Time vs time for pros...

One of my partners / associates still uses the 20D I helped him buy years ago, for pictures that appear in brochures and advertisements in magazines and newspapers.

I bought a T1i earlier this year, but kept my XT, and would have no problems usingthe XT for business purposes, with the expectations that the results would be just as satisfctory to clients as results were when the camera was new.

One prospective client has an operation that involves kayaks, so I anticipate that when I send my son out in a kayak to take pictures of the shoreline and other people in other boats, chances are really good he'll be carrying the XT.

The 20D rarely yields prints -- imges go into computers and come out on printing presses.

The XT yielded hundreds of prints that ended up framed on walls, or spread out on tables for art directors to sort through.

Yes, new features are nice; I use the Picture Styles on the T1i, normally leaving it is standard but sometimes changing it to landscape or portrait. But the XT and some software lets me accomplish pretty much the same thing.

So, if you like the new/old 30D, you' should be happy with it for years, for the vast majority of work.

BAK

I have yet to test my new 30D because the CF card was ordered separately and has not arrived yet. But I did fit my 24-105mm f4 Canon lens on it and it fits well (should since I usually use it on a 450D). I noticed while reviewing the menus that there is no noise reduction for high iso on it from what I see. But I hear the 30D performs well under low light. I hope this is true or at least iso level per level matches the 450D which I find to be clean all the way upto 1600 which is its max. Though 30D can push 3200. I have to adjust to the menu settings and controls a bit. I also noticed though my viewfinder is not as bright though I always thought pentaprisms were suppose to be brighter than pentamirrors. Or does a lens play a factor on the viewfinder brightness? (one had a f4 lens and the other a f1.8 on it)

But I do think I will enjoy the camera and enjoy the feel and will try to shoot as equally with it as I do with my rebel which I love. I will not be upgrading bodies anytime soon. Once almost thought I needed a 7D but I am happy that I went with a 30D which covers my needs as a backup camera and saves me a lot of money as well the fact that I got it brand new! lol. Last one on Adorama's shelves.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

It is good to hear the pros tell you what you would assume to be the case anyway. Glass I will by accordingly but will not need a new camera body until these 2 die on me.

The hype of technology over the years causes people to upgrade all the time which can be overwhelming. Especially when people go from one model to its very next replacement and have only had their previous camera just a year.

I love photography so much. Just a hobby but I have invested a lot of money into it already and even if I do not make money from it (from doing some events), I love the challenge.
Thanks all.

Feel free to ad more pro advice to the thread and I will check it out.... or for others who may jump on this thread with the same questions.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

In bright daylight conditions my d2x is every bit as good as my d3, shooting the d2x at iso 100. As soon as you go beyond 100 iso on a d2x when compared to a d3 or d700 you see the difference.

I shoot weddings, and hire a second shooter that shoots with some older canon gear. The difference is huge with regards to file quality in low light settings. I would say 80% of his shots above 1600 iso are turned to b&w.

--
[email protected]
http://www.courtlevephoto.com

Camera of choice by who?
80% plus of pros I know shoot Canon, 90% or better for weddings.
Fuji left the SLR market..why? Lack of sales and profitablity.

Nikon's only been competive with bodies for a year or so. While they've always had good glass, canon has a wider range of lenses/lens types and better fast primes.

Also consider Canon supports pros - explorers of light, attending PPA events, sponsoring (paying) the NFL, supporting with their money many educational products and events for pros. I've never ever seen nikon do that - all they do is push their amateur line of bodies and show how 'anyone, even as dumb as ashton kuchter can take pro caliber shots'.

You don't need all that DR anyway. The camera can really only capture 7 stops or so - the other 4 to 6 stops only apply to the technicaliy of not having a blown highlight here and there. Useable DR is more like 4 or 5 stops before your get blocky shadows and detailless dress or sky.

Remember, a working pro is not pixel peeping. It's not important.

Do you know what a pro defines as a good picture? One that sold.

BigPixel said:

PenguinPhotoCo wrote:

No Nikons eh? Interesting. Also interesting that the wedding camera of choice just a few years ago was the lowly Fuji S5 for its exceptional fleshtone and dynamic range. Still 2-3 stops better than any Canon, only equaled recently by the Nikon D3 series. I would have thought that a wedding pro shooting the classic white dress/black tux combo would have been aware of this.

--
BigPixel / Hawaii

Click to expand...

--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

I like fuji's. I've had a number of P&S bodies over the years. I considered moving to them for weddings too but they wanted a lot for their bodies (relative to my budget/plans at the time) and a cheaper nikon backup, well, they sucked wind then with ISO400 being the best that doable and even that was noisy.

Fuji should have had more than one model at a time and only a pro model - it's pretty much the same mistake Kodak made with their SLR. Canon should be credited for bringing out the Rebel 300 digital body when they did, at the price point they did. Had fuji done this it might have helped them a lot. If their body took canon lenses I'd have one in a hearbeat.

Also consider that if their mousetrap (sensor) was better then why isn't it in some camera from canon or nikon or somebody else? Oh yeah - pros don't pixel peep.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

Sadly, one of my XT's bit the dust last weekend somewhere above 25,000 shutter activations while on an event. The event did not require anything more than the XT (and strobes, wireless triggers, subject area measured with light meter, teathered to laptop...and printed up to 8x10 onsite with option for 16x20 prints if requested)

IMHO - It's better to be TOTALLY familiar with yesterday's perfectly capable gear and have necessary backups than it is to have the latest greatest gadget and gizmo and be clueless how to utilize it's features. Naturally, if you are planning to do work where the newer gear will enable you to work better, faster, easier, you have to make a business decision when to add that first newer gizmo to your kit, and when to add a backup of similar capabilities.

In the above situation, I had already prepared my second XT, custom WB, insured all the settings were the same as the first XT (the one that died after 4 hours); and I had a 40d similarly prepared. I switched to the backup XT, since the 40d's capabilities were not needed for that event.

1.8 lenses will give a much much brighter viewfinder than an F4 lens ever will.

the 30D is clean to ISO800, very clean. To me above that is a bit noisy and I avoided it whenever possible. THe 40 isn't much better nor is the 50 from what i hear about it.

I see the difference big time now as my ass't shoot a 40D and I a 5D2 and sometimes a 5d as a second body.

NR as I do recall it slows the camera down (buffer size wise) so I never bothered with it. I liked the 40 over the 30 for the bigger buffer.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

The 30D is still a great camera. Mine gets used all the time. I have FF & MF cameras here...but that "lowly" 8 MP body still hangs in there. It will probably stay in the lineup until it dies completely.

And let's face it, not every image NEEDS 21+ MP...

PenguinPhotoCo said:

1.8 lenses will give a much much brighter viewfinder than an F4 lens ever will.

the 30D is clean to ISO800, very clean. To me above that is a bit noisy and I avoided it whenever possible. THe 40 isn't much better nor is the 50 from what i hear about it.

I see the difference big time now as my ass't shoot a 40D and I a 5D2 and sometimes a 5d as a second body.

NR as I do recall it slows the camera down (buffer size wise) so I never bothered with it. I liked the 40 over the 30 for the bigger buffer.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

Click to expand...

Hmm, that is interesting to know.. Well I know the eye of the beholder can vary. You being a FF sensor user, what your standard now for clean noise is probably higher than mine (I am guessing) but if the 30D will match my 450D noise wise, I am happy. I feel it to be very clean upto its max. But I dont know if your familiar with the 450D's noise levels in actual practice (sometimes these test and charts online does not do justice).
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

PenguinPhotoCo said:

Nikon's only been competive with bodies for a year or so. While they've always had good glass, canon has a wider range of lenses/lens types and better fast primes.

Also consider Canon supports pros - explorers of light, attending PPA events, sponsoring (paying) the NFL, supporting with their money many educational products and events for pros. I've never ever seen nikon do that - all they do is push their amateur line of bodies and show how 'anyone, even as dumb as ashton kuchter can take pro caliber shots'.

You don't need all that DR anyway. The camera can really only capture 7 stops or so - the other 4 to 6 stops only apply to the technicaliy of not having a blown highlight here and there. Useable DR is more like 4 or 5 stops before your get blocky shadows and detailless dress or sky.

Remember, a working pro is not pixel peeping. It's not important.

Do you know what a pro defines as a good picture? One that sold.

BigPixel said:

PenguinPhotoCo wrote:

No Nikons eh? Interesting. Also interesting that the wedding camera of choice just a few years ago was the lowly Fuji S5 for its exceptional fleshtone and dynamic range. Still 2-3 stops better than any Canon, only equaled recently by the Nikon D3 series. I would have thought that a wedding pro shooting the classic white dress/black tux combo would have been aware of this.

--
BigPixel / Hawaii

Click to expand...

--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

Click to expand...

Not to jump into your debate or anything, but about pixel peeping like you mentioned... I never knew why so many people do it? I am no pro or anything, but most of the levels that people crop to pixel peep are not the same level they will use or print. From a less experienced photographer, it just seems like a way to see a cameras limits and put it down. I dont know. I just like to shoot and get nice pictures.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

PenguinPhotoCo said:

I like fuji's.

Click to expand...

snip

PenguinPhotoCo said:

If their body took canon lenses I'd have one in a hearbeat.

Also consider that if their mousetrap (sensor) was better then why isn't it in some camera from canon or nikon or somebody else? Oh yeah - pros don't pixel peep.

Click to expand...

All I know is what I read. Thom Hogan has speculated over time that it was a huge mistake for Fuji to hold their sensor to themselves, especially as they were not planning to go forward with a new DSLR post the S5. Evidentially it was a poor marketing decision on their part. Too bad as like you, I'd buy a new generation Nikon with a fuji sensor in a heartbeat.
--
BigPixel / Hawaii

Rakumi said:

That is the kind of info I am looking to hear, thanks. Not just because I want to hear it, but that it makes sense and makes me more confident with the recent purchase I made. Sometimes getting into this field you get the impression with all the new tech coming out that you need a new expensive body while you hear some guys who are old pros still shooting with their 20D, 30D and still getting good shots. This tells me in the world of photography, you do not have to upgrade or buy new expensive stuff when the mid to top level old equipment is still being used and is good.

BigPixel said:

If it took professional pics three years ago and met one's needs, it will still do the same today.
--
BigPixel / Hawaii

Click to expand...

--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree with BP, if it works,it works, who cares how old it is?
--

28 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380,Canon SX 10 ( http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ )

http://issuu.com/Lbuck

PenguinPhotoCo said:

Camera of choice by who?
80% plus of pros I know shoot Canon, 90% or better for weddings.
Fuji left the SLR market..why? Lack of sales and profitablity.

Click to expand...

More like a one trick pony based on Nikon supplying bodies. All Fuji had was the sensor, they never developed a lens line, strobes or accessories. That ultimately doomed them in the marketplace. But let's keep things in perspective. I knew quite a few wedding shooters 2002-2005 who prefered Fuji S2, S3 and S5 for its fleshtone and DR.

PenguinPhotoCo said:

Nikon's only been competive with bodies for a year or so.

Click to expand...

Oh really? The first meaningful digital camera was the Nikon Coolpix 950, circa 1998. A whopping 2.1 MP point-n-shoot but at least it was developed and released to market ages before Canon entered the market with anything That was followed up by the D1, the first modern DSLR that wasn't a Kodak/Nikon Frankenstein clone. Canon had nothing comparable out. The D3 leapfroged Canon 2 years ago for sports and PJ and many still believe the D3x to be the finest DSLR on the market today.

I have nothing against Canon whatsoever but if you're going to try to make blanket statements suggesting Nikon's been asleep at the wheel while Canon brought out industry changing technology...you'd be wrong.

PenguinPhotoCo said:

I've never ever seen nikon do that - all they do is push their amateur line of bodies and show how 'anyone, even as dumb as ashton kuchter can take pro caliber shots'.

Click to expand...

I won't even honor that with a rebuttal.

PenguinPhotoCo said:

You don't need all that DR anyway. The camera can really only capture 7 stops or so - the other 4 to 6 stops only apply to the technicaliy of not having a blown highlight here and there. Useable DR is more like 4 or 5 stops before your get blocky shadows and detailless dress or sky.

Click to expand...

Kind of like saying you really don't need all that resolution or high ISO capability isn't it? If its there to be used, why wouldn't you?

PenguinPhotoCo said:

Remember, a working pro is not pixel peeping. It's not important.

Click to expand...

I peep and I'm a pro. Checking results helps me evaluate what I do.

PenguinPhotoCo said:

Do you know what a pro defines as a good picture? One that sold.

Click to expand...

The more I read your comments the more I think that your 'vision' only extends to the bottom line of an Xcel spreadsheet.

--
BigPixel / Hawaii

BigPixel said:

BigPixel said:

Nikon's only been competive with bodies for a year or so.

Click to expand...

Oh really? The first meaningful digital camera was the Nikon Coolpix 950, circa 1998. A whopping 2.1 MP point-n-shoot but at least it was developed and released to market ages before Canon entered the market with anything

Click to expand...

More evidence that Canon is a pro supporter and nikon is focused on the consumer market. But then Nikon's P&S market share sucks these days.

BigPixel said:

I have nothing against Canon whatsoever but if you're going to try to make blanket statements suggesting Nikon's been asleep at the wheel while Canon brought out industry changing technology...you'd be wrong.

Click to expand...

Until about 18 months ago no Nikon dSLR could compete with canon for low noise at high ISO. Hawaii is a sunny place so perhaps you dont' need to shoot a ceremony at ISO1600 or 3200 at 2.8 to get 1/30th of a second exposure. Or perhaps you just relight and restage the whole thing. (not that there's anything wrong wiith that). For several years in a row Canon brought out new bodies, new technology and Nikon did little (i'm talking dSLRs here). For the past 12-18 months Nikon is indeed leading the field in tech and product. But that's a recent thing. They also said they'd never make a FF body. They now do, following canon's lead.

When SLRs went to AF canon came out with a new lens system with the focus moter in the lens. Nikon chose to put it in the body so the old lenses would be compatible. Until then Nikon was king in the slr market. Canon's idea allowed for much faster focusing and canon took over the slr market starting with sports shooters. Nikon had to follow canon's lead.

BigPixel said:

BigPixel said:

I've never ever seen nikon do that - all they do is push their amateur line of bodies and show how 'anyone, even as dumb as ashton kuchter can take pro caliber shots'.

Click to expand...

I won't even honor that with a rebuttal.

Click to expand...

No need. It's just an observation. Fuji came to PPA events and schools, Canon did and sometimes still does. Nikon? I've never seen them. Could be a regional thing, but then the largest single owner of Nikon gear is in my city (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette paper).

BigPixel said:

Kind of like saying you really don't need all that resolution or high ISO capability isn't it? If its there to be used, why wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

I have a 5D2. It can do 21mp, but i use the sRAW1 mode, about 11mp. Pixel peepers have shown you get next to nothing for all that extra resolution but it will cost you in space on your HD, CF cards, DL time, editing time, backup time and space - costs that show no benefits are a bad investment (of time or whatever). Recording 13 stops is great, but if the paper print can only reproduce 4 stops then why care or worry about having 13 instead of 11?

BigPixel said:

BigPixel said:

Remember, a working pro is not pixel peeping. It's not important.

Click to expand...

I peep and I'm a pro. Checking results helps me evaluate what I do.

Click to expand...

Do you find that helps? I can pixel peep too, but it serves no purpose. Noise here or there? Resolution or resolving power of a lens or how sharp is it wide open - it's useful to know the gear's limits and capabilities of course, but it matters not to the client. I don't see the difference in the print. I'd rather spend my time marketing or learning something new, or with my kids, than peeping pixels.

BigPixel said:

The more I read your comments the more I think that your 'vision' only extends to the bottom line of an Xcel spreadsheet.

Click to expand...

It's called BUSINESS of photography, not hobby. It has to make a profit or I'll have to go back to a job punching a clock for someone else. It's way too easy to spend a fortune for no real benefit. I am perhaps you could say handicapped as my college degree is in management, with a strong managerial accounting/finance core.

--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

I didn't have much of an issue with noise until I got the 5D2 and saw it's output next to a 40D. I suddenly had more capability and I'm one to use what I got.

The look of my images for weddings have changed because I can shoot more natural light instead of having to use flash to supplement, the BG at receptions has opened up tremendously, I can shoot the procession/recession during the ceremony much close to ambient natural light and have non-blur shutter speeds, etc. Small differences to be sure, but overall it changes what my work looks like.

Now to get that change is not cheap - figure a 5D2 with a 5D as backup/second body - $4000 (one new one used). Two 40Ds, used, can be had for $1400, perhaps less. So while the gear head in me and my ego and perhaps the artistic strain in me prefers the FF bodies, the business side questions the benefits - does that $2600 that's 'invested' in those 'better' bodies earn it's keep by making more money somehow, or would it have been better spend on marketing, new website or just invested in lenses that seem to have appreciated 20-100% in the past year? Maybe I should have taken that $2600 and bought a wide format printer or just spent a week with the family at Disney.

--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

Dear Penguin,

We could go toe to toe forever on these issues but let's not. Both Canon and Nikon make fine bodies and lens systems which tend to leapfrog one other about every 8-12 months. Good news for beginners but if you have $5,000-$20,000 invested in either camp's lens lineup you ain't gonna switch. You'll wait out the next most viable body for your particular lens system.

Does one's choice of system really matter in terms of the work we do? In the right hands each system will produce commercially viable imagery. I'm just so over this nonsensical Canon versus Nikon thing as evidenced by my suggestion that even the lowly Fuji S5 remains a viable contender commercially for a wedding photographer.
--
BigPixel / Hawaii

I just say that you need to pick the right tool for the job. And that tool depends on the photographer's style/preferences as much as what the job is.

I used to watch two shows on PBS back to back. The Woodwright's Shop and Yankee Workshop. Both were about woodworking. The first used only hand or human powered tools, ala the 18th century. The second was a techno wonder of woodworking wonders -I think I only ever saw him use 1 or 2 non-electric powered tools (one being a hammer and the other a tape measure). Both accomplished the goal of making very nice furniture.

For my style, for where I want to be in the market, for what I create as output, I've chosen the tools that I feel work for me.

I attend PPA conventions and actually listen to the speakers and chat with them afterwards -"How did you get to have a studio with 6 employees and $2m is sales?" and I listen to what they tell me. After you ask 10 of them and they all give similar responses you easily see what's common to their successes. Now does nikon or canon matter on that road to success? Likley not, it just so happens than 98% shoot canon. So while i could have gone Fujii or Nikon I chose to follow the proven route to success in gear selection as well as other things. Since what they've told has proven to be correct (regarding the artistic and business sides of photography) I trust their choice of gear as well. It's paying off for me.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

I finally got my CF card in the mail and took some practice shots (though it was nite time). I really enjoy the way the camera feels. It is almost comparable (in my thoughts, or in the side by side) as having a canon equivalent to a d90. Good build, high iso, fps. Great alternative to my 450D. One has the higher MP and resolution and the other has higher fps and higher ISO setting.

It is really an awesome camera. I am happy for the buy.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

Nick in Shanghai said:

If you are good, the camera is pretty irrelevant.........mostly. It's just a tool.

You could just as well shoot a with a film camera and Vericolor III. That is if they still make it.

--
Nick in Shanghai.

Click to expand...

There are magazine editorials and million dollar ad campaigns still being shot out of New York on 120 film in discontinued camera bodies.

A digital marketing nightmare. Kinda like Pitt showing up with his Littman instead of Ford with a new Canon.