Interesting app. There are a lot of professionals using VSCO on their SLR images and loving the results, so this could be a more functional app than Instagram. Although, in the end, as someone else mentioned, certainly no one is using phone cameras professionally, except in the most extreme circumstances.
Alright, I think it's time we officially declare Pentax irrelevant.
benvincent: As a working photographer for many, many years, let me share this opinion re this discussion.Is your camera good enough to do the job? If your client hands you green & white paper that you can put in the bank...then the answer is Yes.When a student tells me at a class for oh, let's say understanding exposure, that they're getting a new super camera, I always like to ask: So you think your current camera is stalling your progress (I laugh inwardly) and a new, "better" camera is all you need to take it to the next level? Remember a better camera will probably show your weaknesses way better also.Come on equipment junkies - do you really think you've outgrown your Mk2...let's get serious about photography and not just possessing a "bigger" camera than the next guy!
Agreed; most people do NOT need a new camera. But for anyone shooting fulltime, a substantially better autofocus, better focus in lowlight, a useful Auto-ISO, and silent shooting make it worth the cost. Anyone shooting photojournalistically now has a Canon that actually works FOR them instead of against them.
tom trinko: the numbers in the response are very odd.
1) 15k taxes on 50k income is a 30% average tax rate that seems high2) It appears that the photographer lives in the same place she processes her photos so unless she would otherwise live in a box under an overpass she really can't count that $72003) unless she only uses the car for business she really can't count the full $7200 car expense 4) i suspect the fraction of the time the photographer shoots weddings vs the time she wears those shoes is pretty small.5) I have no idea why she pays 2500 a year for high speed internet. I'd suspect something more like 50-100 a month6) the equipment cost is reasonable but when you add it up it's $11,300. Amortized over 24 weddings/year and 5 years that's $94/wedding.
On the other hand she is effectively charging ~$100/hr which is what you pay an automechanic who has a much higher overhead.
As a potential father of 3 brides I can assure you I won't pay $3k/wedding for photographers.
As a few other commenters have mentioned, you can pay less than $3000, but someone charging less is likely doing it part time, which means they either hate doing it, or are bad at it. To run a consistently profitable, successful business, you have to charge a certain amount. Photographers who charge $1000 from Craigslist have very little experience (I was that person for a while; you only charge less when you are worried about your own ability), and thus are much more of a gamble. Considering the photography is the only piece that really lives on beyond that day, knowing that you will get beautiful photos is usually worth paying what it takes.
I'm sure the actual cost to remove a gallbladder is very little, but when you have to have something done right, you have to be willing to pay for it. You could probably get your cavity filled for next to nothing, but I'm going to pay the person who actually knows how to do it properly.