Why the hate on the Rebels??

[inTempus]

I question any pro who doesn't buy the best gear he or she can afford - relative to their photography needs.

Some "pro's" might not be able to afford more than a Rebel.

There's no excuse for a "pro" who doesn't know what the term "lens speed" means (like in the Judge Joe video). There's also no excuse for a "pro" showing up with slow lenses at an indoor wedding with poor ambient lighting... then copping the excuse "we didn't know until we got there".

Besides, is there a good reason to use a DSLR with a 1.6x or 1.5x "crop factor"... if you are a wedding photographer?

The sensor size really doesn't matter in the end (crop vs. full frame). With the proper body and lens combo there's no reason someone couldn't shoot weddings using a D300 or 7D as a "pro" and never to aspire to buy more expensive bodies.

I've met a number of successful wedding photogs who shoot crop bodies and are perfectly content doing so.

 

[Idahophoto]

Image goes along ways. Someone says there a pro race car driver then they pull up to your house in a Ford Pinto it would probably not go over well lol. On the other hand, I know photographers who have paid 10K+ on a lens they never use. I asked him why he did that and he said it's simple when a client sees that giant lens they think he's a real "Pro". In his case he did outstanding shots but there is that image to think about.

I did a friends wedding a bit ago and there was another wedding also going on in the same park by a guy who was using two 5D Mark II's I fel kinda small with my 50D but it worked just fine and my friend liked the shots. This is not to say I would not take one if offered, I would love a Mark II and hope to get one in 6 months or so, maybe when the Mark 3 comes out it will drop into my budget, but Image counts for alot and its not always fair.

 

[Derrel]

Any "pro" who cannot afford a better camera than a Rebel is seriously lacking in income,and in business sense. But the thing is, in today's marketplace, there are so,so many beginning shooters who start out with the Canon Rebel series cameras (there have been millions produced and sold!) that people offering contract work are finding it necessary to write, "No Rebels" and "No Rebels need apply" as a way to weed out those whose equipment is not up to professional standards, now that it is 2010. The burgeoning number of MWACs and GWCs (mom with a camera, guy with a camera) type shooters who have been taking photos for one or two or three years and are using Rebels and D40's and low-end Pentax or Sony cameras are really at a disadvantage, compared with shooters who own higher-end bodies, which have better viewfinders, better HIGH-ISO performance, faster autofocusing, better autofocusing under challenging conditions, and which also are cameras that clients are less likely to own themselves.

Canon and Nikon make multiple professional and semi-pro level cameras...the shooters who can afford those types of equipment are a different "pool of applicants" than those who are shooting with Canon Rebel bodies. I happen to own a Canon Rebel myself,and its silver body and small size make it look like what I call a "dufus camera", for situations where you want to try and sneak in an SLR past security at places that have prohibitions against so-called "professional cameras", like most NBA and MLB and all NFL arenas and stadiums...a big, honking Canon EOS 1-series looks like,and is, a professional camera...a silver mini-body Rebel looks like a camera a grandma or mom might own, and is less-imposing and looks quite a bit like a bridge camera.

A professional camera that costs $5,000 to $7,995 carries with it a customer expectation that has confidence underlying it; a $549 Rebel body brings with it a customer expectation of photos that look a lot like one's high school daughter could shoot pictures as good...that's the way people work...a guy wearing a ratty pair of jeans and a dirty shirt does not look like the same man in a Brooks Brothers suit.

 

[MrLogic]

Some "pro's" might not be able to afford more than a Rebel.

There's no excuse for a "pro" who doesn't know what the term "lens speed" means (like in the Judge Joe video). There's also no excuse for a "pro" showing up with slow lenses at an indoor wedding with poor ambient lighting... then copping the excuse "we didn't know until we got there".

I've met a number of successful wedding photogs who shoot crop bodies and are perfectly content doing so.

I have met one. He still uses a 20D and cheap glass. But you don't have to be very good to be successful... and he is a testament to that. A good business sense and people skills are important.


The ones that can't afford a 1Ds III are probably not very good, or are just starting out. Either way, I wouldn't hire them for my wedding. But to each his own.

The 7D has a 1.6 crop sensor and its pretty pro - whilst the 1DMIV is a 1.3 crop - so the reason for using 1.6 or 1.3 crop in a wedding is probably similar to why people use only 35mm fullframe camera bodies instead of medium or even large format camera bodies.

"full frame" has advantages over medium and large format (high ISO performance, speed, flexibility)... and vice versa. Same with film vs. digital.

1.6x crop sensor DSLRs - pro or not - have advantages, too, but those do not apply to wedding photography, as far as I know.

Why would a wedding photographer use a 1.6x crop body, if better options exist?

Because they shoot more than weddings and don't want to spend the money on a 1Ds MKIII?

Face it, there's one current full frame option for Canon under $7000 and that's the 5D MKII. Some one may want a camera with better AF. The 7D is a perfectly acceptable choice with the right lenses. Why would some one judge a person with good photography skills based on the equipment they own.

Hand me a 300D with cactus triggers and Vivitar 283's and I can do some work that would make a noob with a 1Ds MKIII look like he's using a P&S.

If I pay upwards of $10,000 for a wedding photographer, then I expect the best possible quality. "Quality" is subjective, of course. But it's more than just skill.

I much prefer (medium- and large format) film to digital, but if said wedding photographer would show up with a 7D - because he or she doesn't "want to spend the money on a 1Ds MKIII" (or a 5D II as a second or third camera, apparently) then what am I supposed to think? Great if you think the 7D is every bit as good as the 1Ds III, as far as image quality goes... but I don't.

 

[Derrel]

Crop-sensor wedding photos do not have the same "look" as FF digital wedding photos...and medium-format wedding photos have an entirely different look....most people can not appreciate the difference between crop-sensor captures and those made with FF digital cameras and top-flight lenses...

Here is a TPF forum member's web site with his most recent wedding portfolio http://meninenuotrauka.lt/en/wedding/2010/lina_bronius/

His name is Alexsandrus Babicius,and his partner is his daughter I believe, Irina Belcikova. They shoot Nikon D3 and D3s with the "new Nikkors" 14-24 AF-S, 24-70 AF-S, and 70-200,for the most part. Take a LOOK at their wedding photography; look at the foreground/background separation, look at the bokeh effects, look at the High-ISO, ambient light work, and look at the incredible quality that is achievable in 2010, with full-frame digital SLR bodies.

The capture area of digital FF is roughly 2.4x larger than that of a 1.6x Rebel...the depth of field effects of FF are vastly different in a qualitative sense...this is what many young, newcomers to photography do not understand; the larger the film or digital capture format, the shallower the depth of field, at each given lens angle of view. Look at the sheer quality and beauty of he wedding work that Alexsandrus and Irina turn out each and every single wedding. Those types of visual effects are simply NOT possible when using a small,crop-sensor body like a Rebel...

Alexsandrus and Irina are two of my absolute favorite wedding photographers, and their visual style is made possible by full-frame bodies and top-flight lenses. The visual differences [plural] between their work, and the work of the majority of low-end wedding shooters using crop-frame bodies is quite apparent.

 

[Village Idiot]

Some "pro's" might not be able to afford more than a Rebel.

There's no excuse for a "pro" who doesn't know what the term "lens speed" means (like in the Judge Joe video). There's also no excuse for a "pro" showing up with slow lenses at an indoor wedding with poor ambient lighting... then copping the excuse "we didn't know until we got there".

I've met a number of successful wedding photogs who shoot crop bodies and are perfectly content doing so.

I have met one. He still uses a 20D and cheap glass. But you don't have to be very good to be successful... and he is a testament to that. A good business sense and people skills are important.


The ones that can't afford a 1Ds III are probably not very good, or are just starting out. Either way, I wouldn't hire them for my wedding. But to each his own.

"full frame" has advantages over medium and large format (high ISO performance, speed, flexibility)... and vice versa. Same with film vs. digital.

1.6x crop sensor DSLRs - pro or not - have advantages, too, but those do not apply to wedding photography, as far as I know.

Why would a wedding photographer use a 1.6x crop body, if better options exist?

Because they shoot more than weddings and don't want to spend the money on a 1Ds MKIII?

Face it, there's one current full frame option for Canon under $7000 and that's the 5D MKII. Some one may want a camera with better AF. The 7D is a perfectly acceptable choice with the right lenses. Why would some one judge a person with good photography skills based on the equipment they own.

Hand me a 300D with cactus triggers and Vivitar 283's and I can do some work that would make a noob with a 1Ds MKIII look like he's using a P&S.

If I pay upwards of $10,000 for a wedding photographer, then I expect the best possible quality. "Quality" is subjective, of course. But it's more than just skill.

I much prefer (medium- and large format) film to digital, but if said wedding photographer would show up with a 7D - because he or she doesn't "want to spend the money on a 1Ds MKIII" (or a 5D II as a second or third camera, apparently) then what am I supposed to think? Great if you think the 7D is every bit as good as the 1Ds III, as far as image quality goes... but I don't.

Not everyone pays $10,000 for a wedding photographer. You said wedding photographer and not $10,000 wedding photographer.

 

[inTempus]

It's not a matter of "look", it's a matter of "can". Can crop bodies shoot weddings and produce quality work? Absolutely, thousands of them do every day world wide. Do some prefer full frame bodies? Absolutely. But that's not at issue here.

 

[Overread]

Alexsandrus and Irina are two of my absolute favorite wedding photographers, and their visual style is made possible by full-frame bodies and top-flight lenses. The visual differences [plural] between their work, and the work of the majority of low-end wedding shooters using crop-frame bodies is quite apparent.

True, but then again its not quite fair to compare top end photographers with less experienced ones and then hang that comparison on the size of the camera sensor used. More accurate would be to compare their work to that of those doing similar quality work with 1.6 crop camera bodies. Then it does come down to the creative look of the respective photographers and then we are into styles, fashion and popularity. Some people might prefer the fullframe appearance whilst others might prefer 1.6 crop.

And of course some photographers will combine both - using fullframe and 1.6 crop for different situations in the wedding.

 

[inTempus]

er. You said wedding photographer and not $10,000 wedding photographer.

At $10k for a wedding, this price range falls into the "luxury" category. Most couples can't afford such lofty prices. The average for a wedding around here is $1,200 - $2k or so.

 

[Derrel]

Mercedes. Toyota.

Visually sophisticated clients. Visually ignorant clients.

FF vs 1.6x.

"No Rebels need apply". That's what the OP's post was touching upon. The issue here is why some employers insist that Rebel shooters need not apply; they are looking for photographers who have the equipment needed to produce top-level results, and like it or not, "credentialism" is a fact of life in the world. The difference between the shallower depth of field look that FF and medium format cameras and lenses produce and the difference between images shot on 110 film or APS-C 1.6x bodies is quite different to the experienced eye.

Many years ago, the prerequisite was "no 35mm gear". Today, we have megapixel requirements at most of the stock agencies, so images made with low-MP count cameras are simply not accepted, and are outright rejected by many stock agencies...

Not that long ago, many small-product adverts had to be shot on 4x5, for perspective control, and the large 4x5 inch transparency film size, which pretty much blows the doors off of an APS-C image...using a cheap, 40 year-old Fujinon 150mm lens at f/8, one can read the fine print of a soda can in a whole-room photo taken on Ektachrome 100 4x5 sheet film, from 30 feet away,using only a 10x loupe...that kind of fine detail resolution is beyond the scope of a Digital Rebel. So we have good enough, and excellent...and many employers want their shooters to be using professional-level equipment, so that the images are at the level of professional images made by the top echelon shooters,using the top gear,in each era...camera "requirements" are a fact of life,and have been for many decades.

Again, the "No Rebels need apply" requirement is pretty common. Here is a comment from 2007, from a Canon Rebel shooter: "I was looking to submit some images to Getty and when I read the following requirement, I was quite taken aback:

"If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us."

They must be insane. I shoot RAW on a 400xti and my images I?m looking to submit are of high quality. Can they seriously use such a blanket statement and exclude photographers without one of these cameras? I guess the answer is yes, but this seems mad."

Read the entire thread here: Getty Images Insane Digital Camera Requirements - Photo.net Business Forum

 

[Raian-san]

Well all I'm saying is my wedding is a once in a lifetime event for me and no offense but I wouldn't want someone with a rebel shooting it. I think you just ran into people who know their stuff. I'm sure a lot of other wedding, people allow new photographer to take pictures and some turn out okay/good but a lot of those people got burnt. You got to look at it in their perspective. If you're good and do Wedding and professional work a lot, why haven't you upgrade your camera? If you're serious about it, a 5D or even the 1D is really not that expensive to a semi/pro because you'll get money to use it. So basically clients are paying for your Camera and more. There should be no excuse for someone who wanna do Wedding Photography and not have a good camera.

 

[inTempus]

To be fair, Rebels aren't the only crop sensor bodies on the market (obviously). So for a client to say "no Rebels need apply" doesn't automatically exclude 30D's, 40D's, 50D's, 60D's, 7D's, or any of the Nikons including the D40 all the way up through the D300 D - hey, they weren't specific).

I've seen lots of similar requirements, even from models... given some of their portfolio shots I found that to be a bit ridiculous.

I spent a little over $3k on my wedding photography and I had two shooters, both armed with 1DMk2n's. Had the photogs shown up with Rebels, I would not have been happy. One of the questions we asked was "what kind of equipment do you use". I've found many wedding websites suggest couples ask similar questions these days, and I've been asked myself.

So yeah, it's certainly common place.

 

[cfusionpm]

To be fair, Rebels aren't the only crop sensor bodies on the market (obviously). So for a client to say "no Rebels need apply" doesn't automatically exclude 30D's, 40D's, 50D's, 60D's, 7D's, or any of the Nikons including the D40 all the way up through the D300 D - hey, they weren't specific).

Yeah, I think what Derrel might be missing is that this agrument has nothing to do with the fact that the Rebel/xxxD series are crops, but that they're cheap entry-level cameras. They have crappy noise handling, low burst rates, mediocre autofocus, and while they can take some wonderful pictures in ideal conditions, they tend to flounder in less-than-ideal conditions. It really has very little (if anything) to do with the fact it has an APS-C sized sensor.

 

[sovietdoc]

I think that you all are failing to understand what "professional" really means.

The only thing that makes "pro" a pro is the fact that he gets paid for his work and makes a living out of it.

The equipment doesn't make you a pro in anyway, though only a person who makes a living from photography will be able to shell out big bucks for D3x/D3s with quality nikkors.

I see people walking around with rebels and 50d's all the time, but you can see that they are serious shots because they have quality glass. And then going to their flickr or something shows that they are very very very good at taking pictures, even though their camera isn't top notch.

Yeah, derrel, you're talking about technical issues that a lot of n00bs don't even know and understand, but the most important thing about shooting weddings and printing albums is whether or not the client LOVES your work and how their shoot turned out. And it does depend on many things, obviously, but at times a rebel with quality glass and someone with a "vision" at the "wheel" can make all the difference. And they don't have to have 10 grand worth of equipment.

Of course having top notch equip makes it easier for someone who is really good to shine even more with their talent, and I do believe that anyone who is starting to make money shooting weddings will eventually go and get a new camera to better fit their needs.

I am not saying it's okay to shoot weddings with a rebel, I am just saying that if you do, it doesn't mean the level of you work can't be considered "pro" just because your camera wasn't a "pro" one.

 

[bigtwinky]

The No Rebels apply statement is just an easy way of saying no new photographers.

I dont think there is anything more behind it, its just easier to say. It is like calling someone who is new to a hobby as newbie. Well, someone new to photography could be called a Rebel.

I'm sure that if you showed them your results, even if shot on a Rebel, and those results are professional, clean and nice, then they would probably hire you.

The other 98% of Rebel shooters who are new to photography won't apply.