Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Help me choose my future "pro gear"  (Read 15188 times)

NashvilleMike

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2014, 11:17:27 pm »

Hi. I'm a bit late to this conversation and wanted to take it a bit of a different way instead of arguing about whose 50mm lens is the best and so forth :)

First off, let's talk a bit about what being a "pro" is. A pro does NOT necessarily take better images than anyone else. Instead, a pro, at least one by my definition, always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail.

Let's take a look at the last part of that sentence: "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation". This snippet holds the answers to some gear decisions. As a pro, you have to get the shot, and the shot has to be at a certain level of quality. It doesn't have to be the best technical shot with the best MTF graph resolution, but it does have to be sharp enough. The important part of that snippet is the front part - "always delivers", and the last part, "no matter what the situation". That means a pro has to be a shooter who knows his gear inside and out and sidewise, plus the gear itself has to perform in any situation under any stress and not get in the way of the "always deliver" part, and the pro has to be a problem solver when things go sour on a gig, as they often do.

Right there, in my mind, unless you are working in a scenario where the absolute ultimate in image quality is needed - say, a landscape artist who sells big prints and has to compete with medium format and large format film guys - the most important thing is that the gear never gets in the way of you getting the shot on a consistent time in, time out basis. And here is why I don't advocate running to the Tamron lenses or even the 24-120 Nikon, and even perhaps the Sigma, even though the Sigma glass is bloody excellent. (This is NOT to say that third party glass isn't good - it certainly is. I own Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss, but my needs are different than yours as I shoot static subjects with high quality as an objective; I don't shoot birds or athletes)

Getting the shot means the lens/body combination has to have the synergy to get the highest hit rate in terms of AF, particularly if you'll be shooting things that move as opposed to things that are static.  Given what you've told us, my thoughts are that the consistency and reliability of "getting the shot" has to take precedence above all else.

So skip the third party AF glass for now. As you evolve as a pro, and need a lens for image quality reasons alone (say, you need something special because you're suddenly asked to do some studio portraits), then you can look into things like the Sigma 35 and 50 arts, the Zeiss manual focus glass, and so forth. I know the suggestion of skipping the third party glass is going to anger some people, and to make sure I'm being clear - there are excellent third party lenses. In static use cases (studio or landscape), they at times are even better, although incrementally so, than the manufacturers equivalent. But with things that move, where AF is involved, it's about getting the shot, and that category is different than having the best ultimate image quality potential. And let's think about this: If you're shooting, say, an event or race, the odds are that most of your competition will be shooting their Nikon/Canon 70-200/2.8's. If you show up with your Tamron or your F/4 lens, well, it will "do", but over time, over the long haul, on a consistent basis, my money is going to be on the other guys getting the shot more than you. You don't see McNally shooting with a Tamron or Sigma zoom when he's on a deadline. I know several high end pros including one world famous corporate shooter who is extensively published, several NFL (American Football) shooters, a high end music industry photograper, and a few guys making their living doing weddings and a few doing theater and dance. None of them - zero - shoot anything but manufacturer glass at their core focal lengths with the zooms. And most of these guys pay for their own gear. So you have to ask yourself why that is and if it's really worth going cheap and skimping on a lens that none of the serious pros would ever consider skimping on. Again - if you had told me you are shooting landscape to be printed 30x40" on a regular basis or that you shot fashion in NYC, I would not be telling you to avoid third party glass - so I'm basing this recommendation on what you've indicated you will be doing.

This also means my suggested starter pro kit is going to blow your budget a bit, but I also believe you should try, as best as possible, to buy gear once, even if it means a bit less of it, as opposed to having to buy twice because you went second rate the first time.

I don't shoot what you do, but I imagine you'll want to do a lot of close ultra wide stuff like I've seen Joe McNally do, and the best lens for that is easily and obviously the 14-24 Nikkor. It's best at the wide end of it's range (where it is better than the 16-35 for sure) and still quite good at 24mm. The 16-35 is strong in the middle, but nothing special at 16 and certainly weakest at 35mm. So if wide angle is in your mind, the 14-24 is the must.

No pro I know goes without the other two - the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 - these are key, core focal lengths, and in Nikons case they are both excellent. The 24-70 is best from 28-70mm and the 70-200 is good pretty much anywhere, and is particularly excellent in the middle focal lengths in the moderate subject distances. I would take the 70-200 over the 105/2.8G VR Micro at 105mm for general purpose work each and every day.

So yes, that blows the budget, but it's the base kit. The next question is that if you have to "cut" something for the short term, you have to take a look at the subject matter and focal lengths you need the most. If you think you can live without a wide for now, then you get the other two. If you feel you won't live between 28 and 70mm much, then you perhaps get the cheap 50/1.8G Nikkor (skip the 50/1.4G honestly) to hold you over as it's only a couple hundred bucks. I'm betting the 70-200 will be a core, key lens and as we've discussed, this is somewhere I would NOT want to skimp.

Everything else you look at down the road once you've earned some cash and have a better idea of what you're going to do and what focal lengths you really need to deliver the goods reliably, day in and day out.

Now, once you've got a core kit of lenses, you need a second body even though initially you can use your fathers as a backup, and I absolutely second the other poster who talked about lighting. Lighting makes a huge difference if you plan to get serious. While I am beyond lucky to have a very nice lens collection of the best from Zeiss, Sigma and Nikon in the focal lengths I primarily shoot, I am not a venture capitalist with an unlimited budget either, and recently I have been allocating most of the available equipment funds towards lighting and modifiers. At some point you need to think out your strategy and choice of a professional strobe system as well if you find you need such a thing. That won't be cheap either, but light makes the shot and investments in better lighting generally pay far greater dividends than having the coolest or latest gear-of-the-month.

Good luck with your decisions and I wish you well.

-mike

 
Logged

sid51

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2014, 12:31:38 am »

Hi. I'm a bit late to this conversation and wanted to take it a bit of a different way instead of arguing about whose 50mm lens is the best and so forth :)

First off, let's talk a bit about what being a "pro" is. A pro does NOT necessarily take better images than anyone else. Instead, a pro, at least one by my definition, always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail.

Let's take a look at the last part of that sentence: "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation". This snippet holds the answers to some gear decisions. As a pro, you have to get the shot, and the shot has to be at a certain level of quality. It doesn't have to be the best technical shot with the best MTF graph resolution, but it does have to be sharp enough. The important part of that snippet is the front part - "always delivers", and the last part, "no matter what the situation". That means a pro has to be a shooter who knows his gear inside and out and sidewise, plus the gear itself has to perform in any situation under any stress and not get in the way of the "always deliver" part, and the pro has to be a problem solver when things go sour on a gig, as they often do.

Right there, in my mind, unless you are working in a scenario where the absolute ultimate in image quality is needed - say, a landscape artist who sells big prints and has to compete with medium format and large format film guys - the most important thing is that the gear never gets in the way of you getting the shot on a consistent time in, time out basis. And here is why I don't advocate running to the Tamron lenses or even the 24-120 Nikon, and even perhaps the Sigma, even though the Sigma glass is bloody excellent. (This is NOT to say that third party glass isn't good - it certainly is. I own Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss, but my needs are different than yours as I shoot static subjects with high quality as an objective; I don't shoot birds or athletes)

Getting the shot means the lens/body combination has to have the synergy to get the highest hit rate in terms of AF, particularly if you'll be shooting things that move as opposed to things that are static.  Given what you've told us, my thoughts are that the consistency and reliability of "getting the shot" has to take precedence above all else.

So skip the third party AF glass for now. As you evolve as a pro, and need a lens for image quality reasons alone (say, you need something special because you're suddenly asked to do some studio portraits), then you can look into things like the Sigma 35 and 50 arts, the Zeiss manual focus glass, and so forth. I know the suggestion of skipping the third party glass is going to anger some people, and to make sure I'm being clear - there are excellent third party lenses. In static use cases (studio or landscape), they at times are even better, although incrementally so, than the manufacturers equivalent. But with things that move, where AF is involved, it's about getting the shot, and that category is different than having the best ultimate image quality potential. And let's think about this: If you're shooting, say, an event or race, the odds are that most of your competition will be shooting their Nikon/Canon 70-200/2.8's. If you show up with your Tamron or your F/4 lens, well, it will "do", but over time, over the long haul, on a consistent basis, my money is going to be on the other guys getting the shot more than you. You don't see McNally shooting with a Tamron or Sigma zoom when he's on a deadline. I know several high end pros including one world famous corporate shooter who is extensively published, several NFL (American Football) shooters, a high end music industry photograper, and a few guys making their living doing weddings and a few doing theater and dance. None of them - zero - shoot anything but manufacturer glass at their core focal lengths with the zooms. And most of these guys pay for their own gear. So you have to ask yourself why that is and if it's really worth going cheap and skimping on a lens that none of the serious pros would ever consider skimping on. Again - if you had told me you are shooting landscape to be printed 30x40" on a regular basis or that you shot fashion in NYC, I would not be telling you to avoid third party glass - so I'm basing this recommendation on what you've indicated you will be doing.

This also means my suggested starter pro kit is going to blow your budget a bit, but I also believe you should try, as best as possible, to buy gear once, even if it means a bit less of it, as opposed to having to buy twice because you went second rate the first time.

I don't shoot what you do, but I imagine you'll want to do a lot of close ultra wide stuff like I've seen Joe McNally do, and the best lens for that is easily and obviously the 14-24 Nikkor. It's best at the wide end of it's range (where it is better than the 16-35 for sure) and still quite good at 24mm. The 16-35 is strong in the middle, but nothing special at 16 and certainly weakest at 35mm. So if wide angle is in your mind, the 14-24 is the must.

No pro I know goes without the other two - the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 - these are key, core focal lengths, and in Nikons case they are both excellent. The 24-70 is best from 28-70mm and the 70-200 is good pretty much anywhere, and is particularly excellent in the middle focal lengths in the moderate subject distances. I would take the 70-200 over the 105/2.8G VR Micro at 105mm for general purpose work each and every day.

So yes, that blows the budget, but it's the base kit. The next question is that if you have to "cut" something for the short term, you have to take a look at the subject matter and focal lengths you need the most. If you think you can live without a wide for now, then you get the other two. If you feel you won't live between 28 and 70mm much, then you perhaps get the cheap 50/1.8G Nikkor (skip the 50/1.4G honestly) to hold you over as it's only a couple hundred bucks. I'm betting the 70-200 will be a core, key lens and as we've discussed, this is somewhere I would NOT want to skimp.

Everything else you look at down the road once you've earned some cash and have a better idea of what you're going to do and what focal lengths you really need to deliver the goods reliably, day in and day out.

Now, once you've got a core kit of lenses, you need a second body even though initially you can use your fathers as a backup, and I absolutely second the other poster who talked about lighting. Lighting makes a huge difference if you plan to get serious. While I am beyond lucky to have a very nice lens collection of the best from Zeiss, Sigma and Nikon in the focal lengths I primarily shoot, I am not a venture capitalist with an unlimited budget either, and recently I have been allocating most of the available equipment funds towards lighting and modifiers. At some point you need to think out your strategy and choice of a professional strobe system as well if you find you need such a thing. That won't be cheap either, but light makes the shot and investments in better lighting generally pay far greater dividends than having the coolest or latest gear-of-the-month.

Good luck with your decisions and I wish you well.

-mike

 

Thank you so much for your reply, that's what i was hoping to hear. I will probably take the D810 + Nikon 14-24 + Nikon 70-200 2.8 + Sb-910 initially, and will buy the other stuff later.
Also, lets see what photokina will show to us, maybe i change my mind once more lol
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2014, 01:55:02 am »

Hi,

Sorry for mixing up the lenses.

Just to say, when Diglloyd discusses the Summicron 50 in the article mentioned it is in context of Leica M-mount lenses, and he doesn't include the Otus in the comparison. Diglloyd has a notice on that lens in his blog: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140725_0830-Leica50f2APO-price-increase.html

"DIGLLOYD: My Guide to Leica has an in-depth review of the 50/2 APO, including the severe flare issues with the original production lenses, now resolved with the latest model.

As with my original copy, my replacement copy is *also* skewed left/right (focus is closer on the right side quite significantly). For this pricing I expect perfection not flaws. But my experience with Leica M is that quality control is not at all good (at least half of brand-new lenses have had an issue).

The Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon is no less good a lens (better IMO), twice the speed, and half the price with tighter quality control, albeit 4X the size and 3.5X the weight."


Regarding Sigma A vs. Otus, the lenses seem to be pretty close in performance, with the Otus having better performance in longitudinal chromatic aberration compared to the 55/1.4 A. On the other hand, Sigma has AF and something like 1/4-th of the price.

Regarding durability, I have something like 30 lenses at home, some from 1970. I had only two repairs of any lens, bayonet was replaced on my Minolta 80-200/2.8 a couple of years ago (repair cost around 200$) and aperture failure on a Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon 120/4 CF Macro, repair was around 130$ on that lens but I upgraded to the 120/4 CFi instead. None of my 5 Pentax 67 lenses failed.

Sigma presents some reliability data here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013 , the enclosed screen dump shows the worst offenders, measured in rental weeks/failure.

The Summicron 50 is an M-mount lens, and it is not possible to mount it on a Nikon D810, which seems to be the OP:s choice.

On the other hand, Lensrentals also compared Leica and other lenses here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7.

The Lensrentals article finds that the Summicron M is the best performing lens, based on MTF measurements, but the Sigma Art is pretty close when stopped down to f/2.0.

Finally, we also need to look at system performance. Leica cannot match Nikon having a 36MP sensor, so resolutions-wise the Nikon combined with a good lens will always win.

Best regards
Erik


This is the lens:

http://blog.uniquephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/summicron-50.png

Here is the "standard" Summicron:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=86059&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9AVZ8Lvgvo1nsC60OeQdEOV3wCvKnRC5AjV69WH2_rUaAjT98P8HAQ&Q=&is=USA&A=details

Here is the new APO-Summicron-M ASPH:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=860529&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9PGbfDdan4fcMETCSudGOaqWXSomeO2Q2-86rYiFdjUaAqrN8P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details

See the discussion here:

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130629_5-Leica-50mm-bad-boys.html
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 05:47:10 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2014, 03:54:11 am »

Hi. I'm a bit late to this conversation and wanted to take it a bit of a different way instead of arguing about whose 50mm lens is the best and so forth :)

First off, let's talk a bit about what being a "pro" is. A pro does NOT necessarily take better images than anyone else. Instead, a pro, at least one by my definition, always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail.


Good luck with your decisions and I wish you well.

-mike


Mike - I did not quote all of your post but all points well made and very sensible too!

Jim
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2014, 05:55:09 am »

Sorry,

I mixed up. Tried to find good examples using "Google". Definitively not my intention to share bad information. I removed the responses.

Anyway, first you choose a system than find the most appropriate lenses. What is most appropriate depends on your needs, and can differ a lot.

Best regards
Erik



The short answer is " it depends on which camera it's mounted "

-

Erik,

You're being a naughty boy !
Those screenshots (actually extreme crops) come from a test of the Otus v the Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux (NOT the 50 APO-Cron) and the Zeiss 55 FE/1.8 all on the Sony A7r.

M



Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2299
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2014, 08:04:47 am »

Erik,

No need to apologise - was just trying to defuse a suspected case of rising blood pressure !

All best
Manoli

Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2014, 09:26:54 am »

If you show up with your Tamron or your F/4 lens, well, it will "do", but over time, over the long haul, on a consistent basis, my money is going to be on the other guys getting the shot more than you. You don't see McNally shooting with a Tamron or Sigma zoom when he's on a deadline. I know several high end pros including one world famous corporate shooter who is extensively published, several NFL (American Football) shooters, a high end music industry photograper, and a few guys making their living doing weddings and a few doing theater and dance. None of them - zero - shoot anything but manufacturer glass at their core focal lengths with the zooms. And most of these guys pay for their own gear. So you have to ask yourself why that is and if it's really worth going cheap and skimping on a lens that none of the serious pros would ever consider skimping on. Again - if you had told me you are shooting landscape to be printed 30x40" on a regular basis or that you shot fashion in NYC, I would not be telling you to avoid third party glass - so I'm basing this recommendation on what you've indicated you will be doing.


-mike

That's what I have been saying!
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 09:45:56 am by melchiorpavone »
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2014, 10:20:33 am »

Nikon d750 ‘sports full frame’ already leaked.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2014, 11:34:01 am »

Thanks a lot anyway.

It seems that the OP got plenty of good advice, and hopefully he will be glad with his choice of equipment.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

No need to apologise - was just trying to defuse a suspected case of rising blood pressure !

All best
Manoli


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2014, 11:47:19 am »

Thanks a lot anyway.

It seems that the OP got plenty of good advice, and hopefully he will be glad with his choice of equipment.

Best regards
Erik



Most pros are specialists to some extent. They choose their equipment based on their specific needs and preferences. Portrait photographers are (usually) helpless at sports events. Sports photographers are (generally) clueless at weddings. There may be pros who are Jacks of all trades, but I doubt they are good at everything.
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2014, 04:47:35 am »

Amen to that....

Jim
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2014, 09:41:49 am »

Most pros are specialists to some extent. They choose their equipment based on their specific needs and preferences.

This is absolutely true, and I try to explain this to my colleagues who want me to shoot their baby photos. Sigh. Not something I can do with any competence.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

duane_bolland

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
    • flexiblelightphotography.com
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2014, 06:21:38 pm »

I know many pros with amazingly limited equipment.  They get by with so little because they are specialists who know how to deliver certain shots with certain minimal gear (and often older gear).  NashvilleMike said a pro "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail."  This is true, but I want to add the caveat of "within your speciality".  You don't need all this equipment to get into professional photography.  What you need is experience with a limited set of professional gear and paying customers.   Don't blow $9K on equipment until you are certain you have paying customers.  If you have been shooting for free, you may find that your customer base drops significantly when you start asking for money. 
Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2014, 08:05:15 pm »

I know many pros with amazingly limited equipment.  They get by with so little because they are specialists who know how to deliver certain shots with certain minimal gear (and often older gear).  NashvilleMike said a pro "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail."  This is true, but I want to add the caveat of "within your speciality".  You don't need all this equipment to get into professional photography.  What you need is experience with a limited set of professional gear and paying customers.   Don't blow $9K on equipment until you are certain you have paying customers.  If you have been shooting for free, you may find that your customer base drops significantly when you start asking for money. 

Be sure to get paid in gold. Don't take checks!
Logged

duane_bolland

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
    • flexiblelightphotography.com
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2014, 03:42:12 pm »

Melchiorpavone, I know you were joking about the gold, but seriously, paying customers are the most important part of a business.  Pro photographers are business people first and photographers a distant second.  It’s very easy to get wrapped up in perfecting one’s photography skills (and gear), but finding paying customers is a far more important skill.  To the OP, read this:

http://rising.blackstar.com/photographers-excuses.html
Logged

Keith Reeder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
    • Capture The Moment
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2014, 04:17:08 pm »

Use only camera-maker's products. They are almost always the best. This should not even be a question.
Utter rubbish - what a ridiculous thing to say.

I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a photographer who uses a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II (as opposed to my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS) and there is no practical difference whatsoever in the respective capabilities of the two lenses.
Logged
Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #56 on: August 23, 2014, 08:46:52 pm »

Utter rubbish - what a ridiculous thing to say.

I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a photographer who uses a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II (as opposed to my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS) and there is no practical difference whatsoever in the respective capabilities of the two lenses.

No it's not ridiculous. It's the truth. Don't contradict me!

See the post above from NashvilleMike.
Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #57 on: August 23, 2014, 08:50:11 pm »

Melchiorpavone, I know you were joking about the gold, but seriously, paying customers are the most important part of a business.  Pro photographers are business people first and photographers a distant second.  It’s very easy to get wrapped up in perfecting one’s photography skills (and gear), but finding paying customers is a far more important skill.  To the OP, read this:

http://rising.blackstar.com/photographers-excuses.html


Which is why I am not a pro, even though I have better skills than many, if not most, pros: I have no interest in dealing with clients. All the pros I have ever known complain ceaselessly about dealing with clients. I knew early on that this was not what I wanted to deal with.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 10:00:50 pm by melchiorpavone »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #58 on: August 24, 2014, 02:38:20 am »

Which is why I am not a pro, even though I have better skills than many, if not most, pros: I have no interest in dealing with clients. All the pros I have ever known complain ceaselessly about dealing with clients. I knew early on that this was not what I wanted to deal with.

Pros deliver that quality they deliver under the pressure of time and with critical profitability constraints. The work they publish is not a measure of their skills, it is a measure of the quality they can deliver while generating a profit.

I am not sure how you can claim that you have better skills.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ajoy Roy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: Help me choose my future "pro gear"
« Reply #59 on: August 24, 2014, 10:46:46 am »

I just read this post.

. If you are to do events where things move fast, you need a body with fast AF and a fast burst rate. D800/810 lack on both counts, think of some thing like D4S instead. It is better to have a body with lower MP but fast response than a lot of MP and slow response.

. I would choose one professional zoom - 70-200 F2.8 VR-II, which can cover most outdoor events comfortably, in case I am short on resources. Next would be the 24-70 F2.8G.

. An ultrawide like 14-28 is not only heavy but requires specialized rig for filters. If you do not need it immediately, postpone it.

. For Macro, I would advise getting the Zeiss 135mm F2 APO. In general macro requires manual adjustments so AF is not all that essential. Secondly the Zeiss lense can be pushed beyond F11 with lower diffraction effect.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79734.0

. To avoid tax incurred while buying instore, arrange an accommodating address out of state well in time. That will save you a lot of money

So here are the list prices
D4S - $6.4k
70-200 - $2.4K
24-70 - $1.9K
135 F2 - $2.2K
Logged
Ajoy Roy, image processing
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up