Want to turn pro. Do I 'need" a DX?

MLangton

Greetings, I will be doing mostly real estate, events, and location portraits. Possibly an occasional wedding.

My issue? Specifically, I have had two or three potential customers question me on my gear. "Do you use an FX camera?" The ones that asked, went with someone else that did.

I currently have a D300 that I bought new a few years ago. As far as glass goes, I have the Nikon 24-70 F2.8, the Nikon 80-200 F2.8, and the Nikon 50mm F1.8 so far. I'll be adding a wide angle next.

Perhaps my fears are unjustified over the few rolled eyes I have seen when I mention the D300. I am looking at this more from a marketing standpoint. I don't see a lot of pros out there using DX as their primary shooter. There must be a reason for this.

Go easy on me... I am new to the idea of moving up to the idea of making money. I hope the idea of "There is no such thing as a stupid question" applies here.

Question II:

If I need a DX, do I just go with the D700 now, or wait until it's upgrade comes out in ___ months...

I have a long way to go. I know. I have to start sometime though.

Many thanks!

Hikin' Mike

If a potential client doesn't hire you based on your gear alone, then you probably don't want them as a customer....but that's just me.

Can't help you with upgrade. I use a Canon...!

Art Scott

there wil always be potential clients that will go to someone else that has equiptment futher up the scale......in my film days I lost jobs cause I did not own a hassleblad......then my only answer started coming as I have more than enough equipment to do the job and if you really think I need a 'Blad...I will get one but my price goes up accordingly.....then I bought a Kiev and put tape over the name...look exactly like a Blad....was never questioned.......then people wanted to know if I shot Nikon...nope I am a Minolta man....(now Nikon man)....I just recently lost a few jobs cause I don't shoot canon.....I just shake my head and show them pix and tell them if they can tell me what they were shot with I will pay for whoever they hire over me.......prospective clients almost soil themselves to find the images I show them are shot with a Prosumer point and shoot (konica Minolta A2)...trying to educate the public will always be hard, to convince them it is not the camera but the person using it, that makes the difference....

You have enough equipment to do what you want to do...with the exception of getting really wide shots for real estate ,but if you really practice shooting "psuedo Pano's" with eh widest lens and stitch them together it can work just fine until you get enuff money to get some thing like a Sigma 10-20...then those wide shots will be easy to get......

I shot everything I can with the A2, as it is the lightest and most compact of all my cameras has a semi fast 28-200 Minolta GT lens (minolta has always been know for fine glass), if I decide it will not do the job then I take my 2 - D300's, one with 18-70 sand the other with 70-200.....and the 2 flash units unless I need studio lighting......

Cygnus Studios

MLangton wrote: »

I don't see a lot of pros out there using DX as their primary shooter. There must be a reason for this.

What you shoot determines what gear is needed.

There will always be people who will claim what gear is needed to be considered a pro. 99.9% of the time, it will be someone who thinks that they know something about photography.

It wasn't that long ago that there were NO full frame digital cameras. It wasn't long before that there were NO digital cameras.

Yet the business of photography was going along nicely without even noticing what the future held.

I personally own a full frame D3 and a Medium format DM56, but I am the same photographer behind the system. My photography doesn't improve because I shoot with one or the other system.

In the end, once the image is on paper, no one can tell what camera took the image. Either the image works for their needs or it doesn't.

I have seen monster images taken with cell phones and very lousy images taken with top of the line Hasselblads.

You are the only that can determine what system you need and why you need it. I have heard every argument possible for shooting with a crop sensor or full frame or medium format, but in the end it is only the photographer that determines how good the image is.

MLangton

richy wrote: »

If you only have one camera, life as a pro could get interesting

My wife is going to have me tarred and feathered. You are correct.

You guys have given me some great pointers. Based on what I have read today, I am leaning on making do with the D300 for now, then also getting the D700sx/800 (whatever) when/if it comes out. This way, I'll have two decent bodies.

The thought of renting never crossed my mind.

Thanks!

Art Scott

MLangton wrote: »

My wife is going to have me tarred and feathered. You are correct.

You guys have given me some great pointers. Based on what I have read today, I am leaning on making do with the D300 for now, then also getting the D700sx/800 (whatever) when/if it comes out. This way, I'll have two decent bodies.

The thought of renting never crossed my mind.

Thanks!

even renting from borrow Lenses is not that expensive............I cannot find the articles now but in an old , very old issue of American Photog, during the gulf War I believe,... their was a PRO news shooter that only used 2 oly point and shoots one was Oly C-8008 (for wide angle) and the other its companion Tele camera...his images were absolutely remarkable.......so it is not so much the camera as I mentioned before....as to a D700....look for a low shutter actuation count on a used body.......really no need to have latest and greatest unless you just need the tax deduction......I have no problem buying used.....

Cygnus Studios

richy wrote: »

You don't need one for 95% of the work, it will help somewhat with the remaining 5%.

This really depends on what type of photography you are doing. I could not get by with a crop sensor 95% of the time.

Glort

Hikin' Mike wrote: »

If a potential client doesn't hire you based on your gear alone, then you probably don't want them as a customer....but that's just me.

Nope, Not just you, I'd feel exactly the same way.

I find this interesting though, In over 20 years doing commercial work I have never been asked what camera I use except when actually on the job after I had been hired by someone curious to compare what they had themselves.

I am very anti gear orientated. As long as you have something sufficient to do the job at hand, what is the damn difference.?
I have always been hired to deliver results not because of my methods of getting them.

Back in the old days here at least, there was a certain cred in having well used, older equipment that looked like it had been to hell and back in 3 world wars and you had been with it and survived. People had stuff taped to their camera's and lenses and holding things on and generally new and shiny was somehow rarely seen.

The mentality then was that you were good enough to get a prize winning shot with a box brownie and didn't need the crutch of a lot of fancy gear. You bought a new MF camera and hammered it till the new model came out, about 5 years later then bought another of the old model because no one trusted the fancy new gizmos on the new one!

Things sure have Changed in the Digital age.

Cygnus Studios

Glort wrote: »

I have always been hired to deliver results not because of my methods of getting them.

This is where the commercial world is different. I also have never had a commercial client ask or care what we did to get the image.

I have had a few individuals ask for personal projects and when I ask why it matters, the answer is almost always, that someone they knew told them that X cameras are the best or that X cameras are the only pro model available.

It is the people who "think" that they know something that are the worst.

Out here in the real world, cameras are chosen by what you shoot, and what works best for you. As long as you deliver what the clients need, it won't matter what you used.

Zerodog

I have a D3s and still reach for my 300s in certain situations. Depending on what you are shooting, the body can make a HUGE difference. For low light the nikon FX cameras just kill it. For normal situations it doesn't matter as much. It becomes more of a skill thing.

SamirD

Saying that only FX cameras are used by pros is like saying that the only race car drivers in the world drive F1 cars.

I typically tell the client if I need additional gear to do a job because I have prosumer equipment from 5 years ago. But $300 rented me a 50d with the 24-70 2.8L and grip for a week, so thousands of dollars of gear can be had for cheap if you need it.

My avatar was shot with a Panasonic dmc-fz20 that can be had used for under $150. I've out shot people with gear 10x the cost with that little camera. The gear snobs can hire someone else--I'm an artist, and you won't tell me what brush to use.

Glort

SamirD wrote: »

My avatar was shot with a Panasonic dmc-fz20 that can be had used for under $150. I've out shot people with gear 10x the cost with that little camera.

Reminds me of my Competition Pistol Shooting days.

In the begining I bought a cheap little plinker gun because it was all I could afford and I didn't want to spend too much on something I wasn't sure how long i'd stick with anyway.

10 years later when I was shooting comps all the time and finished in the placings far more often than not and was making a much better income, I could have bought whatever gun I wanted.
I still was using that little cheap plinker in comps because I was getting so much damn satisfaction out of wiping the range with the upstarts with their high priced toys that would give me attitude when they saw what I was using, there was no way I was going miss out on the enjoyment of rubbing their face in thier snobbery!!
:ivar

Angelo

here are folks who don't use a DX


http://www.intomobile.com/2011/06/29/iphone-4-captures-wedding-photos-videos-and-all/


.