pro gear VS non pro gear for Weddings. Question

<p>This is a subject that has bothered me for a bit. Why do professional wedding photographers buy non

professional photo gear? I often hear people say I'm on a budget what should I buy. This is what bothers me - You

book a few weddings for $1000 or so, but you are on a limited budget. Why would anyone book a wedding without at

least 2 complete systems; 2 bodies, a few lenses, 2 or 3 flash units, a tripod, these are just the basics. To

me, people that practice this style are gambling on a brides beautiful wedding day. Showing up with a

$300 camera with a kit lens, using the built in flash just isn't fair to the bride.</p>

 

<p>Aren't most of those equipment questions from people who are just starting out, or who may be photographing a wedding but aren't actually wedding photographers in the true sense?</p>

<p>I don't think there are many experienced photographers who ask gear questions here. They already know their systems and don't need random advice from unquantified sources. I also doubt there are any serious (i.e. established, effective, quality-oriented and service-oriented) wedding photographers that buy non-professional gear. I suspect anyone who is any good owns a substantial amount of quality equipment, and probably multiple systems of different formats.</p>

<p>But it's an interesting point. Maybe you should poll people for their gear choices...</p>

<p>Agreed, but everyone thinks wedding photography (and professional photography in general) is easy work, which it is not at all to be a pro photog. Hell, look at the newspaper industry right now, even some of the best PJ's out there are getting laid off.<br>

<br /> Not every single piece of camera equipment I own is state-of-the-art, brand new, like my 35-70 f/2.8D, which I love on my F100, but I never take chances with having not enough memory, batteries, etc. Gear can change for each photog, like I never use a tripod, because I just don't and never have, but I never take chances with something so important that I'm being paid good money for.<br>

<br /> It's just part of the current state of digital workflow, everyone thinks PS can fix their problems and feel that their skill is based on menial things like post-pro. A lot of craft has gone out of the business.<br>

<br /> On the other hand, some amateur photographers think all that is needed for good wedding photography is strictly the gear. Whereas they overlook things like a place to work, a business model, contracts and standard business practices.</p>

<p>Bob -</p>

<p>Interesting question - My answer would be budget, budget, and budget... People - even those that have been in the business for a while have a mortgage, food, utilities etc...and don't have (for the most part) an unlimited equipment budget.</p>

<p>Of course I do agree with you on the 2 of everything (at least) and more of some things...</p>

<p>My question in return is this:  Where do you draw the line at for "pro" equipment? Some things seem pretty obvious - D40 (not) - D3 (yes) Others less so... D300? D700?</p>

<p>For my weddings - I use a D300 with a backup - I was able to get 2 of those for the cost of a single D3.  Would I like to have 2 D3's? Absolutely - but they're not in the budget right now due to the reasons above... But on the other hand - I've yet to have a bride or groom ask why not a D3.</p>

<p>To Neil's point - most of the questions on equipment that I see are just as he says - new to wedding photographers that don't know or aren't familar with the equipment. I don't know that I've asked a gear question here before...I prefer to do my own research and talk to people in person regarding gear.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>What is the definition of "pro gear"?<br>

<br /> If a photographer charges to photograph and delivers a product that pleases the client why does it matter what equipment is used?<br>

<br /> Beyond my initial rehtoric, it does seem that many questions about entry equipment are asked by those without a strong understanding of photography. It's not just on here, it's pervasive across the net and in many subjects, not just photography. There seems to be an, "if I build it, they will come," mentality with wedding photography. (If I buy it, I'll be a pro photographer) While reality is many of those asking about entry equipment would make better use of their time by concentrating on learning technique and studying the wedding business, it is an easy question to ask and one that will never ceased to be asked.<br>

<br /> As an established pro, the best thing one can do is answer the question, sharing your knowledge. Or, you can always ignore the post as most of these questions get answered fifty-plus times with little debate.</p>

<p>David, good question regarding the d40 - not. I'm not in tune anymore regarding Nikon, but I'd say the d300 could be both consumer and pro model. I have to say, you don't need the $8000 Canon or new, soon to be released Nikon. I would think when the guests at the wedding show up with a better camera than you, in the consumer devision, it's time to rethink your commitment to the bride. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>talent and originality will beat equiment in the hands of an average pro any day</p>

<p>a canon plastic non USM nonL 50mm f1.8 can shoot a whole wedding and pro filford film can be subsituted but nonpro lucky or shanghai gp3 chinese cheapo film. results can be stunning.</p>

<p>i would prefer to see someone with talent using a diana clone and expired film than a generic unoriginal yet another wedding album shot on expensive fashionable lenses</p>

<p>Bob -<br>

Guess I need to redo that budget and gear up a bit...Last big wedding I did, one of the guests had a D3 - Must mean it's time for the D3x... I'm sure my wife will understand....Can't have guests with better equipment then me! ;-) (I'll stop being sarcastic now...but not kidding about the D3 - 1 guest brought one!) I warned him as I do all weddings that I'm the pro and he's not... at least for the day and to stay out of the way during the formals. He didn't have a problem with that, since he was there as a guest and wasn't a "pro" anyway .</p>

<p>I've always wanted to find a bride that would allow me to shoot her wedding with some combination of a P/S, D40 and my Nikon FM. Still looking for that one. Although I did have my first bride in a long time ask what I thought about them using disposable cameras on the tables during the reception.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>If you buy Nikon's latest ads, then you'd believe Ashton Kutcher really shows up for weddings armed with nothing more than a consumer Nikon and wows all the guests with his "booyah" shots. I know Nikon has to sell cameras, but commercials like this don't do the pros any good, in terms of the image portrayed (pun intended). There are lots of uninitiated folks out there who actually think that's all you need to shoot weddings, and that it's an easy glamour gig.</p>

<p>One reason to buy consumer grade instead of pro is size and weight - both on lenses and bodies.</p>

<p>Definition of "pro" is always up for debate.  My own opinion is that anyone who uses a 5D (I or II) for weddings is not using "Pro" gear because there isn't a backup card to record images.  If results are only a nicety and not a necessity, use a body that records to only one card (capable of failing and losing all the images).<br>

I know, lots of people will debate that one card is safe...and there are folks who believe that the world is flat too.</p>

<p>Isn't the dual card backup really a little false redundancy?<br /> If you have a problem with your camera, for instance a warped lens mount, misaligned focus mirror, faulty lens or anything else affecting the optical path you will have the same problem duplicated on both cards. If the problem is so huge that it's apparent on the LCD screen you'll likely notice, but if you are required to zoom in to see it you might not. If you only use one body (the second one is backup) you are not getting any shots whatsoever. A two bodied shooter still have at least the shots on the other camera.</p>

 

<p>No, not false redundancy.  None of the problems you mentioned will be solved by having two cards.  The only issue, and by far the biggest, is the likelihood that one CF card will malfunction.  Sooner or later, a CF card will malfunction and you'll lose the images.</p>

<p>this begs the question "does gear make the photographer?" there is no magic formula to success when starting out beyond don't break the bank before you really know, yourself, what you need. i don't shoot weddings but my sister has a company that does. on occasion i work for her and have helped her in purchasing, market research etc. in the beginning we poured over hundreds of pro wedding photographers site and i have to say that no camera system is going to help 75% of them. the other 25% were so gifted that no camera system was going to hinder them. <br>

i work day in and day out with very, very gifted press photographers and i see all shape and form of camera. i know a fellow who  is extremely gifted, successful and still shows up with a d100! 1 body! the body and gripped are taped up and it ain't to look stealthy... the last time i saw him he told me the grip would fall off if the tape wasn't there.<br>

ps. cf cards do fail and that's why i never use one bigger than 2 gig</p>

<p>Really? Then there was no pro gear in the film days? Interesting.</p>

<p>The likelihood of film "malfunctioning" (not considering 'user error here') is much less likely than a single CF card malfunctioning.  When film was the norm, there were (Pro) bodies which showed postive film advance which was the likely reason film would "malfunction."</p>

<p>Christopher, I forgot about the back up card situation. I'm so accustomed to the 1ds mk 3 having dual slots in

case of card failure. Thats surely a consideration between a pro camera and a consumer line. Yesterday I actually

sold my 5D because I have 2 of the 1ds mk 3's. I hate the weight, but they are incredible cameras.<br>

 

<br>

Jon, I agree about the CF cards, I too only use 1 and 2 gb CF cards. Thats really safe practice. This is actu

ally something else that bothers me. People using 16 gb cards. Talking about taking chances. Thats really scary

and borde

rs the insane area.</p>

<p>David Haas, I liked the story about a guest with the D3. I haven't run i

nto anyone yet with the 1ds mk 3, but sooner or later a guest will show up with one. When that happens I'll ask h

im to cover for me so I

can get

a few dr

<blockquote>

<p>When film was the norm, there were (Pro) bodies which showed postive film advance which was the likely reason film would "malfunction."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or you might have a bad roll or batch of film (rare, but it happens), or your film might get lost in shipping if there are no pro labs in your area, or the lab might lose your film, or the negatives might be ruined if the developer malfunctions. These are all issues out of the photographers control.</p>

<p>So far, in all my digital shooting, I've only had a card "die" once--the images were irretrievable. (Fortunately, they weren't important shots.) I've also had a few other images that have been corrupted, but not a large part of a card's contents.</p>

<p>Having two cards in the camera isn't a very compelling definition of "professional."</p>

<p>The way I see "pro" gear is two-fold and how I think most of "pro" gear from the companies is made:</p>

<p>1.) It needs to withstand (for me as a PJ) the daily beatings of working for a newspaper. All's I know is that my D2H has taken a hell of a lot of beatings and my old D50 didn't handle the lifestyle.</p>

<p>2.) The image quality is apparently there. I think between good lenses and bad lenses there is a huge difference and lenses ultimately make a bigger difference than the camera.</p>

<p>The "L" lenses for Canon and the gold ring Nikon lenses are built better, are faster (focus and speed) and usually more contrast-y that consumer lenses and that is why many of us pros opt for this glass. I still like some of my older optics, which work perfectly fine like the 50 f/1.4D and an 85 f/1.8D and I produce fantastic images with them.</p>

<p>Of course there are going to be gray areas like with a D90, D300 or the 40D and 50D, but whatever. Alls I know is that my F100's, D2H and D70s (and soon to be D700) have made me some very happy customers, a nice paycheck and a career which is the best job in the world.</p>

<p>I'd also had my share of malfunctions (film "err" messages, card failures, etc.), but backups prevented a total disaster.</p>

<p>Mike, try explaining to a bride why that card of irretrievable images really wasn't very important.<br>

As a "Pro", I don't often feel the need to "practice." All of my shots are important...and to my clients, the images are even more important. There's not a lot of room for error as a "Pro".</p>

<p>Bob, like you, I use 2 Ds3's and a d3 with 24-70 for weddings (because I love the 1.3 crop on a 24-70 and I get an extra stop of usable ISO with the D3).<br>

Every week, we receive emails here from some bride or wedding photographer who has "lost" images due to CF card failure and they're wondering if we can "recover" the images. Every now and then, we can...but about 70% of the time, can't and we advise they send the card to someone else.<br>

I've been subpeonaed 3 times so far this year by brides who want me to testify that their "professional photographer" should have "reasonably foresaw" card failure and used a body with backup capability. It really bugs me to sit in small claims court and testify that the bride should have paid attention before she hired the photographer, not after the problem occurred.</p>

<p>Ah, the joys of the internet. Directly addressing your claims about the relative fallibility of film = "that card of irretrievable images really wasn't very important."</p>

<p>btw, the "professional photographer" in question for these cases was not me. Second, in each of the three cases the judge sided with the photographer citing an "Act of God" as non-compensable.<br>

It was just the Bride who lost out.</p>

<p>bob - I'm not as concerned, and I'm going to tell you why. if you want to do a wedding iwht a $300 camera and a built in flash, go ahead.</p>

<p>if you succeed, you are probably incredible.</p>

<p>if you fail, then you just bring me more business b/c all of your friends will think about the time when you hired some id i ot.<br>

the only thing that matters, IMHO, is that people present the work that they can consistently produce. if a client expects terrible stuff from your cheap camera, and you deliver them terrible stuff you gave them what they expected! if they expect fine art and you produce fine art, great! if the client expects fine art and you produce terrible stuff - that's a problem, and that can be a problem because of all sorts of problems, equipment just being one of them.<br>

I think that the only time we need to be concernerd about the choices of other photographers is when clients are getting bummed because someone misrepresented themselves.<br>

eg. "I have backup equipment" - if they do not<br>

eg. "I took all these beautiful wedding photos and can do the same for you" - if they can't.</p>

<p>there are tons of photographers who are going to start in weddings with a $300 camera. as long as they have a backup and are representing their work fairly, I have no problem with that.</p>

<p>A pro is not defined by his 1DS MkIII. Or two of them. He's not defined by dual memory card slots. He's not defined by the use of $5000 lenses. A pro is defined by conducting himself in a professional manner, by satisfying client's needs, by fulfilling his contractual obligations, and by providing a superior product in a consistent manner.<br>

Higher quality tools are nice, but not a prerequisite for professionalism. I shoot with $1500 bodies, and I'm every bit as professional in my services as any of you here. It's what we do and how we do it that defines us. Not whether we use a Stanley wrench or a Snap-On.</p>