The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

rookies said:
Been pretty quiet today
Click to expand...

A picture :D

A7 and Sony 35mm f1.8 at f16, ISO 2,500.

WvQ6QnT.jpg
 
Here’s a question.

For weddings which would you prefer?

Sony A7III + RIII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 55mm 1.8

or

Sont A7III + RII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 85mm 1.8 + Sony 35mm 1.8

I can pick one of these combinations at the moment.
 
TGphoto said:
Here’s a question.

For weddings which would you prefer?

Sony A7III + RIII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 55mm 1.8

or

Sont A7III + RII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 85mm 1.8 + Sony 35mm 1.8

I can pick one of these combinations at the moment.
Click to expand...


Sony A7III + RIII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 85mm 1.8 + Sony 35mm 1.8
 
TGphoto said:
Here’s a question.

For weddings which would you prefer?

Sony A7III + RIII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 55mm 1.8

or

Sont A7III + RII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 85mm 1.8 + Sony 35mm 1.8

I can pick one of these combinations at the moment.
Click to expand...
Tbh I’d just go 7iii + 7Riii + 35mm + 85mm. Keeps weight down, saves the need to swap lenses (and saves potentially dropping them when rushing) and should cover all needs.
 
nandbytes said:
Sony A7III + RIII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 85mm 1.8 + Sony 35mm 1.8
Click to expand...
snerkler said:
Tbh I’d just go 7iii + 7Riii + 35mm + 85mm. Keeps weight down, saves the need to swap lenses (and saves potentially dropping them when rushing) and should cover all needs.
Click to expand...

Not helpful. Please only reference the two options given, they are the options and nothing else.

I won't get rid of zooms, I used them for landscape.
 
TGphoto said:
Not helpful. Please only reference the two options given, they are the options and nothing else.

I won't get rid of zooms, I used them for landscape.
Click to expand...

You asked for weddings not landscapes ;)

A 35/85 combination is valuable for a wedding and having it on two bodies with dual slots is also essential I'd say. That's the right tool for that job.

Landscapes is something else and as far as I understand it's personal for you. I wouldn't be happy with a photographer or in fact any service provider that'd tell me they put their personal needs over delivering what I pay for.
 
TGphoto said:
Not helpful. Please only reference the two options given, they are the options and nothing else.

I won't get rid of zooms, I used them for landscape.
Click to expand...
Sorry you found my post unhelpful but your post said “for weddings which would you prefer” and I answered accordingly (y)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
You asked for weddings not landscapes ;)

A 35/85 combination is valuable for a wedding and having it on two bodies with dual slots is also essential I'd say. That's the right tool for that job.

Landscapes is something else and as far as I understand it's personal for you. I wouldn't be happy with a photographer or in fact any service provider that'd tell me they put their personal needs over delivering what I pay for.
Click to expand...

I have already explained to you that I only use my second body for about 15% of shots. All 'key' shots are taken on my dual slot body, that's worked well for 4 weddings so far with the a7iii + rii combination. Two dual card bodies are not 'essential' for weddings, but they are beneficial.

Landscape is personal for the time being, but I have plans for that also.

17-28 + 28-75 is just as valuable as 35/85 in my opinion, that why I purchase f2.8 lenses. I only get primes out when the light goes down. People will say the best option is 2 x a7iii + 85/35 but that isn't going to happen at the moment as I want a hi-res body.

So you're telling me you would be annoyed if a photographer turned up with an A7III and RII as bodies? I doubt it.

snerkler said:
Sorry you found my post unhelpful but your post said “for weddings which would you prefer” and I answered accordingly (y)
Click to expand...

Out of two options given, you suggested something else.............
 
TGphoto said:
I have already explained to you that I only use my second body for about 15% of shots. All 'key' shots are taken on my dual slot body, that's worked well for 4 weddings so far with the a7iii + rii combination. Two dual card bodies are not 'essential' for weddings, but they are beneficial.

Landscape is personal for the time being, but I have plans for that also.

17-28 + 28-75 is just as valuable as 35/85 in my opinion, that why I purchase f2.8 lenses. I only get primes out when the light goes down. People will say the best option is 2 x a7iii + 85/35 but that isn't going to happen at the moment as I want a hi-res body.

So you're telling me you would be annoyed if a photographer turned up with an A7III and RII as bodies? I doubt it.



Out of two options given, you suggested something else.............
Click to expand...
I’ll leave you to it (y)
 
TGphoto said:
I have already explained to you that I only use my second body for about 15% of shots. All 'key' shots are taken on my dual slot body, that's worked well for 4 weddings so far with the a7iii + rii combination. Two dual card bodies are not 'essential' for weddings, but they are beneficial.

Landscape is personal for the time being, but I have plans for that also.

17-28 + 28-75 is just as valuable as 35/85 in my opinion, that why I purchase f2.8 lenses. I only get primes out when the light goes down. People will say the best option is 2 x a7iii + 85/35 but that isn't going to happen at the moment as I want a hi-res body.

So you're telling me you would be annoyed if a photographer turned up with an A7III and RII as bodies? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

IMO they are essential. I know many people shoot with single card slots but I find that irresponsible and yes I'd be annoyed with you because what is to say that one amazing shot isn't in the body with single card slot.
Also what happens if one of your body breaks and that's the one with dual cards.

Plus the battery on A7RII sucks. And you are maintaining two lots of batteries now.

Tbh with you I wouldn't hire you for my wedding since you don't seem optimised for it. That is not to say you aren't skilled but you are thinking like an amateur/hobbyist rather than a professional providing a service.

All businesses need investment. Cutting corners on £500 seems really bad idea if that's the business you want to be in.

Apologies if you don't like what you read but that's the honest unbiased opinion about this and nothing personal
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
IMO they are essential. I know many people shoot with single card slots but I find that irresponsible and yes I'd be annoyed with you because what is to say that one amazing shot isn't in the body with single card slot.
Also what happens if one of your body breaks and that's the one with dual cards.

Plus the battery on A7RII sucks. And you are maintaining two lots of batteries now.

Tbh with you I wouldn't hire you for my wedding since you don't seem optimised for it. That is not to say you aren't skilled but you are thinking like an amateur/hobbyist rather than a professional providing a service.

All businesses need investment. Cutting corners on £500 seems really bad idea if that's the business you want to be in.

Apologies if you don't like what you read but that's the honest unbiased opinion about this and nothing personal
Click to expand...

Yeah body could break, doesn't automatically mean that the single card slot is automatically going to go tits up. I am all for dual card bodies, don't get me wrong.

Batteries are a none issue, I just grip the RII.

Businesses do need investment, I have already invested not far off £5k, I also have to consider how much revenue I am bringing in to offset the investment and how long my ROI will take - that all forms part of the decision.

Not sure what you mean by 'don't seem optimised for it', care to explain further?

My clients thus far have all been very happy.
 
TGphoto said:
Here’s a question.

For weddings which would you prefer?

Sony A7III + RIII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 55mm 1.8

or

Sont A7III + RII + Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 17-28 + Sony 85mm 1.8 + Sony 35mm 1.8

I can pick one of these combinations at the moment.
Click to expand...


Here is my thoughts and your not gonna like it, not that I care. I am just being very honest and upfront.

Using a body with a single card slot for weddings regardless if you use that camera less or not, is incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional. When you have the option of using 2 card slot cameras there is no excuse at all. If you are doing that you are just a cowboy looking to make a few beer tokens, don't care about your clients or care about building a successful business. That is how strongly I feel about it.

I see stuff posted on Facebook groups for wedding photographers on a daily basis saying they have lost images for one reason or another. Using single card slot cameras and only backing the cards up to one location etc. tends to be the biggest culprits. I used to feel sorry for them, but I don't any more. They deserve to lose their business and all the grief they will get! They are making a conscious decision to operate in a unprofessional way so that they can save a few quid.

Lens choice is purely down to your own preference but it's seems here to be an issue of budget rather than choice. If you are charging normal average rates for wedding photography there is no reason at all why you shouldn't be able to invest in whatever lenses you prefer even if it is something you are doing on a part time basis. If you aren't making enough money to do that then you should probably consider that weddings probably aren't really for you. You have been shooting weddings for a little while now and honestly if you are still at the stage where equipment costs are a struggle, you should maybe consider if this is something you should continue with.

I have seen a lot of wedding photography businesses come and go and while I will never put myself forward as any sort of expert I am now at a stage were I have a certain level of experience in the industry. In my personal opinion if you are unable to build a sustainable wedding photography business within 12 months that provides enough income to cover all of the relevant costs in running a photography business and provide a suitable income you are wasting your time because it is never going to get any better. Regardless if you provide great images or not. I have seen many gifted photographers try and fail for various reasons and you can always tell who is going to be successful or not.

I like the Tamron zoom lenses especially the 17-28 but I wouldn't consider it or the 28-75 to be a core lens for work, if I was shooting zooms and not just using them as back up lenses I would get the GM alternatives. The Tamrons aren't built to professional standards and in my opinion not suitable for long term use for someone offering photography services as a "professional".

This all just my personal opinion of course.

If you want to shoot other stuff for personal use that is fine, but using that as a reason for choosing some equipment over another for work is also in my eyes also unprofessional, that should never be even a slight consideration.

5k is not an investment its firing a few quid at half assed attempt at running a photography business.
 
Last edited:
I only do weddings for friends and family, I cannot think of anything worse than having to do that once a week, never mind 2/3 times a week :confused:.

While I do some paid photography, I'm definitely in the 'I do it for the enjoyment' section of photography.
 
Has anyone in here tried/bought the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 yet?
 
NewBeetle said:
I only do weddings for friends and family, I cannot think of anything worse than having to do that once a week, never mind 2/3 times a week:confused:.

While I do some paid photography, I'm definitely in the 'I do it for the enjoyment' section of photography.
Click to expand...

Have heard a few people say that.

On the flipside of the coin I can't think of anything worse than photographing a wedding for family or friends. I would much rather be sitting at the bar getting pished with everyone else. I never ever bring a camera to a wedding I am invited to as a guest. I din't even before I started shooting wedding for work.

Nothing worse than that dude with a camera at a wedding.

Not only does the photographer hate you so does everyone else. You would be surprised at what you over hear from guests at weddings and I wish Bob and his camera would xxxx off crops up a lot. As does poking fun a them and saying look at Bob pretending to be a photographer etc.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Have heard a few people say that.

On the flipside of the coin I can't think of anything worse than photographing a wedding for family or friends. I would much rather be sitting at the bar getting pished with everyone else. I never ever bring a camera to a wedding I am invited to as a guest. I din't even before I started shooting wedding for work.

Nothing worse than that dude with a camera at a wedding.

Not only does the photographer hate you so does everyone else. You would be surprised at what you over hear from guests at weddings and I wish Bob and his camera would xxxx off crops up a lot. As does poking fun a them and saying look at Bob pretending to be a photographer etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's more a case of me being too polite to decline when they ask than me wanting to do them ;)
 
Last edited:
NewBeetle said:
Yeah it's more a case of me being too polite to decline when they ask than me wanting to do them ;)
Click to expand...

You need new friends, mine would never ask me to do something I didn't want to do just so they could save a few quid. :sneaky:
 
TGphoto said:
Yeah body could break, doesn't automatically mean that the single card slot is automatically going to go tits up. I am all for dual card bodies, don't get me wrong.

Batteries are a none issue, I just grip the RII.

Businesses do need investment, I have already invested not far off £5k, I also have to consider how much revenue I am bringing in to offset the investment and how long my ROI will take - that all forms part of the decision.

Not sure what you mean by 'don't seem optimised for it', care to explain further?

My clients thus far have all been very happy.
Click to expand...

No but as mentioned above there is no excuse really for not having dual card these days.

I am sure your clients are happy but that's because things haven't gone wrong and they are happy with the results.

Optimised in the sense that if things should fail on the day it should make no difference whatsoever. That is not the same as only losing 15% of the pictures.

@f/2.8 and I don't see eye to eye but as far as weddings go I'd still most probably hire him because he's optimised his workflow to deliver. He's commented on his setup and workflow a number of times here. That's what I call optimised to deliver. What you are talking about is simply what's the minimum you can get away with (I am sure you don't mean it to be that way but that's how it comes across).

if you have already spent £5K why skimp on £500. Doesn't make sense to me.
 
What to do when one of your photos is getting lots of praise and nice comments when it's bright and vibrant? Make a mono of course :p

DSC09958-2 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
 
nandbytes said:
that does make it look even clinically sharper of course but don't like tbh lol.
Prefer the colourful less clinically sharp looking version!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's an image that was always meant to be colour, I concur. A non-photographer friend said to me upon viewing it that it's a shame the wing is blurry :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:, cheers mate.
 
nandbytes said:
No but as mentioned above there is no excuse really for not having dual card these days.

I am sure your clients are happy but that's because things haven't gone wrong and they are happy with the results.

Optimised in the sense that if things should fail on the day it should make no difference whatsoever. That is not the same as only losing 15% of the pictures.

@f/2.8 and I don't see eye to eye but as far as weddings go I'd still most probably hire him because he's optimised his workflow to deliver. He's commented on his setup and workflow a number of times here. That's what I call optimised to deliver. What you are talking about is simply what's the minimum you can get away with (I am sure you don't mean it to be that way but that's how it comes across).

if you have already spent £5K why skimp on £500. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much how it reads to me as well.

It seems from what he has said that his personal work is more important than the work he is being paid for as he bases his equipment decisions around that.

It's very amateurish and absolutely the equivalent of a cowboy builder.

It's really unfortunate that the wedding industry still has vendors around that operate in this way, it isn't just photographers.

On a side note while we might have butted heads more than a few times on various things, I have no issue with you at all. As with this, there is also plenty of times I agree with what you have said.
 
f/2.8 said:
Here is my thoughts and your not gonna like it, not that I care. I am just being very honest and upfront.

Using a body with a single card slot for weddings regardless if you use that camera less or not, is incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional. When you have the option of using 2 card slot cameras there is no excuse at all. If you are doing that you are just a cowboy looking to make a few beer tokens, don't care about your clients or care about building a successful business. That is how strongly I feel about it.

I see stuff posted on Facebook groups for wedding photographers on a daily basis saying they have lost images for one reason or another. Using single card slot cameras and only backing the cards up to one location etc. tends to be the biggest culprits. I used to feel sorry for them, but I don't any more. They deserve to lose their business and all the grief they will get! They are making a conscious decision to operate in a unprofessional way so that they can save a few quid.

Lens choice is purely down to your own preference but it's seems here to be an issue of budget rather than choice. If you are charging normal average rates for wedding photography there is no reason at all why you shouldn't be able to invest in whatever lenses you prefer even if it is something you are doing on a part time basis. If you aren't making enough money to do that then you should probably consider that weddings probably aren't really for you. You have been shooting weddings for a little while now and honestly if you are still at the stage where equipment costs are a struggle, you should maybe consider if this is something you should continue with.

I have seen a lot of wedding photography businesses come and go and while I will never put myself forward as any sort of expert I am now at a stage were I have a certain level of experience in the industry. In my personal opinion if you are unable to build a sustainable wedding photography business within 12 months that provides enough income to cover all of the relevant costs in running a photography business and provide a suitable income you are wasting your time because it is never going to get any better. Regardless if you provide great images or not. I have seen many gifted photographers try and fail for various reasons and you can always tell who is going to be successful or not.

I like the Tamron zoom lenses especially the 17-28 but I wouldn't consider it or the 28-75 to be a core lens for work, if I was shooting zooms and not just using them as back up lenses I would get the GM alternatives. The Tamrons aren't built to professional standards and in my opinion not suitable for long term use for someone offering photography services as a "professional".

This all just my personal opinion of course.

If you want to shoot other stuff for personal use that is fine, but using that as a reason for choosing some equipment over another for work is also in my eyes also unprofessional, that should never be even a slight consideration.

5k is not an investment its firing a few quid at half assed attempt at running a photography business.
Click to expand...

As per most people, I'll take your comments with a pinch of salt anyway.

I do take on some of what you say but you are neglecting the fact that the main body I use is dual slots. Don't lecture me on how long I have been shooting weddings etc because that is nothing to do with you. I have been shooting weddings since June, is that a long time? No.

I am building a wedding business around working as a teacher full time, being an examiner and being an education consultant for a big media body so weddings are in no way my full time gig and won't be for some time. Again, not that it's got anything to do with you.

Your valuation of 5k and my valuation of 5k are obviously two different things. I bet many wedding photographers have invested less.

nandbytes said:
No but as mentioned above there is no excuse really for not having dual card these days.

I am sure your clients are happy but that's because things haven't gone wrong and they are happy with the results.

Optimised in the sense that if things should fail on the day it should make no difference whatsoever. That is not the same as only losing 15% of the pictures.

@f/2.8 and I don't see eye to eye but as far as weddings go I'd still most probably hire him because he's optimised his workflow to deliver. He's commented on his setup and workflow a number of times here. That's what I call optimised to deliver. What you are talking about is simply what's the minimum you can get away with (I am sure you don't mean it to be that way but that's how it comes across).

if you have already spent £5K why skimp on £500. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Fair point, I see where you're coming from.

f/2.8 said:
That is pretty much how it reads to me as well.

It seems from what he has said that his personal work is more important than the work he is being paid for as he bases his equipment decisions around that.

It's very amateurish and absolutely the equivalent of a cowboy builder.

It's really unfortunate that the wedding industry still has vendors around that operate in this way, it isn't just photographers.

On a side note while we might have butted heads more than a few times on various things, I have no issue with you at all. As with this, there is also plenty of times I agree with what you have said.
Click to expand...

Don't refer to me as a cowboy, that is absolutely incorrect.
 
TGphoto said:
As per most people, I'll take your comments with a pinch of salt anyway.

I do take on some of what you say but you are neglecting the fact that the main body I use is dual slots. Don't lecture me on how long I have been shooting weddings etc because that is nothing to do with you. I have been shooting weddings since June, is that a long time? No.

I am building a wedding business around working as a teacher full time, being an examiner and being an education consultant for a big media body so weddings are in no way my full time gig and won't be for some time. Again, not that it's got anything to do with you.

Your valuation of 5k and my valuation of 5k are obviously two different things. I bet many wedding photographers have invested less.



Fair point, I see where you're coming from.



Don't refer to me as a cowboy, that is absolutely incorrect.
Click to expand...
You're never going to be considered real pro until you learn to hide your profile....:)
 
TGphoto said:
As per most people, I'll take your comments with a pinch of salt anyway.

I do take on some of what you say but you are neglecting the fact that the main body I use is dual slots. Don't lecture me on how long I have been shooting weddings etc because that is nothing to do with you. I have been shooting weddings since June, is that a long time? No.

I am building a wedding business around working as a teacher full time, being an examiner and being an education consultant for a big media body so weddings are in no way my full time gig and won't be for some time. Again, not that it's got anything to do with you.

Your valuation of 5k and my valuation of 5k are obviously two different things. I bet many wedding photographers have invested less.



Fair point, I see where you're coming from.



Don't refer to me as a cowboy, that is absolutely incorrect.
Click to expand...

Not even going to bother wasting time replying to all of that. I wish you well but suspect you are going to struggle to run a successful wedding photography business.

I can however refer to you as a “cowboy” because that is exactly how you are operating in my opinion.

Also while yes, it’s a little bit different for someone starting on a part time basis I read an article recently by one of the associations based on a poll that said that the average start up cost for a wedding photography business was just over 30k.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Not even going to bother wasting time replying to all of that. I wish you well but suspect you are going to struggle to run a successful wedding photography business.

I can however refer to you as a “cowboy” because that is exactly how you are operating in my opinion.

Also while yes, it’s a little bit different for someone starting on a part time basis I read an article recently by one of the associations that said that the average start up cost for a wedding photography business was just over 30k.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

As you read something, it must be right - just like everything you've read somewhere. Facebook seems to be the oracle of all knowledge.

I highly doubt many photographers have invested £30k into their wedding businesses to start up.

I'll build my business slowly, as I please. If it works, great.
 
TGphoto said:
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

As you read something, it must be right - just like everything you've read somewhere. Facebook seems to be the oracle of all knowledge.

I highly doubt many photographers have invested £30k into their wedding businesses to start up.

I'll build my business slowly, as I please. If it works, great.
Click to expand...

It may not be right for the whole of the U.K it was based on a poll of there members only.

My start up costs in the first year were less although obviously everything is more expensive now but roughly I spent:

12k camera equipment

4.5k Computers, storage, software etc.

4k marketing

2k website and s.e.o

1.5k Insurance, office supplies, phone etc.

So that’s 24k without including the cost of the office I rented at the time.
 
f/2.8 said:
It may not be right for the whole of the U.K it was based on a poll of there members only.

My start up costs in the first year were less although obviously everything is more expensive now but roughly I spent:

12k camera equipment

4.5k Computers, storage, software etc.

4k marketing

2k website and s.e.o

1.5k Insurance, office supplies, phone etc.

So that’s 24k without including the cost of the office I rented at the time.
Click to expand...

And you're very well prepared, do this as a fully time job with your wife etc, so it's different.

You have more camera gear than you need, by far. You have stuff that is great but isn't in any way a complete necessity. I am sure there are people that spend significantly less and reach the same levels of success as well.
 
f/2.8 said:
It may not be right for the whole of the U.K it was based on a poll of there members only.

My start up costs in the first year were less although obviously everything is more expensive now but roughly I spent:

12k camera equipment

4.5k Computers, storage, software etc.

4k marketing

2k website and s.e.o

1.5k Insurance, office supplies, phone etc.

So that’s 24k without including the cost of the office I rented at the time.
Click to expand...
Wow, that’s a lot of money. Do you think this is necessary for everyone or do you think it’s more how you wanted to go about it (genuine question, I have no knowledge)?

The gear our wedding togs had wouldn’t have been close to £12k I don’t think, but they certainly weren’t cowboys and in fact were very professional. That being said they were very much your ‘traditional’ style togs and not like what you tend to see these days which can look more like a Hello magazine shoot or something ;)
 
snerkler said:
Wow, that’s a lot of money. Do you think this is necessary for everyone or do you think it’s more how you wanted to go about it (genuine question, I have no knowledge)?

The gear our wedding togs had wouldn’t have been close to £12k I don’t think, but they certainly weren’t cowboys and in fact were very professional. That being said they were very much your ‘traditional’ style togs and not like what you tend to see these days which can look more like a Hello magazine shoot or something ;)
Click to expand...

In terms of starting any sort of business it isn’t a lot of money.

My brother spent over 100k in the first year of setting up his business.

My Dad spent well over 250k when he set up his business.

Even the small part time business my wife once had generated costs of around 20k in the first year.

All businesses have start up costs.

Equipment costs are high for us personally because there is two of us so that was 4 bodies, a 24-70, a 70-200, a 35 and an 85 plus lighting, and all the other odds and sods. We couldn’t really have got away with any less than that.

If we hadn’t of spent what we did on the other costs in the first year I would be surprised if we would still be trading.

We spent much more when we opened a portrait studio later on which was a waste as we closed that after absolutely hating the work.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
In terms of starting any sort of business it isn’t a lot of money.

My brother spent over 100k in the first year of setting up his business.

My Dad spent well over 250k when he set up his business.

Even the small part time business my wife once had costs of around 20k in the first year.

All businesses have start up costs.

Equipment costs are high because there is two of us so that was 4 bodies, a 24-70, a 70-200, a 35 and an 85 plus lighting, and all the other odds and sods. We couldn’t really have got away with any less than that.

If we hadn’t of spent what we did on the other costs in the first year I would be surprised if would still be trading.

We spent much more when we opened a portrait studio later on which was a waste as we closed that after absolutely hating the work.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know all about business costs :runaway:

Obviously hypothetical, but if you couldn’t raise the funds for whatever reason could you not have provided a service using one body and one lens each, maybe having a third lens you could share? Whilst you wouldn’t each have your own backup body you do at least have a backup.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah I know all about business costs :runaway:

Obviously hypothetical, but if you couldn’t raise the funds for whatever reason could you not have provided a service using one body and one lens each, maybe having a third lens you could share? Whilst you wouldn’t each have your own backup body you do at least have a backup.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, are you mental? Crazy stupid suggestion only a ridiculous cowboy piece of human waste would use such a system. Outrageous suggestion.*




*none of the above views are my own :)
 
snerkler said:
Yeah I know all about business costs :runaway:

Obviously hypothetical, but if you couldn’t raise the funds for whatever reason could you not have provided a service using one body and one lens each, maybe having a third lens you could share? Whilst you wouldn’t each have your own backup body you do at least have a backup.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe so if we had only had 2 bodies we would have been in trouble because one of the cameras bit the dust just before the ceremony at one of our early weddings.

How would we have explained to the couple why one of us was standing around doing nothing? They wouldn’t t have cared that we only had one body between us, they would just cared that they weren’t getting what they paid for.

The negative impact of something like that could have potentially killed our business stone dead before we had even really got started.
 
Last edited:
TGphoto said:
Absolutely not, are you mental? Crazy stupid suggestion only a ridiculous cowboy piece of human waste would use such a system. Outrageous suggestion.*




*none of the above views are my own :)
Click to expand...
Lol, I’m not trying to ruffle any feathers just genuinely interested. I’ve half toyed with the idea of doing it as a ‘supplementary’ income in the past, but decided against it due to the thought of dealing with bridezillas, and my own confidence.

My choice of gear would have been 2x D750’s, a 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 plus two off camera speedlights.
 
f/2.8 said:
How would we have explained to the couple why one of us was standing around doing nothing? They wouldn’t t have cared that we only had one body between us, they would just cared that they weren’t getting what they paid for.
.
Click to expand...
Yeah that makes sense, especially the bit in bold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top