pro gear VS non pro gear for Weddings. Question

<p>Happy Holidays to you too C Jo.</p>

<p>Marc, I get your point re two bodies. The thing is, a dual card camera (which incidentally, I favor the idea of) does nothing SYA, if that body quits or malfuntions during those moments. I would sooner have a second body slung about me somewhere that just one, dual card body. If you see what I mean. I guess the idea is that dual cards in a wedding is better insurance than not. I agree and would add, two bodies are better than one.</p>

<p>One other point perhaps of import in this discussion is the need to get your kit serviced fairly regularly. That will add much to the need for us to reliably prode the expected work for our clients.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David, never said just use one camera. I take 3 with me to every wedding. I use the dual card camera for the "must haves" that the client expects (and I'd be SOL if I didn't have afterwards.) I use the 2 smaller single card cameras for all of the discretionary the candid work. Because these are NOT specifically expected, I can recoup if a body or lens fails.</p>

<p>To date (knock on wood), I've not had a camera fail during a decisive moment. On the other hand, I HAVE had hard drives fail, Card readers fail twice during transfer, and a CF card fail ... and made a few stupid user errors that lost some images. In every case the second back-up card saved my behind. I shoot a lot of assignments, and the more you shoot the more the odds start working against you. I also admit to being human, therefore subject to failure ... like being really tired and still continuing to work ... which is a bigger risk than all the gear failures put together. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc wrote "like being really tired and still continuing to work". I don't know what you mean ;-).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>First, I did read a lot, but not all listed above :-). Much of the debate seems to be about pro and non pro photographers instead of pro gear and non pro gear. That makes two discussions in one, quite confusing.<br>

About gear. To me as non professional, pro gear has to do with high quality and durability, resistance against wear and tear and environmental conditions. Equipment well suited for the job and it seems reasonable to built in as much safety and security as is appropriate. Its clear however not all pros have the same budget or demands, also they deal different with risks they meet. On the other hand I think there is also pressure from the customers, they want to see you as a pro with pro gear. </p>

<p>HANS :: I believe a Pro can use any camera and recieve quality images. Our EOS A2e maybe well over 10 years old but, still durable in the field. There could be pressure from customers in some markets ( many guest have much newer gear than I carry) but, its all in the experience & talent > not the camera swinging from your neck. The Quantum T5 and the hand meter seem to signify a step up from amateur..when we first meet. </p>

<p>C Jo makes a good point.<br>

Light meters and tripods separate the amateur from the professional.</p>

<p>C jo, I am sure a pro will make good photos with any cam. But thats not the point. Question is Would a pro use any cam if he could make a choice by himself? My point is, once you decided to become ie a weddingphotographer, you will prepare on that job in buying equipment. What that best choice is will depend on budget, beliefs (example, you may beliefe in medium format film) and what you think is convenient to use... (long day working with too heavy camera's can be a challenge).<br>

Other points are interesting> I photographed for years with handmetering, but to me its a relief I can read a histogram now. The use of a tripod will bother me in working freely on a wedding.. (yes, I did one. Smile!). Wonder what others (pros?) think of that. Having said that, I know there are formal shots you'd better take with a tripod.</p>

<p>I will make the move to a ( convenient ) 5d Mk II > when a used one (budget) comes around in April/May and keep my film cameras (beliefs) as backup. ;-) Our histogram is so small on that 20d & with my trifocals > a little difficult to work quickly --the hand meter has been apart of my system for nearly 30 years. Don't get my wrong : I do use the histogram throughout the day where its applicable...saving highlights,etc. ~ because we do very little post editing. <p> The Manfrotto 685 B Monopod w/ ball head / quick release / can free you up ...where stability is needed. Especially if one does not own the steady~gyro IS lenses.</p>

<h1 ><br /> </h1>

<p>Showmanship is part of selling, and using a 20d with a tripod will look more professional than having a handheld 1d :-)<br>

Keep in mind that 30d's are still available new in the box from Adorama for $650.</p>

 

<p>The 20d does not look quality enough for me > above iso 400. So, thats one reason I use a tripod. And I used a view camera /6X7 so many years :: just another extension . Traveled Europe for 20 years --tripods and cases of 120 gear--from Latvia to Spain ~~ Yugo to Scotland & all parts between. If you incorporate a fast/quality ballhead/QR > a tripod is not really that cumbersome.<br>

Maybe some Pro's feel that have to purchase, every new technology that comes along } a new camera every year . Seems to be foolish to chase the "chip" :-0 A used 5d MK II will be synced to my bank account in about 6 months.</p>

<p>Henri Cartier Bresson couldn't have done most of his work with his Leica mounted on a tripod. Would you consider him to be non-professional? A tripod does not make a pro. Just food for thought.</p>

<p>A tripod doesn't make a pro, but I have long felt that many people would find that their pictures would improve if they used a tripod at least some of the time.<br>

With a tripod you reduce the mental load because you are thinking of fewer things simultaneously- you don't have to worry about holding the position of the camera in terms of composition, level, and shake. You can look at the subject more closely and make fine tweaks of your composition.<br>

I do think that not using a tripod during the wedding formals is a mistake.<br>

Many of HCB's decisive moments would have been lost with a tripod, but my sister-in-law has a print of one of his landscapes on her wall, and every time I see it I think that the composition could have been better.<br>

If he did not use a tripod for that shot, he missed something. He could have seen that by moving a few feet the dynamism would have been greater, and I doubt that he was trying to make a strongly static composition. The picture seems unresolved in terms of intent.</p>