pro gear VS non pro gear for Weddings. Question

[JohnWebster]

<p>My secret equipment lust is for the Nikon D40 with the 1/500 sec flash sync everytime I have to shoot large groups and use fill-flash.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>I agree, back in 2001 my wedding was shot by two fantastic guys. The BW and posed shots were made with old Rollei TRL and the "action" ones with two Nikons N8008. Definitely not a pro setup. I think the best backup that a good photographer can have is an assistant with another camera. Once you try to fix the issue, any issue, some decisive moments are gone, and in many situations the assistant can help posing people or telling them what to do. Those guys have been selected after a long search. Like Steve said, the results were up to my expectations (and even more), who cares about the equipment they used. I did not ask them to use a Canon or a Nikon a pro or a consumer body or lens. I asked them to do a good job. When You ask a carpenter or a plumber to do a good job in your house, would you care about the brand of the tools he is using. Would you care if he is using a "pro" hammer a Black & Decker instead of a De Walt or a Makita? You look at the result, if he did a good job or not, it's up to him to choose the tools he wants to deliver you a good job.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>At the bottom of the market are a lot of brides looking for $500 deals. These are the photographers who show up with cheap gear, obviously.<br>

And, some shooters are able to get decent results from cheaper gear because they are good at what they do.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>What's ironic is that I've seen countless posts complaining about those ridiculous "Uncle Bobs" who buy a nice DSLR and then think they are professionals--it's absurd that a casual snapshooter should consider himself professional because of the gear he owns. But here, in this thread, there are several professionals promoting the same basic idea: how professional you are is a matter of the gear you own; if your gear isn't good enough, you're not really a professional. Different ends of the same stick.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>We have the 500$ people also here. They are not necessairly the ones on cheap gear. Usually what those people do is to hire a secondary school student for 50 bucks, handle him a camera with a bunch of CF and tell him to "just fire like hell". The guy comes back with a couple of thousand images, which are transferred on a DVD and given to the couple, asking them to "select the best ones". Those are printed and glued to a cheap album. Game over.<br>

I know a couple of those guys and I've been asked to play the student role, but I declined because, thanks god, I don't need that 50 bucks. The equipment they use is not necessairly cheap. Often is a pro camera (D2 are in great demand) that was bought second hand to save on the investment and is used up to death, which happens in less than 2 years, usually because the shutter wears out.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>I probably won't make anymore posts on this subject, because people are getting side tracked from the subject.<br>

<br />Usually when a photographer is spending $16,000 on 2 camera bodies, I won't comment on lenses, which can cost the same or more than the bodies, he or she means business and is very commited to quality. It is pretty hard for me to justify spending $16,000, but I did and Christopher Hartt did too, I'm glad. Could we have bought a much lesser camera system? Sure, but again I'm really torn here because I have to deliver the best quality images I can to the bride. Part of this is my talent the other part is my pro gear. She deserves it, she deserves the very best. She is spending money for a professional. Part of being a pro is to deliver top quality images and it sure helps by using pro cameras.<br>

<br />There were a few comments about using cheap cameras and getting great images, because it is the person behind the camera. Lets get real here. Needless to say I disagree. When you need enlargements such as a 24- 30" or even a 40x60" print the D40 with a kit lens won't compare to the pro gear. I don't care who is behind that d40 it won't produce that perfect enlargement that the bride paid for. To me there is little grey area here, it's more black and white. Either you have the pro gear to do the complete job or you should think twice about the wedding business. We have 40x60' displays in the 2 studios. Every now and then people order them. It's pretty amazing to me that a little Cf card, along with a good camera can make a print this big. Even when I used Hasselblads, I was often scared wondering if the huge negative had enough density to produce a print that size. It did and more.<br>

<br />I'm sure there will be a lot more comments but I think you all know the question has been bothering more people than just me, because of all of the responses so far.</p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>When you need enlargements such as a 24- 30" or even a 40x60" print the D40 with a kit lens won't compare to the pro gear. I don't care who is behind that d40 it won't produce that perfect enlargement that the bride paid for. To me there is little grey area here, it's more black and white. Either you have the pro gear to do the complete job or you should think twice about the wedding business.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If the bride is paying for a "perfect" enlargement, I'd say she's getting seriously shortchanged if she's getting a 40x enlargement with less than 95 dpi resolution. A real professional would use an 8x10" large format camera so he could deliver a truly sharp 5x enlargement, or at the very least, he would shell out for a 50-megapixel medium format back. After all, reliably meeting the bride's expectations (however high or low they may be) isn't really what matters in order to be a professional--you either have the <strong>pro gear</strong> to do the <strong>complete</strong> job, or you don't. It's black and white.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p><em>On the other hand, some amateur photographers think all that is needed for good wedding photography is s

trictly the gear. Whereas they overlook things like a place to work, a business model, contracts and standard bu

siness practices.</em><br>

 

<br /

><br />You've missed out the most important bit. My father used to say that wedding phot

ography was 10% taking pictures and 90% or

ganising

people.</

p>��

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Takes two to tango and to be really good thousands of hours of practice.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><em> "My father used to say that wedding photography was 10% taking pictures and 90% organising people."</em><br>

That sounds pretty old school.<br>

Personally I spend about 2% organising, the rest observing and shooting. To each his own.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Everyone's free to choose anything they want to shoot a wedding. So called "Pro" gear tends to be more durable and last longer. Often, these tend to be dual slot cameras ... not because the engineers thought it'd be cool, but for a reason. Take it or leave it. These cameras also tend to be quicker, and focus more accurately (not always, but more often than not.) </p>

<p>However, it must be said that the pricing for such performance and durability has become ridiculously expensive and drops in value like cracked china at a garage sale.</p>

<p>One has to feed one's family and pay the mortgage before indulging in flights of gear fancy for the dubious sake of so called professionalism. On the other hand, an $800. digital camera with a kit lens is hardly a "balanced" approach to being a professional wedding photographer. Fortunately, the camera makers provide excellent choices in mid-range pricing. </p>

<p>Basing gear expenditures to the tune of $16,000. for the occasional 40 X 60 print seems like a formula for bankruptcy. On those occasions, I'd rent a 39 or 50 meg MF digital kit and charge accordingly.</p>

<p>At my price rage for doing weddings, I actually use the gear as a selling point. Clients don't care and won't ask ... but if you point it out, it just acts as another reason to buy amongst many .... chief being the work itself. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Chris -</p>

<p>I've shot over 100,000 plus images on Nikon D70, D200, D300, D40 and the only time I've had a card fail is when a SD card that I stupidly put in my pocket with the car keys got dinged by the keys. Fortunately the card was blank at the time, and the failure was noted when I loaded it in the camera.</p>

<p>Can CF cards fail? Yes - they're electronic and anything electronic can fail. But if you buy the good CF cards, the odds of failure go down dramatically.</p>

<p>Back in the days of film - we had two cameras for the important shots...Posed formals and such. One was a Medium Format - primary camera for those shots and the other a 35 mm backup. If I've got a second shooter for a wedding, I have them take a second or third shot of each pose with a completely separate rig. By the way, I've had more film failures than CF card failures. Whether it was due to improper loading, a lab mess up or something else...</p>

<p>Bottom line for me is that the gear doesn't make the pro. The attitude, delivery and quality of the images make the pro.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[blairhall]

<p>Back (way back) to Bob's original post... I completely agree that someone showing up with a low-end DSLR and a kit lens and claiming to be a wedding photographer is a disaster waiting to happen (unless they're insanely skilled with that setup!)... but through some research and observations that I've done/made since considering being a wedding photog myself... I've realized that too often the client thinks this is completely acceptable. This unfortunately perpetuates the problem and lowers the standards bar.</p>

<p>I'm all for (and a product of) the concept of people learning through experience, but I think the budding wedding photographer needs to think about what a "professional standard" is (even if you're not a pro), and when you're just being unfair to the client... who is the most important part of the equation.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Consumer compact flash cards are unreliable for a reason and that reason is cost (and performance). Industrial compact flash cards are much more reliable, usually slower and more expensive because they use another technology and have better mechanics and work over a wider range of temperatures. So what do a real pro use?</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>I'm in agreement with most everyone here that the guys who show up with a cheap DSLR and kit lens is generally a recipe for low-grade photography. I do feel you need at least a certain level of DSLR and glass, as well as good strobes and peripheral gear to produce quality results. The wedding environment can consist of so many different locations and lighting situations, and an experienced pro knows how to handle them. But I do feel that a wedding professional is defined by other qualities besides gear. I'd love to show up with $16K in bodies, but I'm not serving the level of clients Bob is in LA either, and my pricing isn't commensurate with that level of gear purchase. I do envy those folks with the cool gear, though.</p>

[wesleyfarnsworth]

<p>You know I was thinking about this whole pro gear vs. non pro gear. It seems to me back in the day when the Nikon D40 or D80 or whatever you choose was first released it was considered "Pro Gear" because it was the best out there. So my question is why can't it be considered "pro gear" now? Yes there are better cameras out there that cost three times as much. But you can still take the same quality photos as you could back then. With the way cameras are being released the Nikon D300 or even D3X will no longer be considered "pro gear" in about 1-2 years because bigger and better things will be on the market. <br>

<br>I mean seriously. I'm just getting started in wedding photography. Yes I'm shooting it was a D80 because that’s all I can afford and the bride and groom know that. For my full time job in the Air Force I shoot with a Nikon D3X. I have the photography skills but not the budget. I would love to go out and spend $6000 on a new setup but I can't see doing that when jobs are not guaranteed. With the amount of wedding photographers out there you have to fight for work. Until I'm able to shoot a few weddings (even if that means renting or borrowing equipment) so I can build the portfolio to make me more competitive it's just not going to happen. <br>

<br>So far I've shot 2 Surprise birthday parties and both of my clients were happy with the final product. I conducted myself in a very professional manner (even guests at the parties came up and told me so)! And I gave my clients a good product in a timely manner. Because I shot this with a D80 and a borrowed SB900 flash does this mean I'm not a pro?<br><br>

Just some of my thoughts.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"> </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>"I know, lots of people will debate that one card is safe...<strong>"</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Of course one card is safe. I've been shooting 60,000+ photos digitally the past 8+ years and NEVER EVER came close to a card failure. 99% of the time it is a user failure and the card is blamed. Word. Don't have to knock on wood either. One card (at a time per camera) is VERY safe and you can bet your job on it. Film only is not safe at all copared to a CF card.<br>

<br /><br />Remember those Andre Agassi ads and the Canon Rebel cams? LOL. Pro sports shooters never used that camera -- same as the Ashton Kutcher ads, get over it -- those are ads for teeny boppers, same ones Canon targets the dRebs. Entry level consumer DSLRs are just that and no more.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>One final comment. Unfortunately this thread has sidetracked a question about "Pro Equipment" into a discussion about "Professionalism." There's a difference.<br>

I've driven my car 60,000 miles without accident...but I still have insurance. I've lived in my house 20 years without a fire destroying it...but I still have insurance. In my state (Texas) auto insurance is mandatory - a "responsibility" drivers have to other drivers on the road. There is no licensing for photographers, the "responsibility" they owe to clients is self-determined, not legislated like that of doctors, lawyers or even plumbers for that matter.<br>

The troubling thing about "disaster" is that we're usually unaware of how close we come to it until it happens. Ignorance really is bliss...for both photographers and brides.</p>

 

[steve_hovland]

<p>I keep reading reviews and tests and so far I am not convinced that the $5000 bodies are 5 times better than the $1000 bodies.<br>

Rich hobbyists are welcome to buy anything they want, but if you are doing photography as a business it helps to think about return on investment. A lot of photographers are hugely over-invested in equipment.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>It might be nice to have two cards, but I routinely shoot my one card until it fills up and thus I have a sense about its reliability.<br>

I think having two shooters is much more important thana having dual cards.</p>

[wesleyfarnsworth]

<p>Steve I agree and disagree with the statement that photographers are over invested in equipment. Yes it's a good thing to have backups but I can't see having 3 complete kits like some photographers have. I would say a backup body and maybe a backup of the 1 or 2 lens's you use the most. Other than that I say take the extra $ and put it back into your business.</p>

[dankapsner]

<p>I consider utility, value, and weight when I buy equipment. If it works well consistently that's good enough. It's up to the photographer to supply the vision, talent, and patience required to be a pro. </p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I shot weddings last year with a D40 and a D50! What exactly is it that these cameras can't do for you? Seriously, a D300 (now the D90 too!) and even a D3 do not offer much in the way of improvements. You get 12MP instead of 6MP. What does this amount to in terms of final print size? Of course 24 vs 6MP is a big difference, but how many prints will ever be output at anything bigger than 8X10? I've printed 11X16 in any case with a 5MP file from my Canon P & S and it looks great. How many Nikon shooters are giving their clients 24 mp files? None so far.<br /> <br /> You get 1 stop of ISO with the D300 over the D40, and 2 stops with the D3. I would like those stops, and 2 is significant, but really the 1 stop of the D300 is not a huge advantage. With fast primes on the D40/50 I have never needed to go above ISO800. The chroma noise is easily processed away and the images are fine. If I could get an extra stop I would in most cases probably take the extra DOF or shutter speed, so the end result noise in my files would be the same. Proabably I wouldn't use the primes anymore, just the zooms. What were all the Nikon shooters using only two years ago before the D3 and D300??? Cameras with the same ISO performance as my D40.<br /> <br /> The one improvement I would really like on the D40 is the better AF of the D300. Dancing at low light receptions is very hit and miss with the AF on the D40. But I can still get the job done, and I did it well, too. Obviously there are lots of other nice features that I would appreciate, things that would make the job easier, but in the right hands the inexpensive bodies are quite capable. And, as mentioned, I like my sync speed of 1/500+.<br /> <br /> The least important piece of the puzzle is the camera body. There is too much emphasis on gear! IMO good photography comes down to a few things. 1. understanding light - good light/bad light & what to do about it 2. composition - for me this is the most difficult 3. catching moments & emotion. If you can do these three things well you will be ahead of the rest, regardless of which version of the Rebel you're using. <br /> <br /> At the price I was charging last year I couldn't afford everything I wanted to have in my bag, and I decided the body should come last. I think this was the right decision. After shooting for next to nothing last year now I have the images to hopefully get good paying work next year, and I will probably get a new body before the season begins. This will make me 'look' more professional, but in terms of image quality I don't expect much difference. We'll see how it goes. <br /> <br /> And one more thing, about the dual cards. We'd all like to have them, duh. But not all of us are pricing ourselves at a point where it makes business sense to buy a D3. There will always be people with a budget for photography that is so low that there is no way they would expect the photographer to have a $4000 camera. And there will always be people that will take the job. Even with dual cards you can still imagine ways to lose images. Your camera could get stolen. Personally this year there is no way I will buy a dual card camera. My solution is to try to shoot with both of my bodies, and I immediately back up my cards in a portable device when they are full. I feel I'm pretty well protected.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>I don't think a backup is an over-investment, but I do have a roll-film back for my view camera that I bought for 50 cents on the dollar from a bankrupt commercial photographer. He had bought it and used it one time because a client demanded roll film with a view-camera image.<br>

I know that some people are in love with their f1.2 lenses, but they cost a heck of a lot more than the rf1.4's and I personally would not pay the difference.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>If I had the money I could buy a Formula 1 racing car. Does that make me a professional driver?<br>

Without sounding argumentative Bob, I think there is certainly merit to your statements that there are pieces of gear out there that are better performers and they are usually classified as "pro" gear. But, if you look throughout history at photographers who are now famous, they did not necessarily start their careers using the most current "pro" gear of their time. Many were poor and could not afford it. But they had a secret piece of gear - talent.<br>

I also have replied to many posts about gear choices with advice to buy the best possible gear with lots of backup, but I have also come to realize that calling gear "pro" doesn't do anything for photography or photographers. It is the person who uses them. Any tool in the hands of a skilled professional becomes "pro" gear.<br>

My best example is the formidable Nikon FM (FM2N, etc). These "non-pro" consumer cameras found their way into the bags of hundreds of the world's top photographers. Why? Because they work! They are rugged, reliable, and made with quality. The demands of a professional are to get the shot. Any tool that allows the pro to accomplish that is a professional tool.<br>

When starting out it is more important to concentrate on learning the basics of photography and then if weddings are your passion, the world of wedding workflow and most importantly, the people skills to handle the entire event. This does not have anything to do with gear, but believe me, if it is overlooked, it won't matter if you have a $300 camera or a $30,000 camera.<br>

If you are a really good photographer and you know how to light, compose, expose, etc. you can make any gear work fairly well. For weddings, it is important to be prepared with well functioning equipment and backups for everything. If all is in good working order, the rest is up to you.<br>

People go into business all the time with a shoestring budget. Yes, good gear is a plus. But if you need to spend a little less on it you have to do everything else to the highest degree of professionalism. If you do, it won't be long before you have a better equipment budget.<br>

Lou</p>

<p> </p>