Is this appropriate equipment for a pro?

[CaptainNapalm]

My coworker got married and just received his wedding pictures from the photographer. They turned out okay for the most part but they were definately extremely expensive. He paid over $3000 for just the digital copies. I looked at the exif data for a few of them and they were all taken with a Nikon d300s camera. I immediately thought that a profesional charging top dollar for wedding photography should be shooting with something better than a Nikon d300s. No disrespect to a very capable camera but is this appropriate primary gear for a pro? Or does it even really matter. I'd be curious to what you all think.

 

[gsgary]

A real pro can make good images with any camera,its the person that is pro not the camera

 

[CaptainNapalm]

A real pro can make good images with any camera,its the person that is pro not the camera

I agree but then would it be okay for him to show up with an entry level Nikon d3000? How about a point and shoot? There has to be a line of what's acceptable and what is not on a profesional level, so although I agree with your obvious answer I still think that perhaps top quality gear is expected if you hire a profesional, especially one charing top dollar in the industry.

 

[Light Guru]

My coworker got married and just received his wedding pictures from the photographer. They turned out okay for the most part but they were definately extremely expensive. He paid over $3000 for just the digital copies. I looked at the exif data for a few of them and they were all taken with a Nikon d300s camera. I immediately thought that a profesional charging top dollar for wedding photography should be shooting with something better than a Nikon d300s. No disrespect to a very capable camera but is this appropriate primary gear for a pro? Or does it even really matter. I'd be curious to what you all think.

For all you know the photographer was using a backup camera because there was a issue with the main camera, and having a backup camera is a sure sign of someone who knows what they are doing.

As for the price of $3000 depending oh how much time they have him there shooting (bridals, wedding day pre ceremony, ceremony, reception) and how much processing he did that may actually be a vary reasonable price.

 

[Overread19 7]

I think the question of "is the gear pro or not" is secondary. The core question is is the product that was delivered equal to the standard of product that the photographer advertises?

Provided that the photographer delivers a product that is in line with the quality that they advertise at the price that they agreed to in advance with the client then it shouldn't matter what equipment they used.

 

[Light Guru]

I still think that perhaps top quality gear is expected if you hire a profesional

Is you always had to have the top dollar, newest equipment then you would never make a profit.

 

[tirediron]

It's far more about the the lenses and lighting than the camera body. Showing up with a D3100 and a couple of gold-ring zooms & SB910s? Sure. D3100, 18-55, & pop-up flash? Not so much! At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how they got the results, just that they got them.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

My coworker got married and just received his wedding pictures from the photographer. They turned out okay for the most part but they were definately extremely expensive. He paid over $3000 for just the digital copies. I looked at the exif data for a few of them and they were all taken with a Nikon d300s camera. I immediately thought that a profesional charging top dollar for wedding photography should be shooting with something better than a Nikon d300s. No disrespect to a very capable camera but is this appropriate primary gear for a pro? Or does it even really matter. I'd be curious to what you all think.

For all you know the photographer was using a backup camera because there was a issue with the main camera, and having a backup camera is a sure sign of someone who knows what they are doing.

As for the price of $3000 depending oh how much time they have him there shooting (bridals, wedding day pre ceremony, ceremony, reception) and how much processing he did that may actually be a vary reasonable price.

Perhaps he was using a back up. No the $3000 is extrememly expensive for what he got. There was one photographer on that day who took just over 1000 pictures and he was only there for church ceremony and reception till midnight. He also spent about 45 mins taking pictures between church and the reception. So he was there for a total of 8 hours with a 1.5 hour break. There was post processing only done on 20 photos and it was minor in nature (likely 5-10 mins per pic from what was done). All the other photos were not even sorted and my coworker got dumped with 1100 pictures half of which were not even usable. Oh I'm sorry, one small size (8x10 I think) print was included (unframed). that's it.

 

[ronlane]

I'm more shocked that the Photographer let a client have pictures that were not post processed or unuseable.

 

[gsgary]

I agree but then would it be okay for him to show up with an entry level Nikon d3000? How about a point and shoot? There has to be a line of what's acceptable and what is not on a profesional level, so although I agree with your obvious answer I still think that perhaps top quality gear is expected if you hire a profesional, especially one charing top dollar in the industry.

Its the results that matter

 

[cgipson1]

As mentioned... the D300 could be used by a pro, and often is! It is considered a PRO DX body http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf

But based on the other things that happened, this sounds more like one of the new Quasi-PRO's that have popped up in the past few years.... not a real PRO that delivers quality service and images. Sounds like a rip-off artist too!

 

[ronlane]

As mentioned... the D300 could be used by a pro, and often is! It is considered a PRO DX body http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf

But based on the other things that happened, this sounds more like one of the new Quasi-PRO's that have popped up in the past few years.... not a real PRO that delivers quality service and images. Sounds like a rip-off artist too!

Dang it Charlie, if you don't quit insulting me, we gonna have problems. We both know that I don't shoot Nikon.

 

[Overread19 7]

But based on the other things that happened, this sounds more like one of the new Quasi-PRO's that have popped up in the past few years.... not a real PRO that delivers quality service and images. Sounds like a rip-off artist too!

Aye but that depends somewhat. When it comes to hiring a tradesman the onus is on the hiring party to make the selection from what the market offers. They have to make the call on what price they will pay and who they choose to pay it to. At that point it doesn't really matter if the person they hire is the best or the worst in the industry, what matters is if the person they hire delivers the quality that they advertise.

We can debate as to if the person that was hired is using the most advised and expected business practices, but unless what they delivered wasn't in line with what they promised to deliver its really just a debate on theory and personal standards.

Now if what was delivered isn't in line with what was promised/advertised then you can start to question the business practice of the person you hired and if they falsely advertised their skills.

 

[jaomul]

You may not need the most expensive gear to get great shots. Of course gear can help and someone who can really get the best out of a D300 will certainly be more pro than the guy who can't use his D3

 

[Rick58]

I think the question of "is the gear pro or not" is secondary. The core question is is the product that was delivered equal to the standard of product that the photographer advertises?

Provided that the photographer delivers a product that is in line with the quality that they advertise at the price that they agreed to in advance with the client then it shouldn't matter what equipment they used.

I agree with this. This is a photo forum, so the people here know makes and models. The average couple more then likely doesn't and they probably don't care. All they care about is the end results. If the photographer delivered as advertised, I'm sure they could care less if the shots were made with a bare bulb Brownie.