Is this appropriate equipment for a pro?

[IgsEMT]

When I switched from med-format to digital, I was shooting with D70, even when purchased d200, i preferred d70 over it (felt like it was better in some respects). The next series of cameras were D300s, d200backup and d90 backup of a backup. After I sold my d200 and purchased d700 (and went Fx) my 300s was finally on the back up.
Point is, until about 2yrs ago, I was shooting with Dx body only.
One of my colleagues was using Fuji, then purchased d7000 (fuji became a back up); after purchasing d800, d7000 and fuji became a backup.
Another guy I work for, started shooting about 5yrs ago with D40. Then purchased d300; then d700 and now d600.
If you watch this video He shoots (at least used to, not sure about now) with D300s and Sigma lenses.
I completely understand what you're saying about the gear, but if its sufficient enough to do the job, then its fine.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

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

Yeah... Kinda like the skates don't make a hockey player or the car doesn't make a good driver...

 

[jake337]

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.

There is no line of what is acceptable.

The cliente chose the photographer for a reason.

Agreed on the price via a contract.

Paid said price and recieved their final product.


If they are not satisfied with their final product the issue is between them and the hired professional.



Are your friends not satisfied with the product? If they are, were they okay with the product till you told them the professional wasn't usning "pro" gear, which in fact is false statement because the D300s is a pro body. In my opinion at least.

 

[jake337]

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

We just had a thread on sports photography that proved this very clearly. Guy thought just because he had a canon 1dx that he was gonna be instafamous!

 

[Patrice]

$3000 for a wedding is not exorbitant.If it's the prime focus of the business it's not a lot really large amount of revenue.

Maximum 52 weekends in a year. Realistic possibility of maybe working 40 of them. Usually no weddings on Sundays. 40 x $3000 = $120,000. Equipment depreciation, financing cost, advertising, rent & utilities, transportation, office supplies, accounting and legal services, insurance, banking & business fees, unrecoverable client accounts and a multitude of other minor costs could easily amount to $60,000. Salary of $1,000 week ($52,000) leaves $8000 for profit or 6.67%. Not exactly a get rich quick scheme.

I would not be buying a couple of D700's or D800's or D4's with that kind of financial performance, especially if the existing equipment is up to the task of generating the income. A business will most often buy new equipment to either replace non functioning stuff or to generate increased revenue.

 

[KmH]

He paid over $3000 for just the digital copies.

Actually, for an event where hundreds of images are made, like a wedding, that is not expensive at all for all the digital files.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

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.

A D300s is more professional than what you shoot with.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

A D300s is an extremely capable and professional DX camera.

The point where your post fails is when you point out the camera used versus the quality of product produced.

The point of interest here is the quality of images delivered (or lack thereof). Why would this photographer deliver poor quality/unusable shots? That is much more suspect to me.

 

[12sndsgood]

I dont see there being a way of answering the question. maybe the photographer was charging $1000 but the bride and groom wanted all the digital files so he sold those for $2000. Without knowing what the contract was specifically setup for and knowing whether the photographer delivered the quality of photos that the couple had saw then its hard to tell.