Am I being too critical - Official Pageant Photographer was using a SONY

[The Stigenator]

So I am in the lovely territory of Puerto Rico, and I am enjoying it. I came here to support a friend running in a beauty pageant for women over 35. What struck me odd was the official primary photographer was using a Sony Alpha series camera.

I did some probing to see what the guy had, perhaps he had a f2.8 lens or something, but it looks like thats not the case. I got a glance at the lenses they were using, but I do not think Sony mount camera's have an f2.8 lens, I am researching the SONY lenses, to see if there is one with an f2.8, but I think they were using a god awful 70-300 f3.5-6.3 lens. In fact they had 3 photogs in that group, one shooting sony, other canon (Caught him with a bog standard EF-s 18-55IS), not really sure (nikon perhaps).

While I am a forgiving man, i was willing to give them a chance, who knows perhaps they know how to work their camera's much better than I do. For the preliminary rounds, I see them doing a straight on shot, open flash head, right at the subject. From that distance, the point source light is going to leave a HUGE shadow on the back wall behind the subject. I guess they learnt that mistake, in the final rounds, they were shooting with the flash pointing UP or angled up. With the room as high as it was, that flash was NOT going to do anything other than waste its power without a bounce (heck a gary fong would have been more useful here than shooting straight up)

Now I have nothing against consumer level lenses, I got them too but for an professional shooter for a pageant, i was expecting a lot more. remote triggers, remote flashes etc etc. They were all using on-camera, straight head shots. I am dying to see what they look like.

The fact that bugged me more was they were charging $600 per person for official portrait shots etc. It made me sick knowing that for that kind of money, I was going to be expecting a lot more. Perhaps they have a creative eye, and the equipment is moot. So I googled them.


PS: I felt bad for some of the contestants so after the contest was over (well past midnight), I took some pictures with one of my bodies, external flashes etc. I saw the primary photog's facial expression when I brought my kit to the lobby bar. LOL.. Funny thing I only had 1/3 of my kit with me, rest was in my room, I only took what was necessary.


Get ready to LOL at the pictures and critique them... and oh yeah, please turn off the sound on your computer. Make sure you check out the gallery1 folder.

http://anpdigital.com/#/Home

Look up their portfolio too http://anpdigital.photoreflect.com/store/store.aspx?p=44254

 

[OlafSicky]

I have seen much worse than these, but these are not great. It all depends how much the guy was charging.

 

[The Stigenator]

I have seen much worse than these, but these are not great. It all depends how much the guy was charging.

I hear it was an insane amount...... 600 was for just the personal portraits, not sure how much they were charging for the entire event, I'd think 20-30K going by standards for the last week of coverage.

 

[jhansman]

I'd wait to see the results before criticizing his choice of gear. I've seen truly wonderful photos taken from non-pro cameras many times.

 

[iGas]

The photo in the link look amateurish, with poor light control. Perhaps the photographer do not have an assistant to hold the reflector or know how to use a flash properly.

 

[Throckmorton]

I guess that's the way photography is... bad photographers get plenty of work.

There is a Sony 70-200mm F2.8 lens http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_70-200_2p8_m15

There are also Tamron and Sigma options http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012GFPPG

 

[elitejp]

I dont think sonys are bad cameras at all, but I also believe the photographer is the most important part of the picture. I think your just getting a little too camera snobby and need not to worry so much about what others are using.

Maybe the title is misleading because your argument I can understand because people need to get value for what they pay, but at least wait to see how the pics turned out before pointing fingers.

 

[angry hampster]

I dont think sonys are bad cameras at all, but I also believe the photographer is the most important part of the picture. I think your just getting a little too camera snobby and need not to worry so much about what others are using.

Maybe the title is misleading because your argument I can understand because people need to get value for what they pay, but at least wait to see how the pics turned out before pointing fingers.

Agreed.

I also didn't bother looking at the photographer's site after it loaded and music started playing. There is nothing more aggravating to me than a site embedded with music.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I agree that there is nothing necessarily wrong with using a Sony Alpha DSLR as a professional photographer.... it makes your life a little harder / more expensive, but there is some fine Zeiss glass available, and between Sony and Zeiss they cover the usual gamut of f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) and some faster primes (85/1.4, 135/1.8). Using a 70-300 f/4-5.6 is unacceptable though for an indoor event like a pageant (UNLESS all they're doing is studio-style shots, with multiple lights+modifiers and throwing enough light to shoot at ISO 100 and f/8-f/11). If they are charging $600/person then surely they could afford to rent a 70-200/2.8 for the weekend even if they couldn't afford to buy one.

 

[elitejp]

I agree that there is nothing necessarily wrong with using a Sony Alpha DSLR as a professional photographer.... it makes your life a little harder / more expensive, but there is some fine Zeiss glass available, and between Sony and Zeiss they cover the usual gamut of f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) and some faster primes (85/1.4, 135/1.8). Using a 70-300 f/4-5.6 is unacceptable though for an indoor event like a pageant (UNLESS all they're doing is studio-style shots, with multiple lights+modifiers and throwing enough light to shoot at ISO 100 and f/8-f/11). If they are charging $600/person then surely they could afford to rent a 70-200/2.8 for the weekend even if they couldn't afford to buy one.

The OP said he was guessing it wasnt an f2.8 because he didnt even think sony had 2.8 lenses. At least thats how I understood it.
Im actually becoming more and more interested in Sony cameras knowing that they have in body stabilization and make nikons sensors which have better dynamic range than Canon (I shoot Canon.). Some of the cameras they are putting out like the rumored alpha 99 with 100focus points and high megapixals and full frame for around 2800 dollars is just too good of a bargain to pass up. Not like the Canon 5d3 thats $3500 with the only real improvement to the 5d2 being the autofocus system.

 

[iGas]

The OP said he was guessing it wasnt an f2.8 because he didnt even think sony had 2.8 lenses. At least thats how I understood it.
Im actually becoming more and more interested in Sony cameras knowing that they have in body stabilization and make nikons sensors which have better dynamic range than Canon (I shoot Canon.). Some of the cameras they are putting out like the rumored alpha 99 with 100focus points and high megapixals and full frame for around 2800 dollars is just too good of a bargain to pass up. Not like the Canon 5d3 thats $3500 with the only real improvement to the 5d2 being the autofocus system.

Sony have very good sensors but that is about all they have. Their software/drivers are not as good as Canon or Nikon. Their consumer lenses are subpar when compare to Canikon, however their pro lenses mechanically are just as good as Canikon, but the lenses are not as sharp as Canikon newer pro lenses. Sony lenses are rebadge Minolta lenses/design of the 80-90s.

IMHO, Sony lenses are over price because their lenses do not have IS/VR motor, but they command similar prices are Canikon counter part. It make more sense for Sony camera owners to buy third party lenses that are just about as good for 1/2 to 1/3 cheaper.

 

[Heidfirst]

Their software/drivers are not as good as Canon or Nikon.

do they need to be? Basically everybody uses 3rd party (Adobe etc.)anyway ...
Plenty of people are advocating camera companies to leave software development to software companies.

Their consumer lenses are subpar when compare to Canikon,

I disagree.

however their pro lenses mechanically are just as good as Canikon, but the lenses are not as sharp as Canikon newer pro lenses.

You really need to do it on a lens by lens basis e.g. the 16-35 & 24-70 & various others will compete more than happily with Canikon offerings. The older 70-200/2.8 & 300/2.8 designs & some others, however, are behind the latest Canikon designs but not by much - they are still exceedingly fine optics. & there are strong rumours of upgrades/replacement imminently.
Basically whoever refreshed their lens most recently probably has the sharpest.

Sony lenses are rebadge Minolta lenses/design of the 80-90s.

this was true but increasingly isn't & I can see it being not too long until the Minolta holdovers have gone from the catalogue.

IMHO, Sony lenses are over price because their lenses do not have IS/VR motor, but they command similar prices are Canikon counter part.

this is variable as companies update lenses - e.g. look at how much Canon prices jumped in their latest redesigns, it's making the Sony 700-200 & 300/2.8s look like good value (at least here in the UK).
& they are still stabilised just by the body itself. Indeed that offers some stabilised options that aren't available on Canikon

It make more sense for Sony camera owners to buy third party lenses that are just about as good for 1/2 to 1/3 cheaper.

There are certainly some lenses where that is true but generally if you are after the best quality 1st party still wins (just not in vfm terms) - but you can say much the same for Canikon too.

 

[Throckmorton]

Sony has one feature that the others don't-- translucent mirrors. It means that the camera can continuously focus which is good for sports

 

[Munky]

Sony's atrocious noise reduction will automagically make the contestants look 15 years younger.

 

[The Stigenator]

sorry for the late response. The guy was not using any of the f2.8 lenses offered by sony, I still stand by the 70-300 consumer lens. He wasnt even using light modifiers, not even a gary fong, or a bounce, no remote triggers, no bounces, no umbrella's.. none of that.
Straight flash from the head.

heck I wonder if the guy is shooting RAW either.

 

[SickBeast]

I was under the impression that Sony was starting to make some excellent cameras now.

 

[RobDickinson]

Much as I dislike them Sony alphas are more than capable of producing decent work, even with kit lenses and consumer zooms.

You may not get the snap a fast pro zoom or prime gives but we are way beyond the time when basic slr equipment is a real limiting factor.

What they do with it is a whole other matter...

 

[dougp]

sorry for the late response. The guy was not using any of the f2.8 lenses offered by sony, I still stand by the 70-300 consumer lens. He wasnt even using light modifiers, not even a gary fong, or a bounce, no remote triggers, no bounces, no umbrella's.. none of that.
Straight flash from the head.

heck I wonder if the guy is shooting RAW either.

So basically it doesn't matter if he was using Sony or not, he wasn't using the right equipment. You're being too critical towards a brand, but not the photographer.

 

[The Stigenator]

true, teh camera is not the cause for reason, a good photographer can use any equipment to take good pictures.. but yeah I wanted to be critical of the photographer in this case...

 

[SecurityTheatre]

The portfolio is on the lower half of what I've seen out there and would certainly qualify as a "budget option". It's by far not the worst, but also not very good. I'm absolutely certain I could do better (consistently), but I don't consider myself good enough to do portraiture for a living at this point. That should illustrate the point.

Sometimes it's simply about networking. Eventually bad shooters will get weeded out of the market and good ones will rise up and won't be shooting random pageants in Puerto Rico.

$600 is excessive for this work, in my opinion, but again, it's hard to judge. I honestly couldn't stand looking at that site for too long, so I didn't get through all of it.


On another note, Sony makes fine cameras. I would still encourage an aspiring pro to go Canon or Nikon if they asked me, without reservations, but that doesn't mean you only get crap images out of a Sony. They're perfectly fine cameras with pretty decent lenses for the most part (though the selection does suck a bit). Proprietary hotshoes, limited support from software, etc... all told, a good photographer will make it work.

You should watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkKtkEZNjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40c3tmRCNFg&feature=relmfu

Hillarious!

 

[Heidfirst]

(though the selection does suck a bit).

if you want something specialist like a tilt/shift or an MPE-65 equiv. then yes, it's harder than on Canikon (they do exist though).
For 99% of people it's not an issue & you have more stabilised lens options (as they all are) than on Canon & Nikon put together.

Proprietary hotshoes,

It's not proprietary - it's an open standard. Canon et al actually helped develop it albeit they didn't adopt it.

limited support from software

afaik all the major software supports Sony?
The only drawback is that there is no current production body that supports tethering (no doubt it could be added relatively easily in firmware as older bodies did have it).

 

[Throckmorton]

Lightroom supports Sony ARW files but doesn't have lens profiles for most Sony lenses... It has some for the E mount lenses but not the A mount. I have no idea why.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

if you want something specialist like a tilt/shift or an MPE-65 equiv. then yes, it's harder than on Canikon (they do exist though).

There are currently something on the order of 500 Nikon compatible lenses for sale on my local craigslist, ranging from 6mm to 600mm and in aperture from f/1.2 to f/6.3. There are at least 10 different Macro lenses of a variety of lengths, for sale, used, right now, within driving distance. There are at least 30 flashes of 9 different models.

This is what I mean by selection.

When I decided I wanted to try an 85mm prime, I checked craigslist and the same night, I had someone drop by my house with an 85mm f/1.8 for $75 plus a trade for an old Nikon flash.

It's not proprietary - it's an open standard. Canon et al actually helped develop it albeit they didn't adopt it.

It's proprietary, meaning it is not the ISO-standard hotshoe that every other manufacturer uses. Last time I went to a lighting workshop, someone showed up with a Sony and had to borrow my camera because he couldn't mount the provided PocketWizards and he didn't have his own (or one of the big adapter things).

When my flash died at an event I was shooting a few years ago, I borrowed one from a friend who shoots Canon and was able to use it for the rest of the shoot on my Nikon body (manual settings, obviously)

There certainly are drawbacks, and not being able to borrow lenses from your buddy who is a pro shooter is another. Right now almost all pros use Canon or Nikon, so it might just be an inertia thing. Regardless, like I said, they take fine pictures. I just don't recommend them to aspiring pros.

afaik all the major software supports Sony?

Tethering, intervalometer kits, lens profiles, workflow shortcuts, etc, etc. It's not the biggest deal, but it's annoying. Besides, so are the stupid proprietary memory cards they used to use. At least they mostly support SD now.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

http://anpdigital.com/#/Home

Look up their portfolio too http://anpdigital.photoreflect.com/store/store.aspx?p=44254

I looked at a wedding photo album and I could shoot better with my Samsung Galaxy S2. Wow.

And seriously with an S95 I could've blown those photos out of the water.

Let's not even talk about what my prosumer 7D + 17-55 could do. I'd probably borrow my friend's 70-200 if needed.. lol

 

[randomrogue]

The new Sony A65/77 are pretty nice and would easily get the job done. I've used them with nothing but fast 1.4 to 2.8 lenses. The drawback to them, imo, is that I find them noisy above ISO 1600 but with fast lenses it is rarely an issue.

People like to knock Sony because the market is saturated with Canon and Nikon but there isn't anything wrong with them. They are way more affordable and your ROI is much faster than say buying a D800 or a 5D Mark III