alexzn: This is unfortunately a trend that is spurred by the proliferation of digital cameras, Facebook, cell phone photos and such. People are used to paying for quality photographs less and less, and most expect to get their picture for free or dirt cheap. The bride's wedding deserves to be shot by a newbie with a rebel and a kit lens. After getting a cheap album of blurry poorly lit snapshots she will understand. Photography is a tough business and it is only getting tougher. Just about the only sector that still demands higher prices is "art" photography and it is a complete marketing scam.
Sorry but dont blaim cell phones, cheap cameras or the internet. I think that photographers have been spoiled for many years. Back then where just having a great camera was reason enough for being hired it was easy. Now everyone can get the hardware required for the best quality reasonably cheap. Photographers cant market themselves anymnore on gear, they have to market themselves on talent. That is difficult for some off course.
Its like any trade. A real pro sets himself aside from a amateur by work speed and quality of work. You would have to expect that a "pro" edits pictures MUCH faster than the average joe. Dont whine about the work involved be fast, and deliver high quality, then off course you can make a good living, ask for higher prices and dont have to advertise.
Sorry to the photographer comes across as a victim. How dare they say I am expensive......
Canomixian: I've shot weddings professionally, but opted not to as a career. Nikki's response registered as mere high-pricing rationalization, and I do feel that professional wedding photographers have a great deal of room to lower their general pricing to a level that isn't so easily labeled as abusive.
True, the CL bride ignores the skill required to produce truly good results. But many wedding photographers charge those high rates for cookie-cutter shots that are merely framed correctly, exposed and lit properly, and delivered in a slick package.
She also mis-described the time involved. Adding 4-8 hours (pre-wedding) to Nikki's 28-35 hour estimate, $3000 for a full work-week is less egregious, though still quite expensive.
Finally, Nikki's listed expenses dwindle when averaged across the many jobs that actually pay for them. Her $200 second-photographer day-rate speaks volumes for how much she values the talent portion of the charge, and seriously undermines her argument.
he he that 200 dollar extra shooter caught my eye as well. Its just so fantastically hypocritical. She wants the big dollar, but have no problem actually paying another photographer very little. That tells the story quite precisely.
The argument about the way she lists expenses is also flawed. Does she really expect that 20 jobs a year should by her a car ?
sorry i am absolutely on the bride side. Sorry but 3k is a high price. Now off course if you are wanting the most spectacular photographer you have to pay the prize, no doubt about it, free market. BUT if 3k is supposed to be the "normal" rate and you then get this reply that in all honesty is a bit rich.
Sorry the season is "4 months", very well that might be but I dont think its reasonably to assume that you can base your entire income on that and put your prices accordingly. Well its a free world. If anyone will pay 3k for a wedding photograper be my guest. I applaud those who can charge rates like that, honestly. BUT trying to argue that that price is more than fair, and almost getting to the point that it actually is almost a bad deal for the photographer is a bit pathetic.
Sorry I dont find that response very compelling or convincing. She could shoot 3 weedings a month, use a week on each and lay in the sun the rest of the time with a 9k income. Thats quite ok, come on.....
Teddy123: We travel to South Africa each November and on to Kruger National Park to chase the critters with our cameras. My wife shoots a Nikon D90 and I recently purchased a Sony HXR-NX5U NXCAM Professional Camcorder.
Yes we get some fabulous shots but my camcorder, 5lbs after a day of shooting really gets big and heavy. After getting the video I want I pull out my old Panasonic Lumix TZ7 because I like to do stills as well and I’ve always been impressed with the quality of photos. On the last trip however I started playing with the video as well, (AVCHD lite) and was really impressed. No, it doesn’t do the job of the NX5U but when it’s rendered and put on a sixty inch screen it’s pretty impressive.
So after reading everything I could find here on dpreview.com I took the jump. I sold the NX5U! Purchased a Lumix GH2 with 14-140 mm and 100-300 mm lenses and put a thousand dollars that was left over from the sale of the NX5U and purchase of the GH2 in the bank.
absolutely. I am a Nikon shooter with a G2. I have been considering a gh2 for a while for both stills and video so i am very interested in your findings :-)
emircruz: imho, what these current crop of mirrorless cams aren't for:
i-cant-live-without-an-ovf shooter: nope the evf doesnt feel the samebokeh junkies: mostly because of the of the crop factor action shooters: most of these do cdaf are very good with c-af
without the mirror, the main advantage really is the size. So if you want dslr quality (comparing to apsc and 43) in a smaller package this is for you. ie for m43: one camera and pocketful of primes.
well you are also wrong.
Again you are one of those who completely forget that you can get all but full frame sensor in a mirroless. So you can have plenty of bokeh.
you are right about action photography but that off course will be solved in the next generation. Also with the nex it seems you are also wrong about wievfinder most reviewers agree about this. Ceartainly the next generation will be fully on par with a ovf.
Anyone with a bit of tech insight can see that this is the way the world is moving.
Saying that size is the only / main advantage is a pretty narrow way of thinking
jagge: I own Nikon and Panasonic cams but have tried shooting with Canons as well. One factor that I find more and more important is how innovative a company is. Really Olympus and Panasonic sticks out in this field, starting the mnirrorless wave and also working a lot with pro level video (panasonic). Now Sony have accelerated in a crazy way with the nex7 showing true inventive spirit and out of the box thinking. I wil for sure base my next purchase on the inventive spirit of the company.
Where does that leave Canon and Nikon, way behind. I am convinced that Nikon is so dropping the ball, they simply dont seem to be able of true leadership and inventive spririt. They produce great traditional DSLR, thats it and I dont think that will cut it in the future. When the tracking issue AF has been solved then they are gone. I think Nikon is currently pulling a "Kodak"....
do you realize that you have all kinds of sensor sizes in this segment ? The NEX have a standard APS-c format sensor ??
Also your statement about subject isolation is not correct. I have used a 1.4 nikkor on a g2 for a while with great results. To difficult to manually focus though. Now we have a 45 mm 1.8 which everyone says is GREAT from olympus. I have seen great subject isolation with that one. With Nex its still a problem but lenses are coming
Your statements are embarresing. Yet another poster who lacks even basic knowledge but still wants to give and opinion to why mirroless are not equal to DSLR.
The really embarresing statement is about small lenses being slow. You make me smile, please show me the DSLR equivalents of the 20 mm 1.7 or the 45 mm oly 1.8 ? How do you define small ?
I am saying that your statement is simply wrong, its not up for debate its simply wrong.
The great thing about a statement like yours is that when you mention they have slow, small lenses its clear to the world that you are wrong. There is no DSLR lense that small that even comes close to the speed of the 20 mm 1.7 and the 45mm 1.8.
Now you are right in one thing, m43 has different strengths but your broad statement of "lagging" behind is a joke. There are many parameters where m43 has the lead. Now its up to individuals what parameters weighs in the most and for that reason some go mirrorless and others go DSLR.
ALso you forget completely that the NEX line has a crop DSLR sensor. Now you will propably state that only fullframe is a real camera, and when the first full frame mirrorless comes along you will find another obscure argument to cling on to.
Have a look at what basically every reviewer writes about the Nex7, its quite interesting. It smokes all your loved DSLR on DXO
munro harrap: I reckon this is a bad trend. Even the Nex7 being 24MP on APS-C is very noisy at low isos, and the lenses that are sold with these machines are very slow lenses- requiring high ISOs to be of any use. I dont see the point of more pixels and more noise, and since NO small sensor cameras are any good above 4MP due to noise, why create more of them? The Pentax Q should be illegal. THe huge number of these new and extremely expensive mirrorless machines offerred already for sale secondhand everywhere testifies to their gimmicky uselessness- you dont trade in a good camera or lens-you USE it
Yep ANOTHER poster who does not have a clue to what he is talking about. Now the difference is really not that great in size if you compare a M43 sensor to APS-c
So the statement could just as well be that no crop DSLR above 6 mp can control noise. Please....
Very interesteing would LOVE a few impressions in M43 group on how you compare the video of the GH2 to your NX5U :0)
That GH2 will be quite sweet for stills as well, should be more than equal to the D90 would love to hear about that as well.
I own Nikon and Panasonic cams but have tried shooting with Canons as well. One factor that I find more and more important is how innovative a company is. Really Olympus and Panasonic sticks out in this field, starting the mnirrorless wave and also working a lot with pro level video (panasonic). Now Sony have accelerated in a crazy way with the nex7 showing true inventive spirit and out of the box thinking. I wil for sure base my next purchase on the inventive spirit of the company.
Kuturgan really. Dont be a drama queen. This article is very balanced indeed. The only gribe i have with it is that the GH2 is put in a "special" section. I do see the point in this BUT, it could put some off such a cam and it is off course a very capable still cam.
Interesting comment Mannypr.... Like many others you just dont get it at all, and one has to wonder if you at all did read the article.
This is the take home message : Mirroless cams like the nex5n is every bit as good in IQ as any midrange DSLR, going up to prosumer DSLR. Nex 7 goes beoynd them in IQ. You are plain wrong if you asume that DSLR is always a step in front, now they are actually a step behind.
That is the facts, and the interesting part is that for a long time Nikon and Canon didnt get it either so you are excused. It seems Canon are slowly getting the message, Nikon not so much I think they will miss the train completely it seems they simply are not inovative enough as a company.
Sorry but why bother. Its been 3 months since the preview, Sony has put forward at least 4 cams in the meantime that deserves much more attention, the nex5n and 7, the a65 and a77.
I can for the life of me not understand that you dont make a editorial rule out of candeling all the reviews you could not get done within 2 months instead of dragging a stack of unfinished reviews along. The result is that you will put out a lot of uninspiring reviews out MUCH later than everyone else, and leaving the true groundbreaking cams on the shelf forever.
With this speed none of the new Sonys will be reviewed on this side of X-mas is that good enough ?