On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:17:04 -0400, you wrote: >what has happened is that my readings on people who actually do what i am >trying to and are making a living at it say the same thing. if you have the >basics down, stop playing with wannabe hardware and get what it takes to get >the job done reliably, and without interfering with the photographic >process. >
I like to think of it in this way: how much capital is needed to become self employed in nature photography, as compared to say, setting up a two-man barber shop or a fast-food franchise. In that light, nature photography is dirt cheap. The capital outlay is well under $100,000 and can be operated out of the home, thus no ongoing extra rent or building costs; the barber shop will cost twice that, and the fast food franchise four times at least. As a long time owner of big glass, and admirer of Art Morris' work and teachings, I agree: anyone wanting to be a player in the nature photography field needs to go head to head with the equipment used by his peers. As of today this means Canon and only Canon. 600/4 IS USM plus 1.4 and 2x TC, flash bracket and flash extender, Wimberly head or video head, top line Gitzo tripod, then after receiving that multi-thousand dollar lens go buy some camo tape and wrap it up. $6899 EF 600mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus 1389 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens 1649 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens 279 EF 1.4x II Extender 279 2x II Extender EF - Autofocus Add ten thousand for incidentals and you're in business for under twenty-five thousand bucks. Wow, pretty cheap. By the way, the Canon 600/f4 has gone way down in price the last six years - it used to cost over $10,000, now they have added IS plus a couple other features and the cost has dropped to $6899. The 400/4 DO is a neat lens, but has not been widely adopted yet by those in the know. But the important thing for a successful nature photographer has nothing to do with gear: it is the seminars and sessions and books and articles which generate significant income. A few stock photo sales per year will not make the car payment or put the kids through college; one needs a steady profit which provides a reasonably high income, which is where the famous and semi-famous nature photogs excel, they provide themselves with a wide range of income opportunities. If one wants to go be serious about nature photography as a business, or a form of self-employment, Pentax would not be the system of choice. However, that does not mean that Pentax can't match photo for photo with Canon and Nikon - it's just not the best business decision. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
