Skip to main content

Waiting, ISPs and the case for digital MF cameras






















Ferry passengers stand at the railings admiring the sunset as the ship leaves Calais in France, headed for Dover, England.

At the moment we've got terrible problems with our internet connection - a fault on the line, which is making things difficult, like updating my blog. So apologies for the infrequent posts.

On a forum recently a photographer was asking about the business case for investing in medium format digital equipment. The costs talked about for the new Hasselblad H3D system were in the region of 25,000 GBP. Extras like computer equipment to handle the huge files and a full set of lenses were also raised.

I thought I'd share my thoughts on the forum with you here...

"If you need a camera for a particular job, but not on a day to day basis then hiring it is an obvious way to go. I know a pro in London who doesn't own a single camera. He hires whatever he needs and charges it on to the client, as you would any expense ( for eg. lunch, travel, lights, model, stylist etc).

Given your area of work (portraits and weddings mostly), I would think that DSLRs would do you fine and you'd only need a Hasselblad occassionally.

There is an aura around that brand name and I own two Hasselblads which have served me well over the years but I now really do prefer working with my Canon 5D. It's fast (compared to the Hasselblad), light, flexible and delivers files that will keep most clients happy. Just shot a billboard, bus shelter advertising campaign with the 5D and there're no complaints about the quality, on the contrary. So you if you can hire a Hasselblad, why tie capital up in an outright purchase?"

In the end the photographer asking the question was going to take a look at second-hand digital MF cameras, which would involve a much lower investment.

With the work I do my strategy is to shoot film if I need to deliver MF or large format for a client, or if digital is really needed then I'll hire what's required. My full frame Canon DSLR delivers the quality I need on a day to day basis. Personally I can't make the business case to tie up that much capital in a camera, especially at the rate that digital equipment is evolving (read devaluing).

Always happy to hear your views.

Cheers,

Paul Posted by Picasa

Comments

Yo mismo said…
Sometimes our first step in photography is getting the camera we like and after that we think about the pictures to take. If we change this topic, we would probably be satisfied with cheaper cameras that make the work we really need.
(Excuse my English)
07:35
Beyond the obvious said…
Yes, you're quite right Emilio.
08:09
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Approach to taking a portrait

Portrait of Amitabh Bachchan. Click on the image to see larger version. Every portrait is different but there are also elements which are the same, whether you’re shooting the famous or the locally famous. Fame is of course all relative. It depends on profession, accomplishments or media celebrity status. Whoever the ‘famous’ individual is there are millions of people in the world who will never have heard them. For example I photographed the legendary Indian Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, who amongst his many accolades was awarded the Legion d'Honneur, the highest civilian award of France. But I’m positive that many people in North America will not have heard of him – although he has more fans than Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro put together. I find that however well known a person is cracking through egos and insecurities is really important when it comes to getting authentic strong portraits. However I hasten to add that when it came to photographing Amitabh th
1 comment
Read more

The portrait photographer's motivation

Easy access to the Internet and digital photography has resulted in an ever growing number of photographers uploading their images for comments and ratings from peers. Online communities evolve and these mini-societies each have their pecking order, internal groups and communal preferences. Photographers learn from each other. On sites that have a rating system there is often pressure to conform to certain styles, techniques and even subject matter. Although I participate in numerous sites (it's great fun), I recognise the danger of becoming a herd animal and losing the edge of individual creativity. There will always be the creatives that lead the way and the imitators that can only try to follow in their footsteps. This lead me to think about classifying photographers according their inner motivation. So as a bit of fun here are a few different types: The innovator Driven to always find something new, different and creative. Wants to be leading edge. Motivated by creative satisfa
6 comments
Read more

Is professional photography still a viable career?

I am not against amateurs and semi-professionals selling their photography. It's a great way to earn some extra cash. However I am concerned about the level of high quality published work and the standards that clients and the public accept these days. It seems that just about everyone is a photographer. The line between amateur enthusiast and professional is fuzzy to say the least. Photography enthusiasts are selling their images through stock libraries and microstock websites, directly to magazines or through their own and third party sites. They're accepting commissions to shoot weddings, being hired to shoot for magazines and selling fine art prints from their websites. They're teaching photography on the weekend and guiding photographic holidays and safaris. Photography became accessible to the masses with the first non-expert cameras and the famous Kodak slogan"You press the button, we do the rest." The digital camera age has taken the whole thing to a ne
14 comments
Read more