Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/05/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From what I hear, the local ( Los Angeles) wedding photographer market is about as competitive as it gets.,,,,,, Yes, the camera of choice is now a digital. Because it allows instant images. Not better, just instant. Which one? Canon? Nikon? Hasselblad? Does it matter? Nope. Just instant. Average cost of wedding pix from this crowd seems to be less than $500. Sometimes less than $250... You get a CD with un-edited images on it. Hasselblad is not on the radar scene any more for normal weddings. 20, 30, 40 Grand in equipment? The brides really do not care. Lomo? Sure, if it were instant... But I do see a lot of photographers out there taking the pre-day (environmental) portrait pictures. Yes, Nikon and Canon digital, but a lot of Hasselblad ( film!) as well... But there is a more ... I would not use the word educated... maybe traditionalist? maybe snobby?....that do want "the best" and pay for it. They, I am told, do not want a Canon or Nikon.. they expect a Hasselblad. Wedding pix cost $5K and up... I heard about a B+W wedding that went for $15K. Proofs included, but (digital) enlargements were extra. Nothing I thought that was special, except for the price. The Dad of a Bride I knew did comment on the use of the "best" equipment... it was a digi-Blad.... Sounds like Ted's experience is different, and maybe a lot of the rest of you pros out there have different experiences.... but, while I agree that a C or N is "good enuf" (or maybe a complete overkill), there is a select, small market for Hasselblad...and maybe Leica, if the niche is enough for 2... And they know how to charge for and have the right client base for the "privilege". Frank Filippone Red735i at earthlink.net