Pros don't use crop bodies

[480sparky]

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]

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!!!

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

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

 

[chuasam]

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]

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!!!

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[fjrabon]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?