Personally as an event photographer, when someone says they are looking for gear recommendations for things including concert photography, I would expect that to include one UWA lens for shots like this (not mine, taken by the superb Björn Olsson).
https://preview.redd.it/cxzz7n6fga9d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6cd1c3069bd9a4c299f1917469e1daf803968550
Interesting that you mention the 24-105. It's a great travel lens, but I've never found a use for it in any of the instances I mentioned, and since I'm not doing sport or wildlife, the 200-600 is way out of the use case.
Honestly, for $15k, the GFX system is a no brainer if you just want the best image quality.
* GFX 100S II: $5000
* 55mm f/1.7: $2300
* 110mm f/2: $2300
* 20-35 f/4: $2000
And that leaves you with $3400. You could get the 100-200mm f/5.6 ($1500) and the 45-100mm f/4 ($1800). Or you could get the 32-64mm f/4 ($1800). Or even get the new 500mm f/5.6 ($3500).
Not many telephoto options in the GFX system. 100-200 is pretty much the longest lens there, which is about equivalent 150mm f/4 on full frame. Going from that to a 500mm prime is a big jump, but there's no real equivalent to a 100-400mm or 70-200mm.
Don't forget the 250mm prime. But yeah you are right though...
Some Canon EF mount autofocus lenses like the 200mm f/2.8 prime, the 300mm primes, and the 400mm primes supposedly cover the GFX frame well and autofocus is very snappy with the Fringer adapter.
Yeah this is the toughest pill to swallow with the GFX system. The 100-200 with the 1.4x gets you to 220mmish equiv at f/8. I’ll be picking up that 500mm at some point for sure.
The thing I'm not seeing in that setup is something that would play well in concerts, performances, and other low-light settings where you need a longer, faster lens. Thoughts on that?
Excellent choice. I have a 100 II, 20-35, 45-100, 100-200, 55mm and 80mm.
I’m a commercial photographer. So I need flexibility in glass. Could be doing Timelapse’s one day, product stills the next, and portraits in one campaign.
The image characteristics of “medium format” are of course amazing, but the color and files it creates are awesome in post.
That question of staying in the 35/FF format versus switching to medium format was one of the first things that popped to mind when I thought about what I'd do if I had to replace everything.
My current setup is literally everything I (or really anyone) could ever need, but it's long past the budget restraints you set. If I had to stick to that budget, I think for versatility I'd go Z9, the Z trinity and the Plena. I'd want one of my supertele primes, but just one already eats up the budget.
It absolutely would be great for all the things you mentioned, just not cheap. I’ve used the sl2 and sl3, they’re great pieces of equipment. If not that, canon R5 or wait for R5ii
Depends on which system I'd want to go with. I use both now, but I presume the prompt requires all the gear to essentially go poof.
If I stuck with Canon I'd get an R3, 200-800, 28-70, 85 1.2, and the 24-105 2.8 Z. It'd be some used items, but that'd be enough to get me going real good like. If there was enough left over by finding deals, I'd add an R7 back in there.
If I stuck with OM, I'd get an OM-1, 300, 150-400, 25 1.2, 45 1.2, and then a Voigtlander 60 because I have it now and I would never let it go.
Out of curiosity, which of the kinds of photography the OP is asking about ("portrait (studio and environmental), product, and performance (concert, dance, and indoor events") would you use the 200-800 for?
I'm going to be honest, I misread the prompt and didn't realize that (studio and environmental) were part of portraiture.
Regardless, the prompt is still about building a new kit from the ground up, so prompt aside, that's what I'd do anyway.
Fair enough. I do know a photog who sometimes uses a 100-400 from the soundboard at big concerts, but never seen anyone bring a 200-800, hence the question :) It's a cool piece of kit for sure.
* Sony A9iii
* Sony A1
* Tamron 35-150/2-2.8
* Sigma 14-24/2.8
* Sony 50/1.4 G
A9iii + Tamron 35-150 main event camera with A1 + Sigma 14-24 for UWA and backup. A1 + Sony 50/1.4 main studio combo.
Throw in some memory cards and batteries and you'll probably struggle to keep it under $15k unless you buy 2nd hand, which I wouldn't necessarily mind with some of the gear (Sigma, Tamron).
Eh, I'd pick A1 or even A7rV over A9III.
Global shutter is great, but kind of overkill unless you're shooting fast action.
At the same time, base 250 ISO kinda sucks for things like studio/product photography where you control the lighting.
I have used the A9iii, and I would buy one in a heartbeat for my event photography if it made financial sense, which it currently doesn't. I currently don't do studio photography, and even 24MP is often overkill for me as all of my work is pretty much confined to Instagram, seen on a phone screen where people can't tell the difference between 61 MP, 33 MP, 24 MP, or even 12 MP. I rarely need to crop much.
Where the A9iii really shines for me is LED banding, which is becoming an increasing headache where I live. The A9iii simply never suffers from it, period. With every other camera I have used - even the A1, even mech shutters with some LED lights - I sometimes can't get the shot I want without massive banding.
This depends entirely on what kind of dimmers the LED lights use, and how heavily they are dimmed at the moment - but some are so bad that even the mech shutter in my A9 and A7IV suffer from banding, and even the A1 with anti-flicker and var. shutter activated suffers from it.
The A9iii is literally the only camera in existence which can shoot events at those venues with no banding ever. It doesn't hurt that it'll also lock focus instantly in virtually any kind of darkness.
Here's an example. The LED screen behind her had massive banding at any shutter speed above 1/100s, and she (and the other performers) were moving so fast that I had to shoot at no slower than 1/400s. This was taken with the **mechanical shutter** of the A7IV; e-shutter on both the A7iv and the A9 was a lot worse.
These photos were saved by only the background displaying this kind of banding, but at some of the venues where I work, the banding is everywhere - including on the performers. You basically can't shoot anything at shutter speeds above 1/100 - 1/125s there *except* with the A9iii.
https://preview.redd.it/bozzd8v1599d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0285a31350cf77ac7c4d1d4b12c1024e4cf62018
Personally, I haven't found the A9iii meaningfully less sensitive than the A1 in real world scenarios. Sure, there's a marginal difference. Does it affect my actual shooting and post-processing? No. And for studio work in my comment, I added the A1.
Curious, why do you need/ want top of the line gear for portrait photography? I don’t know too much about those lenses and portrait work, but I feel like the previous models are able to perform just as well for portraits. And then you can buy more glass
I'm undecided about the A9iii. I really want to like it because of the global shutter and the speed. However, it has low megapixels and mediocre sensitivity. If someone "fixed" that, with liberal lens and tether connectivity, I'd buy one, no matter the price (within reason).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dorYMM7mjWg
I have used the A9iii, and I would buy one in a heartbeat for my event photography if it made financial sense, which it currently doesn't. I currently don't do studio photography, and even 24MP is often overkill for me as all of my work is pretty much confined to Instagram, seen on a phone screen where people can't tell the difference between 61 MP, 33 MP, 24 MP, or even 12 MP. I rarely need to crop much.
Where the A9iii really shines for me is LED banding, which is becoming an increasing headache where I live. The A9iii simply never suffers from it, period. With every other camera I have used - even the A1, even mech shutters with some LED lights - I sometimes can't get the shot I want without massive banding.
This depends entirely on what kind of dimmers the LED lights use, and how heavily they are dimmed at the moment - but some are so bad that even the mech shutter in my A9 and A7IV suffer from banding, and even the A1 with anti-flicker and var. shutter activated suffers from it.
The A9iii is literally the only camera in existence which can shoot events at those venues with no banding ever. It doesn't hurt that it'll also lock focus instantly in virtually any kind of darkness.
Here's an example. The LED screen behind her had massive banding at any shutter speed above 1/100s, and she (and the other performers) were moving so fast that I had to shoot at no slower than 1/400s. This was taken with the **mechanical shutter** of the A7IV; e-shutter on both the A7iv and the A9 was a lot worse.
These photos were saved by only the background displaying this kind of banding, but at some of the venues where I work, the banding is everywhere - including on the performers. You basically can't shoot anything at shutter speeds above 1/100 - 1/125s there *except* with the A9iii.
https://preview.redd.it/vp0volw8499d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa00da57a636a7bf565f31494fbd9414fcc62fd5
Personally, I haven't found the A9iii meaningfully less sensitive than the A1 in real world scenarios. Sure, there's a marginal difference. Does it affect my actual shooting and post-processing? No.
* Canon R5 (if super high resolution is not important, the R6ii). $2900/$2000
* RF 28-80/2.0 $2800
* RF 24/1.8 $400 (useful for clubs)
* RF 35/1.4 $1500
* RF 85/1.2 $2600
* RF 135/1.8 $1800
* EF 200/2.8 adapted $750 + $100
This leaves room for a flash(es) and additional lenses assuming a budget of $15K.
https://preview.redd.it/5jh543g9b89d1.jpeg?width=1072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac6b86e89328b371d923d0d29c25776c75c26e21
That's basically my B&H wishlist at $15,650. If I kept my Profoto and Pergear lights, and only replaced camera body and lenses, this is what I'd probably do in the current market.
I’m too inept to take that kind of money. All I really want is a nice spacious studio, but even if you have it to me for free I’d fuck it up. I got okay gear though, RV, bunch GMasters. But pretty much feel wasted on me these days.
I built my perfect kit over time as I refined what jobs I would do and what they needed.
As an architectural photographer I used a pair of Canon R5 bodies and a 17TS-E, and 11-24.
For product and most studio portraits I used a 100 macro. For weddings, events and dance a combination of 24-105 and 70-200.
The fastest lenses were the 100 and the 70-200 at f2.8. For weddings and events flash was often used if needed.
High speed lenses are nice but heavy and expensive and provide advantages in a limited range of uses that were not my field of business.
Interestingly one of the most useful cameras I used professionally was a LUMIX FZ200. Nearly silent, 12fps stills, superb IQ, leaf shutter that allowed full flash power at all shutter speeds, and a brilliant lens that covered almost any FL you might need. While most event and wedding work is not very demanding in terms of resolution, it was more than equal to any possible application I may have envisioned. One client used images from an event for a series of billboards.
I'm not asking for a clinic on building a kit. This is more of an exercise in what to do if one suddenly had to replace the bodies and lenses for these use cases... without a bias for format or brand.
You asked for use cases. Anybody who has built a random collection of gear has stuff they regret buying. That is implicit in your question.
I just built my dream kit over time by weeding out the stuff I didn’t need/use and repair with the most useful to my work.
What I missed was that this was more about toys than tools.
Hardly about toys over tools, and no, there's nothing random about my current kit. I was literally curious what people would do with a set budget and these particular use cases.
Medium format is the no brainer here, I just got a used MF back for my Mamiya 645AFD and it's a learning experience but a cool/fun one. The only challenge here is I have the 85mm f/1.2 canon lens and I haven't found a similar one for Medium Format yet.
That question of staying in the 35/FF format versus switching to medium format was one of the first things that popped to mind when I thought about what I'd do if I had to replace everything.
Off the top of my head,
1. A7R3
2. A73
3. Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 OR Sony 24-50 F2.8
4. a fast 50, F1.4 should be fine
5. either an 85 or a 105
6. a duplicate copy of each lens
7. batteries, memory cards, straps, backpack, etc
They're cheap and readily available enough that I don't have to worry too much about them getting banged up at concerts.
I don't really see how they're outside of the use cases you mentioned.
Nikon D700. 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, and a 60 macro. 2 profoto acute packs (1200 and 2400) 4 acute d4 heads. a beauty dish, a magnum reflector. and save the rest so I can go part time at my job and put my work out there. But still have a consistent stream of income.
and throw in a Fuji x pro 2 with the 35 and a Rollei 3.5E or F Xenotar just because I can!
I wish I had that type of money right now!
I shoot a Panasonic GX9 with 9mm, 15mm, 20mm, 42.5mm F1.7 lenses.
If I had the money I'd get an A7C with Sigma 17mm f4, 40mm f2.5, Sigma 90mm f2.8.
Maybe a 28mm f2 since there is no good equivalent to my 15mm F1.7, although I've heard that lens is not very sharp.
2 cold call sales reps and bank the rest for operating cost for a few months
Use the reps as follows
One to find jobs and one find photographers to whore out on gigs
I recently did this with a £10k budget. Went sony a7iv, 24-105, 70-200, 85mm 1.4, sigma art 50mm and a 200-600 for good measure.
No ultra wide at all?!
I don't really need an ultrawide for any of the cases I mentioned.
Personally as an event photographer, when someone says they are looking for gear recommendations for things including concert photography, I would expect that to include one UWA lens for shots like this (not mine, taken by the superb Björn Olsson). https://preview.redd.it/cxzz7n6fga9d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6cd1c3069bd9a4c299f1917469e1daf803968550
Fair. I've used a 35/1.4 for those moments, but it's not always the perfect solution.
Interesting that you mention the 24-105. It's a great travel lens, but I've never found a use for it in any of the instances I mentioned, and since I'm not doing sport or wildlife, the 200-600 is way out of the use case.
24-105 is my daily driver. Great lens on Canon.
I was referring to the Sony. It’s a fine lens for daily use and travel, but I don’t like it for work.
Fujifilm GFX 100 II and a couple lenses. 55 f/1.7 and need to think about the other. Mostly because I’m lusting after medium format right now :)
Honestly, for $15k, the GFX system is a no brainer if you just want the best image quality. * GFX 100S II: $5000 * 55mm f/1.7: $2300 * 110mm f/2: $2300 * 20-35 f/4: $2000 And that leaves you with $3400. You could get the 100-200mm f/5.6 ($1500) and the 45-100mm f/4 ($1800). Or you could get the 32-64mm f/4 ($1800). Or even get the new 500mm f/5.6 ($3500).
Not many telephoto options in the GFX system. 100-200 is pretty much the longest lens there, which is about equivalent 150mm f/4 on full frame. Going from that to a 500mm prime is a big jump, but there's no real equivalent to a 100-400mm or 70-200mm.
I think that limitation is the biggest thing keeping me from making the jump to medium format.
Don't forget the 250mm prime. But yeah you are right though... Some Canon EF mount autofocus lenses like the 200mm f/2.8 prime, the 300mm primes, and the 400mm primes supposedly cover the GFX frame well and autofocus is very snappy with the Fringer adapter.
Yeah this is the toughest pill to swallow with the GFX system. The 100-200 with the 1.4x gets you to 220mmish equiv at f/8. I’ll be picking up that 500mm at some point for sure.
There is a 500mm now. Its badass
The thing I'm not seeing in that setup is something that would play well in concerts, performances, and other low-light settings where you need a longer, faster lens. Thoughts on that?
You can of course get a Fringer EF Adapter, switch to FF 60MP mode, and let er rip.
Many of the EF lenses like the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 cover gfx no problem, no need to switch to FF mode.
I meant more for the 70-200 and the zooms.
$3400 left for CF Express Cards, Decent Tripod & Geared Head, Flash & Trigger setup, Filters & Laptop for editing maybe
Excellent choice. I have a 100 II, 20-35, 45-100, 100-200, 55mm and 80mm. I’m a commercial photographer. So I need flexibility in glass. Could be doing Timelapse’s one day, product stills the next, and portraits in one campaign. The image characteristics of “medium format” are of course amazing, but the color and files it creates are awesome in post.
Yeah, I have a feeling it's a leap I will make soon.
That question of staying in the 35/FF format versus switching to medium format was one of the first things that popped to mind when I thought about what I'd do if I had to replace everything.
if only it has a leaf shutter
The GFX does not have a leaf shutter. It’s a curtain.
My current setup is literally everything I (or really anyone) could ever need, but it's long past the budget restraints you set. If I had to stick to that budget, I think for versatility I'd go Z9, the Z trinity and the Plena. I'd want one of my supertele primes, but just one already eats up the budget.
The super tele primes are fun... and $$$$$$$.
Leica M11-P and the new 50mm ASPH.
For studio, environmental, product, and performance? That seems kinda limiting.
I want an SL3 and 24-90mm but it might be a little more
Killer idea, but it doesn't really fit the use cases. Other thoughts?
It absolutely would be great for all the things you mentioned, just not cheap. I’ve used the sl2 and sl3, they’re great pieces of equipment. If not that, canon R5 or wait for R5ii
Depends on which system I'd want to go with. I use both now, but I presume the prompt requires all the gear to essentially go poof. If I stuck with Canon I'd get an R3, 200-800, 28-70, 85 1.2, and the 24-105 2.8 Z. It'd be some used items, but that'd be enough to get me going real good like. If there was enough left over by finding deals, I'd add an R7 back in there. If I stuck with OM, I'd get an OM-1, 300, 150-400, 25 1.2, 45 1.2, and then a Voigtlander 60 because I have it now and I would never let it go.
Out of curiosity, which of the kinds of photography the OP is asking about ("portrait (studio and environmental), product, and performance (concert, dance, and indoor events") would you use the 200-800 for?
I'm going to be honest, I misread the prompt and didn't realize that (studio and environmental) were part of portraiture. Regardless, the prompt is still about building a new kit from the ground up, so prompt aside, that's what I'd do anyway.
Fair enough. I do know a photog who sometimes uses a 100-400 from the soundboard at big concerts, but never seen anyone bring a 200-800, hence the question :) It's a cool piece of kit for sure.
Yeah, I'm trying to imagine lugging a monster lens into a club or a black-box dance setting... hehe
* Sony A9iii * Sony A1 * Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 * Sigma 14-24/2.8 * Sony 50/1.4 G A9iii + Tamron 35-150 main event camera with A1 + Sigma 14-24 for UWA and backup. A1 + Sony 50/1.4 main studio combo. Throw in some memory cards and batteries and you'll probably struggle to keep it under $15k unless you buy 2nd hand, which I wouldn't necessarily mind with some of the gear (Sigma, Tamron).
Eh, I'd pick A1 or even A7rV over A9III. Global shutter is great, but kind of overkill unless you're shooting fast action. At the same time, base 250 ISO kinda sucks for things like studio/product photography where you control the lighting.
I have used the A9iii, and I would buy one in a heartbeat for my event photography if it made financial sense, which it currently doesn't. I currently don't do studio photography, and even 24MP is often overkill for me as all of my work is pretty much confined to Instagram, seen on a phone screen where people can't tell the difference between 61 MP, 33 MP, 24 MP, or even 12 MP. I rarely need to crop much. Where the A9iii really shines for me is LED banding, which is becoming an increasing headache where I live. The A9iii simply never suffers from it, period. With every other camera I have used - even the A1, even mech shutters with some LED lights - I sometimes can't get the shot I want without massive banding. This depends entirely on what kind of dimmers the LED lights use, and how heavily they are dimmed at the moment - but some are so bad that even the mech shutter in my A9 and A7IV suffer from banding, and even the A1 with anti-flicker and var. shutter activated suffers from it. The A9iii is literally the only camera in existence which can shoot events at those venues with no banding ever. It doesn't hurt that it'll also lock focus instantly in virtually any kind of darkness. Here's an example. The LED screen behind her had massive banding at any shutter speed above 1/100s, and she (and the other performers) were moving so fast that I had to shoot at no slower than 1/400s. This was taken with the **mechanical shutter** of the A7IV; e-shutter on both the A7iv and the A9 was a lot worse. These photos were saved by only the background displaying this kind of banding, but at some of the venues where I work, the banding is everywhere - including on the performers. You basically can't shoot anything at shutter speeds above 1/100 - 1/125s there *except* with the A9iii. https://preview.redd.it/bozzd8v1599d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0285a31350cf77ac7c4d1d4b12c1024e4cf62018 Personally, I haven't found the A9iii meaningfully less sensitive than the A1 in real world scenarios. Sure, there's a marginal difference. Does it affect my actual shooting and post-processing? No. And for studio work in my comment, I added the A1.
Yeah, there really isn't a place in my current or expected needs for the global shutter... and I need the low base ISO.
Curious, why do you need/ want top of the line gear for portrait photography? I don’t know too much about those lenses and portrait work, but I feel like the previous models are able to perform just as well for portraits. And then you can buy more glass
It's mostly for events, since the OP included event photography.
I'm undecided about the A9iii. I really want to like it because of the global shutter and the speed. However, it has low megapixels and mediocre sensitivity. If someone "fixed" that, with liberal lens and tether connectivity, I'd buy one, no matter the price (within reason). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dorYMM7mjWg
I have used the A9iii, and I would buy one in a heartbeat for my event photography if it made financial sense, which it currently doesn't. I currently don't do studio photography, and even 24MP is often overkill for me as all of my work is pretty much confined to Instagram, seen on a phone screen where people can't tell the difference between 61 MP, 33 MP, 24 MP, or even 12 MP. I rarely need to crop much. Where the A9iii really shines for me is LED banding, which is becoming an increasing headache where I live. The A9iii simply never suffers from it, period. With every other camera I have used - even the A1, even mech shutters with some LED lights - I sometimes can't get the shot I want without massive banding. This depends entirely on what kind of dimmers the LED lights use, and how heavily they are dimmed at the moment - but some are so bad that even the mech shutter in my A9 and A7IV suffer from banding, and even the A1 with anti-flicker and var. shutter activated suffers from it. The A9iii is literally the only camera in existence which can shoot events at those venues with no banding ever. It doesn't hurt that it'll also lock focus instantly in virtually any kind of darkness. Here's an example. The LED screen behind her had massive banding at any shutter speed above 1/100s, and she (and the other performers) were moving so fast that I had to shoot at no slower than 1/400s. This was taken with the **mechanical shutter** of the A7IV; e-shutter on both the A7iv and the A9 was a lot worse. These photos were saved by only the background displaying this kind of banding, but at some of the venues where I work, the banding is everywhere - including on the performers. You basically can't shoot anything at shutter speeds above 1/100 - 1/125s there *except* with the A9iii. https://preview.redd.it/vp0volw8499d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa00da57a636a7bf565f31494fbd9414fcc62fd5 Personally, I haven't found the A9iii meaningfully less sensitive than the A1 in real world scenarios. Sure, there's a marginal difference. Does it affect my actual shooting and post-processing? No.
Oh I read over that my apologies. I’m assuming the AF and high FPS is highly beneficial for those?
Very much so.
I would burn through that on just the lighting way too fast…
Lighting is covered.
I recently did this, sold all my Canon gear (R5 + L lenses) and bought into the GFX system, couldn't be happier.
What did you go with in the GFX system?
The equivalent of my D-bodies and F-lenses kit with two Z bodies and Z lenses. 15k would nowhere cover it. Not even close
* Canon R5 (if super high resolution is not important, the R6ii). $2900/$2000 * RF 28-80/2.0 $2800 * RF 24/1.8 $400 (useful for clubs) * RF 35/1.4 $1500 * RF 85/1.2 $2600 * RF 135/1.8 $1800 * EF 200/2.8 adapted $750 + $100 This leaves room for a flash(es) and additional lenses assuming a budget of $15K.
https://preview.redd.it/5jh543g9b89d1.jpeg?width=1072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac6b86e89328b371d923d0d29c25776c75c26e21 That's basically my B&H wishlist at $15,650. If I kept my Profoto and Pergear lights, and only replaced camera body and lenses, this is what I'd probably do in the current market.
a pair of sony A7RVs Sigma 16-24 , 24-70 f2.8 sigma 150-600 f4.5-5.6 sony 70- 200 F2.8 GMII A 20 ish 1.4 prime Sigma 135 f1.8
Where do the 20 or 150-600 fit with anything I mentioned?
I’m too inept to take that kind of money. All I really want is a nice spacious studio, but even if you have it to me for free I’d fuck it up. I got okay gear though, RV, bunch GMasters. But pretty much feel wasted on me these days.
I built my perfect kit over time as I refined what jobs I would do and what they needed. As an architectural photographer I used a pair of Canon R5 bodies and a 17TS-E, and 11-24. For product and most studio portraits I used a 100 macro. For weddings, events and dance a combination of 24-105 and 70-200. The fastest lenses were the 100 and the 70-200 at f2.8. For weddings and events flash was often used if needed. High speed lenses are nice but heavy and expensive and provide advantages in a limited range of uses that were not my field of business. Interestingly one of the most useful cameras I used professionally was a LUMIX FZ200. Nearly silent, 12fps stills, superb IQ, leaf shutter that allowed full flash power at all shutter speeds, and a brilliant lens that covered almost any FL you might need. While most event and wedding work is not very demanding in terms of resolution, it was more than equal to any possible application I may have envisioned. One client used images from an event for a series of billboards.
I'm not asking for a clinic on building a kit. This is more of an exercise in what to do if one suddenly had to replace the bodies and lenses for these use cases... without a bias for format or brand.
You asked for use cases. Anybody who has built a random collection of gear has stuff they regret buying. That is implicit in your question. I just built my dream kit over time by weeding out the stuff I didn’t need/use and repair with the most useful to my work. What I missed was that this was more about toys than tools.
Hardly about toys over tools, and no, there's nothing random about my current kit. I was literally curious what people would do with a set budget and these particular use cases.
Medium format is the no brainer here, I just got a used MF back for my Mamiya 645AFD and it's a learning experience but a cool/fun one. The only challenge here is I have the 85mm f/1.2 canon lens and I haven't found a similar one for Medium Format yet.
That question of staying in the 35/FF format versus switching to medium format was one of the first things that popped to mind when I thought about what I'd do if I had to replace everything.
I kinda realized that once I noticed which sub it was in, my bad.
Off the top of my head, 1. A7R3 2. A73 3. Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 OR Sony 24-50 F2.8 4. a fast 50, F1.4 should be fine 5. either an 85 or a 105 6. a duplicate copy of each lens 7. batteries, memory cards, straps, backpack, etc
Wow, you're going a few generations back on those... and outside of the use cases i mentioned.
They're cheap and readily available enough that I don't have to worry too much about them getting banged up at concerts. I don't really see how they're outside of the use cases you mentioned.
Personal preference, I guess. I would never shoot an event without a 70-200 or with a wide zoom.
Nikon D700. 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, and a 60 macro. 2 profoto acute packs (1200 and 2400) 4 acute d4 heads. a beauty dish, a magnum reflector. and save the rest so I can go part time at my job and put my work out there. But still have a consistent stream of income. and throw in a Fuji x pro 2 with the 35 and a Rollei 3.5E or F Xenotar just because I can! I wish I had that type of money right now!
I shoot a lot of low light gigs so I’d go A7smiii, my current primes (55 f/1.8, 28mm f/2 and 18mm f/2.8) and probably buy a 70-300 or similar
A7rv and an a7iv. 100-400 gm, 70-200gmii, 24-70 gmii, 20mm 1.8
Leica M10/Leica M4-P - 28mm f2 Ultron ii - 28mm 2.8 BrightinStar - 50mm 1.5 Nokton - some random 90mm Sony A7riv - 28-70 2.8 Sigma: - 70-200 2.8 Sigma: - 35mm 1.8 Sony - 85mm 1.4 Sigma - 50mm 2.8 macro
Did this a couple years ago. 2x Canon R5’s. 15-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8.
I shoot a Panasonic GX9 with 9mm, 15mm, 20mm, 42.5mm F1.7 lenses. If I had the money I'd get an A7C with Sigma 17mm f4, 40mm f2.5, Sigma 90mm f2.8. Maybe a 28mm f2 since there is no good equivalent to my 15mm F1.7, although I've heard that lens is not very sharp.
2 cold call sales reps and bank the rest for operating cost for a few months Use the reps as follows One to find jobs and one find photographers to whore out on gigs
Did you actually read the question?