p.10 #1 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
In the spirit of the thread, I can just see Uncle Bob above complaining that Zachs iQ140 medium format back is so old now. There's a 200MP camera out!
I've read Zachs article before, good insight and thoughts.
It does come down to the tools he needs though too. As he stated in the same paragraph as one of the quotes above, "Is it the best camera in the world for the reception? Nope."
In all seriousness there is a balance to strike with gear, the market you're pitching to and how much you're charging.
From my biased owner-of-a-D700 opinion, pretty sure the D700 is reasonably capable of taking some weddings photos. And with absolute respect for the excellent D7000, which would make a nice second camera, I don't think the D700 is inferior, as bridzilla puts it.
p.10 #2 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Zack Arias is a fantastic photographer and I have his DVD and book, but by his own admissions he has sold out to sponsorship, and now uses equipment that is given to him by manufacturers and by him using it and shouting about using it, will attract buyers to the manufacturers
Without that sponsorship I believe he would still be using Nikon or Canon
p.10 #3 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Big cameras get you the professional "look". That can go a long way in securing client confidence regardless of whether a cheaper/smaller/lighter camera would do just as well in the situation.
Zack has sold out, but unlike a couple of other big names, he's at least honest about it. You can't really take any of the "big names" in social media and photo blogging seriously. Every one of them is a mouthpiece (bought and paid for) for one manufacturer or another...and if they aren't, they would like to be. Sponsorship is good if you like paying your bills, etc.
p.10 #4 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Not sure what you mean by "sold out." He left Nikon for Canon, and now has left Canon for Fuji and MF. IMO, he has made business decisions that benefit his career. He will take good pics with any camera--he understands light. When pros leave one system for another, the losing side claim "sold out, " while the winning side claims proof of superiority.
p.10 #5 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Hey, by using higher-end gear, it does draw in clients sometimes.
Big time money in gear creates the perception that you're better than other photographers--simply though the virtue of being able to own that better gear. People think "oh, he/she can afford x and y, and x and y are expensive... so he/she probably makes more money and is a more successful photographer." It's something you can't really change unless you have a really educated client who feels that the photographer > equipment, or if your photos are so good that they don't even ask what you shoot with.
And sometimes, better gear does do a lot better in demanding situations. There's no way a comparably skilled photographer (heck, even a slightly better skilled) can shoot from the back of a dimly lit theater with a 5DM2 and 200/2.8 handheld and get better shots than me with a D4 and a 200/2 handheld. That's just a fact.
Or if shooting breakdancers with 30 second routines, there's no way a 5DM3 with a 24-105/4 will capture better shots or more keepers than me with a D4 and a 24/1.4 if shooting from the relatively same spot (you don't flash @ bboy meets) in the dim lighting that is often the case. There's a reason why gear matters: because sometimes it does allow us to push the envelope or get us images we wouldn't be able to otherwise.
But in the OP's case here, the D700 wasn't what prevented the shoot from happening. It wasn't Ken Rockwell either. It was an uneducated client.
p.10 #6 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
"sold out" meaning he has sponsors. It's not a bad thing like I mention in the last sentence. However, it does severely taint any equipment review, blog post, comment, or article the person in question puts out. That's all.
Other than his massive social media presence, I never really understood Zack's appeal. Different topic for a different time. Shooting with one light isn't rocket science. Now, McNally, that dude is a genius with lights...and of course heavily sponsored by Nikon. I still buy his book and I bought Zack's book (magazine thing) as well.
p.10 #7 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
AlexanderR wrote:
"sold out" meaning he has sponsors. It's not a bad thing like I mention in the last sentence. However, it does severely taint any equipment review, blog post, comment, or article the person in question puts out. That's all.
Other than his massive social media presence, I never really understood Zack's appeal. Different topic for a different time. Shooting with one light isn't rocket science. Now, McNally, that dude is a genius with lights...and of course heavily sponsored by Nikon. I still buy his book and I bought Zack's book (magazine thing) as well.
[end threadjack]
The one light thing was just a money maker, or an attempt at making money. The guy uses numerous lights for his paid gigs. He would be my first pick to shoot a project, but, that is a matter of personal preference.
I think the sponsorship thing is more prestige than financial. They get paid, but are obligated to make a certain number of appearances for the company. They apparently do not get free gear, probably a discount. According to Art Wolfe, the discount wasn't that great. As a matter of fact he left Canon's equivalent to Nikon's "Ambassadors" program because it was too time consuming--he still shoot Canon. I think Art said he was paid $12K a year. McNally has carved out a large niche in the photo industry and is an established Nikon star. Zack was never in this league, so changing systems is easier.
p.10 #9 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
Dave McGaughey wrote:
Ugh. She sounds like trouble. Shoot the engagement session and leave it at that. You can point out that the tools really don't matter - does she ask the carpenter what kind of hammer they use? Does it matter what kind of pots and knives the chef is using?
Wrong. Don't shoot s**t. Leave the money on the table for some other poor soul. You don't need this...mark my words.
p.10 #17 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
You don't need to deal with that kind of control/crazy. Nothing will make her happy. Red flag big time. Run. Just run.
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!
p.10 #18 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
RSHPhotography wrote:
Well, the shoot is next sunday. I'm already paid but I'm certain I want no more work from her. It's just that, this idiot Rockwell turned what could have been a potentially good shoot into a possible nightmare.
It sounds like the dark clouds began to set in before she Googled Ken Rockwell. Perhaps you can educate her that it is not the camera, it's the lens and the photographer behind it. You could also tape the model number. And if someone asks what you're shooting, you can tell them whatever you want.
p.10 #19 · Stupid Ken Rockwell may cost me a customer!
I have not read the entire thread but how did she find you? Has she not seen your work prior to booking? If she liked your previous images remind her that they were all shot with your current gear.
.