Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

help me spend my money (buying advice)

  • 10-08-2005 3:19pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 627 ✭✭✭


    i figured many of you have made this decision, so no point in jumping through all the hoops again when there's a wealth of advice available here.

    i work for a company that would like to stop paying photographers to take photos of our people, services, and events. these photos usually end up in our company magazine and on our website.

    we'd like to take this in-house and need a suitable camera. we're a small but growing company and so while budget cant quite stretch to the system of our dreams right now, we can build towards it as time goes by.

    here's what im thinking, and i've worked out two options:


    either the EOS20d or 350d. with the 18-55 kit lens and a 70-200 f4 or f2.8is. this would be the basis of our system. we'd grow on this and maybe ad a prime or two or upgrade to a 17-40f4l at a later date, and also add things like a vertical grip and flash etc.

    can anybody tell me which system you would chose, why would would chose one over the other, and please take into account that budget might not stretch to the more expensive option. how would you argue to your boss that the more expensive option is the right one for us? how can i justify either system, as neither will take care of 100% of our photographic needs.

    the way i see it, the sensors are almost exactly the same, and it's the lens and photographer that make the difference.

    your feedback is much appreciated!


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭tonyj


    preilly79 wrote:
    the way i see it, the sensors are almost exactly the same, and it's the lens and photographer that make the difference.
    If you're taking it in-house, then this should be your main consideration.

    Give an experienced photographer a pin-hole camera and he'll produce results. He's not going to start worrying about sensors.... ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭FinoBlad


    agree with TonyJ, its a common mistake to think buying the right camera is going to even partly solve your problem. why not look for a cheaper photographer or a better deal with the one you have.

    if you only need the shots for the web/magazine why buy such a good camera/lens? the camera only dictates the quality of the image itself and has no great bearing on making a good photograph.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭DotOrg


    you need someone who knows about cameras and has some talent in photography before buying a digital SLR, otherwise you are completely wasting your money in my opinion, you'd be far better buying a basic point and shoot automatic everything camera

    buying a 70-200f2.8IS, which is a pro, weather sealed €2000 lens is pointless unless you need low light shooting abilities and are printing pictures at least 12x8 in size


Advertisement