Getting back into photography. What do customers want these days?

C

camarade

Active member
Apart from a big bulky camera that looks expensive (people seem to like that... it adds to the sensation of "getting your money's worth"), what things to consider if getting back into the game?

- 4K video ability (because why not)

- HDR... these days it grabs multiple exposures in a single shot I would assume? Used to be static, tripod-only multiple exposures last time I had a DSLR.

- Full frame for that extra IQ

Anything else I should consider? Wifi used to be a thing for a while but it ate batteries... is that still around? Thanks.
 
Magnificent art direction, global location scouting, perfect lighting execution, emotional color grade, teenager like beauty pass and plastic surgeon body modifications.
 
laverdir said:
Magnificent art direction, global location scouting, perfect lighting execution, emotional color grade, teenager like beauty pass and plastic surgeon body modifications.
Click to expand...



I see you work with easy to please clients then... Wish mine were so forgiving :)

BTW @camarade you said "photography" but your first requirement was 4K video.....

For Stills I would suggest the Fuji mirrorless. They are small, light and have a good range of lenses (or look at the 4/3rds skit) the day of the BIG DSLR has passed. Rather "is passing" it is not gone yet but for many things the new Mirrorless camera are becoming acceptable. A bit like when some photographers started turning up with DSLRs rather than the now "professional" 35m film cameras that only a few years before when Bailey turned up on a shoot for Vouge a 35mm film camera rather than a Medium format camera it was refered to as a toy or tourist camera that no professional would/should use.

So go for one of the new Mirrorless systems (they do video too). you can get a camera and a couple of lenses and a flash in your jacket pockets with out needing a big bag.

Though for some shoots and clients you have to have a lot of imposing kit.
 
Studio? Outdoors? Inclement weather (heat, cold, rain/snow)? Legacy lenses? High frame rates? Sports? Portraiture? High resolution?

Happy to give some advice, but need more info.

IMO most current digital cameras can provide professional output...so you have to decide how you like to work. In my mind, it’s got to be reliable in ALL conditions, have a battery that lasts long enough to forget about while working, and has a wide range of accessories from the same manufacturer (no struggling with incompatibilities in the field). While I’ve found no perfect camera yet, I use multiple types depending upon the situation. It’s kind of like asking what kind of tool to buy...hammer? Screwdriver?

I’ve NEVER been let down by my Canon 1DX...ever. I had a Nikon D2X (remember those?) fail due to internal parts failure while changing lenses. My client was very understanding, but I was embarrassed. To their credit, Nikon rushed the repair, round trip.

Leica, Sony, Fuji...great image quality, love the sizes (I own them all), but not up to the job...not when I HAVE to make the images.
 
David_Manning said:
I’ve NEVER been let down by my Canon 1DX...ever. I had a Nikon D2X (remember those?) fail due to internal parts failure
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been happy with Canon too, and a world of problems with Nikon so not really considering them (don't like the layout of buttons or the grip either).

1DX mk2 looks nice. Still wondering about HDR and that stuff though.
 
Depends on what you're doing, but the vast majority of the still shooters that I'm around at sporting events and press conferences are shooting on Canon DSLR's(maybe 80/20 Canon/Nikon). There was a link to an article over on Canon Rumors about one of the (I believe) New York Times staff shooters going with the Sony a9, but pretty much everyone I know and see who's career depends on it, is not shooting mirrorless. Maybe once Canon decides to produce a "mirrorless 1DX/5D", it will start to catch on for real in the pro world. I would like to try the a9, though, and see if it's focus and high-frame rate are as good as they seem on paper.

From a technicalogical and gear standpoint, there has never been a better time to be a photographer. From a business standpoint, there has probably never been a worse time to be a photographer.
 
Having done stills on and off since film times Id say there are two considerations that are 'new' to the party

1) getting pics to social media fast.

2) silent shooting is a new thing that is on occasion handy.

It seems that mirror DSLR (that we love and trust) are not good at either.
 
Run&Gun said:
New York Times staff shooters going with the Sony a9, but pretty much everyone I know and see who's career depends on it, is not shooting mirrorless. Maybe once Canon decides to produce a "mirrorless 1DX/5D", it will start to catch on for real in the pro world.
Click to expand...


They said the same about the toy/tourist 35mm cameras (over medium format). They said (and some till say) the same about Digital cameras (over wet film). Mirrorless ARE starting to encroach on the DSLR market. btw ALL video cameras are mirrorless. That is cameras whose primary function is video.

However turning up with a mirrorless will have some stigma attached to it for a while just as turning up with a DSLR or 35mm camera did inthe past.

People like to hang onto what they know and the past. Especially when they have invested $$$$ in it.


It comes down to why you are getting back into photography. If you feel the need to be accepted by a particular bunch of photographers then probably a big heavy canon DSLR otherwise a small light Mirrorless.

For the record I use big heavy DSLR's (and large video cameras) but if I was starting now I would go mirrorless. Apart from peoples prejudice they are a better bet in the digital world
 
Are mirrorless any good though?

When the rubber hits the road af is reliable on a Dslr

The ground glass is not a strain on the eye.

An EVF can be much darker than the ambient light level - or too bright - GG just reacts to the ambient light levels and on a full day or week of shooting that is a significant boost to avoiding fatigue.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Are mirrorless any good though?

When the rubber hits the road af is reliable on a Dslr

The ground glass is not a strain on the eye.

An EVF can be much darker than the ambient light level - or too bright - GG just reacts to the ambient light levels and on a full day or week of shooting that is a significant boost to avoiding fatigue.
Click to expand...


Mirrorless cameras are the same as DSLR's just without the mirror and prism.
The electronics and the lenses are the same.
Fewer moving parts and less wear.
Lighter to less fatigue using & carrying them.

Quite a few Pro photographers have swapped from DSLR to mirrorless. One of my acquaintance who uses a motorbike said it has halved the weight and space he needs to carry his kit on the road.
 
jagraphics said:
Mirrorless cameras are the same as DSLR's just without the mirror and prism.
The electronics and the lenses are the same.
Fewer moving parts and less wear.
Lighter to less fatigue using & carrying them.

Quite a few Pro photographers have swapped from DSLR to mirrorless. One of my acquaintance who uses a motorbike said it has halved the weight and space he needs to carry his kit on the road.
Click to expand...

Well they are not the same because you don't view the image through an open iris and ground glass - meaning your eye is constantly battered by a refreshing screen at potentially inappropriate brightness level.

Does it make a difference?
If you are photographing your kids birthday. No.
If you are on the sidelines of Wimbledon for a month. Yes.
 
morgan_moore said:
Well they are not the same because you don't view the image through an open iris and ground glass - meaning your eye is constantly battered by a refreshing screen at potentially inappropriate brightness level.

Does it make a difference?
If you are photographing your kids birthday. No.
If you are on the sidelines of Wimbledon for a month. Yes.
Click to expand...

So why to ALL video cameras not use an optical viewfinder? it is easy enough to split the path.
I think your argument is spurious or all the TV/News Video camera people (including those at Wimbledon) would have complained a long time ago.
 
jagraphics said:
So why to ALL video cameras not use an optical viewfinder?
Click to expand...

Video cameras dont I guess use an optical finder because..
-cost
-stopped down during turn over

Arri and the like did/do have some optical options as maybe the F65 did/does.

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/alexa-studio-viewfinder-open-gate/

so the top end people want/have it

jagraphics said:
TV/News Video camera people (including those at Wimbledon) would have complained a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Have you ever met a TV cameraman who didnt complain? Again at wimbledon and other events where pro level cameras are used they use ultrabiright montitors and big hoods that cost more than an FS7 or any mirrorless camera.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-t...-wimbledon-tennis-championships-30310002.html
 
Very informative. However the OP may not be wanting to get into that sort of stills shooting.

There is a LOT of pro video and photography that does not require 8 hours a day for 2 weeks with the eye glued to the viewfinder.
 
Yep - back in normal world - I just think gg is nicer - never any strobing - my gh4 is horrid - but then I will admit to membership of the older school
 
mcgeedigital said:
None of my mirrorless systems EVFs refresh rates bother me when shooting.

it is a non-issue.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree but thinking about it I can see it might be a problem if you have your eye up to the EFV for long periods of time.
The only time I have done that for many minutes at a time is on image intensifiers compared to pure optics but it wasn't on a camera.
Then you can notice a bit.

However for stills shooting (outside the 2 weeks of Wimbledon) I can't see it being a problem.

OTOH the savings in weight, space and the lowering of fatigue when carrying/using the kit would out weigh any disadvantage of the EFV. Unless you are one of a VERY small number of Photographers covering Wimbledon.
 
I want my stills cameras to have EVFs.

Autofocus is great for some tasks, but peaking is a powerful tool when manually focusing. While dim, Ground Glass was pretty good for manual focus, but few, if any, Digital Cameras offer this tech anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top