|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 12th, 2006, 09:39 AM | #16 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Posts: 654
|
Quote:
But that's just me. |
|
May 12th, 2006, 09:59 AM | #17 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
If the budget is unrealistic, someone needs to say so. I agree with sound being a priority. I am just saying that knowing the camera, and the situations the videographer will be in, the WA adapter is a must too. The budget is what has to be modified.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
May 13th, 2006, 10:11 AM | #18 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Posts: 654
|
Quote:
The "budget" (i.e. maximum) is why I suggested that he save some of the the money in order to grow the budget down the road. 3k is all he's got for now. I have done dozen's of weddings without a WA lens and with good planning know it's not an "absolute" in this business. Especially for somebody just getting started. With "finite" resources it shouldn't be at the top of the list. |
|
May 13th, 2006, 10:22 AM | #19 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Just trying to be realistic within the realm of the budget. We all know that our arbitrary budgets rarely are adhered to.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
| ||||||
|
|