ThunderChicken Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 I have a Fuji S5100 4mp camera its not slr but i know i can buy lenses that go ont he end and i can get either telephoto or wide angle im thinking wide angle would benefit me more for city/building/urban shots or do you think the telephoto would? also this is kinda random but what exactly makes someone a professional photographer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunak87 Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 They know how to get the right angle to make the lighting just right and everything that should be in focus is in focus. Also, if you spend over $1000 equipment, you're automatically a "professional" in my book> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverfox Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 over $1000 isnt a lot - i just spent $2000 and am far from pro! my image gallery at stock xchg most of these are from a 3.2mp Fuji S304, so, you dont NEED the fuji attachments, although they are pretty good fun. for urban, i'd say wide-angle will give you more interesting results, whereas telephoto will provide more interesting depth of field in some cases. it varies so much. also look here henbenly's thread where i posted some images you dont need to have fancy lenses to be good - creativity and practice are best imo. trial and error! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sykocus Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 it all depends on your needs...if you take your camera out, and you can't get close enough with zoming and croping then perhaps a tele attachment help. same goes for a wide angle. although someone once said, the best wide angle lens is to take 3 steps back. as for a professional, technically that just means you get paied, but there is a big difference between someone paying for you to take some pictures or someone buying a picture from you, and being able to live off taking pictures. I probably have about $3k in camera equiptment, but haven't been paied for any work. I don't have any plans to make money off of it either. I take pictures mostly for my own enjoyment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spazmire11 Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 i wish i could spend 3k on camera stuff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverfox Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 i've easily spent over $3000 in equipment over time, and made a little bit of money through people amking small donations, however as sykocus said: mostly for enjoyment. spending $3k on camera equipment is far too easy...some lenses cost $1000 alone. i get a few enquiries ever couple of weeks asking to use my work for non-commercial projects, and have had chrysler-daimler use an image for corporate work. i also got a cover of a magazine which was colour, and A2 sized. practice makes perfect - for every 100 shots you take trying to get it right, one or two will be what you are aiming for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Yuck Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 as for choice between telephoto and wide, do you have difficulty fitting stuff in frame? wide. Do you not want to get close to a stinky subject? Tele. Professional photographer: gets paid http://forums.photographyreview.com Check that out, check out the critiques, and learn. Dont know if you're just looking to improve or what. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cold_snipe Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 i wish i could spend 3k on camera stuff 511851[/snapback] I wish i could spend 3k on anything Well btw, I dont know much about this photo stuff, but what do you REALLY need to start? Like what kind of camera would be the minimum, and then what kind of camera would be a good start? Im just wondering... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverfox Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 save some $$$ and get the EOS 350D/Digital Rebel XT imo... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 I would say a minimum camera if you don't actually own one, is anything you can get your hands on that gives you some kind of control over what you are taking. A good start into something a bit more serious would be an slr, whether digital or not. If you get a chance to do some kind of photography in school, then consider that as well as you will learn alot and might get some of your costs subsidised. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzidom Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 WL-FX9B is the part no for the w/a lense s5100 / s7000 cameras and because of it's 0.5x width doesn't distort like some of the aftermarket lenses Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henbenley Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 I wish i could spend 3k on anythingWell btw, I dont know much about this photo stuff, but what do you REALLY need to start? Like what kind of camera would be the minimum, and then what kind of camera would be a good start? Im just wondering... 512048[/snapback] well ive been using a canon powershot A40 and i really havent gotten any "amazing shots" but i have managed to get a few decent ones. you cant really do much on that besides shutter time and stuff i'll be ordering a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT as soon as I can get the money, then eventually getting more lenses and stuff for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now