pro gear VS non pro gear for Weddings. Question

[lou korell]

<p>As I reflect on what I just posted, it also occurs to me that lots of photographers go into business because they <strong>can </strong>afford the expensive top of the line gear. They believe it will make them better. But, are they all necessarily professionals if they have shot one or two weddings or none? Going into business doesn't make you a pro - experience does.<br>

When I started in weddings I used Hasselblad cameras. Then when others were using 35mm they had F100 and F5 cameras (Nikon shooters that is). I moved into 35mm weddings with my F3 and F4 cameras. They were at one time the best of the line but no longer. Then I was convinced to go digital.<br>

I started with all that I could afford. I sold an old Leica and bought a Canon Digital Rebel - Yikes! It wasn't long before I had a couple of 20D's around my neck and a slew of "L" glass to make wedding photography better for me. I worked with that gear for almost three years with no upgrades. Then, I added a 5D. Did I book more weddings? Did my old clients come back and say "gee I wish you'd had that camera at my wedding"? no.<br>

Now I shoot with all Nikon again. Started with a D300 and now added a D700. No D3 or D3X will see its way into my bag as far as I know. Why? Don't need it to make great pictures.<br>

What's my point? If you are a reasonably good photographer with a reasonably good camera, you can produce acceptible images. If you argue that they are not the absolute best possible quality pixel per pixel that you can get - then we all need the latest Hasselblad with the highest rated digital back or something in the $30K-$40K range to even compete or say you're a pro. <br>

You can always buy a better camera. That is so true today as better ones come out every few months. But you can only develop one "eye" and that is what gives your gear the value.<br>

It also goes without saying that if you intend to shoot weddings you need to understand weddings. Period. You must be prepared as you have a one time chance to do it right. That means no matter what your budget, you need a minimum amount of backup gear to even start. Weddings - if you are to be compensated for shooting them - are not for amateurs.<br>

You should work as assistant or second shooter to an established pro to learn what you need in order to not only have skills to 'handle" the responsibilities, but to figure out what gear is best suited to the kinds of images you think you will produce. This is a constant learning opportunity and your gear list will change over time. But you have to have enough to get the job done - including the safety factor of backup gear. Equipment and liability insurance are also a good idea.</p>

 

[steve_c.5]

<p>The only thing I'd say about contrasting low-end 35mm SLRs vs. high-end ones, with low-end DSLRs vs. high-end ones is that it's not really apples to apples.<br>

With any film photography (I'll use 35mm for example), the quality of the image comes primarily from a) film used and b) lens used. Otherwise, you'd scarcely know whether it was shot with an FM, FM2N, an F4, an F5, or a Rebel body.<br>

With DSLRs, you have lots of other factors that determine image quality; the megapixels of the sensor, the quality of the sensor, how clean they are at higher ISO, the size of the sensor surface, RAW or JPEG capture, as well as lens quality. Plus, there are various sensor technologies at work, such as CCD or CMOS.<br>

So really, they're two different worlds, but we have a wider array of factors with digital that will affect image quality and results. That's why we cringe when people book weddings and show up with low-end gear. In that regard, the higher-end gear does enhance the professionalism, but I still stick to my statement that the definition of a pro goes way beyond pricey gear.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>When you go to an art school and look at the work of students you can see who has an eye and who doesn't. No amount of equipment can make up for not having an eye.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>From your question, it seems you are talking about entry level gear--one step above prosumer. From that standpoint, yes, I agree with you.</p>

<p>Others responding are talking about intermediate level gear. For instance, the 5D isn't considered pro level, yet some of the most successful wedding photographers use/have used it. From this standpoint, I'd say there is a lot of gray area to the issue--to the point where no definitive answer can be given--only opinion, which is why this thread is getting long and going off topic in a number of areas.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>Nadine, I never thought so many people would respond. Anyway, I was referring to kit cameras. I know the 5D is a good camera, able to produce 40X60 prints. I've done it. As already stated I just feel badly for the brides where people show up with kit cameras and call themselves pros.</p>

<p>The topic should probably be closed by the administrator, because it will never be solved, nor will it discourage people from doing this type of practice. It's just something that has bugged me. I figured about 6 people would respond, not 50!</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your responses. Needless to say I'm not the only one bothered about giving the bride professional work.</p>

[conraderb]

<p>bob - I'm still not convinced. I think that you raise an important issue, which is not of equipment, but of representation. As long as someone represents their work fairly to their client, there's no need to expect them to produce a 60x40 print. That's sort of arbitrary. How about a 20 FOOT by 30 FOOT print? We probably both agree that's ridiculous.</p>

<p>You have a high standard for prints, and that's fine.</p>

<p>I do take issue, however, with your idea that just because someone uses a kit lens doesn't mean they are 'pro' or not.</p>

<p>"Pro" is a very slippery term, as you know, and meaningless.</p>

<p>If anything, what I think we should insist is that bride's ask to see recent weddings and see the kind of product that they anticipate buying. The proof is in the pudding.</p>

<p>If you see a gorgeous album, and your photographer can do that, great.</p>

<p>If your photographer shows you tiny prints, and that's all you want, hey, that's fine. They are getting paid, so I guess they are pro!</p>

<p>Again, please clarify for me why everyone needs huge prints, and someone who uses something than doesn't do that is doing any kind of disservice to their client. As long as the client's expectations are met, everything is fine.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I shot some weddings years ago for another photog who hated the whole business of "pro" versus "consumer". He shot a consumer zoom on an F4 and loved it. He only ever carried one body too.<br>

<br /> I could care less about the gear (though I admit to toy shopping a fair amount), just that it does what I need it to do (and that I have two of them with me at all times).<br /> Having a second of everything is one of the mark's of a pro, IMO. Non/new pro's may not be expected to carry that redundancy. When they are being hired, the bride/groom doing the hiring may well be aware of their "risk". Like buying a Yugo or a Lada (any of you know about those junk heaps?) will get you there, it may not be in style or without stress. You may have to stop and put the steering wheel back on once in a while, but hey, you get what you pay for.<br>

<br /> When a B&G go shopping for a "pro", they are doing it (usually) for the first time. That alone makes the choice a tough one. Add to that the ever decreasing circle of weddings and the devaluation of marriage as a whole, and the onslaught of budget pros will be the future I dare say. Those of us decrying it will simply fade away... or market ourselves so well, that the perception when hiring the "real pro", will be they are getting a Mercedes, not a Yugo.<br>

<br /> As for professional results, that is subjective. I see posted in many galleries (established pros too), images that I don't care for, or find less than proficient in their execution. However, they sell their wares. I don't judge them to be good or bad due to their gear, but I do judge their work by MY standards (whether good or bad). Gear in that case is a non consideration.<br /> I personally refuse to shop at Wal mart. Not that Wal mart cannot accomplish the task of providing the needed goods, but because I don't like how they get them there. Principle is expensive in that case and Brides choosing "pro" photogs based on their kit/status will pay for that choice. You don't always get what you pay for, but you usually do.<br>

<br /> Anyhow, I too am concerned to see (deeply in fact) that my clients get the very best I can produce, on every occasion. No excuses. One means to that end is good gear, but a more important one is the backup of any gear, be it pro or P&S.<br /> I can shoot an entire wedding with my P&S (if they get good enough I may well do so one day) if I need to, but I don't because the gear I select is chosen for its ability to get my vision into an image in a better (subjectively) way than my P&S can (currently) offer. OTOH, pro work will rarely be judged to be so, due to the gear used to capture it.<br>

<br /> Monte Z used a 20d and 28-135 for most of what he shot later in life, and to my knowledge, never drew the criticism of being less than a pro.<br>

<br /> Horses for courses I guess.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong>Anyway, I was referring to kit cameras.</strong><br>

Generally speaking, I think that a kit lens would present more problems / issues: all else being equal.<br>

As to the tangents of the thread, I particularly liked the Dual Card matter - and moreover I think it does address the general question.<br>

I usually run to extol (loudly) the virtues of redundancy, but I am not convinced about Dual Cards being a defining issue, though I acknowledge Christopher`s line of argument.<br>

It seems to me I do not reside in as a litigious place as he, but that fact is not a counter to the points made and there is credence in arguing a Dual Card system contributes to defining: Reasonable Professional Foresight at a One Shot Gig.<br>

If the Redundancy argument is accepted on Principle - as we (and technology) progress, then it seems to me Dual Cards, will become fait accompli.<br>

I use Canon Digital cameras, but not 1 Series.<br>

WW</p>

[fotografz]

<p>The whole argument is pointless. Someone shooting weddings with a consumer level camera, isn't going to run out and buy a $8,000. Series 1 or D3X because of this thread. People with single slot cameras will argue until the cows come home against 2 slot cameras ... and those with 2 slot cameras will stick by their guns.</p>

<p>People have different levels of criteria for their gear and their output. You can make a 40X60 print from a P&S ... there's nothing stopping you. 40X60 prints isn't the issue. If you can't see the difference in a 8X10 then what's the point?</p>

<p>The point is that some people DO see the difference, and don't care if their clients can or not ... it's called "pride in craftsmanship" ... and it is a very personal thing. The notion that all people see things at the same level is disproved daily on the internet. Some people ARE more discriminatory. Good enough isn't good enough. It isn't elitism, it's personal striving for the best they can do to express their vision and creativity .... which in some ways can be related to their tools.</p>

<p>The formula is simple, buy the best you can afford, be aware of it's limitations, and apply it to your creative vision. If you are successful, you can move on to something else until the equipment limitations aren't interfering with or stunting your vision ... then you're there. That place to stop will be different for each person. </p>

[alberto_c]

<p>Aren't mid level DSLR capable of results of similar quality than 30 years ago top level 35mm SLR?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Marc Williams: The point is that some people DO see the difference, and don't care if their clients can or not ... it's called "pride in craftsmanship" ... and it is a very personal thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why so many people think that pro gear is needed for taking wedding pictures, while nobody seems to think about photographic quality of the job, just because "client doesn't care".</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>It's been an interesting discussion.</p>

<p>Not sure if any one here is familiar with the work of Alex Majoli. He's a Magnum photojournalist who has won acclaim for his reportage, with some of his most recognisable work shot in war zones including Kosovo and Afghanistan. Just to give the "pro photographer = pro gear" some balance, he is remarkable for having shot most of his work on an Olympus point and shoot.</p>

<p>Perhaps a reminder than a photographer is defined by their vision, not their equipment?</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Neil, I can easily see why a PJ in a war zone might not want to dart around with a couple of full-boat pro bodies with $5000 white lenses, when they can be more unobtrusive with a P/S. Being able to tilt the LCD down and periscope the camera when bullets are flying would be a plus. I wouldn't try to shoot a wedding with one, but it's choosing the best tool for the job. I agree with your analysis, though.</p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=MultiMiscPageAct&key=CPS_Member&keycode=CPS&fcategoryid=111</p>

<p>Here's what Canon considers "pro gear".</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>High end bodies may be better at high ISO, but not much.<br>

Before people get too upset about this remark, the bottom line for this comment is that the vendors need to make a special high ISO body that starts at 800 or 1600.<br>

The reason is that it's hard to build systems that cover 100-6400 and do all things well.<br>

Canon used to make a special sports body that had a pellicle instead of a moving mirror.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Steve H., I had never thought about special high ISO bodies that way, and don't know what the technical challenges are, but what you're saying sounds good. Maybe one day the manufacturers will address this, or overcome the technical obstacles to make clean high ISO bodies practical and available.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>I don't think any mfr is going to impress Pro's with an extremely high ISO body. <br>

Think about it - a single light source (lightbulb, glow from cell phone, candle, etc, etc) at an event when shot at ISO higher than about 3200 blows a "hole" in the rest of the exposure (if it's properly exposed). It's virtually impossible to shoot a wedding reception, wedding, or event without having bright light sources that completely blow highlights at ISO's higher than 3200. I suppose some sort of Neutral Density feature could be incorporated that would limit the light sensitivity to a point below clipping (like highlight priority does, in a way), but truncating the high ISO for bright spots (without effecting the rest of the histogram) is tricky. You would have to trust an engineers judgement about where and when to truncate. It would amount to shooting in a 'auto exposure-like' mode that trusts high values to a chip in the body.<br>

Bodies with this feature will appeal only to amateurs/prosumers who don't know/don't have flash and hope to fix the holes created by high ISO with Photoshop. The trend toward high ISO bodies is popular right now, but not with photographers who sell images for a living. Most of my commercial contracts limit ISO to no higher than 400 and aperture to 4.0 or smaller. It will be years before you will see a slick glossy photo layout shot at ISO 25000 or whatever crazy ISO's mfrs are claiming. Even (lowly) 8x10 bridal photos printed at 300 dpi which are shot above 1600 look grainy - and that is with extensive (and skillful, IMO) noise reduction.<br>

Mixing ISO's above 3200 with large (2.8 or less) apertures results in pictures that may appease someone's sense of "Hey Ma, look what I did", but it's not a recipe for sellable, successful images in any traditional sense.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>Christopher- I agree with you. At Thanksgiving I shot without flash in a typical house and previous shots with flash in the same place look much better.<br>

I think many wedding photographers over-estimate the obtrusiveness of using flash, and a lot of wedding pictures suffer from contrasty or flat lighting conditions.<br>

When you simply come into a room with camera in hand you are already intruding in a major way. Without flash, you still have mirror/shutter noise.<br>

Also most people have been to many weddings where lot's of people are popping away with their pocket cameras. The paid photographer is not adding very much to the confusion.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>(For Steve H. and Christopher) The appeal of clean high ISO cameras doesn't have as much to do with causing a distraction in a ceremony, as it does with capturing a ceremony in a church or particular setting while preserving the ambience of the lighting, without coming away with grainy shots. When you're in the back of a church with a long lens, flash isn't effective anyway. But you want to preserve the wonderful lighting and colors in that setting, particularly with some churches which are gorgeous inside.<br>

Plus, there are plenty of church folks that are highly sensitive to any flash going off in ceremonies. They feel it's not respectful of the reverence of the event, and turns it into a photo-op. And every church you go to is different. It's nice to be able to tell the officiant and their people that you won't need to use flash, except maybe for the processional/recessional as the couple comes into range.<br>

That's why I would have interest in a camera that could do ISO 6400 and make it look like ISO 400.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Yes, those dark churches with no flash allowed are a challenge that would benefit from high ISO if the kinks can be worked out.<br>

While they're at it, perhaps the Canon engineers can re-write the laws of optical Physics and deliver the dynamic range of 400 at ISO 6400 and above. Even at 1600 ISO, the dynamic range is too bland for my taste.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>

 

 

<p >"... is remarkable for having shot most of his work on an Olympus point and shoot.Perhaps a reminder than a photographer is defined by their vision, not their equipment?"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This pre-supposes that everyone's vision is the same, and can be homogeneously handled by the same gear as Majoli ... who is shooting stuff for satellite feed to be generally reproduced at lower resolution. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have a good friend that shoots major ad campaigns with a P&S also (for the look and feel of snapshots.) It matches his vision, so it's the perfect tool. So what? Neither approach is my approach, so I use what I need to express myself at the level of craftsmanship that fulfills my criteria ... not the lowest common denominator. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But none of that is the point. The point is whether it's fair to an unsuspecting bride for a person taking money for shooting a wedding without being equipped with the basic gear that is pretty much universaly accepted as the norm regardless of status or price tag. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<br />

 

 

</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Taking money with underwhelming gear (to the gadget freak) is a lot less problematic for the couple than paying somebody who has no eye, no sense and no art and the best gear in the world. And it's assuredly good because he has two slots and double back-ups of all the shots he takes. He's got two flashes, lots of batteries, two cameras, four lenses, he's been at it for a couple of weeks now.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>Steve C: Assuming a tripod or IS lens, how far up the ISO scale do you typically have to go during a ceremony?</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Craig, that's just exaggerated and argumentative, since who has ever heard of a beginner that's been at it for a couple of weeks using the gear you described? </p>

<p>The shooter with no eye, no sense and no art ... is the same with or without good gear ... however, the better gear in the hands of a person with an eye, lots of sense, and a personal vision for their art ... can benefit from better gear because they know how to use it. <br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Well, with my gear, the stabilization is in the camera body, not the lens, so I don't take tripods to weddings anymore, and I don't have to spend the extra money for a stabilized lens. My monopod seems to collect dust, though I do take it. I shoot in some churches at ISO 2000, 2500, but try not to push it beyond that. My camera is pretty good at those ISO ranges, but there's always room for improvement as technology and sensor design improves. I don't think it's a matter of rewriting the laws of optics, I think it's just a matter of improvements in sensor design. Look how far sensors have come in five years. How much will they improve in the next five years? Probably the difference between night and day. And when they do, we'll be able to capture night as well as day.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Well, pardon me! So I guess the suggestion that only gear with two slots is acceptable for "professionals" really was just what it seemed like? </p>

 

<p> Most "failures" aren't with the gear or the cards, they are with the users. Maybe there ought to be two uberqualified pros shooting. Then you'll have redundancy.</p>