meezy
meezy
excellent thoughts in your post, kuzano. i have a lot to say in response. i am a full-time teacher. i do think that headshots are a more reliable and convenient way to make money on the side. a couple of lights and white background, a couple of hours at the studio/photoshop, cash in your hand, up front, and tax-free... and a line of aspiring actors that goes out the door waiting to be next. although i hear the contradiction you are referring to, lots of people are doing headshots in nyc, yet the competition isn't that fierce simply because there's a high demand... a significantly higher demand, i suspect, than national geographic has for my shots of anything abroad...
every waiter in new york city has headshots!
i would absolutely prefer travel photography - but it looks to me that so does anyone else who travels with a decent camera - and with each passing year there are tons and tons more that do! i can only imagine the competition in that market! yes, maybe i'll sell some shots - but at what effort and at what cost? ...i know plenty of photographers that struggle like that. i'm a bit more of a realist. i'll take travel shots for my own pleasure, thanks.
while i don't share your idealistic vision of me "following my dream" of travel photography as my primary directive, i do like your ideas for gear so that i get good results in that arena. i'll never say no to nat geo if they do find something they like, however! hell, i'll give it to them free, just for the credits.
thanks again... i like your suggestions for lenses, in particular.
every waiter in new york city has headshots!
i would absolutely prefer travel photography - but it looks to me that so does anyone else who travels with a decent camera - and with each passing year there are tons and tons more that do! i can only imagine the competition in that market! yes, maybe i'll sell some shots - but at what effort and at what cost? ...i know plenty of photographers that struggle like that. i'm a bit more of a realist. i'll take travel shots for my own pleasure, thanks.
while i don't share your idealistic vision of me "following my dream" of travel photography as my primary directive, i do like your ideas for gear so that i get good results in that arena. i'll never say no to nat geo if they do find something they like, however! hell, i'll give it to them free, just for the credits.
thanks again... i like your suggestions for lenses, in particular.
Chris101
summicronia
If it was me, I'd get a D700 and a 24-120vr lens. Comes to just about the exact amount you got.
kuzano
Veteran
Enjoyed your response and clarity. May not be able to imagine the demand for head shots exceeding the capacity for doing them, but you're in New York and I am far away.
Also, I left out one thing I have read repeatedly about Travel Photojournalism. The secret in Travel Photojournalism seems not to be the image capture, but the ability to handle the journalistic part. In other words, to write pertinent, interesting and clear journalism to go with the images. It has been said often in that industry that the combination of a good photographer AND a journalist combined is a rare find. I hear that many publications that use travel photojournalism (or other photojournalism for that matter) often use photographers who can provide images and have someone else who pens the articles.
But, thanks for the response to my thoughts and very good luck on whatever course you pursue.
I still think that dollar for dollar a good Canon 5D body is a great choice. The 24-105mm IS L lens with 2.8 max aperture is a great lens, and should be attainable for around $1000 shopping carefully and given time.
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
I think a 5d and the 85L would be hard to beat for headshots, 5d's skintones are good, which is a blessing for a fast turnaround/less time sitting on your ass. Never used the 5D II so I can't comment on it. Getting a used 400D or something for backup is a must imo if you're shooting for money, at least for peace of mind...
Ranchu
Veteran
I agree that is a good lens and a good choice, just wanted to note that it is an f4 rather than an f2.8...
Canon also has a new 100mm 2.8 IS macro which you should check out. I've shot the similar Nikon, and the stabilization is a joy to use.
Last edited:
I'd go for a Nikon D700 and several manual focus Nikkor Ai-S prime lenses. Should be able to buy quite a few lenses with the remaining cash!
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Where is this "huge number of National Geographic photographers and Travel Photojournalists"?
What planet?
F@$*%g A please tell me! Not to pick on you but if you count people making a bona-fide and consistent living from travel photojournalism or the National Geographic Society, you can use your fingers and toes. Maybe your friend's too, but only if they're a double amputee.
What planet?
F@$*%g A please tell me! Not to pick on you but if you count people making a bona-fide and consistent living from travel photojournalism or the National Geographic Society, you can use your fingers and toes. Maybe your friend's too, but only if they're a double amputee.
PentHassyKon
Established
So what film cameras do you currently own? This could help make the most of the $3825 grant.
I'm partial to Pentax and agree with Roger - hopefully your film camera is a Pentax
meezy
meezy
my thoughts exactly, frank.
kuzano
Veteran
There are both 2.8 L and 4.0 L versions of the lens.
There are both 2.8 L and 4.0 L versions of the lens.
Oops... caught me. I was thinking of the 24-70 L f2.8 IS lens. It's a constant 2.8. If the f4 cuts it for your needs I would do the 24-105L lens. Personally, I would probably buy the 24-70, in which case the 70 would do head shots in a pinch, being just a bit short for portrait. With studio head shots the light would not be a problem, so the 24-105 would be good there with the f4.
The 24-70 f2.8 constant is available new on Amazon right now for $1277, while the 24-105 is $1060. One should be able to find the 24-70 used for around $1000.
Since the 5D is full frame, the door is also open to high quality EOS film lenses from the EOS systems which are sharp out to the edges. No factoring for the focal length makes things simpler. Those are some of my reasons for picking the MKI model to save money on the body. I would bet that a lot of people who have moved up the the MKII are spending a certain amount of time each day, justifying the extra expense. Lots of 5D's are showing up on the used market. The reviews from almost everyone were exemplary for that camera.
There are both 2.8 L and 4.0 L versions of the lens.
I agree that is a good lens and a good choice, just wanted to note that it is an f4 rather than an f2.8...
Canon also has a new 100mm 2.8 IS macro which you should check out. I've shot the similar Nikon, and the stabilization is a joy to use.
Oops... caught me. I was thinking of the 24-70 L f2.8 IS lens. It's a constant 2.8. If the f4 cuts it for your needs I would do the 24-105L lens. Personally, I would probably buy the 24-70, in which case the 70 would do head shots in a pinch, being just a bit short for portrait. With studio head shots the light would not be a problem, so the 24-105 would be good there with the f4.
The 24-70 f2.8 constant is available new on Amazon right now for $1277, while the 24-105 is $1060. One should be able to find the 24-70 used for around $1000.
Since the 5D is full frame, the door is also open to high quality EOS film lenses from the EOS systems which are sharp out to the edges. No factoring for the focal length makes things simpler. Those are some of my reasons for picking the MKI model to save money on the body. I would bet that a lot of people who have moved up the the MKII are spending a certain amount of time each day, justifying the extra expense. Lots of 5D's are showing up on the used market. The reviews from almost everyone were exemplary for that camera.
robinsonphotography
Established
Do you have to buy new? Please say no.
First thing is first, no matter what you get, get full frame. So either a D700 or one of the two 5ds (mk 1 or mk 2). For headshots, the shallower DOF that comes with that bigger chip size is invaluable. Night and day difference. I would (and did) opt for the D700 because of the (for me) much better ergonomics and the fantastic AF system, which is crucial when you're doing lots of portraits at f/1.4 and want to let people still move a little.
I'd pick up a used D700 over at fred miranda's buy and sell forums for about $2,000, then a 50mm f/1.4 G for another $400 (so much better than the older 50mm f/1.4D, really big difference for my money, glad I made the upgrade), and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for $1,400 if you like zooms OR a 35mm f/2 and a 105mm f/2 (or 85 f/1.4) for another $250 and $900 respectively. Which still keeps you under the limit, with enough left over for some cards, harddrives, or better yet some flash gear. I'd get an old manual flash like an SB24, use either radio popper Jrs or pocket wizards for your triggers, and get some small lumopro folding lightstands from www.mpex.com.
I really think there is a lot to be said for the D700 over the 5dmkII, unless you need video of course, and the prices on D700s are finally coming down a little so that it's really not hard to find one for 1,900-2,000 in very good shape. The high iso performance and quick AF on that camera makes it a true life saver. I do lots of headshots (senior portraits, usually, but lots of seniors want to look like hollywood actors, so really there are many similarities) in the late afternoon shooting at f/1.4 and ISO 800 just so I can keep my shutter speed at 1/1000 and let my subject move, and I never have to think twice. I don't even start thinking until I hit ISO 2,000, and then it's just to make sure I expose correctly, since if I do I still have no issues. It isn't until I hit 3,200-6,400 that I actually think twice, and I still usually just go for it. Don't underestimate how useful those extra stops will be.....I used to shoot on a D2x and never touch ISO 800 and didn't think I was missing anything save for when I was shooting indoor sports, I never realized how frequently I would benefit from bumping up the ISO on a regular basis now that image quality isn't degraded.....
No matter what you do, best of luck to you in your choices, and congrats!
First thing is first, no matter what you get, get full frame. So either a D700 or one of the two 5ds (mk 1 or mk 2). For headshots, the shallower DOF that comes with that bigger chip size is invaluable. Night and day difference. I would (and did) opt for the D700 because of the (for me) much better ergonomics and the fantastic AF system, which is crucial when you're doing lots of portraits at f/1.4 and want to let people still move a little.
I'd pick up a used D700 over at fred miranda's buy and sell forums for about $2,000, then a 50mm f/1.4 G for another $400 (so much better than the older 50mm f/1.4D, really big difference for my money, glad I made the upgrade), and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for $1,400 if you like zooms OR a 35mm f/2 and a 105mm f/2 (or 85 f/1.4) for another $250 and $900 respectively. Which still keeps you under the limit, with enough left over for some cards, harddrives, or better yet some flash gear. I'd get an old manual flash like an SB24, use either radio popper Jrs or pocket wizards for your triggers, and get some small lumopro folding lightstands from www.mpex.com.
I really think there is a lot to be said for the D700 over the 5dmkII, unless you need video of course, and the prices on D700s are finally coming down a little so that it's really not hard to find one for 1,900-2,000 in very good shape. The high iso performance and quick AF on that camera makes it a true life saver. I do lots of headshots (senior portraits, usually, but lots of seniors want to look like hollywood actors, so really there are many similarities) in the late afternoon shooting at f/1.4 and ISO 800 just so I can keep my shutter speed at 1/1000 and let my subject move, and I never have to think twice. I don't even start thinking until I hit ISO 2,000, and then it's just to make sure I expose correctly, since if I do I still have no issues. It isn't until I hit 3,200-6,400 that I actually think twice, and I still usually just go for it. Don't underestimate how useful those extra stops will be.....I used to shoot on a D2x and never touch ISO 800 and didn't think I was missing anything save for when I was shooting indoor sports, I never realized how frequently I would benefit from bumping up the ISO on a regular basis now that image quality isn't degraded.....
No matter what you do, best of luck to you in your choices, and congrats!
Last edited:
Acliff
Established
Given that you have Minolta beercan lenses, how about the Sony A850 or A900? More pixels than you can shake a stick at and in body image stabilisation?
You can use any old Minolta lenses, of which there are quite a few crackers, and the new sony zeiss lenses which are expensive but stunning.
High ISO isn't as good as some other brands, but for your usage, for portraits, thats not a big problem?
You can use any old Minolta lenses, of which there are quite a few crackers, and the new sony zeiss lenses which are expensive but stunning.
High ISO isn't as good as some other brands, but for your usage, for portraits, thats not a big problem?
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Just want to burst the Canon 5D bubble, I mean more power to you if you own one, but the two friends of mine that own them always shoot it as a manual camera because the exposure automation is so bad and the auto-focus is so unreliable.
After playing with theirs, going back to a Nikon was such a relief, even though it's a smaller sensor body. If you are going to use the metering and auto-focus, it is hard to beat Nikon's.
The other advantage of the smaller APS sensors is that the lenses are a much better value. Rather than blowing $1000 on an 85/1.4 for full-frame, you can use a $100 lowly 50/1.8 (or the $400 50/1.4) on an APS camera and get pretty much the same results. The viewfinder is pretty good on the D300 series.
After playing with theirs, going back to a Nikon was such a relief, even though it's a smaller sensor body. If you are going to use the metering and auto-focus, it is hard to beat Nikon's.
The other advantage of the smaller APS sensors is that the lenses are a much better value. Rather than blowing $1000 on an 85/1.4 for full-frame, you can use a $100 lowly 50/1.8 (or the $400 50/1.4) on an APS camera and get pretty much the same results. The viewfinder is pretty good on the D300 series.
Last edited:
meezy
meezy
i've considered going sony... but if i'm gonna be dropping a couple G's, i may as well get a camera that can handle high iso decently, you know?
meezy
meezy
excellent information... i'll consider all this while making my choice.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I shoot 5D's and never have had any exposure problems with them. And have 10's of thousands of exposures on both of them. The auto-focus is dead on and fast with all kinds of glass. The 24-70 2.8 L is an outstanding lens.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Since you have quite lot of cash get a 2 camera system, one DSLR, one FILM SLR
and some glass!
Either Nikon Canon, or Pentax will do fine, is more a matter of your taste.
I personally have only 1 AF camera (Pentax) and have nikon MF glass, so whenever I decide to buy a DSLR it'll have to be a Pentax
and some glass!
Either Nikon Canon, or Pentax will do fine, is more a matter of your taste.
I personally have only 1 AF camera (Pentax) and have nikon MF glass, so whenever I decide to buy a DSLR it'll have to be a Pentax
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Any problems with focusing on that camera? I, personally, replaced the screen on my D80 because I could not focus properly without split prism.
(unless they changed, I believe those are manual focus lenses, right?)
Note, I have moved to rangefinder full time since I did that, so it is mostly idle curiosity.
ZebGoesZeiss
Established
Canon 7D
Canon 35mm f/1.4 L
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
The lenses I already own, and love. The 7D? Let me put it this way: I have the Canon 5D mkII, and I'm trading it for a 7D. The speed and autofocus alone is worth it. Full frame or not. YMMV.
Canon 35mm f/1.4 L
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
The lenses I already own, and love. The 7D? Let me put it this way: I have the Canon 5D mkII, and I'm trading it for a 7D. The speed and autofocus alone is worth it. Full frame or not. YMMV.
gcrawfo2
Member
If I had $3k to spend, and I had to buy into the dSLR world I'd buy the following...
Nikon D90 body
Nikon 17-50mm f/2.8
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Manfrotto Tripod
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Wireless Remote
Extra Nikon Battery
(2) Hoya 77mm UV lenses
Some kind of camera bag
Which will put you right at $3800 at Amazon.
Nikon D90 body
Nikon 17-50mm f/2.8
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Manfrotto Tripod
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Wireless Remote
Extra Nikon Battery
(2) Hoya 77mm UV lenses
Some kind of camera bag
Which will put you right at $3800 at Amazon.