Hot answers tagged

38

This is mostly an anecdote but here you go. At one point I was shooting on a Canon Rebel XT. New I believe I paid in the range of $500 for the camera. By the end of what I found to be the useful range of the body, I had used a $2,200 70-200mm lens, a $1,500 85mm lens, and a $1,200 50mm lens on multiple occasions. The lenses all performed wonderfully, and ...


20

Please don't take this the wrong way, but... I suggest you do a lot more learning and practising before you try doing this as a business. I don't see anything in your wedding photos which convinces me you have the skill to take photos people will be happy to have paid for. Other than that, you're buying almost entirely the wrong gear for portrait ...


19

As somebody who is interested in photography as a hobby -- not a profession, and therefore not worried about making income from it -- I first consider who is asking. I've had a few requests from groups I am happy to support: mostly local parks and local wildlife preserves. I know they have a small budget but as I frequent them (often for free) and get lots ...


19

The focal length/speed is only one factor in the retail price of the lens. Other goodies like construction (metal vs. plastic), image stabilization (and other automation in general) and vintage can easily add (or remove) a zero. The two lenses in the question are very different products. The 2.8G is a newer product and lacks an aperture ring - the diaphragm ...


19

Yes, absolutely! A great lens on an ok body will generally outperform an ok lens on a great body. Also, high end lenses tend to keep their value much better than a body will. Not sure what system you are using but here are some numbers based on Craigslist postings in my town: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Price in 2011, new: ~$1400 Price today, used: ~$850 ...


18

For commercial use, you have to pay. Period. Maybe not much. If it's for commercial use, the "too poor to pay" line is fiction.


17

Wow, are you hosed. You tell them the price before you start. Its too late now. Traditionally, wedding photographers made all their money off prints. If you give them soft copies, you cut yourself out of that profit stream. Bay Area, NYC, Chicago, etc. I wouldn't consider doing a shoot unless I got at least $100 per hour for my time. Plus I'd want more to ...


17

This is not a silly post in the matter of an amateur that gets asked to work paying gigs. If your work is satisfactory, it is very common to initially have close friends and family consider you for their photography needs. As word of mouth continues, of course even people outside of your immediate contacts will pick up on your skills and engage in business ...


17

Absolutely disagree with TFuto, so wanted to chime in as well. The photo is not just your work, but more importantly your product. They are the buyer and you're the seller/supplier. You're standing in a world where everybody can make photos, so the supply of photos is incredible great and on top of that there is (nearly) no cost 'per copy sold'. Point in ...


17

I'm trying to figure out where the catch is. The camera might have been stolen. The camera might be broken or damaged in some way that's not immediately noticeable. For example, if the body casting itself is bent, the camera might not be able to take a sharp image, or the battery connection might not be reliable. Professional cameras like the 5D line are ...


16

You absolutely should be paid. And not only that, you absolutely have the right to protect your work. There are dangers associated with offering "free use" of your work, as once you do, you can never really tell how far your work may be distributed "for free". The company you license it to may turn around and license another company to create some design ...


16

The basic answer is that Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is an exception even within Canon's lineup. It's an old, simple design with nothing fancy, and made to be mass-produced cheaply. Compare the Canon 85mm f/1.8, at AU$360. Basically, almost no lenses are as cheap as the one you're using as your reference point, so your perception is skewed. The Olympus lenses aren't ...


15

When you look closely the only thing that is the same on the feature list is the approximate number of megapixels. The mkIII is an entirely new camera, new type of chassis, new viewfinder, new shutter assembly, new button layouts, new software. Nothing has been recycled, unlike the mkII. the higher FPS shooting, and the dual storage to SD Card are nice I ...


14

You have all the rights to your photos, and you do whatever you please to do with it, including suing the hell out of them if they use it against your will. Never EVER go into an argument about the value of your photo. You set the price, and that's it. Either they accept it or not. Do not react to any further comments from them. Especially, if that is a TV ...


13

As mentioned by the answers by @matt and @rowland, the price is directly linked to the the area of silicon used to create the sensor. Ideally a sensor with twice the area should cost about twice as much. Since all production of electronics on silicon (and other substrates) will have flaws, not all the produced chips/sensors will work. The yield rate (as it's ...


13

Some lenses have more glass (bigger aperture requires bigger glass elements). Some lenses have better quality lens elements to combat chromatic aberrations, distortion and vignetting. Some lenses have better build quality (the 50mm f/1.8 has a plastic body and is relatively poorly built). Some lenses are weather sealed (more complex to build). Some lenses ...


13

I am somewhat surprised by all the answers that the OP is basically screwed. The lack of contract is a double edged sword, so the newlyweds have the same problems if they are not willing to pay a fair price for the pictures since they did not negotiate up front either. The OP may be able to walk away without giving them anything if they refuse to pay a ...


13

FujiFilm charges more for lenses (than Canon) because they can. FujiFilm has a near monopoly on X-mount lenses. Other options include cheap manual lenses and expensive Zeiss lenses. This is changing somewhat with the introduction of Viltrox autofocus lenses. Image quality of FujiFilm lenses is nearly guaranteed to be very good. Even XC lenses perform above ...


12

I have a different take on this since I don't derive a living from photography. I do it for fun, personal enjoyment, having the pictures, the challenge, having other people like pictures I show them, etc. What I insist on is being properly credited. I get satisfaction out of knowing other people liked a picture from me enough to publish it, and the ...


12

Yes, someone could do that. That is called Time for print. "Time for print (also known as trade for print or test for print, TFP and sometimes also print for time or PFT) is a term used in many online photography communities describing an arrangement between a model and a photographer, whereby the photographer agrees to provide the model with an ...


12

I am a amateur, but am sometimes thought of as the "photographer" in the family. People pictures aren't my thing, but I do it when there are significant events I would be stuck having to attend anyway. Ususally these events are boring, so I don't mind taking pictures. It gives me something to do and gives me a good excuse to not have to sit there while ...


12

I think the question you need to answer is "can you deliver what they expect"? If they would not hire a professional anyway because they cannot afford to (not everybody celebrates a huge wedding - sometimes it is just close family) then if you have at least one backup camera and are the best photographer amongst friends/family you will possibly make them ...


12

Im 13 years old and just starting to get into photography. I trying to find a good instant camera under $100 Your best bet is probably a point-and-shoot digital camera rather than an "instant" camera. That way you're spending more of your money on the part that records the image rather than the part that prints the image, and you don't have to worry about ...


11

Sensor price is more proportional to the physical size of the sensor, than the number of pixels within it. There are full frame sensor with lower pixel counts on some of the older models (for instance, the first Canon 1Ds). It's worth noticing that the sensitivity is lower than modern sensors - not because the pixels are larger, but due to other advances. ...


11

It's important to remember that you are not selling printing services - people aren't paying for the prints, you are selling images created by your vision, your talent and your expertise, not a piece of framed paper - so there should be no relation between the cost of printing and framing and the price of the pictures (except that the price must be higher ...


11

Most of the difference is explained at Why are some lens hoods petal shaped and others not?, with the remaining question being the cost. And, I don't think the basic cost premise is correct. See cheap tulip hoods at B&H, where they start at $4 -- a dollar less than the cheapest circular hood. So the answer to "why are tulip hoods more expensive?" is... "...


10

1.2 vs 1.8 means larger glass elements = more cost "L" lenses are higher quality. See What is the difference between Canon "L" lenses and non-L lenses?


10

The primary difference between those two lenses is indeed the aperture. A difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2 is actually quite large, and a non-trivial exercise from a manufacturing standpoint. There are additional improvements in the f/1.2 version as well, including a metal lens tube, ultrasonic autofocusing, additional corrective lenses for optical ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible