One other thing I thought about, and no one has directly mentioned here. You would be in "competition" with all the iPhone "photographers". There you are, at the alter, setting up the perfect image of the bride entering the church on her father's arm. Ready, set, CLICK, just to have the iPhone photographers jump out in front of you photobombing the shot.

Be ready for that to happen at every key moment. Father giving daughter away. First kiss. Cutting the cake.

quote:

Originally posted by holdem:

quote:

Originally posted by golddot:
I offered to send her to a local comm college photo class, she has a KNACK but no knowledge or skill..we need to sharpen those..

I guess I did not really consider this when I read your original post.

She needs to know the difference between a f2.8 aperture and f16 aperture and what that will do to her depth of field and her shutter speed.

She needs to know that with a 80-200 lens, and shooting at 150mm, what shutter speed can she set and handhold the camera? And if the lens is VR, then what can she handhold?

Etc, etc.

Think of it this way, she might be good with a rifle and have a steady finger and breathing. But if the rifle is zeroed at 100 meters, and you tell her to take a 300 meter shot, how much is she going to miss by? It's the same with all of the camera knowledge.

excellent analogy!

ok,ok..lol, we BOTH agree NO WEDDINGS..it will be more of a hobby at first and a then possibly, she would like to take promo pics for business and architectural things. she is not looking to make a lot of money as more than being a semi skilled photographer to take good local photos

You've gotten a lot of advice that she should learn about the technical details of photography.

The best book I have ever seen for that, bar none, is "Understanding Exposure," by Bryan Peterson. It is a really exceptional book that explains the details of how and why photos turn out the way they do in an accessible way.

https://www.amazon.com/Underst...Camera/dp/1607748509

I'm a Nikon guy. This isn't because of any real superiority of the brand, but because that is what my day job at the time used so that was what I learned exposure and shutter control on. I bought a Nikon for myself because the menus and controls were the same as my CSI rig. Then I bought a better camera, also a Nikon. Then I started buying lenses. Then I was firmly invested in Nikon. Fortunately, when I started a side business my partner ALSO used Nikon.

You can do very impressive work with a mid level Nikon DLSR and the 18-55mm kit lens it usually comes with. That's exactly what I used on many an investigation in fact. The trick is learning how to use the camera in manual mode instead of Auto. Learning shutter and aperature settings and how they affect the images is what makes a photographer.

After learning the camera a bit, I'd suggest looking into learning basic photo editing. You can get a monthly subscription to Photoshop for about $10 a month. If she ever wants to do any pro work, she's going to need to know Photoshop.

Once she's learned the camera and editing, THEN you start looking into buying lenses. Lenses are the expensive part. I HATE shooting weddings. It's tremendous stress, a ton of work, and the editing takes forever. Weddings are really a two person job. I LOVE shooting "stuff." Buildings, houses, bikes, cars, etc. What I'm shooting, where, and when determine which lens I need out of my ever growing box.

To narrow it down, here is what I usually use for "my" photos. When I travel I take my Nikon d610, the 18-55 kit lens, at 20-300mm zoom, and MAYBE a 35mm prime (I love that 1.8 f stop). I've shot many a portrait session with just those three lenses. I got the 20-300 "used" from Adorama. I got it for about half of retail and it was still in factory wrap. I'm pretty sure it was an unopened return or factory refurb, but either way it's been flawless.

I also am a Nikon guy.. have been for right at 40 years..... so, I'd suggest Nikon or Cannon.... the new mirrorless digital cameras are the latest rage....

Keep in mind with what y'all are delving into.... cost wise with either brand the real expense is going not be the initial one or two cameras you need to buy but the lens and lighting equipment. A good Nikon (Nikor) lens is going to cost between 1-3 grand at least.

Back when I was in school and taking photography (1978 or about) back in the 35mm SLR days ... a friend bought a Cannon AE1 I think... the dern thing would not work with out a battery... I swore I'd never own a camera that required a battery to operate..... I was wrong...

Where this is all leading is to this axiom:
The way you continue to attract new business as a photographer is ALL based upon your last set of images. That is the criteria that people will use to hire you (her) to shoot photos for money.
Word of mouth spreads quickly, good or bad.
You're only as good as your last gig, in other words.

thanks fellas , I willkeep ya posted

ok..


we (SHE) got the Cannon 2000 eos 200D , great camera so far, we bought a package deal, with lenses, tripods ,case and sim card and 2 macro lenses

now, she HATES READING MANUALS lol...me, I love reading technical stuff,

any good online tutorials dealing with the basic functions of this camera, we googles several but most were a little detail heavy and not novice friendly..

we looked at a class at the local college, but due to covid they are cancelled..ugg….

any suggested videos or dvds I can order to help her???

I'm a Nikon guy and have been for many many years, even have a Nikon S, the third model camera Nikon ever released.

One big plus for me is that all those lenses I bought back in the 60's and one can still be mounted and used on Nikon's current lineup of Pro line cameras. BTW, Nikon changed the meter coupling system in about 1978 and the new version was the AIS system. Thankfully at that time I had the wisdom to acquire the conversion kits so my really oldies can be safely mounted on my D300 or D750. BTW, the "kit" was simply a new aperture ring, remove the lens mount and it was simple matter of sliding out the old aperture ring and replacing it with the new AIS ring. One of my favorites is a 1965 vintage 50mm f2.0 Nikkor H, a lens that is considered one of the two finest 50mm lenses ever made. BTW, the other is the 50mm f2.0 Summicron.

So, yeah I'm a fan of Nikon. However I have family that use Canon cameras and both brands are basically equals but Canon gets the nod for anyone interested it working with an actual Video Camera. Nikon has avoided that particular area and it's the reason why the majority of Wedding Photogs use Canon. Because videos are an absolute requirement of Wedding shoots today. So enjoy your new Canon and when you are gasping at the price of a new lens just keep in mind that lens can also be mounted on a professional grade video camera.

So, tutorials. What I am going to recommend was written way before digital when Film was King. However his books are more a matter of how you approach building an image and even though it's film centric the concepts are still viable with digital imaging. So, get the 3 volume Series of The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. It is a very good read and they feature some amazing images. In addition I recommend that you also get The Zone System because it is a great method for learning how to approach determining the Exposure for each image. Once you have gone thru all these books then you will need to sit down with your camera manual and learn how to use the controls for your camera to accomplish all those methods in Ansel Adams books.

quote:

Originally posted by PghPI:
The full-frame chip means that a zoom with a 24-85mm zoom will be a true wide angle that you need to capture so many group shots (think wedding pics and team or group photos). With that compact chip, your 24-85 becomes a 34-120 zoom.

This is NOT the way it works, but rather a convenient, but very misleading, way to explain the effect of a full frame lens on a crop-sensor camera.

24-85 full frame lens does not become a 34-120 lens when mounted on a crop frame camera. It is still a 24-85 projecting the exact same image, but the crop frame sensor is capturing only a portion of the projected image instead of all of it as a full frame sensor would. The focal length is in the lens, not the camera. The camera changes nothing about the focal length. The reduced size of the cropped sensor is the reason for the reduced field of view.

The reason people believes it "becomes" a lens with a longer focal length is because the image is projected on a smaller sensor. Once you take the image produced by a crop frame camera and blow it up so the dimensions of the image are the same as that produced by a full frame, then the image "looks" closer. But it isn't.

This illusion is used to market compact digital cameras. You'll see some that may say 10X zoom, then also say 20X zoom at lower resolution. That's because if you take that camera and reduce the resolution, then you are shutting off part of the sensor and making the image capturing area of the sensor smaller. So the image captured, when enlarged to the same physical size as it would be if the full sensor was used, appears closer. But its not. And it is at a much reduced resolution, because fewer pixels are used to capture the image.

Another area where this illusion is used is in smart phone cameras. The cameras in smart phones have next to no focal length. While there may be phones out there that have lenses that can extend (increase focal length), most don't. The zoom feature with phone cameras without extendable lens get a zoom look by shutting off part of their already small sensor. So when you blow up the image, it looks closer. Most people have noticed that a zero zoom, smart phones can produce great photos. But once you start zooming, resolution goes down the tubes. Because as you zoom, the camera is shutting off more and more sensor area, and with it, the pixels that capture the image. You may have a 12 megapixel camera in your phone that becomes a 6 megapixel camera at full zoom. The 'zoom" comes from reducing the sensor size, not by increasing lens focal length.

Most, but not all, full frame cameras have sensors with more megapixels than a crop frame camera sensor. This is a consideration when deciding to buy a crop frame sensor camera (DX), or a full frame sensor camera (FX). If you are considering an FX camera and a DX camera, and they have pretty close to the same number of megapixels, then under certain circumstances a DX camera will outperform an FX camera. You are are filling your view finder with the image you intended to keep, like a portrait, the FX is the way to go, since you won't be cropping anything. But if you are taking photos of small, distant objects, like in wildlife photography, where you are cropping the final image, then DX may very well outperform the FX. For instance, if the FX and the DX both have 24 megapixels, and you take a picture of a bear 1/2 mile across a field at 300mm, then with the FX image you will be cropping our more pixels than you would with the DX image. You'll be left with a final image with the DX after cropping that is comprised of more pixels than the final image take with an FX. The DX will produce a higher resolution final result.

Yep... on the image sensor.... I stepped up from the smaller sensor to a full frame one thinking I would get better resolution.... the dern pixels are the same.... but it does get you back to using the whole lens and being able to crop the picture better when actually taking it. That's the best way I can explain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:
I'm a Nikon guy and have been for many many years, even have a Nikon S, the third model camera Nikon ever released.

One big plus for me is that all those lenses I bought back in the 60's and one can still be mounted and used on Nikon's current lineup of Pro line cameras. BTW, Nikon changed the meter coupling system in about 1978 and the new version was the AIS system. Thankfully at that time I had the wisdom to acquire the conversion kits so my really oldies can be safely mounted on my D300 or D750. BTW, the "kit" was simply a new aperture ring, remove the lens mount and it was simple matter of sliding out the old aperture ring and replacing it with the new AIS ring. One of my favorites is a 1965 vintage 50mm f2.0 Nikkor H, a lens that is considered one of the two finest 50mm lenses ever made. BTW, the other is the 50mm f2.0 Summicron.

So, yeah I'm a fan of Nikon. However I have family that use Canon cameras and both brands are basically equals but Canon gets the nod for anyone interested it working with an actual Video Camera. Nikon has avoided that particular area and it's the reason why the majority of Wedding Photogs use Canon. Because videos are an absolute requirement of Wedding shoots today. So enjoy your new Canon and when you are gasping at the price of a new lens just keep in mind that lens can also be mounted on a professional grade video camera.

So, tutorials. What I am going to recommend was written way before digital when Film was King. However his books are more a matter of how you approach building an image and even though it's film centric the concepts are still viable with digital imaging. So, get the 3 volume Series of The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. It is a very good read and they feature some amazing images. In addition I recommend that you also get The Zone System because it is a great method for learning how to approach determining the Exposure for each image. Once you have gone thru all these books then you will need to sit down with your camera manual and learn how to use the controls for your camera to accomplish all those methods in Ansel Adams books.

thanks a ton scooter, this will help a lot..she is a voracious reader but hates reading the manual lol

quote:

Originally posted by golddot:
...we (SHE) got the Cannon 2000 eos 200D , great camera so far, we bought a package deal, with lenses, tripods ,case and sim card and 2 macro lenses ...

Which lenses?

I’ll be blunt with some good news/bad news....

Good...

It’s a Canon, I am a big Canon fan. Shot Pentax and Nikon with film, then Nikon Digital moved to Canon and really consider it the better choice.

SL2 is a great little beginner camera. Good sensor, small lightweight, good bang for the buck.


Bad...

It’s a beginner camera so feature set is limited, limited AF points and modes. It will take more time and effort to set up more complicated shots and get the right settings for desired output. This can be “good” also as it can force her to really think and learn to plan her shots with a better understanding of how aperture, shutter speed, ISO interact. If she gets serious, she will likely outgrow it pretty quickly. On the plus side, not a huge investment at risk

It is a crop sensor. not necessarily “bad” but be aware that if she ever moves up to a full frame body, crop sensor lenses will not work. Any additional lenses I would suggest getting full frame compatible. They will work on a crop body and also on FF if she moves up. Of course FF lenses cost more - no such thing as a free lunch

Being a crop sensor, if she will be doing anything inside, is going to need an ultra-wide lens which unfortunately is going to be crazy expensive for a FF compatible one or affordable but only in a crop lens. My suggestion, go with a crop model on this. Either the Canon EF-S 10-18mm ($280), Tamron 10-24mm ($500), Canon EF-S 10-22mm ($580) or Sigma 10-20mm ($650). I’d go with he Canon 10-18mm best bang for the buck. Ultra wide angle are more forgiving on flaws than longer focal length lenses and it is at a good price point to match the SL2.

Flash - forget about the pop up flash. If she is going to get serious, needs to get flash off the camera for two reason. First, just can’t achieve good lighting with a pop up. To small and weak to light an area and too close to the lens axis. Second, especially on the low end starter DSLR the built in flash is slow to recharge and you have to wait between shots. Off camera flash will recycle within a 1-2 seconds.


Sidebar - Don’t expect to get awesome shots straight out of the camera. For best results need to get and learn editing software. I am a fan of Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom, lots of folks are put off by the $10/month subscription cost vs a one-time purchase. If you look at what it can do, for the cost of a couple coffees, it is a bargain as far as I am concerned.

Photoshop “Elements” is a less robust version aimed at the casual user. One-time purchase and pretty reasonable in the $50-$75 range usually.



Don’t mean to be a downer and this all is really getting into the weeds. ANY current digital DSLR with interchangeable lenses is a huge step up from phones and point and shoots.


Final bit of advice, spend the money for quality lenses. Lots of photographers have and use lenses that are 10-15 years old (or older) and where the have gone through multiple bodies. Lenses last, bodies have much shorter span in most cases.

IMHO, the best lenses for Canon APS-C sensors are the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 DC OS, the Sigma 30mm DC f/1.4 ART (which will be approximately 50mm full frame equivalent), and the 50mm canon f/1.8 (which will be about 80mm on full frame equivalent).

I believe you can get all three (combined) for about $600 if you don't mind used.

I own all three, and Cristopher Frost, tends to agree - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKB0O6ryimw

The Sigma ART lenses are very, very good lenses. I've been researching them lately as possible purchases, going forward. Great value for the money.

quote:

Originally posted by golddot:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
PS: Get lots of insurance if she does weddings...YOU WILL GET SUED EVENTUALLY.

wth, sued for what????

That's an easy one. Sued by a bride that doesn't like her photos. Sure, it's subjective, but you get a pissed-off bride post-wedding and she's going to want the thousands she paid back.

Maybe you're lucky and end up in small claims where you get to defend yourself Judge Judy style. If not, you'll want counsel who can counter the bride's argument that what she got wasn't what you advertised or provided as representative of the quality of your work.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by golddot:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
PS: Get lots of insurance if she does weddings...YOU WILL GET SUED EVENTUALLY.

wth, sued for what????

That's an easy one. Sued by a bride that doesn't like her photos. Sure, it's subjective, but you get a pissed-off bride post-wedding and she's going to want the thousands she paid back.

Maybe you're lucky and end up in small claims where you get to defend yourself Judge Judy style. If not, you'll want counsel who can counter the bride's argument that what she got wasn't what you advertised or provided as representative of the quality of your work.

-Rob

Hah. As if a bride would stop at getting her money back. No, you ruined her wedding. She'll never have those pictures, and she can't redo the wedding. She's going to want special damages. Hopefully the photographer has an exclusion of damages and limitation of liability clause in the contract.

Wedding photographers fuck it up pretty often. I personally know two friends who never got their photos or video after paying THOUSANDS of dollars for them, and having to litigate to get their money back and whatever raw images might have been captured. The photographer shows up and takes the photos, but never has the time to edit the photos. Time goes on, he books more projects, and he falls further behind. He holds onto the photos with the hope that one day he'll get to it, and he won't return the money because he does already have a bunch of time invested in shooting the event (and chances are he doesn't have the liquidity anyway).

So, yeah. Photographers get sued. And weddings are big money for alot of people. A photo and video package for a large wedding can easily run $30k.