p.9 #1 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
MitchSC wrote:
For me: He's the lazy man's encyclopedia for Nikon lens and cameras. He has written a review on everything ever manufactured, they are all the same format (easy to find what I want to know) and he is always in the top five on Google.
I don't pay attention to his recommendations. Someone posted earlier in this book that he (Ken) advised folks not to pay attention because it is what works for him. Unfortunately a lot of folks do pay attention and with that should come responsibility. But you are not suppose to believe everything you read on the internet and if someone is serious about photography they will eventually realize he is full of it. ...Show more →
He is the Jeremy Clarkson of camera reviews, I read them more for a good time than to learn something technical. Just like Clarkson, he isn't technically wrong - he just takes it to the very edge of being right.
p.9 #2 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
RSHPhotography wrote:
So one of my clients, who hired me to do an engagement session (but not wedding), is considering backing out because of my equipment. .
When I signed the contract (when she was pregnant, but decided to hold off until baby was born), I could tell she had no clue about photography, and now after she's given birth - and I assume got to play around with cameras during her maternity leave is convinced that her photos will be miraculously better with a Nikon D7000.
Yea. Exactly. Now, the D7000 is a great camera, but I use 2 D700s. Yea, they're not state of the art in 2014, but they still take amazing pics! There is no way I'm sacrificing my setup for a D7000.
We start talking on the phone about location and time of day, and she starts asking me about my cameras, saying how she would prefer if I used D7000 to shoot her session. To me that came out of left field. What? I shoot with 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR2 and 85mm 1.4D. I normally bring all 3 to my engagement sessions but spend most of the day with the 85. No way was I going to stick that on a D7000 or any DX body for a shoot.
I tried explaining to her the difference between FX and DX, but she was having none of it. She felt my equipment was an older generation. After the conversation, I came away feeling as if this woman is going to be really difficult if I didn't rent a new body like D800 or D4. Regardless, I think after this session, she may not even hire me in the future, or when she decided to get married. We'll see.
Saying: "Hi, I'm sure you're comfortable with your camera, but I think you're wrong here. Please see this review."
I know Ken Rockwell is a moron, thus never pay attention to his reviews, but I never took into account how many people read his reviews and take it as gospel. So I read the entire review. Is this guy serious?!!! He makes it seem as if the D7000 destroys pro Nikon bodies! And people in the market for $600 DSLRs are probably eating it up!
I think you dealt with a stupid customer rather than a stupid KR! Why someone cares which cameras which a photographer uses if he uses it to make great pictures?
p.9 #3 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
They are also the same brides that end up divorced 6 months later since the groom eventually learns that they aren't going to change the crazy ways. The number of times I had clients that did get divorced and never had an album delivered were rather shocking.
p.9 #6 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
kezeka wrote:
He is the Jeremy Clarkson of camera reviews, I read them more for a good time than to learn something technical. Just like Clarkson, he isn't technically wrong - he just takes it to the very edge of being right.
p.9 #8 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
aspirebooth wrote:
Here's the thing.
If you are using a 35mm F2 on a D700 then sorry she's right. The images would look technically better on a D800 using a Sigma 35mm F1.4. If somebody is shooting your wedding do you want them to use a 24-105 F4 or a 24-70 F2.8. As photographers we automatically know what the answer is.
While older gear will still give results that look great you can't argue that often the new equipment does a better job. The fact is the majority of clients can't distinguish the differences. The only people who are going to know are trained professionals.
Also when you are assuming professional photographers know a whole lot about cameras you should really think twice about that. The number of times I've seen so-called pros getting talked into buying something when be provided really bad info at a camera store is rather alarming. For instance pro's that would take the advice on Ken's site would be like the blind following the blind. ...Show more →
Let's agree that she's right that the images would be better with different equipment. But new equipment isn't free. The OP offered to use the exact equipment she wanted and she balked at the extra cost. Would you upgrade your equipment at a specific client's request and not raise your price? What if she demanded he use a Phase One system - should he get (or rent) one and not charge her for it?
p.9 #9 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Lol wow that sucks maybe she didn't see that there's a d7100 out yet. Lol I guess next time my gfs sisters bf shoots pics of my kids I'll tell him to use a 70d because it's newer than his 5dmii. He can barely use that so I wouldn't want to confuse him.
p.9 #11 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Dpedraza wrote:
Lol wow that sucks maybe she didn't see that there's a d7100 out yet.
Doesn't matter, right? The D7000 is obviously already 10x better than the D700 just like the model number indicates, and the D7100 adds only an extra 1.5%.
p.9 #12 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Well the more I think about it the more I now agree.
We should give someone a D800 and some lenses ... anyone.... preferably a cheap uni student, to go and retake all of Ansel Adams photos. Because let's face it, these photos aren't really life long memories or something anyone with any pride would stick on their walls.
I mean, their film.
And also as it goes, I sent through a wedding photo exhibition just recently. I was thinking to myself... "move along, nothing to see here". I should have been trying to convince all those people walking around with their mouths open oohing and aahing , and staring at these A4 - A1 posters size prints that these would have been MUCH better had they used todays equipment.
These poor clients. They should all get divorced and remarried so they've got some real photos to treasure in the future.
p.9 #13 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
While I'm at it...
Maybe some of these clients could educate/prep up on some skills such as flash and natural lighting, texture, dimension, mood, composition, anticipation, emotion, posing or post processing.
p.9 #14 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
RSHPhotography:
I'm a little late in the game for this thread but I wanted to add that I understand the feeling of loosing a costumer completely. I doubt this is your first time, but I tell you this with confidence.. It gets easier and pretty soon you will be happy to kick some potential customers to the curb. I'm not saying be mean or disrespectful but rather hone in on your idea customer base and refer the rest to your colleagues who wouldn't mind working with these sort of customers.
It is absolutely impossible to please everyone so it is a good idea to find just where you need to draw the line. Speaking from my experiences, I'm glad I took on some really difficult clients early on. I needed them and they knew it. They walked all over me when they could, but now I don't need them. I stand up for myself and I have the ability to pick and choose who is going to be a good fit. If a clients wants you to do things that are outside of your artistic style, interest, passion, or in your case "gear" then they need to pay for your rental or find someone else. I have no problem telling my clients how much more it will cost them to get the results that they desire. The additional costs can be shocking to them at first, but it puts things in perspective. How much do they really want what they are asking? Sometimes you can turn them around, other times, they are happy to pay the extra amount to make it happen how they want it to happen.
With all of this said, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't share that 2 years ago I had three of my largest clients kept telling me that my images were really grainy. I was a proud new owner of a 7D but my clients were not digging my high ISO files. I work almost exclusively at ISO 2000-6400. With building pressure from the folks who paid my bills, I made an informed decision to jump from Canon to Nikon and purchase a D3s and a D700. My clients are super happy now and the referrals have taken off. Best move I ever made.
To be fair, one opinionated client should be considered but shouldn't weigh in too much. Get too many complaints or questions in a certain area and it might be time to make a change.
You have some great gear. I wouldn't let a client second guess your choices. They are hiring you for your experience and talent, not your G.A.S.
Ken Rockwell is pretty harsh and I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he isn't to blame for this. Blame the ill informed voters/donators/sponsors that elected/support him, not the politicians. Get my drift?
p.9 #16 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Professionals have ALWAYS bought gear to impress clients, not because they needed it. For decades the "standard" wedding camera was the Hasselblad. Not because it was really needed. Yes the 6x6 format looked good. Owning exotic gear is called "marketing".
We all know perfectly well that wedding and engagement photos are VERY non-taxing of our gear. It's not like shooting sports that is unpredictable and 100+ feet away. You know you could do the shoot with a Nikon D3200 and the kit 18-55 lens and the results would be just fine but clients don't know this. They think what separates them from a real photographer is $20,000 worth of equipment. Even educated amateurs in this forum are convinced that "If I only had that lens, my photos would no longer suck." You can't fight this perception.
Maybe you could move to medium format and put this issue away for good? Or just rent an exotic camera for the day.
Or go retro. I did a wedding once using only an F2 body, a 135mm f/2.8 lens and 400 ISO black and white film. Obviously it looked COMPLETELY different from the typical DSLR shoot.
May 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #17 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
CAlbertson wrote:
Professionals have ALWAYS bought gear to impress clients, not because they needed it. For decades the "standard" wedding camera was the Hasselblad. Not because it was really needed. Yes the 6x6 format looked good. Owning exotic gear is called "marketing".
We all know perfectly well that wedding and engagement photos are VERY non-taxing of our gear. It's not like shooting sports that is unpredictable and 100+ feet away. You know you could do the shoot with a Nikon D3200 and the kit 18-55 lens and the results would be just fine but clients don't know this. They think what separates them from a real photographer is $20,000 worth of equipment. Even educated amateurs in this forum are convinced that "If I only had that lens, my photos would no longer suck." You can't fight this perception.
Maybe you could move to medium format and put this issue away for good? Or just rent an exotic camera for the day.
Or go retro. I did a wedding once using only an F2 body, a 135mm f/2.8 lens and 400 ISO black and white film. Obviously it looked COMPLETELY different from the typical DSLR shoot....Show more →
*******************************
Maybe so, but discerning customers look at the quality of the output, not at the gear made to produce it. In fact, I would say this is true of most customers.
Case in point, Mike's post above...the customers were looking at the output and had complaints so Mike made a change in gear to address the output.
In the OP's situation, the customer liked the output but was still complaining about the gear ... customers like that are not worth having unless they are willing to pay a premium for the "special" attention they apparently need.
p.9 #20 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
nikt wrote:
There is an arbitrary level of gear in which 'professionals' use , at least for the sake of appearances sometimes.
(Maybe now I'm the hypocrite )
I would say that you have made a true statement sir
Technically you could shoot a wedding with an iPhone and do a damn good job, but you would attract very few clients and impress very few folks at a wedding show. You might have to do a lot of convincing for prospective clients because its not a piece of gear that people would expect from a professional. It is something completely obtainable by anyone. Uncle bob would laugh at you during the wedding.
It is the experience and artistic skill of the person who is holding the camera that sets you apart in an apples to apples comparison. It is too bad that clients don't always understand this and think the magic is mostly in the high end gear that a photographer holds. We all know better. Gear helps, but it is far from were the magic happens.
Yes, some people expect a certain level of gear to be used by professionals. Having certain gear is just part of the experience which can instill confidence in your clients. The D7000 is more than enough of a camera for a wedding.
I am reminded of an article by Zack Arias on why he switched to a medium format camera.
A few related quotes:
"When this camera gets pulled out on a job everyone wants to know what in the hell “that thing” is. I can not tell you how many jobs I’ve shot where my client owned better gear than I had. Not for me it isn’t."
"Anything that would give me a better picture, a better print, and shut Uncle Bob the @#$% up about his new Canon Mark X would be a camera I took to a wedding."
.
