'Pro' Equipment

[grey.squirrel]

I think people are getting muddled in the difference between a Pro Tog and Pro Equipment.

I pro tog doesn't always have or need pro equipment, just as many members on here have pro equipment but aren't pro togs. The OP asked at what point is kit considered pro, and the answer isn't "When in the hands of a pro" but what Nikon says on their website lol.

My personal POV, if you're good, you're good no matter what.

 

[AliB]

To be frank, a starting out wedding photographer will be damn lucky to clear 15K in year 1

or year two or even three.

By the time you factor in kit, advertising, training and generally equipping a business it will be year three before I hit break even and year 5 before it's a properly profitable, sustainable business. But it will be well equipped and capable of sustaining business by then (well, that's the plan!)

Do I really need the pro kit to do the job?

For the type of images I shoot then yes I do. I much prefer to shoot using natural light and often that means pushing the ISO. So I get a lovely clean image right out of the D700.

I changed my kit over the winter because I found myself shooting in a regular location and I was at ISO 1600 f2 and could only get 1/60. I was right on the limit of what my kit could do. When I found that I was operating too close to the limits for my liking then I made the decision to invest in equipment that would not limit the images I could take. I'm the limiting factor, not my equipment

 

[Richard King]

not that flawed.... There are times when the best kit is discrete rangefinder or compact, and other times when the best kit would be a panoramic film camera, or a plate camera. If I brought a all terrain vehical, I could drive anywhere, but racing arround silverstone would be possible but futile, and parking at asda would be too. If I want to deliver a pallet of goods to you, a transit is the weapon of choice. Professionals in all fields have choices. Just like the professional courier buys a Transit, he still may choose a comfy car to deliver an envelope to the other side of Europe

 

[Arkady]

Just answer one question.

Does a professional wedding, studio or landscape photographer NEED what your definition of pro kit is?

They will - if they're doing any or all of those - and how many of us have the luxury to specialise in one genre unless we're very lucky...versatility, remember?
You might have budget kit that will serve on 90% of commissions, but what happens when you're offered something out of the box for silly money? It could happen.
Chances are if you turn down that offer, that client will never come back to you again - they'll stick with whoever they found to cover the job you turned down.

I have DSLR bodies for mainstrem work, a rangefinder for discrete work, medium format just in case a client asks for that and a range of fast, sharp, sturdy optics that covers all the bases from 14mm up to 200mm - the bare bones minimum for most jobs.

I'm currently bidding on a used Micro-Nikkor 105mm because there's a gap in my capabilities which I may need to fill - it's no good just saying 'hire what you need' I need to know the capabilities of every item of kit I use and you don't get that from the occasional use of hire equipment.

Most of my kit is second-hand now, but it's still Pro kit. It might be last years' pro kit, but there you are. D3 instead of D3s; 70-200 VR-I instead of VR-II etc etc...

I think - to go back to your question - if you can envisage a situation where you might need that kit - then as a professional photographer, you do need it.

 

[boyfalldown]

For shooting weddings and portraits, which is exactly what the OP is asking about, you really dont "NEED" the very latest lens or camera, just because it was Just released under the PRO tag. Some argue a Fuji S5 is the perfect wedding camera, and thats based on "older generation" Nikon

if you asked the question now as to what os the perfect wedding camera I doubt they'd be many answer with 2 generation old technology.

You don't need the latest lens or camera, but dimissing improvments on the basis of "what we had before did fine" is just daft. The question should be what extra does the new kit offer and how can I use that to deliver more of my client needs and make more profit

 

[trencheel303]

Canon all the way.

It would be helpful if you qualified that because as it is that statement means diddly squat... lol.

 

[Richard King]

Chances are if you turn down that offer, that client will never come back to you again - they'll stick with whoever they found to cover the job you turned down.

It still comes down to economics. If you actually have to stump up the cash yourself, then there is a desicion to be made, and that decision might mean you loose the job, even if you dont want to. That doesnt make you any more or less professional

Hiring a lens/back/other is still a viable option

It would be fair to say that professional social photographers are having a pretty tough time accross the board

I think you need to take into account that there are different levels and types of professional photographer. The needs, skillsets and equipment needed will vary accordingly

I do sympathise with the view that as a professional you could go and shoot anything, however, a wedding photographer is hardly likey to be using kit in the Artic, or in a underwatrer scuba enclosure, or up a crane documenting a building site, or shooting the internals of an engine in a factory etc..

 

[AliB]

however, a wedding photographer is hardly likey to be using kit in the Artic, or in a underwatrer scuba enclosure, or up a crane documenting a building site, or shooting the internals of an engine in a factory etc..

Just to be blooming awkward that is exactly what I do

I've been 14 floors up the outside of a building in a hoist, up tower cranes, the lot. Believe me, you don't want to be changing lenses on these sites, the concrete dust is 1/2 inch thick so it's two bodies and no lens changing!

 

[woof woof]

An interesting discussion.

A former contact of mine has a partner who's a professional photographer. They've done shoots for the biggest names in fashion, retail and publishing all over the world but as far as I know no sports or reportage. Anyway, they're near the very top of the profession and yet own relatively little kit, I own more, they hire the kit and give it back after the shoot.

That's not what surprised me the most though, for me the big surprise is that the photographer doesn't do the post capture processing, someone else does it and this must he hellish expensive as a shot can be in processing for weeks. It all works for them though, internationally famous, flown all over the world to shoot stuff and paid handsomely for it too.

 

[Donki]

So what people are saying unless you have pro equipment there is no point in trying to make a go at it as a profession? (I am not by the way)

If I have been wrong I will hold my hands up but it just differs from the opinion I have got from "Professional" (who make a very good full time living from it) photographers that I know.

Can we agree that no mater how good the equipment is its the photographer that really matters?

 

[Richard King]

if you asked the question now as to what os the perfect wedding camera I doubt they'd be many answer with 2 generation old technology.

You don't need the latest lens or camera, but dimissing improvments on the basis of "what we had before did fine" is just daft. The question should be what extra does the new kit offer and how can I use that to deliver more of my client needs and make more profit

Agree 100%, however few appear to make decisions based on those criteria

And to be frank, if upgrading your kit costs you 5-10K a year in real terms, then proportionatally, that does ding profits a lot.

Or put another way - if a camera costs you 5 weddings profit, then I would hope one booked an extra 15 to justify it

 

[trencheel303]

But there again, I never saw David Bailey take a decent sports, wildlife or press pic. :shrug:

Anyone should be able to take a decent image with anything in the confines of a controlled studio but that's not where the bulk of pro kit spends it's life.

Quoted for the MF'ing truth.

 

[AliB]

Agree 100%, however few appear to make decisions based on those criteria

And to be frank, if upgrading your kit costs you 5-10K a year in real terms, then proportionatally, that does ding profits a lot.

Or put another way - if a camera costs you 5 weddings profit, then I would hope one booked an extra 15 to justify it

Didn't cost me anything like that Richard. I swapped two pro spec Canon bodies for 2 D700's, all the lenses and two flashguns and it cost me just shy of £2K. That got me all brand new kit too that replaced kit that was all between 2-5 years old. This kit should last me a good few years and the lenses at all top grade and should last a decade. The camera bodies are expected to last three years so in real terms 2x bodies over three years at a rate of £433 a year. See I even did my sums first

 

[OutLore]

One of the other reasons I was thinking of going over to Nikon was that whenever I zoom in one of my photographs it seems to blur at 100% which I can't understand as it certainly looked crystal clear when taking it. So I wasn't sure whether it was a limitation of the camera or the lenses.

Actually I was looking at the D5000 and found it did the same as my Sony which is why I didn't make the jump.

Ever thought it might be you're technique? - I can't for the life of me get a sharp shot at anything slower than double the focal length....:shake:

 

[Richard King]

Didn't cost me anything like that Richard. I swapped two pro spec Canon bodies for 2 D700's, all the lenses and two flashguns and it cost me just shy of £2K. That got me all brand new kit too that replaced kit that was all between 2-5 years old. This kit should last me a good few years and the lenses at all top grade and should last a decade. The camera bodies are expected to last three years so in real terms 2x bodies over three years at a rate of £433 a year. See I even did my sums first

Cool - makes sense

However, next year when the nikon D5 is released with supadupa wing ding sensor that is clean up to whatever ISO, many will think they need it. Its about striking a balance

 

[treeman]

In my view, Pro kit means that

a) It will still perform when pushed to the extremes.
b) The bodies and lenses have features not available on consumer models.

So, take an image with an entry level DSLR with kit lens, blow up the image to 24" wide, then the same image with a top end DSLR and pro glass blow up the same, and anybody will see a better quality image. And if you know what to look for, you'll even see a difference at 8" wide

 

[Starastin]

Starastin - I was wondering whether to go for the A850 or A900 spec wise the 900 seems better but the 850 costs more so theoretically it should be better. Right now financially I'm stuck with the A200.

a850 is a twin of a900, but is a bit slower. if you can get a900 cheaper, do it. a850 should be cheaper. I'm interested in a850 because it's cheaper and I don't need those extra functions.

 

[Richard King]

In my view, Pro kit means that

a) It will still perform when pushed to the extremes.
b) The bodies and lenses have features not available on consumer models.

So, take an image with an entry level DSLR with kit lens, blow up the image to 24" wide, then the same image with a top end DSLR and pro glass blow up the same, and anybody will see a better quality image. And if you know what to look for, you'll even see a difference at 8" wide

Actually many of the pro cameras loose features found on the cheaper cameras, because they are deemed to be unnessacary
(a profesional can recgnise a face)

 

[Arkady]

Cool - makes sense

However, next year when the nikon D5 is released with supadupa wing ding sensor that is clean up to whatever ISO, many will think they need it. Its about striking a balance

It's a good point and understandable in view of recent trends with kit-release frequency, but with the latest tranche of Pro-DSLR bodies I think we've finally reached a stage where you can hold onto a current body and be fairly secure in the knowledge that it'll last a good five years or so.

And that only applies to bodies.

Good lenses are good for ever, if you buy right first time.

 

[Richard King]

It's a good point and understandable in view of recent trends with kit-release frequency, but with the latest tranche of Pro-DSLR bodies I think we've finally reached a stage where you can hold onto a current body and be fairly secure in the knowledge that it'll last a good five years or so.

And that only applies to bodies.

Good lenses are good for ever, if you buy right first time.

Actually, I was thinking that too, I wonder if we wil be actually thinking the same in a year or two

 

[Starastin]

His current kit is a 5d mk II and a 7D

oh ! ok ! then he's a wide shooter ! don't know much about canon lens.

 

[grum]

Well part of my job now involves photography - and I am using a G1/GF1. I wouldn't call myself a pro but many people at work have said they prefer my pictures to ones taken by pros with lots of expensive Nikon gear they have hired previously.

I have also sold landscape pics taken with the GF1.

There's a guy who posts on here who had a magazine cover shot recently with a GF1 - the editor preferred the GF1 shot to one taken with a 'pro' DSLR. And this was an action shot - not meant to be the GF1s strong point.

Not saying there is no point to having pro gear, but that good results can be achieved with a lot less. I think there is partly an issue of expectation as well - you look more like a pro tog if you have a huge gripped body with big lenses and flashguns etc.

 

[Starastin]

any camera has it's limits ! . I can take 5x times better image with my medium format camera which cost me 150quid then with lets say - a nikon d3x and a 24-70mm which would cost you at least 6.5k . but it's soooo limited !

 

[Olly_K]

Pro equipment is normal equipment used by people who make money from photography.

I agree with this. Doesn't matter what equipment you have, as long as you have an income from producing photos your kit you have, be it a 550d or a 1d MkIV

 

[Arkady]

Actually, I was thinking that too, I wonder if we wil be actually thinking the same in a year or two

I've just gambled against the future possibility of needing (as opposed to merely wanting) the additional 3 stops of high-iso capability (and video - and I'm not even going there...) against saving nearly £4k when buying two 2nd-hand D3 bodies over two new D3s bodies (which are still on back-order everywhere...lol)...

That's £4k that can be put aside for printers, spare flashguns and other peripherals and accessories.

 

[trencheel303]

Good lenses are good for ever, if you buy right first time.

It depends what you mean by 'good'.

A good lens 20 years ago is probably a crap lens now, and all of our current lenses will be useless when 100 Megapixel sensors are outresolving them in another 20 years time.

Canon's 17-40 f/4 wasn't released that long ago and is (apparently) already being outresolved by Canon's latest releases.

If you mean good as in 'wont break' then I accept that but a lens that is being run circles by the camera body is no good.

 

[Arkady]

any camera has it's limits ! . I can take 5x times better image with my medium format camera which cost me 150quid then with lets say - a nikon d3x and a 24-70mm which would cost you at least 6.5k . but it's soooo limited !

No you can't.

 

[Kaouthia]

Can anyone tell me what the classification is to deem something as 'Pro' equipment? Surely just because something costs x amount doesn't make it necessarily 'pro'?

"Pro Equipment" and being a "Pro Photographer" are two very different things. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. There are many amateurs and hobbyists that use "Pro Equipment" because their personal passions demand it. Pro equipment does generally cost a lot more, but owning it does not automatically increase the ability or skillset of the photorapher, unless that photographer happens to have reached the limitations of their previous equipment.

I read on another forum that someone was told they couldn't be a pro photographer until they had a camera that cost at least £2500! Never mind skill or talent it was just based on the price of the camera body.

Whoever said that was an idiot.

Pro equipment will generally be much more versatile and durable than lower end gear, and allow you to shoot under more different circumstances that may not be possible with consumer equipment (hand-held under extremely low light, or in more severe weather conditions, for example), but without the skills, you're just another "Uncle Bob" who got this new fangled digital SLR with all kinds of buttons and features on it (so it must be good, even if he doesn't understand what 90% of them are) and thinks he can "turn pro".

So I'm wondering as I'm wanting to get into pro portrait/wedding work what does class as 'pro' and why.

A "pro" in this instance I would say is a photographer who knows what they're doing and has the equipment and skillset required to produce results that meet or exceed client expectations - and is prepared for any eventuality that may arise during a shoot (eg. backup bodies, lenses, etc in case one fails, knowing how to deal with bridezillas and mother-in-laws, not making guests uncomfortable).

the nikon list is as follows

[snip]

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/pro/Pro_NPU.page?

There's a few other bits as well that qualify as "Pro" equipment on the NPS list (like some of the speedlights, SB-80DX, SB-800, SB-900 and a couple of other bits).

you really dont "NEED" the very latest lens or camera, just because it was Just released under the PRO tag. Some argue a Fuji S5 is the perfect wedding camera, and thats based on "older generation" Nikon

If you're *only* shooting weddings, then they may be right, depending on their style of shooting. It's a fantastic camera and has a dynamic range that is difficult to beat, but the S5 was also released under the "Pro" tag, hence "Fuji S5 Pro".

Pro equipment that's a generations or two old is not necessarily a bad thing depending on what you're shooting. But it's still "Pro equipment".

Yes, an image is still much more dependent upon the photographer than the equipment, but once the photographer or the demands of a job exceed the abilities of the camera, you have a problem. Pro/newer equipment is built to handle these problems.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Starastin - I was wondering whether to go for the A850 or A900 spec wise the 900 seems better but the 850 costs more so theoretically it should be better. Right now financially I'm stuck with the A200.

The A850 is a less functional variant of the A900 (the A900 does 5fps vs 3fp on the A850 for example). The 850 is supposed to be cheaper, but the A900 is discontinuted and a new model is expected so may be selling off cheap in some places.

 

[Starastin]

No you can't.

yes I can ! a landscape for example.
I'm not comparing the cameras, just saying. d3x as a camera is 125216.46 times better, but if you want to shoot landscapes f.e. go for medium format or large.

 

[trencheel303]

Yes, an image is still much more dependent upon the photographer than the equipment, but once the photographer or the demands of a job exceed the abilities of the camera, you have a problem. Pro/newer equipment is built to handle these problems.

I'm sure Mr. A. Certainperson will be along in a moment to tell you that you're talking carp and that with a pinhole camera and lightbulb you can produce perfectly acceptable results. And if you can't, just don't bother taking the shot!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Arkady]

yes I can ! a landscape for example.
I'm not comparing the cameras, just saying. d3x as a camera is 125216.46 times better, but if you want to shoot landscapes f.e. go for medium format or large.

No you can't. You cannot shoot an image 5x better on MF, which is what you said.

Do you own a D3x?

I do - and a Hasselblad 500c.

And the D3x is better in all respects. Fact.

 

[awp]

yes I can ! a landscape for example.
I'm not comparing the cameras, just saying. d3x as a camera is 125216.46 times better, but if you want to shoot landscapes f.e. go for medium format or large.

Prove it.

 

[Starastin]

No you can't. You cannot shoot an image 5x better on MF, which is what you said.

Do you own a D3x?

I do - and a Hasselblad 500c.

And the D3x is better in all respects. Fact.

then why do you have the hassy ?
I think we're talking about different things.
from where I sit it looks like you're saying that - Ansel Adams etc, should have waited for D3x to come out before even thinking of being on of the greatest togs ! .

 

[awp]

Ansel Adams etc, should have waited for D3x to come out

If Ansel was shooting today he'd be using a D3x - betcha!

 

[Arkady]

then why do you have the hassy ?
I think we're talking about different things.
from where I sit it looks like you're saying that - Ansel Adams etc, should have waited for D3x to come out before even thinking of being on of the greatest togs ! .

Because back in the 1980's and 90's that's what I used to take the photos you've described.

It's obsolete, so now I use something better.

Now it's worth next to nothing, so sits nicely on my Dad's shelf as an ornament.

If Adams was around now he'd probably still be using a 10x8 plate camera...

Which isn't medium-format, is it...? You troll...

 

[Dracven]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracven
So I'm wondering as I'm wanting to get into pro portrait/wedding work what does class as 'pro' and why.

A "pro" in this instance I would say is a photographer who knows what they're doing and has the equipment and skillset required to produce results that meet or exceed client expectations - and is prepared for any eventuality that may arise during a shoot (eg. backup bodies, lenses, etc in case one fails, knowing how to deal with bridezillas and mother-in-laws, not making guests uncomfortable).

Thanks Kaouthia, I did mean Pro kit though as opposed to being a pro. I was wondering what people considered pro kit for these jobs.

 

[Starastin]

Because back in the 1980's and 90's that's what I used to take the photos you've described.

It's obsolete, so now I use something better.

Now it's worth next to nothing, so sits nicely on my Dad's shelf as an ornament.

If Adams was around now he'd probably still be using a 10x8 plate camera...

Which isn't medium-format, is it...? You troll...

feeling good insulting people ? I find this very offensive.

I may have exaggerated with the 5times, but the reality is that people do take amazing, or even better pictures with film.
if I had to choose one camera it would be d3x.

 

[woof woof]

Reading some of the posts here I'm a bit confused, have I logged on to DPReview by mistake? :nono:

 

[Spiritflier]

If Ansel was shooting today he'd be using a D3x - betcha!

Not a chance... He'd be shooting on an Ebony!

And he'd keep a 1DsMKIII as a back-up!







And then he'd deliberately wind you up by giving away all of his work for free!