# Lens Shopping is Frustrating!!!



## Missdaisy (Jun 1, 2009)

I recently bought a Nikon D300 (a MAJOR upgrade from my P&S) at the time I got the kit which included a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6g ED-IF AF-S DX VR lens.  The problem is that all of that is like reading a foreign language.  I would like to shoot professionally, but I am learning the ropes all on my own.  To get to the point I would like to purchase another lens that would be appropriate for weddings.   I have tried to research lenses on my own but the information is so scientific, I just need someone to tell me in plain English what lenses do what and why.  Cost is not a huge concern, I would like to stick with a Nikon lens, I don't want to go cheap now and have to upgrade later. 

Thank you in advance!


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

I would recommend a Nikon 50 1.4.
This lens has a wide aperture allowing you to shoot under low light, and create separation with regards to the subject and the background. The 50 means that it will become a short telephoto on the D300, which you can see by zooming to the marked 50 on your 18-200. Finally it is a prime, meaning you cannot change focal lengths like on the 18-200.

Cost = 100

An option if you have more money to spend, is the 17-55 2.8. This is a little bit slower of a lens, but one of near professional quality, allowing you to shoot in similar conditions, with the convenience of a zoom. The quality is remarkably different then that of the 18-200. The 17-55 is a remarkable improvement.

Cost = 1,100


----------



## bdavis (Jun 1, 2009)

I would say try a 24-70 f/2.8


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

That would be overkill in my opinion for a D300, because she will definitely miss the wide of that lens, essential for wedding photgraphy.


----------



## Sherman Banks (Jun 1, 2009)

AlexColeman said:


> I would recommend a Nikon 50 1.4.
> This lens has a wide aperture allowing you to shoot under low light, and create separation with regards to the subject and the background. The 50 means that it will become a short telephoto on the D300, which you can see by zooming to the marked 50 on your 18-200. Finally it is a prime, meaning you cannot change focal lengths like on the 18-200.
> 
> Cost = 100



Where are you finding a 50mm 1.4 for $100? 

And I don't shoot weddings, but I imagine a prime lens to be difficult to work with in these settings as you have to always be moving to frame your shots.  It seems like a fast zoom lens would be ideal.


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

I apologize, mixed the 1.4 and 1.8 up. 

To clarify: 50 1.4 300-400

1.8=100


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

Sherman Banks said:


> AlexColeman said:
> 
> 
> > I would recommend a Nikon 50 1.4.
> ...



I just gave her two ideas of the gamuts of the price range. The 1.4 would be more of a _detailer_ lens, not one that stays on the body, but one for the ring, and bouquet.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 1, 2009)

If you are learning things on your own, have a look at "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. A great read and intro into the world of photography.

18-200mm f/3.5-5.6g ED-IF AF-S DX VR
18-200 = the range of the lens, measured in milimeters. 18 being wide, 200 being telephoto.

f/3.5-5.6 = how wide the aperture can open. f/3.5 is the widest it will go at 18mm and f/5.6 is the widest it will go at 200mm.
If the lens just said f/2.8, that would be a widest of f/2.8 between 18 and 200.

ED-IF AF-S DX VR = you can probably google these, they are specific Nikon terms that identify other things in the lens. I know that VR is Vibration Reduction, which will, in simplest terms, help with camera shake.

For weddings, the below with a constant f/2.8
24-70
17-55
70-200


----------



## inTempus (Jun 1, 2009)

If you don't know what all those "scientific" things are that describe a lens you're probably no where near ready to shoot a wedding or really ready to buy a new high dollar lens.  Those "scientific" things describe the functional capabilities of the lens.  If you don't know what they mean, it means you don't know how the lens works or how it should be employed.  If you don't know how to use it, why are you buying it?  

Learn with your kit lens and when that starts to fail you, you'll know exactly what it is you need in a new lens... and then those "scientific" descriptions will begin to make sense.

I should also mention that shooting weddings will require more than one lens good lens.  It will also require more than one body as well.


----------



## Sherman Banks (Jun 1, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> If you don't know what all those "scientific" things are that describe a lens you're probably no where near ready to shoot a wedding or really ready to buy a new high dollar lens.  Those "scientific" things describe the functional capabilities of the lens.  If you don't know what they mean, it means you don't know how the lens works or how it should be employed.  If you don't know how to use it, why are you buying it?
> 
> Learn with your kit lens and when that starts to fail you, you'll know exactly what it is you need in a new lens... and then those "scientific" descriptions will begin to make sense.
> 
> I should also mention that shooting weddings will require more than one lens good lens.  It will also require more than one body as well.


I was trying to figure out a way to say that nicely so I'm glad you said it first.  

The important thing to remember with wedding photography is that if you're not completely familiar with the operation of your camera or the elements of good photography, you will most likely produce some very bad/mediocre results on what some people consider to be the most important day of their lives.  It's not a task to be taken lightly as I know firsthand from hiring a crappy wedding photographer (my wife chose her).


----------



## DScience (Jun 1, 2009)

AlexColeman said:


> I would recommend a Nikon 50 1.4.
> This lens has a wide aperture allowing you to shoot under low light, and create separation with regards to the subject and the background. The 50 means that it will become a short telephoto on the D300, which you can see by zooming to the marked 50 on your 18-200. Finally it is a prime, meaning you cannot change focal lengths like on the 18-200.
> 
> Cost = 100
> ...




Will you please show me where I can get a 50mm 1.4 for $100??


----------



## DScience (Jun 1, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I should also mention that shooting weddings will require more than one lens good lens.  It will also require more than one body as well.




Require is a pretty strong word. Preferred might be the better term.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 1, 2009)

DScience said:


> AlexColeman said:
> 
> 
> > I would recommend a Nikon 50 1.4.
> ...



Originally Posted by AlexColeman
*"I apologize, mixed the 1.4 and 1.8 up. 

To clarify: 50 1.4 300-400

1.8=100"*


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 1, 2009)

Alright looks like you all need a little more background info.  I LOVE LOVE LOVE photography, so after many months of saving $ I bought my D300.  I knew that I would have to do a lot of reading and practice to understand my camera and the art of photography.  I am a hands on learner, so reading manuals and posts online only get me so far, I have to just do it and by trial and error I learn.  I do plan on reading "Understanding Exposure" I have seen many people suggest that book. 
Back to the wedding, my family has taken notice to my addiction to snapping everyones picture at every opportunity, so my cousin approached me about shooting his wedding Labor Day weekend of 2010, so that gives me 15 months to learn as much as possible.  I also had a crappy photographer at my own wedding (we did not get our wedding pics from this phtographer for 6 YEARS) so I am very sensitive to the fact that this is an extremely important job.  I am just trying to project the things that I will need to purchase and become familiar with in the meantime. 
I know that I need a second body, but I have time to save. 
Thank you for your feedback.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 1, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> I have tried to research lenses on my own but the information is so scientific, I just need someone to tell me in plain English what lenses do what and why.


A couple of things stuck out for me in your words above.

The information you seek is not so much scientific as it is technical.  This can be learned with due diligence.  If can be overwhemling in the begining.  Take it on as if you're eating an elephant.  You how to do that, right?......... One mouthful at a time.

With your 18-200, you have a decent range to practice with until you have determined what focal lengths are your "go to" shots.  Then, buy the best damn lens you can afford.

For lens reviews, I usually look at these sites first,
photozone.de
thomhogan.com
fredmiranda.com
dpreview.com

Then, I'll go to nikoncafe.com or a few other forums and see if there is information there I can glean.




Missdaisy said:


> Cost is not a huge concern, I would like to stick with a Nikon lens, I don't want to go cheap now and have to upgrade later.


  :thumbsup:  I like seeing comments like that rather than the usual "what's a cheap so and so..."  I've only got Nikkor lenses, but there are a few third party lenses that can match or perhaps surpass Nikkor for less money.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 1, 2009)

I understand your situation.  Still, I believe what's best is to learn something about the lenses you intend to purchase then make an informed purchase vs. posting on an internet forum for input about what lens *we* think you should buy.  

You should buy what suits your needs, not what we think suits your needs.  There's some good advice here regarding lenes, no doubt, but an informed purchase is far better than making random purchases hoping you get what you need.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 1, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> Alright looks like you all need a little more background info. I LOVE LOVE LOVE photography, so after many months of saving $ I bought my D300. I knew that I would have to do a lot of reading and practice to understand my camera and the art of photography. I am a hands on learner, so reading manuals and posts online only get me so far, I have to just do it and by trial and error I learn. I do plan on reading "Understanding Exposure" I have seen many people suggest that book.
> Back to the wedding, my family has taken notice to my addiction to snapping everyones picture at every opportunity, so my cousin approached me about shooting his wedding Labor Day weekend of 2010, so that gives me 15 months to learn as much as possible. I also had a crappy photographer at my own wedding (we did not get our wedding pics from this phtographer for 6 YEARS) so I am very sensitive to the fact that this is an extremely important job. I am just trying to project the things that I will need to purchase and become familiar with in the meantime.
> I know that I need a second body, but I have time to save.
> Thank you for your feedback.


Wow, your situation sounds an AWFUL lot like mine!  I have always been the 'camera guy,' bringing my advanced P&S camera to every family event and otherwise.  

My wedding photographer was simply dreadful, and that has fueled my desire to do weddings.  Last year, I made the conversion to a DSLR with a Canon 450D and shot my friends wedding as a gift to them.  They had 3 unofficial shooters (including me), and fortunately the results I gave them surpassed the others.  All it took to set mine apart was he fact that I DID NOT use the kit lens  

Anyway, definitely do not underestimate the difficulty of shooting a wedding.  It's stressful, and you really have to know your camera.  The lighting typically sucks and you must be able to adapt quickly and react immediately to get 'the shot.'  Plus, you have to nail the moments that count.  Obviously, you do not get a second chance.  

Personally, I loved my first experience and although I will not shoot for a significant amount of money yet, I do have 3 more weddings next year.  However, I know how demanding it will be and I already have a second shooter/assistant for every one (my wife).  I say, good luck to you.  If you are diligent enough between now & then, you can succeed.  There is not a day that goes by that I am not reading/shooting/discussing/breathing photgraphy... after all, my next wedding will be in January and there is no way I can over prepare.

... as a sidenote, definitely get a good prime like the 50mm f/1.4 and a good mid range zoom (24-70mm 2.8).  The D300 is a crop body right?  If it is, just make sure you have a lens wide enough for those family shots.


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 2, 2009)

DScience said:


> tharmsen said:
> 
> 
> > I should also mention that shooting weddings will require more than one lens good lens.  It will also require more than one body as well.
> ...




I agree with tharmsen. Being a professional wedding photographer myself, I understand the difference between an amateur photographer who shows up with one camera and a pro who has backup equipment in case something happens to the first. The bride and groom are trusting you to be prepared and are paying you not only for photos, but to be responsible and have a backup plan for if something goes wrong (and eventually it will with one thing or another.). This is not the kind of shoot that can be redone and any pro customer service oriented photographer will have their client's best interests at heart. I know a bride and groom will appreciate that their wedding is treated with respect and care. 

Amanda Galloway


----------



## Jose Cuervo (Jun 2, 2009)

i agree with tharmsen too.  i'm sure we can all give you suggestions on what lenses to get, but you're still going to need to learn the technical aspects of the lens to know how to use them properly.

btw, my wedding photographer was kinda bad too.  although, after getting into photography myself, i sorta understand the difficulty he had on my wedding day.  bright sun + white dress = over exposure.  but i still felt he was too lazy to work for the good shots.  it was like he just shrugged his shoulders and said "too sunny, sorry".


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 2, 2009)

Jose Cuervo said:


> i agree with tharmsen too.  i'm sure we can all give you suggestions on what lenses to get, but you're still going to need to learn the technical aspects of the lens to know how to use them properly.
> 
> btw, my wedding photographer was kinda bad too.  although, after getting into photography myself, i sorta understand the difficulty he had on my wedding day.  bright sun + white dress = over exposure.  but i still felt he was too lazy to work for the good shots.  it was like he just shrugged his shoulders and said "too sunny, sorry".




Jose,
    Sheesh, sorry you had that experience. I agree your photographer could have done something different. A good trick for sunny days is to use your flash (OK, sounds weird, but there is a reason). The fill flash will help wipe out harsh contrasting shadows and then you can use super low iso settings and a fast shutter speed so the background doesn't ovrexpose. That way your subject and background are more evenly balanced if you want that look. Plus, it's a good idea to look for shade. Just some tips for anyone reading this who has to shoot outdoors. Some of my fave shots I've taken were actually under these lighting conditions so Jose is right- you can make it can work!

Amanda Galloway


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 2, 2009)

Thank you all so much for the helpful tips!  That's why I come to this sight daily, I always learn something new.  



> However, I know how demanding it will be and I already have a second shooter/assistant for every one (my wife).


 
Clawed, funny you say that your wife is your backup, my husband and I have talked about him being my backup as well.


----------



## AtlPikMan (Jun 2, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> If you don't know what all those "scientific" things are that describe a lens you're probably no where near ready to shoot a wedding or really ready to buy a new high dollar lens. Those "scientific" things describe the functional capabilities of the lens. If you don't know what they mean, it means you don't know how the lens works or how it should be employed. If you don't know how to use it, why are you buying it?
> 
> Learn with your kit lens and when that starts to fail you, you'll know exactly what it is you need in a new lens... and then those "scientific" descriptions will begin to make sense.
> 
> I should also mention that shooting weddings will require more than one lens good lens. It will also require more than one body as well.


 
The Perfect answer to the OP's Question


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 2, 2009)

Oh give me a break.  The ONLY thing that matters on those lenses is the focal range, and the aperture.  Not knowing what an ED of IF or G lens is no more makes someone a noob than knowing it somehow makes you a master.

As for the lenses you might find yourself needing:

85MM F/1.8 (or the 1.4 if money is no object)
24-70 F/2.8 (or really any autofocus iteration of this lens)
70-200 VR F/2.8 (or the 80-200 F/2.8)

That would have you set.  And no you do not NEED a second body.  Can something happen to your equipment at any time?  Sure.  But then so can it happen to your lenses, or your car, or body for goodness sake.  Theres caution, and then there is caution for the sake of "spending money."  If you absolutely NEED a second body (or want the convenience of not having to switch lenses on and off) just grab a cheapo D70/s or a D80.


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 2, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Oh give me a break.  The ONLY thing that matters on those lenses is the focal range, and the aperture.
> 
> That would have you set.  And no you do not NEED a second body.  Can something happen to your equipment at any time?  Sure.  But then so can it happen to your lenses, or your car, or body for goodness sake.  Theres caution, and then there is caution for the sake of "spending money."  If you absolutely NEED a second body (or want the convenience of not having to switch lenses on and off) just grab a cheapo D70/s or a D80.




ANDS, not to be argumentative but there are some other points to consider. I actually do carry extra lenses. In fact, I have extra of everything when I go on a paying job. That's what separates a professional from an amateur (I'm not talking about how well someone photographs here which would have to do with skill level. I'm talking about the business aspect). I even have backup photographers in the event I do have an accident. Wal-mart won't shut down if a shift manager can't make it, but being your customer only gets one wedding, you'd better have a backup plan in case something happens because if it does, your customer is SOL. I also highly recommend business insurance.

Also, there are other things involved with lenses to take into consideration such as chromatic aberration, distortion, etc. I just wanted to point these out in case you hadn't thought of them.


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanks for all of the reality checks.  I was very excited about this opportunity when my cousin asked me to do his wedding.  I immediatly got on here for pointers.  Then the slap in the face of all the "what if's" hit me, but I like the realistic warnings better than just thinking that nothing can go wrong.  I am not discouraged by the warnings, I am just happy that I have 15 months to prepare.  

As far as new glass I'm going with the Super Wide Angle AF 17-55 f 2.8.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> That would have you set.  And no you do not NEED a second body.  Can something happen to your equipment at any time?  Sure.  But then so can it happen to your lenses, or your car, or body for goodness sake.  Theres caution, and then there is caution for the sake of "spending money."  If you absolutely NEED a second body (or want the convenience of not having to switch lenses on and off) just grab a cheapo D70/s or a D80.


That flies in the face of every professional opinion you will find on the subject.  If you're shooting weddings, you need to have a second body.  Can you get lucky and not have equipment failure?  Sure.  What happens when it occurs and you're not prepared?  

It's bad enough when you're doing it for money, it's worse when you're doing it for friends/family.  If you ruin a brides wedding because you're shooting weddings unprepared, she's not going to forgive you anytime soon.  Weddings aren't something you can do "re-dos" on.  You got one chance to get the important shots.  If you screw it up, bad things will happen.  You'll get sued or you'll stress an otherwise good relationship.

If you're not ready to shoot a wedding, don't do it.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Oh give me a break. The ONLY thing that matters on those lenses is the focal range, and the aperture. Not knowing what an ED of IF or G lens is no more makes someone a noob than knowing it somehow makes you a master.
> 
> As for the lenses you might find yourself needing:
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm, I agree that some of the technical aspects of lenses (such as in the lens descriptions) does not need to be understood.

But, I have to agree with Amanda that it is not a good idea to not have a backup (of EVERYTHING). In fact, everything you mention here should have a backup (Camera body, lenses, another person and even a backup ride - just in case) _because_ equipment fails.

Imagine having to explain to your bride and groom that you cannot continue to shoot because of an equipment failure...


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> Thanks for all of the reality checks.  I was very excited about this opportunity when my cousin asked me to do his wedding.  I immediatly got on here for pointers.  Then the slap in the face of all the "what if's" hit me, but I like the realistic warnings better than just thinking that nothing can go wrong.  I am not discouraged by the warnings, I am just happy that I have 15 months to prepare.
> 
> As far as new glass I'm going with the Super Wide Angle AF 17-55 f 2.8.


Weddings are serious business...   As I just mentioned, you can seriously stress a relationship if you screw up someones wedding.  Be as prepared as you can be.  I have a number of good books on the subject which might be of interest to you.

You need to learn all sorts of things ranging from how to shoot in natural light, low light, how to avoid blowing out a white dress, how to get flattering shots of someone, etc.

A 17-55 is a good place to start, but you need to be careful about using wide angles.  Wide angle shots produce unflattering images (portraits).  I've found that the 70-200 range is more useful for things like weddings.  If I could take only two of my lenses to a wedding, I would take my 24-70 and my 70-200.

Be sure you bone up on using a flash.  This will be absolutely critical to getting good images at a weddings/reception.  At my first wedding I realized just how much I needed to learn about using a flash in a reception hall.


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 2, 2009)

Here's the bonus, it's an outdoor wedding they are having it in his parents backyard.  So living in the midwest my next concern is weather since here in Missouri it can go from 90 to snowing without a moments notice.  But September is fairly predictable.  I currently spend most of my time shooting in natural lighting now so I am not too worried about that. 

Also, I have a wishlist growing on B&H.  Do any of you use a Metz shoe mount flash?


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> Thanks for all of the reality checks. I was very excited about this opportunity when my cousin asked me to do his wedding. I immediatly got on here for pointers. Then the slap in the face of all the "what if's" hit me, but I like the realistic warnings better than just thinking that nothing can go wrong. I am not discouraged by the warnings, I am just happy that I have 15 months to prepare.
> 
> As far as new glass I'm going with the Super Wide Angle AF 17-55 f 2.8.


I think you made a good lens choice here.  With the body you are using it's perfect.  I would suggest renting a 70-200mm lens becuase it's a really good lens to use for the ceremony to get in close (especially when you shoot from the back).  Those two lenses will give you the focal range you need, and for those very low light situations at least consider a high speed prime.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Oh give me a break. The ONLY thing that matters on those lenses is the focal range, and the aperture. Not knowing what an ED of IF or G lens is no more makes someone a noob than knowing it somehow makes you a master.


 
Every company likes to throw in its own set of 2 letter acronyms to qualify their lenses.  And in most cases, these aren't a huge thing. 

I agree that the focal range and aperture are the most important.  And I agree that knowing what each acronym means doesn't make you a photoGod.

But for a Canon, knowing the difference between an EF or an EF-S lens is pretty important.  Same as knowing what IS is (or VR for a Nikon).


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> ANDS! said:
> 
> 
> > Oh give me a break. The ONLY thing that matters on those lenses is the focal range, and the aperture. Not knowing what an ED of IF or G lens is no more makes someone a noob than knowing it somehow makes you a master.
> ...


Nah, it's not important.  Just buy the first thing that appears on the web page you're shopping on.  There's no need to actually understand focal length, aperture, IS, EF, EF-S, DX or FX... totally irrelevant.  Just get the most expensive one you can find and it will be the best for whatever it is you need.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> Here's the bonus, it's an outdoor wedding they are having it in his parents backyard.  So living in the midwest my next concern is weather since here in Missouri it can go from 90 to snowing without a moments notice.  But September is fairly predictable.  I currently spend most of my time shooting in natural lighting now so I am not too worried about that.


Ironically, shooting in mid-day sun can be as challenging, if not more so, than shooting in a dimly lit reception hall.  You will need a flash most likely in the sun, assuming it's not over cast.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

Way to lay on the sarcasm  :thumbup:


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 2, 2009)

Not argumentative.  But as I said, theres a difference between caution and OVER-caution.  A second body I can see, simply for the comfort factor - but investing in backups of backups of lenses, etc to me is overkill and its silly (no offense) to suggest that someone who is careful with their equipment would absolutely NEED that backup to be considered professional grade; especially if one is starting out and hasn't even gained an idea on what kind of equipment they will need in future.  Worst case, ALL your bodies and ALL your lenses shut down.  The chances of that happening are statistically ZERO.  If one lens shuts down, great you got other lenses to work with.  If one body shuts down, great you got the other one.  

Now is Daisy has the fat stacks to roll like that, I say more power to ya.  But I am always troubled when I see folks putting qualifiers on what makes someone a hobbyist and what makes them a pro.



> That flies in the face of every professional opinion you will find on the subject.



This is the biggest problem "photography" has - the insistence on relying on group think to come to COMMON SENSE conclusions.  Are there "pro" photographers out there rocking multiples (in duplicate and triplicate) - oh sure.  And they no doubt have the cash flow to warrant unused equipment sitting idle.  If you are in that position, and absolutely require backups for peace of mind (instead of say, not being a klutz - because other than MECHANICAL failure - the only breakage were looking at here is user error) then ****, go nuts - its your money.  However to artificially create this divide is ludicrous and only contributes to the mass consumption mentality that permeates throughout the "pro" community.  It's the same mentality that insists (nay demands!) that only first party lenses are capable of producing the "right shot" - the lenses that those folks saying that just so happen to be in possession of.


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 2, 2009)

No fat stacks here, I shot with a Wal-mart p&s for years and years while I saved up for my baby.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 2, 2009)

ANDS!, you'll be hard pressed to find many who agree with you on this.

No one has said she needs an expensive camera as a second body.  A used D40 or XS, rented body or even a borrowed body, would be all that's necessary.  But showing up to a wedding with a single body and single lens is begging for disaster.  When you're scurrying around trying to setup the various group shots, your camera can get dropped, kicked, punted, whatever.  Your tripod can get knocked over, you can accidentally leave it sitting some place where a guest knocks it to the floor.  What do you do when the infamous "Error 99" occurs or "F Error"?  Whatever.  It happens far more often than you seem to think it does.  

What do you do then?  Stop the wedding while you race out to Best Buy and buy a new body?  Do you tell the bride "sorry, my camera broke so I'm done shooting for the day - have a great wedding!"?  

Is it necessary to have a back-up?  No.  Is it irresponsible not to have one?  Yup.


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 2, 2009)

If she shows up with a single lens then yes, that is silly.  Is it impossible.  No - it only limits the "type" of shots she can get.  My first thought wouldn't be - "Oh god. . .what if it breaks!" It would simply be "Well what if we have to put you somewhere in the back?"

I already mentioned the "kit" that I would think is necessary, and a cheap second body was included in that.  I am fairly certain, that there are NUMEROUS people who will cry foul she would dare go so "low budget".  Hell, the fact that she wants to shoot with a D300 will elicit that response.  That doesn't make it the right sentiment, because there ARE people out there rocking that exact same mentality that have never had a camera fail on them, and havent had to tote around 5/6 lenses to take 300 or so shots.

Thats not irresponsibility; thats just real world limitations.  If in the future she has the capability to go balls out and say "See folks - I got a lot of ****. . .no worries here!", great - it'll help peace of mind for those people that "know".  But its those hard and fast rules that are perpetuated throughout the internet (and LOVED by camera wholesalers and retail outlets) that I take umbrage with as it puts off A LOT of individuals (talented individuals) who cant afford the "buy in" to play with the big kids.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> If she shows up with a single lens then yes, that is silly. Is it impossible. No - it only limits the "type" of shots she can get. My first thought wouldn't be - "Oh god. . .what if it breaks!" It would simply be "Well what if we have to put you somewhere in the back?"
> 
> I already mentioned the "kit" that I would think is necessary, and a cheap second body was included in that. I am fairly certain, that there are NUMEROUS people who will cry foul she would dare go so "low budget". Hell, the fact that she wants to shoot with a D300 will elicit that response. That doesn't make it the right sentiment, because there ARE people out there rocking that exact same mentality that have never had a camera fail on them, and havent had to tote around 5/6 lenses to take 300 or so shots.
> 
> Thats not irresponsibility; thats just real world limitations. If in the future she has the capability to go balls out and say "See folks - I got a lot of ****. . .no worries here!", great - it'll help peace of mind for those people that "know". But its those hard and fast rules that are perpetuated throughout the internet (and LOVED by camera wholesalers and retail outlets) that I take umbrage with as it puts off A LOT of individuals (talented individuals) who cant afford the "buy in" to play with the big kids.


Okay, let's just agree that it is wise to come prepared. It's not vital to carry around backups for everything, but it is a good idea (more in this case than any). 

I say if a photographer can get pro-quality results shooting a Rebel with a kit lens, more power to them. There are those that are sickly skilled and can do more with less. I do not think anyone here has questioned that. Plus, success in your market allows the user to upgrade, if for nothing else than to make their life easier.

BTW, are there many that consider the D300 "low-budget?"  I guess those people would consider my gear extra low budget


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jun 2, 2009)

Speaking as someone who has had gear fail right before a major shoot, having backup camera bodies is really important for someone who is being paid to produce images. I don't know of any professional who would tell you it's ok to go on a shoot without some kind of backup.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> Speaking as someone who has had gear fail right before a major shoot, having backup camera bodies is really important for someone who is being paid to produce images. I don't know of any professional who would tell you it's ok to go on a shoot without some kind of backup.


I would rather have my camera fail on a paid shoot than on a friend/family shoot.  At least on the paid shoot after the court case is settled you'll never have to see that person again.  With the family/friend, every time the subject of the wedding comes up it will be a major sore spot.


----------



## Dao (Jun 3, 2009)

I do agree with backup equipments (or even photographer) for a paid wedding photo shoot.

As for friends / relatives type case that has no money involve, that can be different unless the person (photographer) planning to go full gear in Wedding photography.

If the bride/groom understand the limitation of the photographer, it is all good.  Because that is their choice not to hire a Pro photographer.    If I buy a used car instead of a new one, I will need to accept the fact that when it break down in one year, I may need to pay for the repairs.  I will not blame the car salesman.

And that is the different between a professional wedding photographer and someone shoot photos for fun.

Of course, for someone like to be a professional wedding photographer in the future, it won't hurt and starts to prepare like a pro.


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 3, 2009)

ANDS, you may know people who haven't had their camera or other equipment fail, but that is like playing Russian Roulette. There will come a time (if they shoot enough weddings) where something will fail. If not, they are lucky and should play the lottery. It doesn't matter what kind of lens (or camera) you have as a backup (in a loose sense). Just use one for the sake of being responsible for your paying customer.
I agree that a skilled photographer can get great shots without buying the newest equipment. I will also add that some equipment can do more than others and yields better results than others. I would hope you use more than one lens to shoot a wedding if you are getting paid for it. :greenpbl:


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 3, 2009)

Speaking of lenses again, it is important to know more about the functions besides focal length and aperture. For example, check out the following wikipedia article about chromatic aberration and look at the example of what it looks like when a lens has this problem. It can seriously affect your work.

Chromatic aberration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If anyone uses Canon, check out this following review site which shows samples of how all the different lenses work and look. YOu can actually compare photo quality. It was very useful to me.

Canon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews

This actually helped me choose the 85mm 1.8 lens which fits some of my needs perfectly. You can see some samples of my newer work compared to my older work by clicking on my site and then my blog. See if you can tell the difference between the kit lens on the earlier posts and the new lens on the newest wedding I posted. Ask me if you want me to point out what the differences are if you can't tell.

www.silverliningsphoto.com


----------



## B Kennedy (Jun 3, 2009)

I would like to say that I'm thinking about getting married within the next couple years.  To give the complete honest truth, being an avid photographer and aspiring to become a great wedding photographer, I would dismiss a photographer quoting my wedding if they didn't have a backup plan/backup photographers and backup lenses/camera bodies.  I'm not gonna spend some 3 grand for a photographer who won't be prepared for murphy's law.  On that note, spending around that amount I would *assume* that that pro would be prepared accordingly, and I would make it a point to bring up that very question.

I too had a camera failure while photographing a sweet 16, and I was devastated, got one of those error 99 something codes.  Luckily I had my backup 30d from my assistant that I then used to finish the event as this failure happened right in the beginning.

Then again this is only my opinion, but will remain a factor from a clientele point of view on who I would, and I say this on purpose, *trust* to photograph such a memory.


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2009)

err guys can we have a bit of focus here 
3 pages almost talking about backup gear - I think anyone reading has got the point now - wedding professionals need backup gear - a camera at the very least and more than one lens incase one should get knocked over.

Usually you lot start on about the photographic quality (you know the photos) and the skills of the indevidual photographer in such a pressured case. 

Missdaisy if I might add a few bits of advice (since I dont shoot weddings nor nikon gear, so I can't make a good recomendation on a lens) but since you have time I would suggest the following since you have time open to you;

1) see if you can find a local wedding photographer who is willing to let you ghost him/her at a wedding event - the idea here is that you go and shoot (without getting in the photographers way) thus getting a feel for weddings, whilst not having the pressure to have to get stunning results. That can be a real eye opener showing you all the different lighting situations and such that you can encounter and might show you some other areas in which your skills or kit need improving.

2) I have not seen your work so this is not me saying that you are no good - but do keep an open mind to the offer to shoot the wedding - practice, put in the hours and get the best kit you can - but in the end (and well before the day) take a long hard look at yourself and your gear and make darn sure you are confident in your abilty to perform well on the day. If not its time to step back and tell the couple to get a pro - you can still shoot on the day of course but it removes pressure from you and is a good fall back if you find that your just not ready.
IT is a demanding area of photography, not just from the technical side but also because (not matter what they say) the couple (esp the wife) want 1stclass results.


----------



## Dao (Jun 3, 2009)

Overread said:


> .... (esp the wife) want 1stclass results.



:thumbup:
I think this phrase sum up the whole thing.


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 3, 2009)

Overread, I do have a friend that is a pro photographer and she has offered for me to come to her house any time for free lessons, BONUS! 
I have wanted to ask her to let me shadow her-- but here's where it gets sticky, I work for her husband.  I have been his office manager for 9 years.  (not in the photography biz)  I love photography and I would like to make it into a career.  I have this amazing opportunity to train with a pro but how can I use this to my advantage without pissing off her husband?  Eventually it will become apparent to them that I intend on leaving my current full time job.  :meh:


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

Dao said:


> If the bride/groom understand the limitation of the photographer, it is all good.  Because that is their choice not to hire a Pro photographer.    If I buy a used car instead of a new one, I will need to accept the fact that when it break down in one year, I may need to pay for the repairs.  I will not blame the car salesman.


That certainly sounds good until you screw up their wedding photos and you've lost, *forever*, those moments.  I can assure you that unless they simply don't care if they have pics or not, someone - usually the bride - will be pretty upset.

When they agree to a favor they're thinking "we're getting our pics for free!" and not "we may or may not get our pics".


----------



## manaheim (Jun 3, 2009)

haven't seen one of these threads in a while...

mostly new players...

interesting...


----------



## Dao (Jun 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> haven't seen one of these threads in a while...
> 
> mostly new players...
> 
> interesting...



haha .. yes ... but it is good to see it once in a whole.   So that we know this forum still alive and have new blood.   ...  Pass me that pop corn  ... will ya?


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2009)

MissDaisy well from your current standpoint you hav the offer of some free training so that is certainly a massive help! Might be an idea to go to some of the training sessions and then see how things go - as they go on express interest in getting some in the field experience at a real wedding - before the big day for yourself.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> haven't seen one of these threads in a while...
> 
> mostly new players...
> 
> interesting...


 I think it's pretty funny how a thread about lens shopping can turn into another wedding photography discussion as soon as the word 'wedding' is used (and it doesnt matter what the original subject started as)


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 3, 2009)

Clawed said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > haven't seen one of these threads in a while...
> ...


 
I think everyone wants me to know how vicious a Bridezilla can be! :lmao:


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

Clawed said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > haven't seen one of these threads in a while...
> ...


I can see how it happened.  When you say "what's a good lens for wedding photography" it's not much of a stretch for the thread to discuss wedding photography.

Actually, this is what was said:



> To get to the point I would like to purchase another lens that would be appropriate for weddings.



This leads to a discussion about what's appropriate for a wedding.  Seems like a natural progression to me.


----------



## Missdaisy (Jun 3, 2009)

I've enjoyed everyones input, that's why I threw it out there. :thumbup:


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> I've enjoyed everyones input, that's why I threw it out there. :thumbup:


You're such a good sport.   

We're just looking out for ya.


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 3, 2009)

amandagphoto said:


> ANDS, you may know people who haven't had their camera or other equipment fail, but that is like playing Russian Roulette. There will come a time (if they shoot enough weddings) where something will fail. If not, they are lucky and should play the lottery. It doesn't matter what kind of lens (or camera) you have as a backup (in a loose sense). Just use one for the sake of being responsible for your paying customer.
> I agree that a skilled photographer can get great shots without buying the newest equipment. I will also add that some equipment can do more than others and yields better results than others. I would hope you use more than one lens to shoot a wedding if you are getting paid for it. :greenpbl:



I didn't say camera equipment can't fail.  I would just like to know those people who have oodles invested in lenses, backup cameras that collect dust - how many times they've actually been in this situation.  Check out DigitalWeddingForums.com and its classified section, and you'll see a graveyard of unused "backups" with 200 actuations on them.

As I said, if the OP has the money - spend it.  But please lets not draw superficial lines in the sand that seperate cash loaded "pros", with budding "ametuer" photogs. 



> I too had a camera failure while photographing a sweet 16, and I was devastated, got one of those error 99 something codes.



Shoot Nikon.



> I'm not gonna spend some 3 grand for a photographer who won't be prepared for murphy's law.



I'd just carry around a couple of broken lenses and a dead body I got off eBay:  "See, I'm prepared!"  Like I said, its all a state of mind, a false mentality that others get sucked in that makes them think one is better than the other.  If I had my druthers, I'd pick the plucky shooter with two lenses and an older camera with the stunning shots, than the also-ran shooter with 20G's worth of equipment giving me Cliche Wedding Shot #867370347.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Shoot Nikon.


Yeah, we know Nikons never suffer from things like the infamous F error or anything.


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

ANDS!, no one is suggesting she purchase $20 grand worth of gear.  It is completely remiss of you to suggest that she need not worry about finding an affordable alternative to having a back-up.  Either renting or borrowing a camera for a day is damn cheap insurance to avoid making a very ugly mess of things.  That's all that's being said here and for some reason you're telling her to ignore the advice of countless pro's that have done of this years and to just wing it... everything will be fine because over on the Digital Wedding Forums there's gear for sale that's never been used.

What will you tell her should she come back here after listening to your advice and says "my camera stopped working because it was knocked to the floor by a guest and I missed half of the wedding"?  Will you ignore her posts?  Pretend you gave other advice?


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 3, 2009)

> It is completely remiss of you to suggest that she need not worry about finding an affordable alternative to having a back-up.



That's not what I said - at all.  



> That's all that's being said here and for some reason you're telling her to ignore the advice of countless pro's that have done of this years and to just wing it... everything will be fine because over on the Digital Wedding Forums there's gear for sale that's never been used.



Don't be freaking obtuse.  Sh*t happens.  Thats a statistical certainty.  However, the degree of SH*T happening that people are suggesting "cures" for is ONE of the things I disagree with.  Having backups to expensive gear, and then backups for those backups is basically trying to drive your statistical chance of error to "zero" - which is silly and counterproductive.  Renting a lens and body is probably a better option than outright purchasing a second body.  DWF.com was brought up becuase of the COUNTLESS unused "backup" bodies that have been sitting in PRO shooters inventory for years.  That is called anecdotal evidence to point to the insanity of this arms race some of you seem to be in with Murphy's Law.

Nevermind the nonsense that was bandied about having a backup to cars and other ridiculousness.  People wonder why some of these shooters are able to get away with charging an arm AND a leg.  



> What will you tell her should she come back here after listening to your advice and says "my camera stopped working because it was knocked to the floor by a guest and I missed half of the wedding"? Will you ignore her posts? Pretend you gave other advice?



I will say "Why the hell was your camera on a tripod. . .in the middle of a wedding. . .and not in your hands?"


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jun 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> haven't seen one of these threads in a while...
> 
> mostly new players...
> 
> interesting...


 Bhahahaaa, sorry, but that just made my day! Very well played .

Anyway, I'm in no position to talk about shooting weddings as much as OverRead or Dao, but I would really recommend asking your friend if you could ghost her. I mean, unless her husband is the "gets annoyed at the drop of a hat" type (no offence to him), then the worst that could happen is she refuses, and even then you're no worse off.

Give it a shot, you'll learn something, too . Best of luck, whatever you choose to do!


----------



## inTempus (Jun 3, 2009)

Don't get so wound up buddy, we're just talking.  No need to cuss and have veins pop out of your forehead.  

If you agree she should find a cheap solution to a back-up, then I'll chalk this up to "we agree" and move on.


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 3, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > Renting a lens and body is probably a better option than outright purchasing a second body.  DWF.com was brought up becuase of the COUNTLESS unused "backup" bodies that have been sitting in PRO shooters inventory for years.  That is called anecdotal evidence to point to the insanity of this arms race some of you seem to be in with Murphy's Law.
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 3, 2009)

amandagphoto said:
			
		

> Ands, renting equipment is not cost efficient if you are shooting so many weddings you would have paid for the camera by the time you get to wedding number 10, you know? There are countless other things that could happen to your camera body besides it getting knocked off a tripod. I don't believe anyone said to have a backup for the backup. Just to have one backup is sufficient and it need not be the costliest one out there. I think your experience with a few gearheads who buy everything is causing you to incorrectly perceive the need to have a modest backup.



First, I was actually agreeing with another poster that for those who are CASH STRAPPED and unwilling to dump a bunch of cash just for the benefit of being considered a "pro" in yours and others eyes - renting a lens is a viable option IF they are that concerned with their equipment breaking (and not just one piece of equipment - but ALL their equipment since that seems to be a statistical possibility for some of you).

Second, I already conceded the UTILITY of having backups way back when in this thread.  My original complaint was against those who ridiculously stated that the lack of multiple copies of very expensive tools renders a persons art and talent as amateur.  



> No need to cuss and have veins pop out of your forehead.


The "sh*ts" were nouns.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 3, 2009)

TamiyaGuy said:


> Bhahahaaa, sorry, but that just made my day! Very well played .


 
*chuckle*

Glad _someone_ enjoyed it.


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 4, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> amandagphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hello again ANDS, I don't believe anyone here on this thread stated that you had to have expensive equipment to be a pro or to be a talented artist. Is this something you saw on another thread perhaps, and you assumed that's what we meant when we stated you need backup equipment to be reliable? 
     Just to clarify, having backup equipment doesn't in itself make you a pro. The definition of professional according to Merriam-Websters dictionary is to "conform to technical and ethical standards of a profession" and to "participate in a field of activity for gain or livelihood". It does not mean one is necesarily better than an amateur, it just means there is a "code of conduct" (also in the dict def) that is followed and the backups are a part of that, but there is certainly more. I hope this leaves you with a better taste in your mouth.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 4, 2009)

^^^ oh *SWEET*.

Now the debate on what a Pro means gets inserted... RELEASE THE LIONS!!!!

Or were we already debating that one?  I get so lost on these threads because I've seen so many variants.   It's like a huge blur.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 4, 2009)

lol. i am actually surprised to see this still going on...
i actually agree with ANDS! original post in that there is no NEED for backup equipment. he did in fact emphasize NEED and even say if you are really unsure then get a cheap bacup. sure, if you're a very well known wedding photographer making 6 figures then yea, you're going to have multiple bodies. i have in fact never heard of someone carrying backup lenses though. in the past year i've been to two $250,000+ weddings with multiple professional photographers (i was a guest not a photographer) and none of them carries extra lenses. i can't see the need. you're going to have a variation of lenses and focal lengths and IF something were to happen to one you'll have another to make due.


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 4, 2009)

> Hello again ANDS, I don't believe anyone here on this thread stated that you had to have expensive equipment to be a pro or to be a talented artist. Is this something you saw on another thread perhaps, and you assumed that's what we meant when we stated you need backup equipment to be reliable?


Good lord.



			
				amandagphoto said:
			
		

> Being a *professional wedding photographer* myself, I understand the *difference between an amateur photographer who shows up with one camera and a pro who has backup equipment in case something happens to the first*. The bride and groom are trusting you to be prepared and are paying you not only for photos, but to be responsible and have a backup plan for if something goes wrong (and eventually it will with one thing or another.). This is not the kind of shoot that can be redone and any pro customer service oriented photographer will have their client's best interests at heart. I know a bride and groom will appreciate that their wedding is treated with respect and care.



Emphasis mine.

And now you're being willfully obtuse.  The ENTIRE sentence was: "My original complaint was against those who ridiculously stated that the lack of *multiple copies of very expensive tools* renders a persons art and talent as amateur."  What pro quality wedding lens ISNT expensive?  



> Just to clarify, having backup equipment doesn't in itself make you a pro


No, but according to your above comment, not having them automatically makes you amateur hour.



> It does not mean one is necessarily better than an amateur, it just means there is a "code of conduct" (also in the dict def) that is followed and the backups are a part of that


Is there a "Pro Photographer Guideline" that I'm missing?  Some union that has hashed out this standardized behavior?


----------



## Dao (Jun 4, 2009)

How to create a thread that can generate 40 pages?

Put "Wedding" "Friends/Relatives" "How to" "Free" in the Title.


Of course, "Canon vs Nikon" can do that too....


----------



## manaheim (Jun 4, 2009)

ooo... I'd have to award ANDS! the advantage after that last post.


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 4, 2009)

manaheim said:


> ooo... I'd have to award ANDS! the advantage after that last post.



What advantage? I don't see that. A bad attitude does not a good point make. He is actually not accurately arguing the point because he does not appear to understand my meaning. He is arguing against something that was not said by anyone here which is rather amusing.

ANDS, expense is all relative and there are various tools that work well at various prices. Heck, it sounds like you would say everything but the kit lens is too much money. Just depends on your definition of what works well and your def of what expensive is. I wouldn't think twice about buying a soda if I'm thirsty but someone else might say a buck is too much for 16 oz and they'll wait till later. To each their own in the way of what we choose to buy and how much it is! 

By the way, who actually stated that _"the lack of *multiple copies of very expensive tools* renders a persons art and talent as amateur."_    I couldn't find anyone saying that on here except for you..... It doesn't matter the cost, it matters if it does the job. I hope you wouldn't go so far as to say a point and shoot camera would work for a pro wedding photog. Seriously, the choice of equipment is important and what it does. Some of it happens to cost more. The reason why is not rocket science and I won't insult anyone's intelligence here explaining that.

It is a characteristic of a non professional (and is a poor decision from a professional standpoint) to not have backup equipment. Could you shoot and get paid w/out backups? Sure! Is that professional behavior? Absolutely not. I guess the issue here is the noun "professional" vs the adjective "professional". 

And yes, there are plenty of unions for photographers that have generally agreed upon codes from a pro standpoint. Try PPA and the DWF forum.

I think I've made the point concisely and politely.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 4, 2009)

amandagphoto said:


> By the way, who actually stated that _"the lack of *multiple copies of very expensive tools* renders a persons art and talent as amateur."_    I couldn't find anyone saying that on here except for you.....





amandagphoto said:


> I understand the difference between an amateur photographer who shows up with one camera and a pro who has backup equipment




-----------

i'm just goint to throw jabs in here and there to keep this going


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 4, 2009)

This is the part where we get into Stoopid Land and I have to parse statements:

"the lack of multiple copies of very expensive tools renders a persons art and talent as amateur."

You are - purposely I suspect - focusing on the adjective EXPENSIVE, when the crux of that statement is "multiple copies of. . .tools".  You know this, and are trying to play games of semantics to make your point.  Photography IS an expensive pursuit - a VERY expensive thing when we are talking about having more than one of our lenses and bodies.  You can play Einstein and discuss the "relativity" of cost, but I doubt you'll find someone who would suggest that having two or more copies of a 24-70 F/2.8 Nikon isn't an expensive (even if "necessary") investment.

Heres where your "argument" goes off the rails:



> It doesn't matter the cost, it matters if it does the job.



A single camera body and a few lenses, does the job.  But hoohoo:



> Some of it happens to cost more.



Cost more. . .you mean - one lens is MORE EXPENSIVE than the other?  Well slap me upside the head and call me Chris Burke!  So there you go, you recognize that these are expensive items and well hell by simple math "multiple copies of expensive items" is greater than "single copies of expensive items".  And thus, because YOU said a pro needs multiple (read: greater financial investment) backups, my statement can be inferred.

So realistically you have done nothing but restate your original comment:



> Being a professional wedding photographer myself, I understand the difference between an amateur photographer who shows up with one camera and a pro who has backup equipment in case something happens to the first.



Which is where this whole bidness started - you making some ridiculous statement to the quality of a "professional" - adjective or otherwise.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 4, 2009)

amandagphoto said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > ooo... I'd have to award ANDS! the advantage after that last post.
> ...


 
I wasn't so much applauding his attitude (not that I necessarily have an issue with it...) as his kinda spiking the argument.

The simple fact is, whether you meant to or not, you did strongly imply that someone who doesn't have lots of equipment is an amateur, and further implied that they're basically not up to the task.

You've also jumped headlong into the trap of trying to define what a "professional" is or isn't, which around here is tantamount to wearing a meat suit to a rabid starving dog convention. This one has been debated ad-nauseum here and elsewhere by people far brighter and more capable than you and I. I don't know what the ultimate answer is, but I can tell you that the people who I have the most respect for in business and photography are the ones who I least often hear uttering the word.

I'm not going to be foolish enough to get dragged into your little debate here, but I will go as far as to say that I think you're in up to your neck in this and sinking fast. I think much of it has just been a matter or word choices and that your core ideas are actually fine, it's just that you have kinda carved off a subsection of people and told them they are not fit to serve... whether you are right or wrong, that isn't going to win you any friends. 

I suppose winning friends isn't necessarily what it's all about, but this is a community and as such people do try to make a point to play nice. I guess all I'm saying is that you basically stepped into the community and knocked over several sacred cows on day 1 and you may want to step back and rethink a bit before you fire up the chanisaw and cut yourself some nice juicy steaks.

:er:


----------



## Clawed (Jun 4, 2009)

This is ridiculous, and at this point, how are _any of you_ adding value to the OPs inquiry (this goes for myself here too... now)?  This is just nonsensical rambling and I have to disagree with you Manaheim, you point the finger at Amanda for stirring this up, but it was ANDS! who started in this conversation belligerently.  However, I DO agree with the point ANDS! is making after going back though and reading, but not his approach...

To Missdaisy:  good luck with your lens shopping (if you have not already purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8).  You have two conflicting ideas here about what qualifies as "requirements" to shoot a wedding.  Obviously, there is no right answer.  Somewhere in between "shooting weddings will _require_ more than one good lens. It will also _require_ more than one body" and showing up with a point and shoot, lies the answer.  Thankfully, you can dismiss all of what has been said here, and make your own decision, and it really comes down to your own comfort level.  You already knew that though  

Have fun and learn as much as you possibly can before the big day!


----------



## manaheim (Jun 4, 2009)

Clawed said:


> ...and I have to disagree with you Manaheim, you point the finger at Amanda for stirring this up, but it was ANDS! who started in this conversation belligerently. However, I DO agree with the point ANDS! is making after going back though and reading, but not his approach...


 
:lmao:

K, sure, dude.  Whatever. :thumbup:


----------



## amandagphoto (Jun 4, 2009)

manaheim said:


> amandagphoto said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


----------



## manaheim (Jun 4, 2009)

I agree with ANDS!.  I think you're being obtuse... perhaps deliberately so.  For example "a lot of equipment" was pretty clearly my characterization of what you said... not a direct quote.  Your then responding and saying [para] "I didn't say that!" is just picking nits.

I did, in fact, re-read much of what you said.  A couple times, in fact.

What's more is I've never disagreed with your points, but rather pointed out where you may have stepped in a couple of landmines.  I actually did this in an effort to try to be a bit helpful.

I'm sure many will benefit from your professional perspective in this and other things.  I, however, am moving on from this particular convo.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 5, 2009)

First, I know kung-fu.  Second:



> I realize there is insecurity among some regarding their station



Haha.  Holy freak meister massa!

And just to be clear so there is no confusion, I never said this quote:  



			
				ANDS! OMG!  ANDS!  NOT AMANDA! said:
			
		

> . . .the lack of multiple copies of very expensive tools renders a persons art and talent as amateur.



. . .was anybodies but mine.  In fact - that's not even the full quote.

Now this:



			
				Hey Amanda Look Here!  This Is What You Said! said:
			
		

> Being a professional wedding photographer myself, I understand the difference between an amateur photographer who shows up with one camera and a pro who has backup equipment in case something happens to the first.



. . .is your statement.  Now this:



			
				More Amanda! said:
			
		

> that a responsible professional should carry backup equipment for the sake of the bride and the protection of their business.



Is less inflammatory and a more measured response than the gal of the original quote that started this shakedown.


----------



## Masterosouffle (Jun 5, 2009)

I actually felt the need to join this forum to comment here, I assume you are all aware this forum is publically viewable, and that anyone can just join as I did?

I only ask this as the petty bickering and childish crap that is being written here by people who are laughably trying to call themselves professional is gobsmacking. The fact you are trying to justify the fact you can shoot wedding with no backup equipment is only indicative of the sheer ignorance and misplaced arrogance that seems to be rife in this thread.

Can someone with just a point and shoot calll themselves a professional? Worryingly so
Would a professional photographer attend a wedding with no back up gear? I sincerely hope not
Do you guys need to get your house in order and cut the crap? Yes

Amanda, I strongly suggets you rise above this and return to the other forum


----------



## Montana (Jun 5, 2009)

I think there are just too many professional photographers in this world..........

And for what its worth, photography is not really an expensive business.  A good carpenter has just as much money in his tools, an electronics tech has just as much money invested in tools, etc, etc, etc.  This thread is funny though.....:er:


----------



## inTempus (Jun 5, 2009)

Masterosouffle said:


> I actually felt the need to join this forum to comment here, I assume you are all aware this forum is publically viewable, and that anyone can just join as I did?


It is?

OH CRAP!  Mod's, please alert the Admin that this forum is publicly viewable and the worst part, apparently just anyone off the net can join and post!!!

RED ALERT FOLKS!


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 5, 2009)

> The fact you are trying to justify the fact you can shoot wedding with no backup. . .



I wonder what happens if someone arrives with a camera and a couple lenses - does their head explode as they step into the church?  Maybe some divine-retribution?  The G-Man doesn't like Single-Bodied-Shooters!


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 5, 2009)

Is this thread going anywhere?


----------



## itznfb (Jun 5, 2009)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Is this thread going anywhere?



to my favorites


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 5, 2009)

Nothing wrong with a spirited back-and-forth.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 5, 2009)

Only asking...


----------



## inTempus (Jun 5, 2009)

Would it be completely inappropriate for me to mention I like pie?


----------



## atbawrps (Jun 5, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Would it be completely inappropriate for me to mention I like pie?



Depends on what kind of pie.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 5, 2009)

Masterosouffle said:


> Amanda, I strongly suggets you rise above this and return to the other forum


 
Smartest thing I've seen in this thread yet.

Buh bye.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 6, 2009)

If i were you i would learn to use the lenses you have then you will know what you need


----------

