When to splurge?

[amithi]

I just got a Canon PowerShot A410 a few months ago, my first digital cam. My aunt asked me to photograph my cousin's wedding in July, and I told her that I'd do it for my own practice, but that she should hire a professional bc I don't have any prof. equipment yet. I say that to say that I'm definitely wanting to pursue photography further, but should I wait a while and get some more experience with my camera before looking into another, more professional, more expensive one?

[livin4lax09]

what you can do is pick up a cheap 35mm manual SLR first. This will help you to learn all about the settings in photography. If it's fully manual, you will have to rely on your own understanding of shutter speed, ISO, aperture, and f-stops. Once you get these things down, you can easily splurge and move to a digital SLR, but knowing the settings will help you become a MUCH better photographer. WHen i switched from preset modes to manual mode on my DSLR, the photos turned out 100x better.

Or you can just use your a410 in manual mode. But I would advise to learn about settings and cameras before going out and spending more than 1k on camera equipment.

[amithi]

Thanks for the help. Talked to dad today, and he says he has an old 35mm I can practice with this summer. I'm not sure if it's fully manual, but I'll check.

[greghalliday]

I have a motto:

Buy the equipment for the person you want to be. Not the one you currently are.

The first time I experienced this is when buying my first guitar. I spent 400 dollars on a "beginner" model. As I improved, I found myself wanting a particular sound I could not get with a cheap guitar. So I bought a new Martin for 1800 dollars. I figured why not save 400 dollars on a cheap guitar and learn on a nice one. All through college I worked in a bike/ski shop. This was my mantra in selling equipment (with the exception of some skiers who don't have the weight to handle an advanced ski).

For me, it is the same in photography. You can convert the most advanced, feature ridden cameras into "beginner" models by turning a switch to the full manual mode. Why waste a few hundred dollars on a camera that you will eventually find lacking? Just save the money and buy the best you can afford, regardless of your skill level.

[Stillsky]

I have a motto:

Buy the equipment for the person you want to be. Not the one you currently are.

The first time I experienced this is when buying my first guitar. I spent 400 dollars on a "beginner" model. As I improved, I found myself wanting a particular sound I could not get with a cheap guitar. So I bought a new Martin for 1800 dollars. I figured why not save 400 dollars on a cheap guitar and learn on a nice one. All through college I worked in a bike/ski shop. This was my mantra in selling equipment (with the exception of some skiers who don't have the weight to handle an advanced ski).

For me, it is the same in photography. You can convert the most advanced, feature ridden cameras into "beginner" models by turning a switch to the full manual mode. Why waste a few hundred dollars on a camera that you will eventually find lacking? Just save the money and buy the best you can afford, regardless of your skill level.

Not sure if this is the same with photography, but perhaps it is. Having gone through this personally in the music field, I don't quite agree with splurging right away. While it's important to strive towards a particular sound, it's more important to learn the techniques involved in creating that sound. The brilliance of student model instruments is they help you realize what it is you need from an instrument. What if you do splurge $1800 and find out that it wasn't the right instrument for you? You're out a good deal of money.

[another view]

Splurging on all the equipment that you'll need to shoot a wedding would be a lot of money. This would include lots of backup equipment that you don't need until you start working, so obviously you could start with a lot less money. I think you'd have to spend well over a grand (at least double that...) to get a DSLR, lens and flash that you'd use professionally and by the time you got to that point there would be a newer DSLR model out there to learn and buy. This could work because your first camera would be your backup/second camera. If your budget allows, this might not be a bad thing to do if you really want to pursue this.

However - your first (camera/guitar/whatever) will get you started, regardless of what it is. After a few months or couple years, you'll figure out what really works for you and then probably want to change some equipment. This might happen a couple of times actually (or like 18 times for my own bass guitar habit... ). Spending a ton just to find out that it's not what you really wanted could get expensive very quick.

Here's what I'd do: You have free use of an SLR, take your dad up on that. Decide what you like and don't like about it. Take into consideration the situations that you shoot in. If you want to do weddings, you'll need a camera with a good accurate flash system. For low light (and a lot of wedding shots are low light) you'll want a big, bright viewfinder and fast lenses. When you're ready to buy your own DSLR, if budget is a concern then splurge on the lenses more than the body. By that, I mean get a Rebel XT and a better lens (or Nikon equivalent) rather than a 30D and a so-so lens. The lenses become more of an investment than DSLR bodies which tend to depreciate like cars (or worse)...

[Ronnoco]

For low light (and a lot of wedding shots are low light) you'll want a big, bright viewfinder and fast lenses. When you're ready to buy your own DSLR, if budget is a concern then splurge on the lenses more than the body. By that, I mean get a Rebel XT and a better lens (or Nikon equivalent) rather than a 30D and a so-so lens. The lenses become more of an investment than DSLR bodies which tend to depreciate like cars (or worse)...

The speed of the lens is certainly very important, flare, barrel distortion, and vignetting too, but I have seen test results that seem to suggest that there is little difference in resolution between kit lenses on DSLRs versus even the standard lenses on superzooms. I wonder about comparison results on resolution between high quality glass and regular lenses on digital cameras.

Ronnoco

[another view]

When you get to a certain point, it will cost a lot more to get marginal improvements. For example, the 18-70 Nikon is a lot better lens than the 18-55 from what I've heard. The cost is probably double but they're both relatively inexpensive lenses. A step up from the 18-70 is their 17-55 f2.8 at a little over a grand. It's a better lens but at least three times the price of the 18-70. How much better? In real life picture taking, it depends on what you shoot as to whether or not you'll see enough improvement to be worth spending the money (or carrying around that heavy of a lens). MTF charts are fine, but I don't shoot MTF charts.

Fast lenses (as in maximum aperture) are almost a requirement in low light. Even if you don't shoot wide open, you'll need all the brightness in the viewfinder that you can get. I've shot wedding receptions and concerts with a Nikon F5 which has a great autofocus system. The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 couldn't lock focus in a lot of situations, but my f1.4 primes made all the difference in the world. In a lot of cases an f2.8 lens isn't enough faster to make a difference either. ;)

In my real-world cases, flare can be an issue (especially at concerts) but sharpness at slow handheld speeds isn't really going to make a difference (to a point, at least). Vignetting and distortion aren't a problem, although I don't have any really bad lenses. Well, other than a fisheye...