A photographer who can win my trust. For your case, it's the photographer who carries a bigger camera. For my case, it's the photographer who can produce. To this, I'm speaking as a client.
Is Canon EOS 400D a presentable tool for a freelance wedding photographer?
- Thread starter mrfranklee
- Start date
- Status
Funny thing is I'm planning for my big day late next year myself. So no, I wouldn't give a flying hoot about what camera he's using. What I will care about is his past work, portfolio, references from former customers, deliverables, contract, etc.
You obviously haven't witnessed how "pros" in less fortunate countries go about. There was very little correlation with the work they produced and the gear they used.
On another note, I just came back from a holiday to the greek cyclades a month back. On one of the more artsy islands (Mykonos), I visited a well respected photo studio, famous for award winning portraits. They had all the diffusers, strobes, etc, the necessary equipment. I was expecting to see nothing less than a digital back Hassy (LOL). But no, she was using a Canon G series digicam. Yes, it did put me off a little at first. But one look around in the shop at her displayed work was enough both to dispel any discomfort, and to feel ashamed of being easily impressionable.
CYRN
Senior Member
If lightings and pose can be controlled.. then the cam doesn't matter much... P&S can perform as well as a DSLR.
However, if you are talking of AD weddings in a typical HDB/Restaurant environment... then it's a different ball game as AF counts a lot. Furthermore if you want those journalistic cum selective focus type... dun tink P&S can make it.
To answer TS question... 400D is presentable... I've seen 300D used as well.
Hi CRYN,
Understand your point about having adequate tools for the job. I was touching on the subject of "image" and "impression". It goes without saying that the pro must have adequate tools to get the job done. That said, it should not concern the pro regarding how "pro" his gear looks as long as they are functional enough to get the job done without compromising agreed deliverables.
Cheers,
GB
Understand your point about having adequate tools for the job. I was touching on the subject of "image" and "impression". It goes without saying that the pro must have adequate tools to get the job done. That said, it should not concern the pro regarding how "pro" his gear looks as long as they are functional enough to get the job done without compromising agreed deliverables.
Cheers,
GB
LOL!!! :bsmilie:
And showing a big camera is supposed to make the wedding couple feel better?
At least they know you are serious about what you are doing...that you invested in your equipment.
Lets take a vote, how many people here honestly use a 400D/350D for fulltime photography, compared to those who use at least a 10D/20D/30D and above.
Why SPH don't just give their photographer a 400D or 350D for their assignment?:think:
creampuff
Senior Member
What's the use of a great or big camera when you can't shoot for nuts? :think:
Your clients should be confident of your ability to produce great results, and this does not come about by the size or type of camera you have. Get your thinking right - don't just go by camera specs as the specifications of a camera is no guarantee that you'll get great results. Give an entry level DSLR to an experienced pro and the results will most probably beat a less experienced photographer with a top end camera. It has got to do with your eyes, not the type of camera you got... even with the best spec camera, if you can't visualise or see photographically, you're not likely to get great pictures.
Better pictures start with the photographer.
Your clients should be confident of your ability to produce great results, and this does not come about by the size or type of camera you have. Get your thinking right - don't just go by camera specs as the specifications of a camera is no guarantee that you'll get great results. Give an entry level DSLR to an experienced pro and the results will most probably beat a less experienced photographer with a top end camera. It has got to do with your eyes, not the type of camera you got... even with the best spec camera, if you can't visualise or see photographically, you're not likely to get great pictures.
Better pictures start with the photographer.
One does not flash a big gun to show he's serious. Instead, he would've spent many man-hours building up his own portfolio by working as assistant photog for other pros. Now THAT shows that he's serious. "Sir, I've got a BIG syringe. I'm dead serious about being a doctor". Yep, someone's sure going to be dead there.
SPH, reuters, etc require their journalists to work under VARIABLE, possibly harsh, environmental conditions, rain or shine. That is why they give them more sturdy bodies. A wedding hall is NOT considered as a harsh working condition, at least for the camera. :think:
Depends on how much beating and bashing your cameras are required to take lor. Press photographer's cameras get a lot more punishment compared to the wedding photographer.
Much as we all speak about photographer's skill being more important over equipment, the reality is that people do look at what you use. But frankly, your image matters more and if you're to appear in someone's wedding with t-shirt and jeans, doesn't matter what camera you use.
SO you'd rather a newbie brandish a 1 series to LOOK PRO and mess up someone's wedding?? Geez....
Btw SPH do not use 400D / 350D coz the shutter and body is not spec'ed for heavy usage. And if you ever see how they handle their gear... even their white L looks like speckled gray....
;p
Hey Mr Franklee, for what my thoughts are worth about you using a 400D to do wedding photography, here's my opinion and hopefully it's useful for you
1. Personally, I won't use a 400D because I've got enough things to worry about as it is on the wedding day already without having to worry about my gear and it's performance. If you're asking you're probably having doubts. For a working professional, what's the price to pay for peace of mind? If you take that into consideration, the price difference between a 400D and a 5D is not that much. Being confident about your photography is priceless, so get the very best tools you can get that suits what you do.
2. Yes, it is possible to use cheaper cameras, tell you clients you'll charge low for xyz reasons and start at a low price bracket. But at the end of the day, when a client forks over $100 or $10 000, they will have expectations. If you flub the shoot, the clients are not going to tell their friends it's their fault. Nope, it's going to be your name dragged through the mud no matter what price you charge.
Wedding photography is one of those fields where there's no do over. If you want to do well at it, either you go at it wholeheartedly and invest and committ to the time, money etc, or just don't do it, because a mistake on your part in some nebulous agreement with your clients can destroy your career even before it's started.
That's just my take anyway.
1. Personally, I won't use a 400D because I've got enough things to worry about as it is on the wedding day already without having to worry about my gear and it's performance. If you're asking you're probably having doubts. For a working professional, what's the price to pay for peace of mind? If you take that into consideration, the price difference between a 400D and a 5D is not that much. Being confident about your photography is priceless, so get the very best tools you can get that suits what you do.
2. Yes, it is possible to use cheaper cameras, tell you clients you'll charge low for xyz reasons and start at a low price bracket. But at the end of the day, when a client forks over $100 or $10 000, they will have expectations. If you flub the shoot, the clients are not going to tell their friends it's their fault. Nope, it's going to be your name dragged through the mud no matter what price you charge.
Wedding photography is one of those fields where there's no do over. If you want to do well at it, either you go at it wholeheartedly and invest and committ to the time, money etc, or just don't do it, because a mistake on your part in some nebulous agreement with your clients can destroy your career even before it's started.
That's just my take anyway.
Magnum used pics of an assignment from one of their photogs shot with a prosumer digicam.
Hey MrFranklee, there are some articles on starting in wedding photography on this site http://www.weddingphotonet.blogspot.com, it's worth a read for sure.
- Status
Similar threads
