# Pros don't use crop bodies



## jamiebonline (Mar 30, 2015)

Hi everyone,

So I thought the title would get some attention.  I want to raise a point about what it is to be a pro in relation to gear. I am starting out professionally. I have done a few paid gigs. Couples shoots mostly. The clients were pleased but since I don't have 'pro gear' I feel like I must keep my price low. I mean, if I shoot with an APSC sensor and a 50mm 1.8, to what extent am I not professional? How relevant is it?

I don't want to get hung up on this but it does seem that investing large amounts of money must be the next step. I live in a country now that pays very low salaries compared to Western Europe and photographers are only paid 1/4 what they can be at home but electronics cost the same!  It means I am forced to work with cheaper gear. I can't afford an fx camera without some considerable saving. The 70-200 2.8 seems quite standard for portraits but the new versions of this lens even from the less expensive Sigma or Tamron is still so expensive. 

What are your thoughts?
Maybe you are a very experienced pro who shoots a lot of APSC or other smaller sensors and maybe you also favour primes. How is your work effected by your wallet? To what extent does what gear you have contribute to how much you charge?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

professional is based on results, not on equipment. 
I have shot plenty of paid portrait sessions and weddings on crop frame cameras. 
charge based on what you can produce, not what gear you use.


----------



## 407370 (Mar 30, 2015)

Get the best gear you can afford is always good advice. If that means you have to get a full time job outside of photography for saving up then do it. Build your photo business up gradually to the point where it can be a full time gig. 
Dont focus on gear in the beginning. Get the best results you can from the gear you have.


----------



## Designer (Mar 30, 2015)

jamiebonline said:


> ..since I don't have 'pro gear' I feel like I must keep my price low.


Nonsense!

You charge; 

1. based on your market

2. based on your results

Most customers will not know the difference between kits.  They will most likely decide on a photographer based on the portfolio or "style".


----------



## Braineack (Mar 30, 2015)

no one cares what equipment youre using, only that they get their value's worth out of you.


----------



## Life (Mar 30, 2015)

The result you create is far more important on how you get there. For all you know, the client doesn't know how " pro " your equipment is. If you learn how to use what you have really well, that will always be better than having " pro " cameras and not knowing how to use them. Being Pro is not what you have, it's what you do. Don't charge based on what you have, but base it on what you do


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

Do you ask your mechanic whether he uses S-K or Matco tools?

Do you ask your dentist whether he uses Henry Schein or Patterson instruments?

Do you ask your handyman if he uses Skil or Milwaukee saws?




Do you care?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Do you ask your mechanic whether he uses S-K or Matco tools?
> 
> Do you ask your dentist whether he uses Henry Schein or Patterson instruments?
> 
> ...



everyone knows_* real *_mechanics use SnapOn!


----------



## Braineack (Mar 30, 2015)

no. real mechanics use Harbor Freight.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

The choice to get a full frame begins and ends at whether or not you need the strengths full frame provides (better low light performance, wider field of view and increased control over depth of field).  What you're able to charge and whether or not it makes you a "pro" is a silly consideration.

If that were the case, we could say that everybody who doesn't shoot with a phase one "isn't a pro."  Honestly 35mm isn't that big of a deal.  Going to medium format is a *MUCH* bigger difference than going from crop frame to 35mm.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

If all you own is a crop-body d-slr and a 50.1.8 lens, you are exceptionally under-capitalized and honestly, your work could not help but reflect that. It's difficult to hear at times, but the difference to me between a professional photographer and a wanna-be or part-timer is in both results, but also capability and familiarity with a suite of tools. In this thread we've talked about mechanics, but the idea of a mechanic with only ONE single wrench is as absurd as the photographer with a crop-frame body and nothing more than a 50mm lens...that's simply not enough equipment to offer first-class photography. It's just not. Just as one, single wrench is not enough to be a mechanic.

Professional photographers that cannot afford even the basic equipment that 95% of professional photographers own...hmmm...no wide-angle photos? No telephoto images? No flash? No reflectors? I dunno...sounds very low-rent to me. Sounds a lot like the "professional carpenter" (self-professed) who cannot afford anything except a nail gun...no square, no level, no circular saw, no nothing....except the ability to air-sink nails with a nailgun. "Nailgunner" is my personal terms for a number of modern day "carpenters" who cannot even handle an actual hammer...these are the $15/hr. guys hired to do framing work on spec houses.

If the OP wants to come back and flesh out his or her inquiry with a bit more detail, that might be helpful, but the OP itself mentions nothing but a crop-body camera and a 50mm lens and the inability to afford even a third-party 70-200...like a mechanic with one wrench, or a carpenter with ONLY the ability to nail gun in nails...


----------



## snowbear (Mar 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> no. real mechanics use Harbor Freight.



Only the DWATs (dude with a tool)


----------



## Solarflare (Mar 30, 2015)

Theres always an even better, even more expensive camera.

But small format cameras are cheap now. Get a used one in good condition from ebay etc, and get a good lens for it.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> no. real mechanics use Harbor Freight.


























Sorry, I just _had_ to!


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If all you own is a crop-body d-slr and a 50.1.8 lens, you are exceptionally under-capitalized and honestly, your work could not help but reflect that. It's difficult to hear at times, but the difference to me between a professional photographer and a wanna-be or part-timer is in both results, but also capability and familiarity with a suite of tools. In this thread we've talked about mechanics, but the idea of a mechanic with only ONE single wrench is as absurd as the photographer with a crop-frame body and nothing more than a 50mm lens...that's simply not enough equipment to offer first-class photography. It's just not. Just as one, single wrench is not enough to be a mechanic.
> 
> Professional photographers that cannot afford even the basic equipment that 95% of professional photographers own...hmmm...no wide-angle photos? No telephoto images? No flash? No reflectors? I dunno...sounds very low-rent to me. Sounds a lot like the "professional carpenter" (self-professed) who cannot afford anything except a nail gun...no square, no level, no circular saw, no nothing....except the ability to air-sink nails with a nailgun. "Nailgunner" is my personal terms for a number of modern day "carpenters" who cannot even handle an actual hammer...these are the $15/hr. guys hired to do framing work on spec houses.
> 
> If the OP wants to come back and flesh out his or her inquiry with a bit more detail, that might be helpful, but the OP itself mentions nothing but a crop-body camera and a 50mm lens and the inability to afford even a third-party 70-200...like a mechanic with one wrench, or a carpenter with ONLY the ability to nail gun in nails...


yeah, the lack of lenses is 10000% a bigger issue than having a crop body.  You have to be a very certain type of photographer to get away with one lens only, and a 50mm on a crop wouldn't be it in that scenario either.  To me its like photographers I see on here who buy a D800, but only own one actual good lens for it.

FF is nice, and has its benefits, but having a decent selection of quality lenses is vastly more important.  And you can absolutely do professional level work on a crop body.  A lot of big time professional photographers do.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

OMG, Sparky!! Those Harbor Fraught ads are hilarious! I love the 12HP, 4500-Watt Noise & Fume Generator, as well as the 6' x 8' Rickety Aluminum Greenhouse! The Bono Safety Goggles are clever...need to get me a pair of those! The 16 inch manually-cranked chainsaw looks nice.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 30, 2015)

my three-wheeled HF trans jacked worked just fine over the weekend.  Just like I'm able to shoot without a D4s.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 30, 2015)

any one can take a picture. be paid and valued for your vision and what you add. 
Sell what makes your photos unique.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If all you own is a crop-body d-slr and a 50.1.8 lens, you are exceptionally under-capitalized and honestly, your work could not help but reflect that. It's difficult to hear at times, but the difference to me between a professional photographer and a wanna-be or part-timer is in both results, but also capability and familiarity with a suite of tools. In this thread we've talked about mechanics, but the idea of a mechanic with only ONE single wrench is as absurd as the photographer with a crop-frame body and nothing more than a 50mm lens...that's simply not enough equipment to offer first-class photography. It's just not. Just as one, single wrench is not enough to be a mechanic.
> 
> Professional photographers that cannot afford even the basic equipment that 95% of professional photographers own...hmmm...no wide-angle photos? No telephoto images? No flash? No reflectors? I dunno...sounds very low-rent to me. Sounds a lot like the "professional carpenter" (self-professed) who cannot afford anything except a nail gun...no square, no level, no circular saw, no nothing....except the ability to air-sink nails with a nailgun. "Nailgunner" is my personal terms for a number of modern day "carpenters" who cannot even handle an actual hammer...these are the $15/hr. guys hired to do framing work on spec houses.
> 
> If the OP wants to come back and flesh out his or her inquiry with a bit more detail, that might be helpful, but the OP itself mentions nothing but a crop-body camera and a 50mm lens and the inability to afford even a third-party 70-200...like a mechanic with one wrench, or a carpenter with ONLY the ability to nail gun in nails...



Bresson produced myriads of superb photos using a little Leica and a 50mm lens, Ansel Adams sold photos he took with a Polaroid SX-70.  Picasso produced intricate, and beautiful murals composed of a single unbroken line drawn with a piece of charcoal.   Care to argue against this:  The only thing necessary is TALENT, not the instrument


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > no. real mechanics use Harbor Freight.
> ...



I NEED that pneumatic slide whistle ... just gotta have one !!


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> Bresson produced myriads of superb photos using a little Leica and a 50mm lens, Ansel Adams sold photos he took with a Polaroid SX-70.  Picasso produced intricate, and beautiful murals composed of a single unbroken line drawn with a piece of charcoal.   Care to argue against this:  The only thing necessary is TALENT, not the instrument



Being an artist who sells prints of their artwork is very different from being a paid professional photographer who works by assignment/client.  If I had shown up to a playoff game I was paid to shoot with a polaroid I'd have been fired, simple as that.  

Further, "little leica" is being a bit disingenuous, at best, about what a Leica is.  And a Polaroid SX 70, adjusted for inflation, cost the equivalent of ~$1100 today.


----------



## jamiebonline (Mar 30, 2015)

Hi again,

So many replies! OK just to clear up. I don't only have a 50mm 1.8. I also have an 85 1.4 and a 17-50 2.8 and a 19mm 2.8. I also have other other studio-related gear.

I did a shoot on the D7000 with the Sigma 17-50 for a website of a school. Pictures of the school staff. They were happy. Maybe I am answering my own question. 

I do like most if I get a comment about my work that points to me having a style that the person prefers. It means a lot to me. I build on this.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

Didereaux said:
			
		

> Bresson produced myriads of superb photos using a little Leica and a 50mm lens, Ansel Adams sold photos he took with a Polaroid SX-70.  Picasso produced intricate, and beautiful murals composed of a single unbroken line drawn with a piece of charcoal.   Care to argue against this:  The only thing necessary is TALENT, not the instrument



Sorry, but the wanna-be "carpenter" with a nail gun and a few belts' worth of fasteners or the wanna-be "mechanic" with just a single, 10-inch adjustable wrench are both utterly incapable of doing much beyond apprentice-level tasks. The person who has a bare-bones kit simply cannot be expected to compete for many jobs that fully-equipped businesses can easily handle, with tools they own and are familiar and proficient with.

World-famous artists, like Ansel Adams by the time the SX-70 came out, could easily have sold their own turds, and their fanboys would have willingly paid vast sums for them.  I can envision it now... _Ansel Adams, feces in lucite box, San Jose, California, *Taco Night Remainders, 1975.*_

As far as Bresson's talent...his early work was so pathetic he destroyed almost all of his negatives, and kept only the few successful photos he managed to come up with. He was embarrassed by the poor quality of the majority of rubbish he shot. Compare his work of the 1940's to the stuff you see daily on any number of news sites...pretty tame stuff he shot. Buuuut...before the advent of television, his grainy B&W snaps of life outside of the USA must have seemed pretty fantastical.

If anybody wants to burst their HCB fanboy bubble, look into his book of portraiture. OMG, it is dreadfully mediocre. As in really, really bad work. He was clearly not a capable portraitist, but was instead, actually rather bad at it. I looked through the book at Powell's City of Books...OMG...it's awful. It's shocking to see how much a fish out of water the man was when it came to photographing people face to face.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > If all you own is a crop-body d-slr and a 50.1.8 lens, you are exceptionally under-capitalized and honestly, your work could not help but reflect that. It's difficult to hear at times, but the difference to me between a professional photographer and a wanna-be or part-timer is in both results, but also capability and familiarity with a suite of tools. In this thread we've talked about mechanics, but the idea of a mechanic with only ONE single wrench is as absurd as the photographer with a crop-frame body and nothing more than a 50mm lens...that's simply not enough equipment to offer first-class photography. It's just not. Just as one, single wrench is not enough to be a mechanic.
> ...


What a load of rubbish and pro should be able to get the job done with what he has, my favourite photographer only used a 35mm lens on his Leica for the whole of his career shooting for one of the top UK papers


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> What a load of rubbish and pro should be able to get the job done with what he has, my favourite photographer only used a 35mm lens on his Leica for the whole of his career shooting for one of the top UK papers


LOL, you really think you can do professional sports photography with a single 35mm lens?  Even you can't really think that.  You can't really, actually, think you could run a portrait studio with only a 35mm lens and a Leica?  You can't really, honestly think that you could do wildlife photography with a 35mm and  a Leica, can you? 

There are a couple of genres that lend to extraordinarily talented individuals with a single lens doing well, but they are certainly the exception, not the norm.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of rubbish and pro should be able to get the job done with what he has, my favourite photographer only used a 35mm lens on his Leica for the whole of his career shooting for one of the top UK papers
> ...


Who mentioned sports, I said he worked for a top newspaper


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


I (the person you were responding to) was talking about sports (and other genres) in the post you responded to.  Or was your "this is rubbish" response not actually in response to anything I said, or did you respond to me without reading what I said?

You said "any pro should be able to do the job with whatever gear they have" and then cited a photojournalist as your only support, which photojournalism is absolutely the genre that requires the least variety of lenses.  Almost every other genre (besides PJ and its hobbyist cousin, street) of photography requires at least some variety in lenses.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro


what are you even talking about at this point?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro



by your own definition, every stay at home mom or dad that shoots mini sessions for $30 is a pro. 
since photography is 100% of their income, it clearly goes well over your 50% rule.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro


what if your other job pays 10 million a year


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro
> ...


Your ****ed


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro
> ...


Sorry did I hit a nerve


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



no.  
but apparently pointing out your ridiculously flawed definition of "pro" did.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


Not really if they don't pay national insurance and tax they are not class as employed


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

IMO, professional photographer has little to do with the percentage of income you bring in from your photography.  To me, you're a professional photographer if you make a living wage doing it for more than ~20 hours a week.  For some people that would be 100% of their income, for some, that might be ~20% of their income. 

Further, to me "professional photographer" isn't some "badge of quality."  At this point in his life Jay Maisel isn't a professional photographer so much as he is a teacher and hobbyist.  Sue Bryce, at this point is more of an entrepreneur than a photographer.  That doesn't mean their photographs are worse than they were when they were shooting 25-50 hours a week.

Some of the best photos I've ever seen were taken by hobbyists.  "Professional photographer" simply means you do it as a job.  Some are better, some are worse.  Most professional photographers main strength is organization, business awareness and professionalism.  Ability to take great images is relatively far down the list of what the key components for being a pro are.  It is something that is important, obviously.  But there are tons of people who can take great pictures.  There are very few who are cut out to do it professionally, and it's rarely ever image quality that holds them back as the *main* limiting factor.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



maybe they do. you cant just assume they all do not. some actually do. 
even if you define "professional" by 50% of household income, a photographer married to a trial lawyer making a million a year would, by your definition, make even a great photographer bringing in 100k a year "not" a professional. 
do you really not see the flaw in defining professionalism by monetary units?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent.  Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> what if your other job pays 10 million a year



If you are making 10 million a year at another job, I don't really think you care if someone wants to call or classify you as a pro photog or not.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent.  Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.


It's way, way, way, way, way more than 1 in 500.  Sure, it's certainly a majority shooting FF, but 1 in 500 isn't even in the ballpark.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent.  Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.



what are you considering a "pro" level body?
the D600/610 is generally considered a consumer body, as is Canon's 6D.
for a long time, Nikon, on their own web page, designated "pro" level bodies as the bodies that had the built in vertical grips while everything else was "consumer".  If you still go by that definition, then the D750/D800 are also "consumer" bodies. 
how many pros are now using mirrorless cameras? 

really though, if you back up far enough, "professional" photographers doing portraits and weddings werent using the smaller 35mm format anyway. they were using 120/220 medium format. 35mm was a "budget" format.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent.  Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.
> ...


35 mm is actually still small. You are right. The real pros shot medium format. Us crop sensor shooters really dont qualify.  The o.p needs to go medium format.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> professional is based on results, not on equipment.
> .


Dont need to continue reading all 3 pages, this reply pretty much covers all you need to know.
If you have the skills and get results your clients are happy with then that's the only thing that counts!!!


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > professional is based on results, not on equipment.
> ...


no way. That is too simple. Because equipment directly effects results.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



sure, but you cant tell what was used to produce a final image without the photographer telling you. 
so someone with a lot of talent but poor equipment could easily do better than someone with little talent but great equipment.  im not trying to dispose the idea that better equipment can do more, im trying to dispose the idea that better equipment is the benchmark for being professional.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


Better equipment is the benchmark for being a professional because professionals know that better equipment is better so they buy it to have better images.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Better equipment is the benchmark for being a professional because professionals know that better equipment is better so they buy it to have better images.



So do you ask all the professionals YOU hire what equipment they use?  Or do you just care about the results they provide you?


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> no way. That is too simple. Because equipment directly effects results.


I would say that Equipment CAN directly affect result.

but that doesn't mean that a person with enough money doesn't have the best equipment available and still shoots in AUTO and gets stuff just wrong.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 30, 2015)

no lecia, no care.

thusly i havent even been able to hire a family photgrapher.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 30, 2015)

I would agree with Jason right there. I'm not saying that the equipment won't help produce images  but if you are getting great images with what you have....

I would have thought that the gear was necessary to be a professional too, but after the latest photocon that I attended and saw well over 300 images from a destination wedding photographer that was using Sony mirrorless system. She said that she used some of the smaller ones because it was easier for her to shoot on location and she loved the live view mode. (She is a Sony Artisan)


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



thats simply untrue. 
i know professional photographers still using D3's and D700's. there are plenty of better bodies available now, yet it is not hurting their business to continue using less than the "better" equipment.  By todays standards, the D3 and D700 are practically antiquated by many peoples thinking, but less than a decade ago they were the best of the best, and perform no less today than they did back when they were first released.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> no lecia, no care.
> 
> thusly i havent even been able to hire a family photgrapher.



Loan them one of yours.






Then...................













demand a discount!


----------



## tirediron (Mar 30, 2015)

A professional is someone who is paid to do a job.  It should, but sadly doesn't make any reference to the quality of work.  He, or she, will use whatever equipment they feel is appropriate to meet the client's needs.  That might be a FF "35mm" body, an APS-C/DX body, an M4/3 body, or an 8x10 film body.  For the first part of the digital era, crop-frame was all that was available; EVERYONE, pro, consumer, and MWAC shot with a crop-frame.  Now, for some reason, FF is seen as the bench-mark.  Looking back through my image bank at some of the stuff I captured with a crop-frame camera, I'm pretty damn proud of it, and I think it would hold up against anything from a FF  body today.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 30, 2015)

The camera doesn't define you.  You define the camera.

You can quote me on that


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2015)

Here is a guy that shoots weddings with a M4/3 olympus camera. 
not even an APS-C size sensor. 
Featured Mu43 Wedding Experience by SSSYURRR Mu-43.com - Micro Four Thirds User Group
this guy is amazing. 
i could not imagine this guy _*not*_ being considered a pro, but he certainly does not use the "best" wedding equipment.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> thats simply untrue.
> i know professional photographers still using D3's and D700's. there are plenty of better bodies available now, yet it is not hurting their business to continue using less than the "better" equipment.  By todays standards, the D3 and D700 are practically antiquated by many peoples thinking, but less than a decade ago they were the best of the best, and perform no less today than they did back when they were first released.


Absolutely, in fact if you compare a working pro and a wealthy MWAC, the pro is the one more likely to have older, beat-up, held-together-with-gaff-tape equipment.  Why?  Because it does the job he needs it to do, and he can't justify the expense of upgrading it.  I still use a D700 for a lot of paid work.   Why?  Because it does the job.  If I need to impress my clients with my gear, I need to find different clients!


----------



## KenC (Mar 30, 2015)

There will always be some situations which can't be handled without special equipment, e.g., a close shot of the play at second base, a photo of a rare insect that's about 1 cm long, etc., so for these it would be difficult to claim you are a pro without the necessary equipment.  However, with a 50 mm lens on a crop body and a lot of talent one could produce amazing portraits, which is probably the most frequent job a photographer gets hired to do.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

David Hobby and Zack Arias are no longer professionals I guess, using those trash crop frame cameras.  Land Rover is a trash company, paying amateurs to shoot their ad campaigns on crop frame cameras, can't believe their nerve, selling out and hiring a DWAC like Zack Arias to shoot an ad campaign on a child's camera like a FUJI APS-C system.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 30, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> David Hobby and Zack Arias are no longer professionals I guess, using those trash crop frame cameras.  Land Rover is a trash company, paying amateurs to shoot their ad campaigns on crop frame cameras, can't believe their nerve, selling out and hiring a DWAC like Zack Arias to shoot an ad campaign on a child's camera like a FUJI APS-C system.


Everyone knows Zack is a hack!


----------



## ronlane (Mar 30, 2015)

KenC said:


> There will always be some situations which can't be handled without special equipment, e.g., a close shot of the play at second base, a photo of a rare insect that's about 1 cm long, etc., so for these it would be difficult to claim you are a pro without the necessary equipment.  However, with a 50 mm lens on a crop body and a lot of talent one could produce amazing portraits, which is probably the most frequent job a photographer gets hired to do.



I think I understand the point you are making. However, I could easily be a professional photographer without having the equipment to shoot an action scene like a play at second or a macro lens to shoot a flower. (Although, I could free lens that last one with good results) If my chosen genre was portraits, and that  is all I did, then I would have no reason to own the other equipment.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

I'm with Ron on this one.

"Professional" does *not* mean "I own ALL the equipment necessary to produce ANY type of photo imaginable".

How often does a wedding photographer need to shoot a macro at 10:1?  Does a studio-based portrait photographer _really _need an 800mm/f.5.6?  If shooting wildlife out in the sticks is what puts a roof over your head, what good is a fisheye lens?


----------



## gsgary (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


You will be saying next you can't be a pro and shoot film


----------



## chuasam (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> most pros dont use crop bodies. while in some cases the difference in the equipment is negligible viewing a image, in others it is all too apparent.  Is this even arguable? How many pros use crop bodies. 1 in 500? There clearly must be a reason for this and why the differentiation between a consumer body and a pro body. So yeah, it is based on the image. But the image is reflective of what equipment shot it to a extent.


and I am wondering where you pulled out those statistics?
I have many friends who shoot professional with crop sensors. Quite a few favour the new Fujifilm X system. I wish I could shoot with a µ4/3rds system a lot of the time. I have a full frame camera as a progression from a Nikon FE to F100 to D70s to D300 and then D700 and finally I am using a D810. It was not a conscious decision to get a Fx system. It was a progression and using the lenses along the way. 
The camera is a minor minor part of your equation. Depending on the kind of photography you pursue, an Fx might even be detrimental. 

I'm going on my vacation soon and what camera will I be using? 





In decent lighting conditions, I have found the Lumix GM1 to produce more than adequate vacation photographs. 
It matches perfectly with my iPad Mini Retina and I love not carrying stuff.

Back to my meanderings. I'm a professional portrait photographer. Where does my money go? The lighting, the studio, the networking to get the clients I want. Sometimes a silly client will ask nervously "hey is that a good camera?" I invariable say: oh it'll do the job.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


Dont get me wrong, I know well enough the better equipment you have the better you can do your job and the chances of you getting results your client will be happy with increase but that doesn't mean you cant get results your client is happy with coming form the most basic equipment.
The bottom line is how happy the client is, if client is happy with results he/she doesn't care if it was shot with a D3100 or D810.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> You will be saying next you can't be a pro and shoot film


Film ?
What's film ?
Remind me, I think its these old cameras you put something in the back of them and if you open it then something goes wrong, I wish I could remember, its all blurry to me.
19th century tech I believe :-0


----------



## Overread (Mar 30, 2015)

A professional uses the equipment and skills that they have to produce a product/supply a service for the client. 

Within that you've got your budget pros - your advanced pros - your high class - your top rate- your bottom rate - your top skill - your bottom skill - your hasbeens willbeens mightbeans and broadbeans. 


In general few professionals can afford to start out with a full studio of gear that is 100% THE BEST. Each professional makes choices as to what they can and can't afford and to what is important; specifically within the lines of work that they produce. Now it is true that any lens can nearly do any subject (within reason) so long as the photographer is creative; but when producing a product for a client within a niche of the market chances are there's a small selection of gear that is suited to that task.

The pro will decide what is most important (a sport pro will likely sink money into a top long focal length lens - then a high end body - and then any lighting gear - heck chances are they might sink money into an on-site laptop and assistant first so that shots are proceed and ready to be sold/sent to newspapers/websites).



Crop sensor is just another kind of sensor and 35mm (fullframe), whilst the most common overall, (so long as we refer to pros) is not the be-all and end-all. Indeed within some niches its a minority where medium or large format might dominate. Crop sensor also has situations where it doesn't matter so much. And some pros will use several different formats. 


Yes we'd all love to have and use the best, be it as a hobby or a profession. When its a profession you have to ask yourself what limitations the gear will give you and then if those limitations will prevent you producing a product of a quality that you and your clients desire. If the answer is that it will have serious limitations then chances are you might have to either save longer or adapt - eg you might limit your products on offer to those where your gear can produce a good quality product and use the profits to expand into other areas as you go (remembering that no pro does it all). 




The whole argument of what make a pro is inconsequential. A pro is a pro and until some major organisation comes along at a national level and imposes itself as the gate-keeper to the title then pro will continue to be a loose definition of a working photographer. (and most arguments pertaining to it will mostly revolve around people trying to come up with a definition that lets them exclude those they dislike and include those they like)


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 30, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > Bresson produced myriads of superb photos using a little Leica and a 50mm lens, Ansel Adams sold photos he took with a Polaroid SX-70.  Picasso produced intricate, and beautiful murals composed of a single unbroken line drawn with a piece of charcoal.   Care to argue against this:  The only thing necessary is TALENT, not the instrument
> ...




Oh c'mon!  Admit it.  You don't have an inkling as to what I was talking about.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> Oh c'mon!  Admit it.  You don't have an inkling as to what I was talking about.



I have no idea what you're talking about with ***this*** post, though I am quite sure in your other post you were meaning to imply that a Leica and a SX-70 weren't considered great cameras in their time (or even today), which is just false. 

And putting all that aside, all the talent in the world won't make you a successful photographer without some of the right gear.  Your statement "The only thing necessary is TALENT, not the instrument" is false.  It takes having talent and the right tools for the job.  Some genres of photography are less demanding of gear, some are more demanding.  Try to be a professional sports photographer without at least $3000 in gear...  The spaces in which the games are played, and the requirements of the genre demand having a certain level of equipment.  Try being an indoor portrait photographer who makes his or her living with it without some minimum level of lighting equipment (or specially oriented studio such that the natural light is just right).  Try being a professional wildlife photographer with an SX 70.  Try being a product photographer without the requisite lighting gear.  Try being a commercial photographer with a point and shoot.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Better equipment is the benchmark for being a professional because professionals know that better equipment is better so they buy it to have better images.
> ...


I actually do sometimes, depending on what they are being hired to do.  In fact in some businesses proof of equipment and availability of equipment is required just to bid on the job. Just like proof of insurance and comp.


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 30, 2015)

Professional equipment might not be required, but in most cases it can make life a whole lot better. I can build a house with and hammer and a hand saw but they'd be calling "Popeye the Broke Builder"


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I actually do sometimes, depending on what they are being hired to do.  In fact in some businesses proof of equipment and availability of equipment is required just to bid on the job. Just like proof of insurance and comp.



If you hire someone to hang a new front door on your house, I seriously doubt whether you ask if they use a Johnson level or a CheckPoint.

Yes, in B2B high-dollar contracts, asking whether a business has the hardware wherewithall to git-er-done is SOP.  

But I'm asking about the pro YOU PERSONALLY hire.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I actually do sometimes, depending on what they are being hired to do.  In fact in some businesses proof of equipment and availability of equipment is required just to bid on the job. Just like proof of insurance and comp.
> ...


That IS some of the people i hired.
But if you want to narrow it down to a smaller version. I can hire a guy to do metal trim. I would ask what he has for a brake. Sure, a cheap brake COULD work.  In fact you can hang metal with no brake at all if you really want to. But in hiring someone it sure give me a idea of who i am hiring and the quality of the job i can expect. It weeds out the jokers while also giving a idea of at least a minimum standard of work.  I had a tree taken down that would have most definitely fell on my house (otherwise i would have taken it down myself). You can bet your azz i asked if they had a boom truck.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 30, 2015)

The only thing that matters is the client's satisfaction. Period. A bunch of full-frame shooting pros on an internet forum (of which I am one) might tell you that you have to use a full-frame body to truly be a pro, but that's nonsense. You don't. If your clients are happy with what you're providing with a 1.6 crop body, more power to ya', ya' pro, you.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> by your own definition, every stay at home mom or dad that shoots mini sessions for $30 is a pro.
> since photography is 100% of their income, it clearly goes well over your 50% rule.



There are a TON of people that fall into this category, and from what I have gathered, most of them use crop bodies,either Canon or Nikon. I see many of them on Facebook, selling family photo sessions and high school senior photos, as well as maternity and new baby sessions--often priced at $30 to $40 for all images on disc. 

A TPF member earlier this week showed me a sample from one such "pro" whose low-low price enticed a new mom and dad to entrust *Facebook Pro Bettina's Photography & Memories* (not the real name of the business) with family photos that had the worst background, worst posing, worst lighting, and worst post-processing I have seen in YEARS, on their newborn family session. Ohhh, gosh, the level of suckage was high! It is a total shame that the new mom and dad did not elect to go with the TPF member, who could have shot better pics with one arm tied behind her back. I expect the new mother and father payed Facebook Pro Bettina's Photography & Memories about $40 for the pictures.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I had a tree taken down that would have most definitely fell on my house (otherwise i would have taken it down myself). You can bet your azz i asked if they had a boom truck.



Yeah.  They had a truck.  Just like a photographer has a camera.

But WHAT KIND of truck did they have?  What _brand_? Ford? Chevy? Dodge? Freightliner?  Did you ask if it's 2-wheel drive or 4-wheel drive?  1-ton?  2-ton? 3-ton? What is the engine displacement?  Dual rear axle? What name is on the bucket system? Altec?  Duralift?  HiLine? VersaLift?  What is the maximum working height? 30 feet?  35? 40? 50? Is it an articulating system?  If so, how many knuckles are there?  Is the final arm extending?  What about their chain saws?  Were they going to use Poulans? Stihl? Husqvarna?  Did you inquire about the blade size?  16" 20"? 24"?  30"?


Nope.... you just asked if they had _the gear_ to do the job.

Next you're gonna tell us when you go do a fancy, high-falutin' restaurant you ask whether the stoves are 10-burner or 12.  Are the refrigeration units SubZero or Viking? Are the chef's knives made of Damascus steel?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I had a tree taken down that would have most definitely fell on my house (otherwise i would have taken it down myself). You can bet your azz i asked if they had a boom truck.
> ...


lol. i just asked how high the lift went.

i think this comes down to, in good lighting you can shoot a decent shot with most cameras. It doesn't have to be a full frame. Camera.. however......
What usually separates the "pros" in any field is years experience and equipment held.  People notice equipment as part a determining factor. If photography is your line of work, and that is the main tool for that line of work.  Then i can't see why it wouldnt be expected that your invested some capital into your business equipment including your MAIN  tool. I don't know too many people that cut down trees with cheapo chainsaw. i dont know too many carpenters that have tool boxes that probably cost more then what most people actually have invested in their actual tools. And i wouldnt expect someone in the software industry to be using a 199 dollar big box laptop special to work with. And i wouldn't expect a pro photography (least one i am willing to hire) to show up with a camera that costs him less than my own. Pros, use pro equipment. And in photography (here comes a big insult not intended) dropping ten k in equipment is PEANUTS for a startup business. Having a heart, i assume some people dont have much money. I would still expect them to show up with at least used pro gear. Most people in any field that are actually pros, tend to amass some pro equipment. They aren't running a business on a piddly 1500 investment.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

I guess pros should proudly hang their gear on the wall just like they display images.


----------



## KenC (Mar 30, 2015)

ronlane said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > There will always be some situations which can't be handled without special equipment, e.g., a close shot of the play at second base, a photo of a rare insect that's about 1 cm long, etc., so for these it would be difficult to claim you are a pro without the necessary equipment.  However, with a 50 mm lens on a crop body and a lot of talent one could produce amazing portraits, which is probably the most frequent job a photographer gets hired to do.
> ...



I thought that's what I was saying, but I guess I wasn't clear.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I guess pros should proudly hang their gear on the wall just like they display images.


i wouldn't go that far. But it is normal. If you want anyone to take you seriously you have to invest in your business and yourself and take yourself seriously. 
Photography this out look is a little less common. Because it has a lower barrier to entry and hey "everyone can take a photo" people seem to think they can buy a thousand dollars in gear and hang a shingle. Which sure, they can. But you can tell by who hires them how serious they are really being taken. In most other industries this probably isn't so common. Even someone in ground maint is dropping ten k down for a walker mower. In most professions dropping bucks on your equipment is s.o.p.  The entire crop sensor phenomenon in this thread seems primarily a photography trait where people hang shingles with paper staples apparently.. I would be more inclined to ask why they don't have TWO full frames, a crop sensor and maybe even a mirrorless kicking around. People that do work professionally usually have some chit it goes with the territory..And it makes sense, because this is what they DO.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I guess pros should proudly hang their gear on the wall just like they display images.
> ...



In my *31 years* as an electrician, _NOT ONCE_ has anyone asked what tools I use.  Ever.  They don't care if I use quality tools like Ideal, Greenlee, Klein, or Knipex, or crap tools like Craftsman, S-K, Vermont American or Harbor Freight.  

That's because they don't care.  It's as simple as that.  Why?  They're hiring ME, not my tools. *I* am the one who performs the work, not my tools.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


hang on... nope. Never hired a electrician. My old man was one. Kind of a different thing. You have to be certified and work with hand tools and meters mostly dont you? I don't think i would ask a electrician. The certification process for them, on top of the fact they haven't electrocuted themselves yet seems plenty.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> hang on... nope. Never hired a electrician. My old man was one. Kind of a different thing. You have to be certified and work with hand tools and meters mostly dont you? I don't think i would ask a electrician. The certification process for them, on top of the fact they haven't electrocuted themselves yet seems plenty.



Really? What's different?  Is your barber licensed?  How about your doctor?  Your dentist?  Your kids' daycare provider?  Aren't they all 'certified'?  How about the tree service you hired?  Weren't they somehow 'certified'?  

Or is 'not getting killed by having a tree fall on them' good enough for you?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > hang on... nope. Never hired a electrician. My old man was one. Kind of a different thing. You have to be certified and work with hand tools and meters mostly dont you? I don't think i would ask a electrician. The certification process for them, on top of the fact they haven't electrocuted themselves yet seems plenty.
> ...


tree service was certified arborist.  Are you saying we should require all photographers to become certified, like a one year program before they are allowed to apply for a business license?


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 30, 2015)

As a physician, not a single patient has ever asked what type of stethoscope I use. However, I also am fully aware of the limitations of a cheap one vs what I can hear with a high-end one. Could I get the job done with both? Sure, but better gear makes me a better doctor just like better gear can help make a better photographer.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> tree service was certified arborist.  Are you saying we should require all photographers to become certified, like a one year program before they are allowed to apply for a business license?



Not at all.  And frankly, I have no idea why you would even concieve such a notion from my posts.

I'm merely asking why it's fine to assume an electrician performs the job properly merely he hasn't gotten electrocuted, but one must grill an arborist even though they haven't had a tree fall on them and kill them.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > tree service was certified arborist.  Are you saying we should require all photographers to become certified, like a one year program before they are allowed to apply for a business license?
> ...


More schooling for a electrician. And a electrician uses primarily hand tools. Less concern. Reaching a tree that could fall on my house, bigger concern. Electricians have step programs. school, apprenticeship journeyman, license, more school and tests, master license. You are in the field you probably know more of it than i do.
comparing it to a joker that just picked up a camera at best buy, two very different worlds..


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I guess pros should proudly hang their gear on the wall just like they display images.



Hey now, just because I do that with my Hasselblads doesn't mean.... wait, yes, yes it does. Dammit.


As a pro, I've found I really only need one or two lenses for everything I do. I have yet to run into a real circumstance where I NEEDED a long tele or a wide prime. It's not about being cheap-it's about the challenge of working with that one lens.


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 30, 2015)

Like the OP, I currently am located in a low income country. There are many professional photographers here that use entry level DSLR cameras, often with the kit lens. These are often the same guys I have seen working for over twenty years, the ones that show up at the church to be hired on the spot to take shots of a baptism or such, hired for birthday parties and every so often a wedding. They take the shots, deliver the prints and get paid. 

Never seen one of them at a football game, those are usually covered by young guys from the newspapers with beat up company equipment, and these guys deliver what the paper wants. 

Then there are the local photo studios, again entry level camera and mid level lens, basic light set, backgrounds, props, photographer (more of a director of posing and shutter button pusher) and someone photoshopping before printing. Almost all they do are shots in the studio.

Makes sense, for me a pro knows what jobs to take and when to pass.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> More schooling for a electrician. And a electrician uses primarily hand tools. .........




Hmmm.  I didn't think derrick trucks, trenchers, tuggers, lifts, bucket trucks, cranes, demolition hammers, core drills, boring machines, cable locators and the like are considered hand tools.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > More schooling for a electrician. And a electrician uses primarily hand tools. .........
> ...


master commercial? What are you wiring office buildings? As you think you are winning this you may actually be losing. As you are dragging this to a level of qualifications way beyond what most photographers have. So maybe we should be even more inclined to check their equipment and ask for some credentials.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> master commercial? What are you wiring office buildings? As you think you are winning this you may actually be losing. As you are dragging this to a level of qualifications way beyond what most photographers have. So maybe we should be even more inclined to check their equipment and ask for some credentials.



I didn't realize this was a competition.  I thought it was a discussion about the gear pros use.

I guess I'm outclassed here. I'll leave quietly then.


----------



## tecboy (Mar 30, 2015)

Olivia Bee is a pro. But, I don't know what body she is using.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > master commercial? What are you wiring office buildings? As you think you are winning this you may actually be losing. As you are dragging this to a level of qualifications way beyond what most photographers have. So maybe we should be even more inclined to check their equipment and ask for some credentials.
> ...


not at all it is fun. I don't know any pros that shoot crop sensor unless they are shooting wildlife. But that goes by what your definition of pro is. If i include mwacs, dwacs, people that started last year and came up with a website this year then yes, some of them use crop sensors. I don't know of anyone "established" in business that does. Doesn't mean they don't exist as apparent from the posts above. Just in the little pond i live in i haven't heard of any.


----------



## syaudi (Mar 30, 2015)

case in point, I have a semi-pro Canon 5DIII, and I'm being hired as a second on-location photographer by someone who uses a Rebel with what appears to be kit lens. she can't afford anything else, so she worked with her equipment and now she can produce images as beautiful - in some cases even more so than - as the images I can produce. and I have an array of L-series lens I can borrow at no cost.
equipment certainly does help, but imo the photographer is the one a client is paying for, not the equipment. if they wanted equipment there's myriad rental websites online.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > Oh c'mon!  Admit it.  You don't have an inkling as to what I was talking about.
> ...


3000 is no where near enough to be a sports photographer I had more than treble that


----------



## gsgary (Mar 31, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I actually do sometimes, depending on what they are being hired to do.  In fact in some businesses proof of equipment and availability of equipment is required just to bid on the job. Just like proof of insurance and comp.
> ...


I hang doors day in day out and don't know what a johnson level or checkpoint is, I use Stabila and PLS lazer levels


----------



## gsgary (Mar 31, 2015)

I've just realised I became a professional motorcycle rider last year when I was paid to rush a passport to the airport and I also help people pass their advanced motorcycle test, I must put this on my next CV


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

gsgary said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Didereaux said:
> ...


 I agree $3000 probably isn't enough in most scenarios. But I purposefully went as conservative as possible so nobody would try to find some crazy stretch that might half way get the job done.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

A "professional" is someone who'll use what he needs to use in order to do the job.

If I'm shooting wildlife or sports, a crop sensor is certainly beneficial. But if I'm shooting a wedding (which I would actually never do), I would use a full-frame. In some instances, like concert photography, I use both. I have never had a client ask me if my camera was full-frame or a crop sensor.

If the OP is providing his clients images that they're happy with, that's the only thing that matters. How he went about making those images is secondary to anyone but people who frequent photography forums on the internet.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

I shoot clients headshots with a 50mm on a D90. They love them. Am I unprofessional because I can't yet afford a D750 and an 85?


----------



## waday (Mar 31, 2015)




----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> I shoot clients headshots with a 50mm on a D90. They love them. Am I unprofessional because I can't yet afford a D750 and an 85?


i will say you are a professional anyway just because i like you. If you were someone else though i would say you suck and need a better camera.. i am totally biased.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 31, 2015)

90% of your clients do not know the difference between Full Frame and crop sensor. Hell, half of them do not know what sensor is.  They will judge you by your attitude and how confident you are in what you are doing. And, of course, by the images you are able to produce. 
I have heard a story from a pro who did his portrait job with his Nikon D3 recently and was told by the client that he was using outdated gear, because modern cameras are small and compact.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 31, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> I shoot clients headshots with a 50mm on a D90. They love them. Am I unprofessional because I can't yet afford a D750 and an 85?


Do you depend on your photography for your income?


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

chuasam said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot clients headshots with a 50mm on a D90. They love them. Am I unprofessional because I can't yet afford a D750 and an 85?
> ...



In less than a month I will be.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 31, 2015)

This post is aimed squarely at the yuppie(judges all things by cost) wannabe taken as a pro photographer...of which there seems to be one or two in this thread.   If a PRO does not have the equipment they feel necessary for a given job they RENT it.   The wannabes go out and put there entire bankroll on very expensive gear they will probably never need, but which they can hold up as proof of their superiority over others who are actually working, successful pros.  These people fool only other fools.   NO successful and profitable contractor owns high-end specialty equipment that they only use occasionally...they rent and lease.  It's called money management, it is how they stay in business.

Want to impress me?  Go out and land a high paying gig,  rent the extra gear you may need, produce a high quality product, and pocket the profits.   Want to make me fall down laughing?  Go out and max your credit on top end gear then hang your shingle proclaiming you are a professional.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2015)

Everybody is so angry.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 31, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > W.Y.Photo said:
> ...


Congrats! You're soon to be a pro. IMHO, pros have back up bodies and have to put money aside to upgrade their equipment periodically.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2015)

All this "pro" talk reminds me of talking about losing your virginity in high school. Everyone pretended to know what it was like but no one actually knew.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

runnah said:


> Everybody is so angry.



It's TPF's period sync week.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> This post is aimed squarely at the yuppie(judges all things by cost) wannabe taken as a pro photographer...of which there seems to be one or two in this thread.   If a PRO does not have the equipment they feel necessary for a given job they RENT it.   The wannabes go out and put there entire bankroll on very expensive gear they will probably never need, but which they can hold up as proof of their superiority over others who are actually working, successful pros.  These people fool only other fools.   NO successful and profitable contractor owns high-end specialty equipment that they only use occasionally...they rent and lease.  It's called money management, it is how they stay in business.
> 
> Want to impress me?  Go out and land a high paying gig,  rent the extra gear you may need, produce a high quality product, and pocket the profits.   Want to make me fall down laughing?  Go out and max your credit on top end gear then hang your shingle proclaiming you are a professional.



That's the single best, and by far the most accurate, post in this entire thread.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> This post is aimed squarely at the yuppie(judges all things by cost) wannabe taken as a pro photographer...of which there seems to be one or two in this thread.   If a PRO does not have the equipment they feel necessary for a given job they RENT it.   The wannabes go out and put there entire bankroll on very expensive gear they will probably never need, but which they can hold up as proof of their superiority over others who are actually working, successful pros.  These people fool only other fools.   NO successful and profitable contractor owns high-end specialty equipment that they only use occasionally...they rent and lease.  It's called money management, it is how they stay in business.
> 
> Want to impress me?  Go out and land a high paying gig,  rent the extra gear you may need, produce a high quality product, and pocket the profits.   Want to make me fall down laughing?  Go out and max your credit on top end gear then hang your shingle proclaiming you are a professional.


this makes sense. Except how does a photographer only use a camera occasionally when they are a photographer.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

runnah said:


> All this "pro" talk reminds me of talking about losing your virginity in high school. Everyone pretended to know what it was like but no one actually knew.



Damn, that's funny.

LOL!


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Except how does a photographer only use a camera occasionally when they are a photographer.



I suspect he was referring primarily to lenses.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> This post is aimed squarely at the yuppie(judges all things by cost) wannabe taken as a pro photographer...of which there seems to be one or two in this thread.   If a PRO does not have the equipment they feel necessary for a given job they RENT it.   The wannabes go out and put there entire bankroll on very expensive gear they will probably never need, but which they can hold up as proof of their superiority over others who are actually working, successful pros.  These people fool only other fools.   NO successful and profitable contractor owns high-end specialty equipment that they only use occasionally...they rent and lease.  It's called money management, it is how they stay in business.
> 
> Want to impress me?  Go out and land a high paying gig,  rent the extra gear you may need, produce a high quality product, and pocket the profits.   Want to make me fall down laughing?  Go out and max your credit on top end gear then hang your shingle proclaiming you are a professional.



This is how it's done in the video world. Any equipment that is purchased is payed for by charging clients a "rental" fee. This fee covers the purchase an future replacement of any purchased equipment.

Everything else is rented.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > This post is aimed squarely at the yuppie(judges all things by cost) wannabe taken as a pro photographer...of which there seems to be one or two in this thread.   If a PRO does not have the equipment they feel necessary for a given job they RENT it.   The wannabes go out and put there entire bankroll on very expensive gear they will probably never need, but which they can hold up as proof of their superiority over others who are actually working, successful pros.  These people fool only other fools.   NO successful and profitable contractor owns high-end specialty equipment that they only use occasionally...they rent and lease.  It's called money management, it is how they stay in business.
> ...


he is just a yuppie hater. And since half the enthusiasts that can blow ten k on camera equipment and not make money at it are yuppies that is a huge percentage of the photographic community. Even some of the soccer moms are sporting 4k in gear.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

And while said soccer mom with her 4K gear is on the sideline, standing up. I have my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 and monopod sitting on the ground on the end line getting the shot of her kid with a lot cleaner background composition.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2015)

bribrius said:


> he is just a yuppie hater. And since half the enthusiasts that can blow ten k on camera equipment and not make money at it are yuppies that is a huge percentage of the photographic community. Even some of the soccer moms are sporting 4k in gear.



Big difference between an enthusiast and working "pro".

Bored housewife with disposable income is not a "pro".


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

runnah said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > he is just a yuppie hater. And since half the enthusiasts that can blow ten k on camera equipment and not make money at it are yuppies that is a huge percentage of the photographic community. Even some of the soccer moms are sporting 4k in gear.
> ...


but she took photos of her neighbors kids for 20 bucks. I dunno... The line here seems very vague.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

ronlane said:


> And while said soccer mom with her 4K gear is on the sideline, standing up. I have my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 and monopod sitting on the ground on the end line getting the shot of her kid with a lot cleaner background composition.


Maybe. Maybe not. I can't slam the soccer moms, some (some)may be quite good. Just like i wouldn't put all mwacs and dwacs in the same basket.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 31, 2015)

Sparky, that's brilliant.

(edit... in reference to the hazardous tools post, #14)

As for tools, the rule is to use the appropriate tool to get the job done.  Some days it's the $0.25 doohickey, and sometimes it's the $25,000 granfarther.  Oh, and the knowledge to know when to use which.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

bribrius said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > And while said soccer mom with her 4K gear is on the sideline, standing up. I have my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 and monopod sitting on the ground on the end line getting the shot of her kid with a lot cleaner background composition.
> ...



I agree SOME are really good. My jab was the "standing" and "sideline" parts. I saw that Sunday when a mom was standing up shooting down on the kids playing from the sideline, where I was, as mentioned sitting on the end line shooting at the same level or a little up on them.

Granted, I didn't see her photos, but we pretty much know what that the composition wasn't the best they could have been.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 31, 2015)

Ron's onto something.  The better the photographer, the better they usually control the background.  Regardless of which format camera they are holding.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Ron's onto something.  The better the photographer, the better they usually control the background.  Regardless of which format camera they are holding.



Truth. Maybe "professional" status should be given by judging background composition. The less distracting a photographers backgrounds, the more "pro" cookies they get. 

I mean, there is a reason Richard Avedon is one of the most well known photographers of all time afterall. He knew exactly what to exclude from all of his images. He should get all the cookies.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Ron's onto something.  The better the photographer, the better they usually control the background.  Regardless of which format camera they are holding.
> ...


If all mwacs and dwacs had a 50mp to crop to their hearts content with a pro editing program most of these issues could be solved. They just need better gear.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

elephant in the room. The more you spend in equipment the easier it is. But we won't talk about that...


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

bribrius said:


> elephant in the room. The more you spend in equipment the easier it is. But we won't talk about that...



Yes, but not always. Because certain crappy cameras like disposable film cameras have a certain aesthetic that a nice film slr or dslr can't reproduce.

I guess if you spend enough to own every piece of photography gear on the planet, then it would really make it easy to make any style of image you want.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

I can't agree with that fully bribrius.  It's just like computer programming, "crap in, crap out".

You still have to know how to use it, even when turning it on and putting it in "Pro" mode.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

ronlane said:


> I can't agree with that fully bribrius.  It's just like computer programming, "crap in, crap out".
> 
> You still have to know how to use it, even when turning it on and putting it in "Pro" mode.



I forgot my camera had Pro mode!! Thanks for reminding me. Now I'm definitely going to be making the big bucks.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

You go William, rake it all in before it goes away.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 31, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > W.Y.Photo said:
> ...



Have you got a soup kitchen near by


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2015)

ronlane said:


> I can't agree with that fully bribrius.  It's just like computer programming, "crap in, crap out".
> 
> You still have to know how to use it, even when turning it on and putting it in "Pro" mode.


we shouldn't discuss this. i wouldn't want anyones earth shattered thinking they are getting better when they really just bought a better lens and camera. Plus all those people shooting crappy shots on crappy cameras we want them to keep believing we really have more talent and is isnt the extra few k invested.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 31, 2015)

ronlane said:


> And while said soccer mom with her 4K gear is on the sideline, standing up. I have my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 and monopod sitting on the ground on the end line getting the shot of her kid with a lot cleaner background composition.



Monopod with a 70-200F4 looks very unprofessional, a 300F2.8L should be on the monopod and 70-200 would be hand held


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

gsgary said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > And while said soccer mom with her 4K gear is on the sideline, standing up. I have my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 and monopod sitting on the ground on the end line getting the shot of her kid with a lot cleaner background composition.
> ...



You are right, but I never said I was a pro. I'm just a hobbyist and that's what I have. All my money goes to keep that boy in soccer and the girl in competitive cheer. And since he is 6 and plying on a small field, I don't need more reach than a 70-200 on a crop camera.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 31, 2015)

ronlane said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...


Using a 70-200 on a monopod is very restrictive and slow


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

How so? I don't seem to have any issues with it. (The kids aren't that fast.)


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 31, 2015)

I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod.  (I think that's what he's thinking)

But, you never know if someone has shoulder or arm or back issues etc.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 31, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod.  (I think that's what he's thinking)
> 
> But, you never know if someone has shoulder or arm or back issues etc.



It is light weight and wouldn't be that hard to hand hold. I find it comfortable on the monopod when I'm sitting down there. And to me it's security that I'm not getting camera shake. (Yes, I use fast shutter speeds to avoid this too).

In a nut shell, it's my personal preference to use it. I have it, it doesn't bother me, so why not.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 31, 2015)

ronlane said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod.  (I think that's what he's thinking)
> ...


 
"personal preference"  BINGO   Final answer do not phone a friend!


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

gsgary said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Lmao, no, but I can stock up on plenty of Ramen for the hard times.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Mar 31, 2015)

I happen to live in country the OP seems to be located in, if  the location bit under the her profile summary is accurate, and it's not some kind of medieval backwater far from it, although politicians never change.


Derrel is correct with what he said but how did McGyver manage with no tools.


----------



## jamiebonline (Mar 31, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> I happen to live in country the OP seems to be located in, if  the location bit under the her profile summary is accurate, and it's not some kind of medieval backwater far from it, although politicians never change.



Hey, it's me the OP. I am not in Ireland  I am just from there. I am living in Eastern Europe. Salaries are very low and pay for photographers too. Hence it takes a long time to build up a collection of gear. If I save now, I might have a D750 by Christmas. If that's worth investing in.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2015)

jamiebonline said:
			
		

> If I save now, I might have a D750 by Christmas. If that's worth investing in.


There's a good question sort of hidden in there: is the D750 worth its price? You know, it has a great sensor, and a wonderful feature set, but I have not taken one out and shot an assignment with it. I have demo'd it twice at BestBuy, both times with the 24-120 f/4 AF-S VR lens, in moderate, indoor lighting conditions. The camera feels light, small, compact, comfortable in the hand, but you know, to "me" the viewfinder feels small, and not quite up to what I am used to...I feel the same way about the D600, D7100, and D610 viewfinders...I'm used to the old, pro Nikon bodies, which have crisp, sharp, clear viewfinder images. Is that something that's important in your kind of work?

I dunno...you know, I have always preferred the camera with the BEST viewfinder for use with my eyeglasses ON. To me, that means F3HP, D1,D1h,D2x,D3x...Canon 5D is decent too...the small-body cameras like D200 and Fuji S5 Pro have small, crop-frame sized finder images, made on much cheaper bodies...there's a difference between looking through the viewfinder and being able to actually SEE the focusing state (IN? or OUT?) and to SEE the expressions of the faces of people, and looking through the viewfinder and counting on the AF system to focus, and sort of using the finder as a vague, generalized guideline as to the frame area. To me, that's what the sony A7 viewfinder was like (not good enough to literally SEE what was happening on portraiture at 7 feet with the factory standard zoom lens with AF, and to me that's what the D750 viewfinder image looks like: small, not 100% top-quality, decent, but noticeable nowhere near as good as a D3 or D4 or Canon 5D class image through the finder...

Bottom line: I would consider a pair of used D3s bodies over owning just one D750 for stills work. I dunno...a lot depends on how much you value the viewfinder as a tool for your photography. If you have never used a flagship-level camera, this might not resonate with you, but the viewfinder difference is the MAIN difference between a $5000 to $8000 Nikon body, and the D800 or D700 or D750, and the D600,D610,while the D90,D300,,D7100,D7000 have another notch down in the viewfinder, and then there are the D5xxx and D3xxx and the Canon Rebels...the pentamirror cameras have tiny, average finder images--I find those cameras very difficult to use when expression is critical, or when manually or hand-and-eye focusing or peak action is a big component of success or failure.

There's an entirely new generation of people using Live View..and building a camera with a sub-par viewfinder is not a total deal-breaker for the set of people who will use the camera with Live View, or tripod-mounted on static subjects. There's more than one way to use a camera, and some of the cheap-o bodies with God-awful viewfinders now have 3.0 inch or even 3.2-inch high-res Live View images that can offset their crap viewfinder images...for SOME types of work, or for video shooting.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 31, 2015)

if they're not going to pay much, they better not be expecting top of the line gear.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 1, 2015)

ronlane said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...


you too? i paid a hundred bucks for track sneakers yesterday. Once you have kids it never ends..


----------



## DandL (Apr 1, 2015)

Overread said:


> ...The whole argument of what make a pro is inconsequential. A pro is a pro and until some major organisation comes along at a national level and imposes itself as the gate-keeper to the title then pro will continue to be a loose definition of a working photographer. (and most arguments pertaining to it will mostly revolve around people trying to come up with a definition that lets them exclude those they dislike and include those they like)



^^^ QFT.  I have a hard time understanding why people get so worked up about a title or label. I used to make my living as a carpenter, but I never labeled myself as a "professional" carpenter. Now I make my living as a computer tech. I don't label myself as a "professional" computer technician. If I sell a few portraits, or photograph a few weddings, why should I be concerned whether or not I'm considered a "professional" photographer? If I made 100% of my income as a photographer, why should I be concerned about the title?  What difference does it make? As long as my customers are happy with the quality of my work, and they continue to pay me for it, does it really matter if I'm considered a "professional" photographer? 

Why do people get so hung up on being called a "professional" photographer? I don't get it...


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Apr 1, 2015)

DandL said:


> As long as my customers are happy with the quality of my work, and they continue to pay me for it, does it really matter if I'm considered a "professional" photographer?



Well, it _could_.

I'm a "professional photographer" in every sense. If someone were to ask me if I were a "professional", and I said "No", how do I know that they weren't asking because they needed to hire one? If I don't consider myself a "professional", why would I expect my clients (who are fabulous in the "word of mouth advertising" category), to do it?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 1, 2015)

pros would use DX bodies if they ever made a D400


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 1, 2015)

Braineack said:


> pros would use DX bodies if they ever made a D400 [emoji14]


Dont need to wait. Plenty of pros used, and still use, D300's.


----------



## otherprof (Apr 1, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro
> ...


Didn't you misspell "crap"?


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 1, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> DandL said:
> 
> 
> > As long as my customers are happy with the quality of my work, and they continue to pay me for it, does it really matter if I'm considered a "professional" photographer?
> ...


 
But he already has the customers that are happy with his work and then no longer considers the label important.  Now before they saw your work can be a whole different subject.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 1, 2015)

defining "professional" is like defining "art"...
you just have to look at it and decide for yourself. 

Ive never really completely understood the gear elitist attitude towards the definition of a professional though...
I know people that made their entire living off photography using a 5D classic and 40D. 
we see plenty of exemplary photographic works posted here using older gear, like the 5D classic, and fantastic sports shots that were done with DX canon bodies and MF lenses. how are those people any less a "pro" than people doing the same thing or less, but with more expensive gear? Is it because they NEED the more expensive gear to get the same results? Would my portraits be better if I shot with a D800 instead of a D600? (i really have no idea, but if someone wants to send me their D800 i would gladly test the theory)

Im always surprised when people scoff at new photographers that are looking to get started with older gear like the 5D or 5DII. (or the D3 or D700 on the nikon end) when the 5D was released late 2005, it was the favored camera for wedding photographers shooting canon. I don't see why it would be any less effective a wedding camera now than it was then. sure there are better cameras out now, but having a better model available does not negate the previous models effectiveness. 
If you doubt me, just look at some of what has been posted recently using a canon 5D and then try to say it doesn't produce professional results. 

I don't have a definition for "professional" any more than I do for "art", but in both cases, I am fairly confident I will know it when I see it.


----------



## MikeFlorendo (Apr 2, 2015)

If it works don't get hung up on labels.  There is nothing wrong with a crop sensor.  Break from the mold and use what you can afford that works.  I was told no one takes good pictures there first year.  I was told you can't shoot the Milky Way at iso 800.  The boat was shot at iso 800.  Both photos were shot the first six months I started shooting.  These were shot on the Nikon D5200 which is a crop sensor.  The boat has been in juried gallery shows and the wave photo was a daily Frame on Riptide Bodyboarding Magazines website.  Am I a pro?  Well when people ask I just say I am a photographer and they can decide for themselves.  

If you like the results of whatever camera you use and your clients are happy does it matter?


----------



## Mark Upfield (Apr 9, 2015)

Sp crop sensor vs full frame argument!!! I have and will continue to shoot my cropped sensor, i am a full time landscape photographer and have no issues... My clients don't need to know what I use or how I use it, if they like the images they buy. My workshop clients find it amazing that you can do so much with a d7000, yep my baby of choice!!


----------



## Roger3006 (Jun 24, 2015)

I am late to the party but I have to throw in my two cents.

Everyone starts someplace and it is not at the top with the best equipment money can buy.

You answered your question when you started the thread. If your clients are happy and you are getting paid the answer is yes but not ideal. You are limited in what you can do.

From a conservative business standpoint, expand your equipment inventory as your business grows.   What you think you need now and and what you will want a year from now will most likely be different.

I have a D7100. I also have a D800. Fitted with good glass I can achieve good results with the D7100. Assuming you are using the same quality lens and you are not enlarging your images the size of a barn door, your clients would not be able to tell much if any difference between images shot with the D7100 and D800.

Will you want to upgrade to a FX or medium format in the future?  Probably so. Will you want more and better lenses?  Yep.

Next will apply no matter what you are doing. Study and master your craft. Work hard. Sell yourself and your product. Work hard. Always have an upbeat and positive perspective. Work hard. Do the above mentioned things and your equipment needs will take care of themselves. Did I mention work hard?

The quality of a professional's work is measured by how much money someone will pay for it.  Shooting good images is great and takes talent. Making money as a professional photographer is whole different ball game.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 24, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod.  (I think that's what he's thinking)
> 
> But, you never know if someone has shoulder or arm or back issues etc.



right, you should be able to easily hold a 70-200 f/4


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jun 25, 2015)

Mark Upfield said:


> Sp crop sensor vs full frame argument!!! I have and will continue to shoot my cropped sensor, i am a full time landscape photographer and have no issues... *My clients don't need to know what I use or how I use it, if they like the images they buy*. My workshop clients find it amazing that you can do so much with a d7000, yep my baby of choice!!



This statement ends all discussion. This is a fact. Not only don't clients know, they don't care. 99.9% of clients haven't a clue about crop or full frame.

This argument will _never _end among photographers. It's gotten to the point for me where it's just kind of humorous.

I firmly believe it's not the camera that takes a great photo. A great photographer is just exactly that, regardless of what hardware they're holding in their hands.


----------

