the best kit for concerts. Fast AF, great ISO performance. I think this is my winner! only problem now is convincing my fiance that we need to send over 10 000 dollars in camera gear.

I could just imagine the joy of 10 fps.

[forno]

I could just imagine the joy of 10 fps.

I wanna hear one of those suckers rattle off a buffer full:cool:

[fractalgfx]

I think that would be the best kit for concerts. Fast AF, great ISO performance. I think this is my winner! only problem now is convincing my fiance that we need to send over 10 000 dollars in camera gear.

With that kind of thinking you will never convincer her. You have to think if this as an investment and not a purchase.

[cdifoto]

With that kind of thinking you will never convincer her. You have to think if this as an investment and not a purchase.

Exactly. Even my (now sold) Lensbaby was an "investment"! :D

[Nickcanada]

With that kind of thinking you will never convincer her. You have to think if this as an investment and not a purchase.

LOL, ya I know what you mean. I had a chat with her at lunch and mentioned how much my ideal kit would cost. She didn't seem surprised. I'm getting a bonus next month. New gear could be in my near future!

[XaiLo]

Ok here is my Nikon solution... although I think Nikon is the wrong brand for concert photography...

D80: 1 060
.......... What the! Where are all the primes!? f/2 or f/2.8 in a prime will just not do it for me! and what is with their 17-55 2.8? for $1600 without IS! No thanks!

I'll stick with Canon.

Nick...Nick...Nick Slap Slap. I'm OK now, let's not have this conversation again. :D lol

[Nickcanada]

Nick...Nick...Nick Slap Slap. I'm OK now, let's not have this conversation again. :D lol


lol, come on now. I'm not saying Nikons are garbage. I just don't see the equipment there to do the low light stuff I love. It's no knock on Nikon. If I was really into using flash I would consider it but most of the time flash is not allowed at concerts, so fast glass and high ISO is the only alternative....

Let me try it again though....

D80: $1 060

Sigma 10-20mm: $650

Sigma 30mm 1.4: $560

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8: $500

70-200mm 2.8 VR: $1 900

For a total of $4 670

It's the cheapest kit of the bunch and I'm curious to know how it would compare and perform to the other kits but I'm not willing to pull an Mr. Parmley and buy two systems, so I'll rely on popular opinion that Canon is a better low light performer with more/better low light lens alternatives.

[Nickcanada]

OK new kit

Refurbished 20D: 950

30mm 1.4: 600

17-55mm 2.8 IS: 1250

85mm 1.8: 500

For a total of $3300

I think this is the one.

[Rhys]

I really don't know why people rave so much about the 70-200 f2.8 or the 17-55 f2.8. They're both damnably heavy lenses and if I needed that kind of aperture then I'd go for the Olympus and get power plus aperture at a lighter weight.

I decided to get the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS. They're pretty good. I have the Tamron 28-75 and that is a great big heavy lump that's not quite as good as my 17-85 in terms of focussing. The fast aperture is handy in concept only because most of my photos are taken at f5.6 or f8. People like to see things that are in focus - not perhaps an eyebrow in focus and nothing else which is the kind of problem you get with fast apertures.

[pagnamenta]

I think that the Mark III would be an amazing camera. It is rather expensive though and it would take up most of your budget.

Why not a 20/30D. Great ISO performance and plenty of lenses.

Forget Nikon, I don't think their ISO is acceptable.

[Nickcanada]

I really don't know why people rave so much about the 70-200 f2.8 or the 17-55 f2.8. They're both damnably heavy lenses and if I needed that kind of aperture then I'd go for the Olympus and get power plus aperture at a lighter weight.

I decided to get the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS. They're pretty good. I have the Tamron 28-75 and that is a great big heavy lump that's not quite as good as my 17-85 in terms of focussing. The fast aperture is handy in concept only because most of my photos are taken at f5.6 or f8. People like to see things that are in focus - not perhaps an eyebrow in focus and nothing else which is the kind of problem you get with fast apertures.

Power plus aperature? never heard of it.:o

Weight's not an issue for me. And large apertures don't have to be a problem. This was shot at f2.0
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_9325.jpg

There is a time and place for fast lenses and a time for f8. The majority of my picture taking is low light. Lots of concerts etc. So my best choice is fast glass. Not to mention the artistic flexibility large apertures allow. I would love to be able to get the Mark III with it's insane ISO ability, but there is no way.

[Nickcanada]

I think that the Mark III would be an amazing camera. It is rather expensive though and it would take up most of your budget.

Why not a 20/30D. Great ISO performance and plenty of lenses.

Forget Nikon, I don't think their ISO is acceptable.

Ya, I've got my new wish kit a few posts above. ;) That will probably be the kit I go with. It leaves room for a good tripod and extras. I don't know when I'll get it but we'll see.

[te1221]

I pretty much have the setup you are looking to get. it's a damn fine setup I've come to appreciate because my focusing is way more consistent and sharper in low light

[Nickcanada]

New plan...

2x 580ex II ........... $1 140
24mm 1.4 ............ $1 400
70-200mm 2.8 IS.... $2 100
5D....................... $3 000
tripod....................$250
fold up reflector......$100
Computer...............$1 400
few filters...............$220

Total......................$9 610 + tax of $1 345

Grand total..............$10 955

I would put the 24mm on my rebel for group shots/creative low light stuff, and the 70-200 on the 5D for portrait stuff. Both lenses could double as concert lenses. The 24mm on the 5D would classify as wide angle, and with that aperture there would be lots of creative potential.

With my 430ex and two 580s I would have a decent portable wireless lighting kit. I could even get some umbrellas. The 580s would be main lights and the 430 would be an effect or background light. A reflector would add even more flexibility.

My 12-24mm is just stupid wide with the 5D, I would love it!

After looking at that total again, I think I need a new hobby.

Have you guys ever looked at what it would cost to buy your wish list? How do you guys budget for this stuff?

The most important question... How do you know you are worthy of the good stuff?

[adam75south]

OK, I've been thinking about what path to fallow in my photography gear career. I need low light focusing and speed for concerts.... and that's about all I "need" .

Here are two different routes I could go...

1st:

5D: $3 099
12-24mm sigma: wait I have that one!
24-70mm 2.8L (or 2.8 IS if it comes out.) $1 500
35mm 1.4L: $1 500
50mm 1.4: $470
70-200mm 2.8 IS: $2 100

For a grand total of $8 700... oh, and that's before 14% sales tax!

2nd:

used 20D: $900 (Or less)
12-24mm sigma: I own
17-55mm IS: $1 290
24mm 1.4L: $1 420
70-200 2.8 IS: $2 100

For a total of $5 700

Any thoughts either way? I'm open for discussions.

don't do that man. you're just gonna get discouraged. i did the same thing this weekend when i priced out some high end strobes. not to mention the second body i need for weddings if i continue to shoot them.

i think instead of dwelling on the prices maybe try and find ways to make money on the gear you have so that the new gear will be free! that's what i'm trying to do.

[24Peter]

don't do that man... i think instead of dwelling on the prices maybe try and find ways to make money on the gear you have so that the new gear will be free! that's what i'm trying to do.

I think Adam is right.

[forno]

I agree, dont think about the $$$:D

Your hobby could be speed boats or sail boats:D

Still hard to find the money though, atleast you are earning a buck or 2 from your hobby

[aparmley]

New plan...

2x 580ex II ........... $1 140
24mm 1.4 ............ $1 400
70-200mm 2.8 IS.... $2 100
5D....................... $3 000
tripod....................$250
fold up reflector......$100
Computer...............$1 400
few filters...............$220

Total......................$9 610 + tax of $1 345

Grand total..............$10 955

I would put the 24mm on my rebel for group shots/creative low light stuff, and the 70-200 on the 5D for portrait stuff. Both lenses could double as concert lenses. The 24mm on the 5D would classify as wide angle, and with that aperture there would be lots of creative potential.

With my 430ex and two 580s I would have a decent portable wireless lighting kit. I could even get some umbrellas. The 580s would be main lights and the 430 would be an effect or background light. A reflector would add even more flexibility.

My 12-24mm is just stupid wide with the 5D, I would love it!

After looking at that total again, I think I need a new hobby.

Have you guys ever looked at what it would cost to buy your wish list? How do you guys budget for this stuff?

The most important question... How do you know you are worthy of the good stuff?



Seriously Nick? 3 words - "You earn it."

My wish list is only like $35k + right now. How do I budget for it? I don't. Well, I'd have to divide that number by a decade then maybe I could swing it, but there is a problem with that, in decade who says everything in my wish list will still be available and who says what I can buy in 6 years will work with what I have now?

I don't have the first clue about starting a photography business, but I don't think everyone starts off owning a super nice studio on a prime piece of property down town. You work towards that and I assume same is said for your gear. I know if I ever decided to pursue photography, it would be a supplemental income gig at first. I would master my current gear and work towards improving my kit with only income generated by photography. I don't think anyone needs L glass or 5Ds to be able to earn money with photography. I couldn't imagine painters are required to purchase . ? . rare imported albino horse hair brushes (stop laughing; I don't know shit about painting - clyde help me out. .. clyde?) to be considered an artist anymore than a musician has to use the highest price les paul or record in the most in demand studio with the most popular producer at the time to be considered a musician worthy of paying to see perform, I believe its more about the skill of the artist, not so much the equipment. however, in my research for a wedding photographer, I've uncovered a dark secret that at least in WP, it isn't so much about the gear or the skill - yikes! :eek: there are plenty of horrible photographers out there making money.

My advice - Focus more on improving and expanding your skill set less on gearing up. Make prudent gear purchases with money you earn and work up from there.

Best of luck ;)

[RichNY]

My advice - Focus more on improving and expanding your skill set less on gearing up. Make prudent gear purchases with money you earn and work up from there.

Similar thought but slight change.

Focus on your salesmanship and customer relations skills. This is where your money is made, not on your technical or artistic skills.

[Nickcanada]

You guys are right as usual. I try not to focus too much on the gear. I know it's only a small part of the equation but I guess sometimes I forget that.

Thanks for the wake up, slap in the face, I needed it.:)

[Rhys]

For low light focus, you need focus assist from the ST-E2 or from a Canon flash.

The 400D is a decent enough camera although I found my 30D easier to use than my XT for wedding photography.

As somebody else said, once you have a certain level of gear (which you already have), concentrate on promotion. Incidentally, this is where I always fail. I have gear good enough for most things but my advertising sucks rocks. I know it sucks rocks and nobody thus far has been able to improve it.

[Nickcanada]

For low light focus, you need focus assist from the ST-E2 or from a Canon flash.

The 400D is a decent enough camera although I found my 30D easier to use than my XT for wedding photography.

As somebody else said, once you have a certain level of gear (which you already have), concentrate on promotion. Incidentally, this is where I always fail. I have gear good enough for most things but my advertising sucks rocks. I know it sucks rocks and nobody thus far has been able to improve it.


I don't think I could comfortably shoot a wedding to my satisfaction with the gear I have, but to be honest my goal is not to be a wedding photographer. I don't want a photography business. I'll do what I have to so I can expand my gear list but I already have a job, I need a hobby, an artistic outlet.

Gear is a tough thing because we all buy what we don't need. Really I don't need a DSLR. I thought when I bought the XT that it would be more camera then I would ever need.

I was talking to a friend the other day about my wish list and he was baffled that a camera would cost 3 grand. He asked what the difference was and to be honest my response sounded lame, but they were very similar reasons I upgraded from a A95 to a XT.

I'm not sure where I'm going with all this except maybe the fact that I will enjoy using the equipment is worth the cost of buying it. Over all I think I've been quite responsible with my gear purchases and thanks to Don I have the use two lenses I would otherwise not have had.

[Rhys]

I don't think I could comfortably shoot a wedding to my satisfaction with the gear I have, but to be honest my goal is not to be a wedding photographer. I don't want a photography business. I'll do what I have to so I can expand my gear list but I already have a job, I need a hobby, an artistic outlet.

Gear is a tough thing because we all buy what we don't need. Really I don't need a DSLR. I thought when I bought the XT that it would be more camera then I would ever need.

I was talking to a friend the other day about my wish list and he was baffled that a camera would cost 3 grand. He asked what the difference was and to be honest my response sounded lame, but they were very similar reasons I upgraded from a A95 to a XT.

I'm not sure where I'm going with all this except maybe the fact that I will enjoy using the equipment is worth the cost of buying it. Over all I think I've been quite responsible with my gear purchases and thanks to Don I have the use two lenses I would otherwise not have had.

I used this for a wedding:

Canon 30D, Canon 420EX, Canon 17-85 IS.

My results were pretty good.

I had as backup in my bag: Tamron 17-35, Tamron 28-75, Canon XT with BGE3.

I did the whole wedding on a single 4GB CF card although I had 2x 1GB and 1 extra 4GB card in my bag and I did shoot RAW only.

IMHO people place too much importance on fancy gear. What I had was good enough. I don't need expensive kit.

What I do need is the ability to make money. Now that's something that has always escaped me.

[adam75south]

Similar thought but slight change.

Focus on your salesmanship and customer relations skills. This is where your money is made, not on your technical or artistic skills.

rich this is so true. i've seen a ton of wedding photographers that do CRAP work but get paid. it's all about the presentation.

[Nickcanada]

I used this for a wedding:

Canon 30D, Canon 420EX, Canon 17-85 IS.

My results were pretty good.

I had as backup in my bag: Tamron 17-35, Tamron 28-75, Canon XT with BGE3.

I did the whole wedding on a single 4GB CF card although I had 2x 1GB and 1 extra 4GB card in my bag and I did shoot RAW only.

IMHO people place too much importance on fancy gear. What I had was good enough. I don't need expensive kit.

What I do need is the ability to make money. Now that's something that has always escaped me.


Well the friend I was talking to earlier in the week would call your kit "fancy gear". and what would you say to him if he asked what the difference between your kit and his 300 dollar P&S is? You are both shooting at F8 full straight on flash, so the difference is not necessarily in the final result but rather in the emotional release and joy you get from using the gear. The prestige that goes with having a DSLR.

I definitely have not reached the potential of my XT but that doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate the ergonomics, view finder of the 5D not to mention the low noise, great sensor quality, better focusing, and all the extra bells and whistles.

The only question left is, am I willing to pay for all that extra stuff knowing I may not get better photos because of it...

Answer:
I'd pay that extra just for the better grip.:D