12-14-2012, 10:54 PM #31I'm new here!
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
Its Nikon or Canon for the carpet - thats it.
In Los Angeles if you have anything other than Canon or Nikon - you are not taken seriously. You need a camera with interchangeable lenses, off camera flash mount and external flash battery. Sure lots of people are at the carpet events with less - those people are called fans and get pushed around and treated poorly. Also - you need to get a professional model camera, not a consumer model. You will quickly learn the importance of quick focus and flash recycle. If your photos are not tack sharp, well contrasted and compelling, you wont license a thing. Also - its not as hard as some think to get a credential for an event - you e-mail the publicist and they let you in. You only have to look at the carpet photographers for proof of that. A large number of them really are just fans who dont make any money with the photos - if they even manage to get a good one. They mostly just get in the real working photographers way. Bigger events take building relationships with the publicists. Beware of "agents". Most of them are not your agent - they represent themselves with your photos. They make you do all the work and ask for 50% or more. Also - don't take day rates - they usually include giving up all the rights. Never give up your rights to any photo - its not worth it. Good Luck!
12-18-2012, 06:11 AM #32
I'm surprised that Jim B. is the only photographer in this thread that mentioned "tough" equipment, and that one mention wasn't followed up on. I confess that I know nothing about Sony photography equipment, however, I do know a lot about location shooting and some of the down right nasty places I go with my Canon. Just this morning I shot a home fire. After the fire was put out!!!! It was dirty, driping wet, and dangerous. I need equipment that can fall down a flight of stairs and come up ready to shoot. That is only a bit of an exaggeration. My Canon not only is tough, but I can get it serviced (if needed) just about anywhere. I shoot farms, I shoot job sites; if it's messy, dirty, cold, wet, sweaty, whatever, my Canon takes it all in stride, and I use the same equipment for a wedding if someone is that persuasive to get me to do it. (that rarely happens)
It's your equipment, it's your career, it's your choice.
12-18-2012, 09:03 PM #33
Well, I said my piece. It's up to the photographer to take the advice or not. Sometimes, it's like talking to a rock.
12-20-2012, 08:37 PM #34
I think, use Sony if you like it, but do bare in mind what a number of people have said here. I've known a few pros start with Sony, only to change later to C/N...
12-21-2012, 01:07 AM #35Howdy!
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- East Wenatchee, WA USA
I use a Sony a77, and I'm so far from a pro that it's ridiculous, so I'm sure that my opinion doesn't even mean anything anyways. The a77 is weather sealed and seems pretty durable to me. I had it on the passenger seat of my work van with a 70-200 2.8 lens attached when I had to do a very sudden stop. It flew forwards and hit the dash and floor with a lot of force. I thought for sure that it would be broken, but no problems whatsoever. I've used it in light rain during baseball games and all throughout Winter and Summer temperature extremes without problems. It's a nice camera and does most of what I need. I like to take a lot of sports pics, and most of those are outdoors for baseball and soccer. I don't think I'd trade it for anything when taking outdoor sports photos.
BUT, indoor sports in a middle school gym are a different story. It really leaves me wanting something better in low light. There are Sony cameras that do great in low light, but this isn't one of them.
As much as I love my Sony, I still find myself looking for a better all-around camera. It has nothing to do with the people who like my photos and ask me whether I shoot Canon or Nikon and then sneer when I say Sony. It also has nothing to do with available equipment or lens selections. Just about any focal length/lens quality is available for Sony, and I don't think I'd ever buy an off-brand flash anyways regardless of which brand camera I owned. It's because I know that if I want to have better high ISO capabilities I need to make a switch. If I had the money sitting around I'd probably be picking up a D600. And even then, it would be a trade off of features - some good and some bad. But I don't have a pile of cash sitting around here, so for now I'll just keep practicing and learning with what I've got.
Some of the earlier posts get almost downright nasty putting down Sony brand cameras. I don't understand why people spend so much energy being nasty about brand selections. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Your needs aren't my needs so please just quietly be happy that you are so much smarter than me since I chose a Sony instead of what YOU shoot with...
And Jim -- I pay attention to most of what you post because I really respect your abilities, skills, and experience. I've used a lot of your info to help improve my photos. I'm still lightyears and mucho dinero away from what you do, but your work gives me something to aspire to. So even though I use Sony (for the foreseeable future) I really enjoy the info you share...Sony a77 (x2), Tamron 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses, Rokinon 85mm/1.4 fully manual lens, and some neat-o accessories to make practicing photography a lot of fun. Someday I might even get good at it!
My Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/dannyoo
12-30-2012, 09:05 AM #36
I'll throw my 2 cents on this. I've read most of what everyone has said in this thread, and I agree with a lot and disagree with a lot.
I don't have as much experience as some of the guys here - only a few years shooting events on a pro level. And by events, I mean corporate events for the most part. I live in Edmonton in Canada so our "red carpet" events or events with "famous people" are limited, or the "famous" people don't fall into the movie celebrity category.
I have to wonder and ask a question first though - why the hell would someone want to break into "runway" photography as a start and how could you possibly expect to build a career on it or make any actual money from it? Maybe in places like London or LA that's easier, but I have to doubt it - the competition is insane and trying to throw up against guys strapping 20 grand of gear over their shoulders on a decade or more of experience is crazy.
I got started doing event photography through some rather odd circumstances, but I'll make a long story short and say that you're best way of doing so is by getting on with an agency, paper/publication or a straight up "event photography" company. I did the latter and it's frequent work and pays incredibly well for a dollar VS time ratio.
I shoot Canon and I would also recommend shooting Canon or Nikon. I haven't had any long term experience with Nikon gear so I can't speak to that - but one reality of shooting event work is that your gear is going to take a beating. Whether it's sports or events with everyone wearing a suit and tie - gear durability is an issue.
Lens wise - I highly doubt you would ever, ever need anything beyond a wide angle, a working mid-range zoom and a telephoto. Fancy primes aren't going to matter for this kind of work. To be more specific - 16-35mm, 24-70 or 24-105mm and a 70-200mm - those will cover everything you might be faced with at events. A full frame camera body makes a world of difference too.
That said I started with absolute shit gear. My working kit to start was a Canon 50D, 580-EX external flash (you absolutely have to have an external mounted flash with enough power and batteries to last you 2-6 hours) and some pissy lenses that sure as hell weren't even L series quality. Your skill and knowledge of how to take a photo for an event that a client will want matters more than your gear - to a point of course.