Rebel Rant - Re: Equipment for shooting weddings

[srrf]

I just have to put this out there:

 

Just because a photographer shoots with a Rebel or something similar does not

make him/her any less of a photographer. It usually just means that he/she is

not yet able to afford the wonderful, beautifully designed cameras that are so

often associated with "great photography." Whatever happened to "it's not the

camera, it's the photographer that makes the picture."

 

While I agree that a 5D and other cameras will result in crisper, more

saturated photos very often, I just can't agree that a photographer who uses

the Rebel or anything similar is any less of a photographer. It's such an

elitist way to look at things. Similar to the "how dare a bride try to get a

good price" mentality- if it's not your thing, don't do it, but that doesn't

mean you have to put down someone who does.

 

Sorry... I probably offended some here, but I just had to put it out there.

 

Thanks for the time to vent.

[Matt Laur]

Shelli: I guess it all depends on what you mean by "less of a photographer." The <i>least</i> of a photographer is someone that is paid to shoot a wedding, and only shows up with one camera body. Two Rebels is better than one 5D, in that sense. Not having a backup is completely irresponsible, obviously. I don't think any particular piece of equipment is associated with, as you put it, "great photography." But there is, and should be, an association between professional <i>photographers</i>, and the use of the most reliable equipment that's reasonably available. Consumer-grade equipment simply doesn't hold up as well. That's a disadvantage when you're doing enough of this to actually put wear and tear on it, and <i>any</i> photography is "great" compared to photography that never happened because of an equipment failure or inadequacy. One simply has to know one's limitations. If you don't have the body and lens that can actually produce low-noise images in low available light, you have to let the bride know that. If there's a chance that you won't get any images from the wedding because all of your eggs are in your one-camera basket, you have to let the bride know that.

<br><Br>

I think you're confusing "elitism" with a level of professionalism that does, indeed (and must, since it costs more to be thusly prepared) command a higher price. When the higher price can't be met by the customer or born by the local market, that provides some slack in areas like what you're talking about. The trick is in making sure that your customer <i>knows</i> that there's a relationship between what they're willing to pay, and the potential risks or quality issues that come into play when you're minimally equipped.

[srrf]

Matt,

 

Thanks for the response... I'm actually not even referring to my own photography, because I agree that there is a level of professionalism that every wedding photographer should have-

I DON'T go to a wedding with one camera body, I always rent at least a 40D or 5D in addition to my growing arsenal and have multiple lenses. I agree that the higher end cameras are the best way to go, but if you can't get them, then knowing your camera and how to use it well is the next best thing.

 

I just have noticed that there have been a lot of comments throughout the past few months about the "Uncle Bob's" out there with their rebels. There is a BIG difference between a guy with a rebel that's just on auto, with no training or experience in wedding photography (or photography in general) and a photographer with a Rebel who HAS been training, practicing, working with other photographers to be a solid photographer.

[don_hill]

A camera is just a box with a sensor that holds a lens. The choice of camera makes little

difference, but the lens attached can make a world of difference with your images.

 

The XTI is a fantastic camera, and one that I have encouraged many photographers to

purchase specifically for wedding work. It is a small camera, maybe too small, but with

the added grip is perfect for most hands. It includes an incredible sensor and without the

rear wheel it allows you to work quickly without inadvertently setting the exposure

compensation.

 

You are also correct in that the camera makes no difference for the final results, and I do

not agree with the idea that consumer grade cameras do not hold up as well. Besides you

can buy just one Mark III, or 8 XTI's with the same cash. However, the proof is in the final

results. If you want to run around with the latest and most expensive gear, go do it. If

you want to do the same work with a Rebel, do it. You don't need proper gear, you need

proper vision.

 

Look at my website, and let me know if not having professional gear makes a difference,

www.donhillstudio.com. Most of the work is from a 10D.

 

Don

[russ_konrad]

A Rebel or D40 can capture GREAT images in the right hands.

<p>

One factor that some photographers overlook however is that for many people - <b>Perception is Reality</b>.

<p>

You are "perceived" to be a professional photographer by your mannerisms, attire, AND equipment. And that "perception" will help you get referrals and more work from every even that you shoot.

<p>

Many "socially challenged" photographers wonder why they never get any referrals when they show up wearing a t-shirt, khakis, and tennis shoes at a black tie event. Your photography work may be GREAT but until you establish yourself as a major talent/photographer who earns well into six or seven figures you still need to conform to the "professional" expectations of your target market.

<p>

So yes - you CAN shoot a wedding with an entry level camera body, but the sooner you can upgrade to more professional looking body the better off you and your business will be.

<p>

And the above discussion doesn't even bring up the fact that you will be able to capture MORE and BETTER shots with a camera body that gives you better high ISO performance, more megapixels (for cropping and enlargements) and better user interface.

[phule]

[[so yes - you CAN shoot a wedding with an entry level camera body, but the sooner you can upgrade to more professional looking body the better off you and your business will be.]]

 

So, your belief here is that the majority of potential clients know the difference between a black body 400D and a black body 5D based on seeing the photographer working at someone else's wedding?

[russ_konrad]

As I said - your equipment is just ONE aspect of your "professionalism".

 

People that don't know a great deal about photography will usually ask someone that they know who DOES know about photography and photography equipment. You can bet that the wedding guests that are planning on getting married will ask their "Uncle Bob" who is an amateur photographer for his recommendations on a photographer.

 

And yes - "Uncle Bob" does know the difference in what equipment you are using. And in today's market with many new photographers getting in the wedding photography business every day - can you really afford to look "unprofessional" in any aspect of your appearance and presentation in front of possible customers?

[kevin_swan1]

If a low-end camera like the Rebel really was capable of producing the same results as a 1Ds Mark III, then why would anyone buy a 1Ds Mark III? Why wouldn't all the pros out there just save their money and buy Rebels?

 

<p>Because there <b>is</b> a difference. Resolution, high-ISO noise control, user interface, durability, shutter life, and more are all superior in the higher-end cameras. These things (and knowing how to maximize them) are what separate the professionals from the wannabes.

[steve george]

You are correct that equipment doesn't make a good photographer, nor does price. Professionalism of the individual and quality of work are the ultimate determinants.

 

I am not elitist in the slightest - I started out budget and have built up from there. The market can support all levels. I have shot weddings where guests have turned up with equipment far more expensive than what I use but that's not a concern in the slightest. What bothers me (personally) is a level of unprofessionalism in some (note: some, not all) budget photographers - lack of contract, not managing unrealistic expectations from the clients, charging so little something, somewhere is being sacrificed and so on. I have no doubt this happens at the higher level too, I've just not seen it and assume it's rarer. I have seen an email from a photographer who promised the world to a soon-disappointed bride saying that the room was "too dark" to get any photographs(?!?!?) and pretty much word for word "if you wanted photographs like the examples you sent you would be paying a lot more than the X you did".

 

I've been asked to fix photographs from other people's work where the EXIF showed they were using a basic DSLR [not a problem if you know how to use it obviously] and a kit lens. And I'm pretty confident they were just using the built in flash too. Unfortunately they are still in business and still getting bookings because people don't know what to ask or what to look for when they are booking and price has been their over-riding concern. I have absolutely no problems with a bride trying to get a good price, as long they know what they are risking by doing so otherwise they are the only people who lose out.

 

However much someone pays they deserve professionalism and quality. The market will support people at all levels and there is no need for elitism. What there is a need for above all else is professionalism. There are a great many fantastic photographers shooting weddings with just a single Rebel and charging barely enough to cover costs I am sure, but they will tend to be the scapegoats for generic disparaging comments from elitists purely because the law of averages means they are the ones who will most commonly cause the issues with the clients and a bad reputation for wedding photographers generally.

[srrf]

I think that there are excellent points made here.

"If a low-end camera like the Rebel really was capable of producing the same results as a 1Ds Mark III, then why would anyone buy a 1Ds Mark III? Why wouldn't all the pros out there just save their money and buy Rebels? "

I completely agree that a 1Ds is a higher quality camera... does that make the person holding it a better photographer? No. However, once a person gets to the point that they are shoting weddings for high prices, that person should definitely have a reason for charging those prices- equipment costs, maintenance, insurance, marketing, etc.

 

The point here was NOT to discount the high level of work that pros who use high-end equipment put out. The point was merely to get people to realize that the person behind the lens is JUST AS important as the camera & lens itself.

 

If someone is going to ask for payment for their work, it should be comensurate with their level of experience, abilities, and costs.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...If someone is going to ask for payment for their work, it should be comensurate with their level of experience, abilities, and costs."</b>

<p>

If someone is going to be a "professional" - i.e. accept payment for their work - then they should make the necessary investment in professional equipment.

[KenPapai]

Exactly -- same for pro mechanics, plumbers, and carpenters. They do not use cheap, entry level consumer tools.

 

A Rebel's goal is to be cheap and cheaper and cheapest than the rest. Poor viewfinder, poor ergonomics, lack of controls, menu-driven, etc.

 

However AT THE VERY LEAST equip a Reb with L lenses and Uncle Bob will quit frowning and not regret his recommendation to his niece.

[don_hill]

I remember back to when I worked the counter at a local photography store in the days of

film. Various men with large egos and wallets of equal size would come in and fondle the

gear. Regardless of what functions did what, they would gravitate to the most expensive

toys and pull out the plastic. Two weeks later they would proudly bring in their film for

development with their expensive rigs around their necks like jewelry - and that is all it

was. The expensive camera was permanently set on auto-pilot, and the images were

lackluster at best.

 

It was a real shock when they brought in wedding images for processing, and many once

in a lifetime events were ruined by these enthusiasts.

 

That being said, a good photographer is not equal to nor just as important as their

equipment. A competent professional can utilize any tool creatively. And the camera and

lenses are just tools. If a professional can get by with a Rebel, so be it. If they are in a

situation where they need a larger rig, then by all means they should use the camera that

suits their purpose.

 

What matters most to a client is their photographs. How they are taken is moot.

[russ_konrad]

If a "professional" photographer can't even make the necessary investment to get a professional tool that will give him/her more options, better control, more flexibility, and ultimately better images - then perhaps they really are not "professionals" and should consider another line of work.

[KenPapai]

"The choice of camera makes little difference, but the lens attached can make a world of difference with your images. "

 

I highly disagree.

 

Put a 24-70L (your constant, a well regarded, fully pro lens) on the following EOS cameras and shoot with natural light, by a window, indoors requiring ISO 400: Canon D30, D60, 10D, 30D, 300D, XTi, 40D, 5D, and 1Ds2. Enlarge to a portrait print of 13x19 inches. Compare and contrast, and also ask yourself -- which tool, or combination of tools makes the best print? Allows me the most freedom and ease of use? Is adaptible to most situations? Ad nauseum...

 

The choice of a camera body for pro use in the age of DSLRs is a huge decision.

[srrf]

Russ- Your comment was:

If a "professional" photographer can't even make the necessary investment to get a professional tool that will give him/her more options, better control, more flexibility, and ultimately better images - then perhaps they really are not "professionals" and should consider another line of work.

 

Have you ever started out at something? Have you ever had to build up to something? What ever happened to "getting your foot in the door?" Since when do you have to be at the TOP of your profession to be a professional?

 

To me, there are different levels in every service industry- you pay for what you get- would you say that a McDonald's owner is less of a professional than a high end restaurant owner? They might not deliver the same quality of food, but you can't deny that they both own and run restaurants.

 

As long as photographers are open and clear about their qualifications with their clients, isn't that what matters? As far as I can tell, a client who can only afford $900 for 8 hours wouldn't have gone to the top of the line photographer anyway, so it's not like they're taking away any business from them. They're simply giving the business to those photographers who give that level of service.

[Matt Laur]

Have you ever noticed how often these conversations follow exactly the same script?

<br><br>

<i>Person A:</i> I'm tired of all of these people with money to invest in equipment saying that it makes a difference. It's the photographer that counts.

<br><br>

<i>Person B:</i> Except, the equipment does matter, and here's why (cites low noise, ability to render large prints, safety of two memory cards, externalized controls for very quick changes to camera behavior on the fly with pawing through menus, physical robustness, ability to get shot of bride dashing for the limo in the rain without ruining the camera, and so on).

<br><br>

<i>Person A:</i> Well yes, all of that matters, but my point is that a good photorapher could master a wedding held in a wine cellar using only disposable drug store cameras or a cell phone.

<br><br>

<i>Person B:</i> And if you hold up the results next to each other, which photographer is going to get the weddings that pay enough to earn a living, and to not embarass the bride when someone who knows better looks at her album?

<br><br>

<i>Person A:</i> Well, sure. But a good photographer can still make nice images with anything.

<br><br>

<i>Person B:</i> So, just imagine how much more reliably that same good photographer can perform, and how much better she can leverage the additional quality and horsepower of actual professional equipment.

<br><br>

<i>Person A:</i> [ ... crickets chirping ...]

[rick_gerbehy1]

I have a friend who shoots about 10 weddings a year with a Pentax Spotmatic, 50 mm 1.4 lens and a Vivitar 283 strobe for a few shots. He shoots only Tri-X and delivers proof sheets and a 24 photo 8x10 album after proof selections. He could book every weekend if he wanted to, but it's still a hobby to him and he loves the darkroom. I bet he does not even know what a Rebel is!

[Matt Laur]

Which is to say: it's beyond debate that better equipment <i>can</i> contribute to better, more reliable results. I gladly stipulate that <i>no</i> equipment can salvage the thoughtless usage of a visionless, or inexperienced photographer (though a good lens and body <i>can</i> help somewhat, if for no other reason than providing a captured image with more latitude for surgery later). But better equipment in the hands of a professional <i>is</i> better than less useful/nimble/clean/quiet/fast/robust in the same person's hands.

<Br><br>

And to Shelli's later point: be careful about mixing your metaphors. It still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to open a McDonald's. But the difference between, say, a cheap Nikon D40x and it's substantial pro cousins (the D300 or even a D3) is a realtive pittance. Especially compared to the other expenses that a start-up photography business has to carry. Redundant lighting? Insurance? Reliable transportation? Marketing? Wardrobe? Not being able to spend another $1k or two suggests that the person is NOT actually starting up a business, but is trying to make money off of a hobby. The differences go way beyond the choice of DSLR body, and usually speak to a lot of other issues, as well.

[srrf]

Matt- Great job skewing the conversation.

[picturesque]

Yikes... I started out with "lesser" equipment. I still don't use "professional" equipment, because technically, a 40D and 5D are not considered professional in the Canon line. If I were to follow the line of thinking that says a professional should use professional gear, I would be buying a 1DMkIII at the very least. I've always compensated for any lack of features on my cameras, or made sure the lack does not impact my results.

 

CAN you photograph a wedding successfully with a Rebel? Yes. SHOULD you photograph with a Rebel? Up to you. Does it MATTER to your clients? It does if you let it. Do you CARE what other professional photographers think about you? This is the real question.

[Matt Laur]

Shelli, just re-read your first post, and many of the subsequent ones. There's a reason for a bit of a satirical tone, here. This conversation, and many subtle variations on it, is held on this web site like clockwork. And it always follows that pattern. The conversation starts out somewhat aggressively pre-empting any notion that a pro shooting for hire is somehow less professional for using consumer equipment, and then - as it should - turns to what the conversation is really about (which is usually a wider discussion about whether someone really IS investing in a business, as opposed to trying to write off a hobby, etc).

<br><br>

You knew that you were taking a swipe at anyone who's willing and able to point out differences between grades of equipment - you even sarcastically apoligized for doing so, going in. So you <i>know</i> that you launched a "skewed" discussion from the get go, and that getting to the heart of the matter (that it's expensive to start a business - not that there's no difference between a Rebel and a 5D in the hands of someone skilled enough to take advantage of those very real differences) was like pulling teeth, here.

[russ_konrad]

It does come down to if the photographer and their clients are willing to <b>settle</b> for what can be accomplished with a entry level DSLR.

<p>

And most true professionals - i.e. people not just doing this for a hobby or some extra money on the side - DO realize that professional equipment will give them BETTER images and more opportunites to capture those images.

<p>

Even the original poster stated - <b>"...I agree that a 5D and other cameras will result in crisper, more saturated photos very often..."</b> Don't you want that type of images for your customers?

<p>

If you don't care about getting the best possible images - then go ahead - use your entry level camera body with the kit lens.

<p>

This entire discussion is really NOT about the skills of the photographer but rather much more about what sort of financial commitment the photographer is willing to put into their wedding photography business.

[ibdnzgr]

Indeed, while a "Rebel" will do the task, I have to second what Steve and others have said in that what really makes a difference is the photographer knowing what he/she needs and knowing how to use it. For example, you may start out with an inexpensive Rebel, but if you are worth a grain of salt and you read this forum daily, you will know that to capture a wedding properly you will need a decent flash (580EX), a decent lens (like the 17-55 IS USM f/2.8), battery grip, battery pack for the flash, diffusers, duplicate body, etc.... and so when you are finished you quickly realize you are walking around with a $3,000 system instead of a $500 camera.

[Matt Laur]

I should add, Shelli, that I use "prosumer" equipment, generally. And I collect money for some of what I do. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, here - it means that I'm acutely aware of what I'm saying. My output <i>would</i> improve with better equipment. Just like with wedding photographers who often face marginal lighting situations where every bit of lens and camera performance counts, I'm often shooting difficult moving subjects near dawn or dusk. More money tied up in equipment would increase my ability to produce publishable shots, and images that clients will buy. I'm actually fairly skilled at handling some of the subject matter I shoot. And I know that using a D40, instead of a D200, would be a serious handicap. That's not a rationalization for cooler toys, it's just a simple fact. And it's the sort of simple fact that delineates one level of income from the next, while looking to generate revenue through photography. It matters.

<br><br>

Rhetorically asking what happened to "it's the photographer, not the camera" is a lot different than asking, "why don't people understand that we don't all have a lot of capital, and that it's OK to shoot for the lower end of the market for a while?" Because that's what you're really asking, and that's the part that's actually true.