Tech Talk for Pro Photographers: Gear, Lighting, Resources, Etc. See Post#1.

[BetteT]

I"m not a photographer ... but I do know that unless you want to become one and learn to deal with various lenses, appeture/ f stop etc. settings ... that you are probably better off with a high end non-pro SLR camera.

There is a huge price jump between a top of the line consumer camera and a bottom of the line pro camera.

With a pro camera, even a low end one (which would probably cost right around $5,000), you buy the body then decide on what lenses to add. It's the lenses that make the most difference in quality of the shot. Lenses, themselves, can be in the high hundreds, up to thousands, of dollars each and you'd normally have to have 2 or 3 of them to start depending on what you are shooting ... distance, lighting, etc.


Good pictures depend more on the photographer (his eye which cannot really be learned, it's a talent and his skills with knowing what to do, which can be learned) than on the equipment. Don't overspend on a camera that will remain beyond your cababilites ... you'll waste your money. Just get the features that you might need on a good quality camera and then learn about photography (how the settings work, what works in what type of light) and then practice a lot. That will make more difference than buying a more expensive camera.

I have a Sony CyberShot DSC-HX1 which might work very well for you. It's a high end consumer camera. It cost (I forget exactly) something around $800 US. One permanent lens that zooms up to 20X ... it's automatic, but you can overide any of the settings to get better photos, as you learn more about photography and settings. It's got all kinds of "bells and whistles". Many of which you would not use for fashion photography but some that you would. It works very well in various lighting situations ... even low light. It's got macro which means you can shoot details of trim up close. The photo /number of pixels size can be changed so if you need a shot with fine detail because it is going to be blown up to poster size, I think that will accomdate that.

Even this camera has a long learning curve ... there as so many choices and so much to learn about how to use light to it's best advantage. But ... because you can start with the "Easy" (automatic) setting ... you can use it right away. There are other good brands too ... it's just that I'm familiar with this one.

Since you are not a pro photographer nor intend to become one and if you are interested in non-pro cameras, as I suggested, I'd like to direct you to this thread, about consumer cameras in another forum: Best Digital Camera I suggest that you ask there for recommendations.

 

[shelovesbeer]

Okay. pardon me for my newbie question. but what is a phase one back?
and why do they choose to use medium format cameras to digital SLRS?

 

[Imaginara]

Okay. pardon me for my newbie question. but what is a phase one back?
and why do they choose to use medium format cameras to digital SLRS?

Dont worry, its a question every user of medium format is asking about every time they pay the lease bill for their system ;D

Phase one back is a medium format digital back made by PhaseOne (www.phaseone.com) One of the worlds largest manufacturer of digital backs for medium format cameras.

The reason why is simply the image quality. Just like back in the film days there is a huge quality increase when going from small format (DSLR/35mm) to medium format. There is a similar increase when going from medium to large btw, just not that many good digital systems for large format.

It's all in the sensor size and how the backs are built and specialized. Now it is a tool with a specific purpose. If your priority is image quality and how much you can manipulate the file afterwards, then definately medium format kicks it. If your priority is speed, ease of use, costeffectiveness and accessability then DSLRs wins hands down.

For example, if i am shooting a fashion editorial or higher level lookbook, im using medium format. I am staging most of the shots usually and have full control of light and the location. If im shooting a catwalk/runway or a fast paced action sequence where i need the models to move around a lot and its harder to stage it, im definately not going medium format. They are too slow and to cumbersome to use in that way, the DSLRs beats it hands down.

Also if the client does not really need or wants the higher quality of medium format, i will shoot with DSLR's. Less diskspace needed, less work afterwards. Quality wont be top but if the client is publishing to web or such it wont make a lick of a difference in the end.

I shoot DSLRs, medium format (6x7 & 6x45) and large format cameras (4x5) depending on what i want to achieve. So the right tool for the right job.

Sorry for the long reply =)

 

[shelovesbeer]

Dont worry, its a question every user of medium format is asking about every time they pay the lease bill for their system ;D

Phase one back is a medium format digital back made by PhaseOne (www.phaseone.com) One of the worlds largest manufacturer of digital backs for medium format cameras.

The reason why is simply the image quality. Just like back in the film days there is a huge quality increase when going from small format (DSLR/35mm) to medium format. There is a similar increase when going from medium to large btw, just not that many good digital systems for large format.

It's all in the sensor size and how the backs are built and specialized. Now it is a tool with a specific purpose. If your priority is image quality and how much you can manipulate the file afterwards, then definately medium format kicks it. If your priority is speed, ease of use, costeffectiveness and accessability then DSLRs wins hands down.

For example, if i am shooting a fashion editorial or higher level lookbook, im using medium format. I am staging most of the shots usually and have full control of light and the location. If im shooting a catwalk/runway or a fast paced action sequence where i need the models to move around a lot and its harder to stage it, im definately not going medium format. They are too slow and to cumbersome to use in that way, the DSLRs beats it hands down.

Also if the client does not really need or wants the higher quality of medium format, i will shoot with DSLR's. Less diskspace needed, less work afterwards. Quality wont be top but if the client is publishing to web or such it wont make a lick of a difference in the end.

I shoot DSLRs, medium format (6x7 & 6x45) and large format cameras (4x5) depending on what i want to achieve. So the right tool for the right job.

Sorry for the long reply =)

its an awesome reply! nothing to be sorry about!
is a medium format like an SLR? what kinda film does medium format cameras use?

 

[Imaginara]

The term SLR referes to Single Lens Reflex camera though which can also cover medium format systems =)

But what you can look at is the size of the negative (filmtype) or sensor.

Small format or 35mm (there were others but most are extint now , use a class of film called 135 and the size is roughly 36 x 24 mm. Most DSLR's today are slightly smaller than this (so called crop-sensors) except the full size which of course is exactly that size.

Medium format has several different sizes, 6x45, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and even up to 6x13. They use a film format called 120 and the size of the negative is 60 x 45 mm up to 60 x 130mm. The digital backs also come in crop sizes (slightly smaller than 60 mm x 45 mm) up to full size . There are as of now no full size sensors that cover the larger than 60 x 45 format though.

Large format cameras come also in different variants, 4x5", 5x7", 8x10" and they have a negative size of 100x130 mm (4x5") and upwards. Since large format cameras use sheet film cut to a specific size, there are technically no limit on the size. Digital solutions for large format comes in two variants now. Either a sliding back where you mount a normal medium format back, and expose several times, moving the back around the negative area and then put them all together in photoshop or a scanning back, which is basically a scanner capturing the image projected onto it. The scan backs however are very slow and only useful for specific applications (architecture and such).

Another long reply ;D

 

[shelovesbeer]

omg i feel like i know nothing! what brands of cameras are medium and large format?
You are talking about the sizes in inches right?

 

[Imaginara]

Medium format cameras, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Leaf (now bought by Phase One), Phase One, Sinar, Contax, Pentax, Bronica. Not all of these are actually in business anymore but can be found out on the market (there are several more ofcourse but thats a few).

Large format cameras, Sinar, Horseman, Toyo, Calumet, Burke & James, Linhof, Deardorff. Again here are a few that havent been in business for many years but can still be found out there. Also a few home made variants around.

The sizes on large format are in inches yes (4x5, 5x7, 8x10 etc). the other sizes i put in metric (mm)

 

[shelovesbeer]

Can someone explain anything/everything they know about medium format cameras?

 

[Imaginara]

How many years do you have shelovesbeer? =)

You need to a bit more specific what you need to know, read up on some wiki articles first and start looking around a bit on the net for information. Then when you have some more specific questions we can answer them.

Otherwise we'll be here a long time

 

[shelovesbeer]

I'm clueless! Do you know any good articles around besides wiki? You know how the canon cameras have the label 'Mark II / Mark III'. what is that exactly?

 

[Imaginara]

No but google around a bit. Most articles are a bit technical and intended for people who are using or want to use them.

The Canon form of labelling a product Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV etc. is just a way to differentiate between different versions/generations of the same basic camera or lens-type. The Canon EOS 1D series is a good example of this. For each new generation they added a mark, so you have 1D, 1D Mark II, 1D Mark III and now 1D Mark IV. Each generation has improvents over the older ones of course.

 

[jenipho]

Hey people!

OK, so I'm an aspiring beauty/fashion photographer, and I've recently bought some studio equipment. I have two softboxes, and a white backdrop. Now, I know that's not enough lighting for the kind of beauty shots I want to do, so what lights/flashes do you recommend??

 

[Imaginara]

well im sure i wont be the only one answering this, but it all depends on what type of shots you want to do. You can do a lot with just two softboxes and a white backdrop.

As for what flashes you want to work with its the same old story, you want consistency and reliability in color temperature and flash power outage in every single flash. This is something you wont get in the cheaper brands but it doesnt mean those cannot be used. Just that you have a bit of work in color control to do afterwards ;D

/Henrik

 

[FashionTopFace]

thanks!

 

[dphoto]

Imaginara is right. That will certainly get you started. I am a big fan of my beauty dish, and big octos can offer quite a bit as well, but you certainly have enough to start learning the principles of lighting. Key/fill, angles of light, ratios, etc. Try checking out strobist. You'll probably learn a lot from there.

 

[shelovesbeer]

Would it be considered unprofessional to use a rebel camera on test shoots?
Is a Canon 1D considered less professional for a fashion photo shoot than a medium format because its digital?

 

[Imaginara]

That is a good question.

A 1D is not considered less professional than a medium format camera, it's different tools for different shots. If i need best image quality and sharpness, i would use the medium format. If i need speed, mobility and autofocus speed, i would use the 1D(s).

Now using a rebel however kind of removes the speed advantages, and it's a worse crop sensor. So while it would still work (provided you use the same lenses as you would on the 1D(s) it would prob not be as good of a tool as a 1D(s). For these types of work i personally use the 5D mk2, not the 1D(s).

If the client will object or not depends entirely on the client. Ive seen people hook up extra lights just to impress on clients who wanted everything to look massive and expensive, half the lights never fired . Showing up with the same (or cheaper) camera than the client might be shooting his kids with is probably not an idea. Does it affect the shot? Nope. Not a bit. But if you have a client who expects you to use the best equipment and knows how this equipment looks, then you might loose the client.

However, having said this, it's not a good business move to base your purchases on if a camera looks professional or not. Base it on wether or not your client base will be requiring the quality and can support the purchase expense with work. We have quite a few local photographers here who have now dropped medium format because their clients never wants that level of quality. So if they need it they rent it, otherwise they shoot with DSLRs.

 

[gossiping]

i'm starting a degree in photography soon, and plan to make a career out of it (somehow)

thinking of getting canon 7d. i saw it in a store today and spoke to one of the shop assistants who told me that it would be better to get that and basic 50mm lens than to get something like 550d with 18-135mm lens.

i don't get what he meant..do you think it's better to get the lower priced one or not? i just really want something with high quality even though they both have 18 megapixels the 7d is way more expensive!

 

[Imaginara]

the 7D will be faster and more effective than a 550D. It will not however take better pictures.

I would rather get the 550D and some better glass than the 7D. Lenses does a lot more to improve the image quality than the camera house does.

 

[gossiping]

yep i think you're right i watched videos on youtube saying how it is bad to compare and i think i just need to do some research on the lenses thanks for the help!