Kissel: Fast and reliable AF really matters for sports photography, and Panny proved it's capable back in the times when GH2 was introduced. G5 doesn't shine with it's continious shooting though, with only 6fps, but hey, it's a enrty-level camera.
I just have to give a comment to your funny statement.
Its almost a bit tirering this nonsense " a pro could do it with 2 fps"..... Its such a dumb statement. WHY do you think there is a market for these fast cameras that very few consumers can afford ? Why do they all offer fast fps ? Why do sports shooters use them ?? Because it gives them a lot more keepers and enable them to catch that crucial moment where everything is right. And they dont wait for that soccer player to have the right expression during a shot to the ball, now they fire at fullll speed when he hits the ball and sorts afterwards.
But i guess you buy that jazz about "zone focusing" and will claim that AF can be left out by a real pro.
Its so funny these meaning less statements that keeps being repeated. Gear doesnt matter, MP myth, its the photographer, bla bla.
Its the COMBINATION of gear and photographer, its not rockets science but your claim is a joke.
photo perzon: Ridiculous monster. Give me a tiny cheap 14mm 2.5 and I'll do the same work.
the f 2.5 is not a aps-c f2.8 eqivalent at all so he is spot on. Composition wise 12 mm is interesting f2.8 a bit for shutter speed but with relation to dof its utterly uninteresting.
this would have been interesting if it was f1.8 or f 2.0 OR f 3 to 4 and very cheap.
this combo is not very interesting, to much of a compromise
armanius: Any idea on price point?
which would be a joke..... A aps-c equivalent can be had for 500 euro.
its not a pro system.
Kodachrome200: I honestly dont know why anyone defends leica. there two latest inventions are an $8000 dollar camera body that can only take black and white pictures with lacklustre technology and 50mm f/2 prime lens that also cost $8000. You can buy them both for the cost the finest camera in the world and a selection of the finest lenses that would make most pros jealous and most any other photographic tools you could want and you could still probably throw in a reliable used car. Of course then you wouldnt have a camera that only took black and white pictures and 1 50mm prime lens.
the absolutely maddening thing is a bunch of people are gonna respond with how crappy traditional dslrs are and how it is absolutely worth it to forgo that dreamlist of gear in order to have this
you are so right. You just have to smile. They life of nostalgia and the fact that there always will be someone who will buy a Leica BECAUSE its expensive....
Yeah the optics are great, but other brands have fantastic optics at a fraction of a price.
You are right, this one takes the price, come on black and white can be done in post and with todays sensors CRAZY pixel amount the added detail is just a matter of getting a higher MP sensor. Its all rather embarresing.
jagge: 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.....
Pretty trivial information. Off course he can. Steven Spielberg also does that, George Cloney even so
Thats hardly the core of the debate.
Malvin Camina: $3000 Will depend on the Wedding Package. Majority of wedding photographers of todays era spent huge amount of peny in buying Top of the line gears. There is no Pro Photographer that wants any equipments die when the big event comes. That will reflect to your reputation as Pro Photographer. Perhaps let me explain to her the Math.
Nikon D3s Full Frame Camera(Body): $5199.95Nikon D700 Full Frame Camera(Body): $2699.95AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8: $1999.95AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8: $2399.95SB-910 AF Speed Light: $549.95 x (2)MB-D10 Battery Grip: $334.00MB-D00 Battery Grip: $219.00El-En15 Battery (2): $145.00Remote Triger(2) : $180.00Profoto D1 Air: $ 350.00Profoto DIY Beauty Dish: $70MacBook Pro Core i7: $2499.95Western Digital My Book Essential 2T: $130.00Creative Suite 5: $199.99Adobe Lightroom 3: $89.99LowePro Stealth Reporter: $180.00Etc: $200Rough Total: $17997.63
So a D3s is required for wedding photography now ?? I think you are doing the same mistake as the original poster. You inflate the expenses which dont look good.
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.
I dont have ANY problem with ANYONE making a great and fat living of being a photographer. I would love to do that.
What I object against is depicting a picture that a weeding photographer charging a rather good price for her work victimizes herself trying to the degree shown here.
If you make a good income be proud and say " yep I am that great", dont try to convince me that you can hardly survive on 3k per job, please....
You are right that there is propably a weeks work in a weeding, I guess it depends a lot on what you buy and the photographer in question. You also have a point about the second photographer who off course often is learning at the same time.
I dont agree that 2/3 are expenses, ceartainly not in the US it might be different in many european countries though. The cost of gear s not that high. Really a 5d mark II, with a mark I as backup and 3-4 great lenses, a couple of flash, umbrellas, laptop, cards and disks are all you need. Actually many trades like mechanics, carpenters etc are at least and propably more expensive to work in. In the digital era cost of systems are reasonable especially photography. Once you have the gear it can be used for many years, glass does not go obsolete and DLSR now have a quality that will last many years.
Again her "expense" calculation is severely flawed as pointed out by many
osage_archer: One commenter said it right: If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
If you think wedding photography is easy, go for it. If you've never tried it I think you'd see that it is extremely demanding and you must be able to capture a "moment" because it is literally there for just an instant and then it's gone.
I think it's almost like people complaining that a basketball player who gets paid millions makes way too much, because they too can shoot and make a basket, and have done it before a few times!
Give me a break. As any trade its difficult for the amateur. Its a profession, once you master it its not difficult. Off course its demanding, many jobs are. Yep days will be long, after the editing there is time to rest and with a 3k pricetag there will be time to rest.I find it a bit funny that a lot of posters here really try to inflate the role of the photographer as the "artist" . You get the feeling that the central person in a wedding is in fact the "arty photographer". Second and third place propably goes to the bride and groom, that is just the natural order of things ;0).
Come on not every wedding photographer is an artist, some are good some great and some mediocre, its like any trade.
Again I dont find your arguments impressive.
Now calling it "memory product" or even "art" is to inflate the role of the photographer quite a bit. Off course there are photographers out there who will produce something close to art and they will be abble to have a high price tag going along with it. BUT its not at all diferent to carpenters, mechanics or any other trade. MOST will be pure bread and butter photographers, its a proffesion and they will hopefully deliver a pro result. Calling it art and using that as a argument for a especially high price is just to inflated an argument to me.
Now regarding not having a stable income is not really the problem of the customer. Its called having a busyness and there are pros and cons to that. Again NOT different to a garage owner, a carpenter or any other person having a small busyness living of their trade. Its not unique. Having enough flow of customers is off course the responsibility of the photographer.
you must be kiddin...... How much the price of the photographer is has NO relation to what the event costs, that is a very flawed argument. I would like to see the photograper charging 100 usd documenting a 1000 usd birthday party.
I can see the good busyness in documenting events that are expensive and has a lot of emotions involved, a great catalyst for the argument "well you want the very best" on that special day right. Its a good way to drown a big bill in an even bigger one.
Kudos for running a good company, I have no problems with that what so ever. I would do so if I could. That is just not what this is all about. What does provoke me here is the kind of slight offended response from the photographer. Her calculation of expenses are severely flawed and the whole response seems to be based on a slightly offended attitude, "how dare they question my prices".
OldZorki: One thing I never was able to understand - why, after all the $$$ paid people still do not own originals. Most of the work done "for hire" presume that after the work is done all IP and such transferred to customer. If my company develops the software for a client, he universally requesting source code, and so on.If I paid $4000 for a wedding pics and albums, why I should be held hostage by some company -and every time I need a new print, I have to pay them?
Yep that is just a joke. And in my view its another sign that photographers just dont follow the time we are living in.
Those days are over where people are so naive that they have to pay for all the work involved and STILL pay for every print. You cant have it both ways. If you want 3k for a photoevent hand over the rawfiles. The other model would be to be cheap THEN you can make people pay for every print.
Now precisely that reason is why I would hire a great amateur over a pro every time. I think pro photographers have to adjust to the times we are living in.
But again, if you are an amazing photographer you can do what you want. If you are middle of the road then adjust to the times we are living and stop complaining.
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......
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.
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....