Pros don't use crop bodies

[ronlane]

How so? I don't seem to have any issues with it. (The kids aren't that fast.)

 

[JacaRanda]

I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod. (I think that's what he's thinking)

But, you never know if someone has shoulder or arm or back issues etc.

 

[ronlane]

I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod. (I think that's what he's thinking)

But, you never know if someone has shoulder or arm or back issues etc.

It is light weight and wouldn't be that hard to hand hold. I find it comfortable on the monopod when I'm sitting down there. And to me it's security that I'm not getting camera shake. (Yes, I use fast shutter speeds to avoid this too).

In a nut shell, it's my personal preference to use it. I have it, it doesn't bother me, so why not.

 

[JacaRanda]

I think what Gary is thinking....is that the 70-200 f/4 is such a lightweight lens that he is wondering why it even needs to be on a monopod. (I think that's what he's thinking)

But, you never know if someone has shoulder or arm or back issues etc.

It is light weight and wouldn't be that hard to hand hold. I find it comfortable on the monopod when I'm sitting down there. And to me it's security that I'm not getting camera shake. (Yes, I use fast shutter speeds to avoid this too).

In a nut shell, it's my personal preference to use it. I have it, it doesn't bother me, so why not.

"personal preference" BINGO Final answer do not phone a friend!

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I shoot clients headshots with a 50mm on a D90. They love them. Am I unprofessional because I can't yet afford a D750 and an 85?

Do you depend on your photography for your income?

In less than a month I will be.

Have you got a soup kitchen near by

Lmao, no, but I can stock up on plenty of Ramen for the hard times.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I happen to live in country the OP seems to be located in, if the location bit under the her profile summary is accurate, and it's not some kind of medieval backwater far from it, although politicians never change.


Derrel is correct with what he said but how did McGyver manage with no tools.

 

[jamiebonline]

I happen to live in country the OP seems to be located in, if the location bit under the her profile summary is accurate, and it's not some kind of medieval backwater far from it, although politicians never change.

Hey, it's me the OP. I am not in Ireland I am just from there. I am living in Eastern Europe. Salaries are very low and pay for photographers too. Hence it takes a long time to build up a collection of gear. If I save now, I might have a D750 by Christmas. If that's worth investing in.

 

[Derrel]

If I save now, I might have a D750 by Christmas. If that's worth investing in.

There's a good question sort of hidden in there: is the D750 worth its price? You know, it has a great sensor, and a wonderful feature set, but I have not taken one out and shot an assignment with it. I have demo'd it twice at BestBuy, both times with the 24-120 f/4 AF-S VR lens, in moderate, indoor lighting conditions. The camera feels light, small, compact, comfortable in the hand, but you know, to "me" the viewfinder feels small, and not quite up to what I am used to...I feel the same way about the D600, D7100, and D610 viewfinders...I'm used to the old, pro Nikon bodies, which have crisp, sharp, clear viewfinder images. Is that something that's important in your kind of work?

I dunno...you know, I have always preferred the camera with the BEST viewfinder for use with my eyeglasses ON. To me, that means F3HP, D1,D1h,D2x,D3x...Canon 5D is decent too...the small-body cameras like D200 and Fuji S5 Pro have small, crop-frame sized finder images, made on much cheaper bodies...there's a difference between looking through the viewfinder and being able to actually SEE the focusing state (IN? or OUT?) and to SEE the expressions of the faces of people, and looking through the viewfinder and counting on the AF system to focus, and sort of using the finder as a vague, generalized guideline as to the frame area. To me, that's what the sony A7 viewfinder was like (not good enough to literally SEE what was happening on portraiture at 7 feet with the factory standard zoom lens with AF, and to me that's what the D750 viewfinder image looks like: small, not 100% top-quality, decent, but noticeable nowhere near as good as a D3 or D4 or Canon 5D class image through the finder...

Bottom line: I would consider a pair of used D3s bodies over owning just one D750 for stills work. I dunno...a lot depends on how much you value the viewfinder as a tool for your photography. If you have never used a flagship-level camera, this might not resonate with you, but the viewfinder difference is the MAIN difference between a $5000 to $8000 Nikon body, and the D800 or D700 or D750, and the D600,D610,while the D90,D300,,D7100,D7000 have another notch down in the viewfinder, and then there are the D5xxx and D3xxx and the Canon Rebels...the pentamirror cameras have tiny, average finder images--I find those cameras very difficult to use when expression is critical, or when manually or hand-and-eye focusing or peak action is a big component of success or failure.

There's an entirely new generation of people using Live View..and building a camera with a sub-par viewfinder is not a total deal-breaker for the set of people who will use the camera with Live View, or tripod-mounted on static subjects. There's more than one way to use a camera, and some of the cheap-o bodies with God-awful viewfinders now have 3.0 inch or even 3.2-inch high-res Live View images that can offset their crap viewfinder images...for SOME types of work, or for video shooting.

 

[chuasam]

if they're not going to pay much, they better not be expecting top of the line gear.

 

[bribrius]

And while said soccer mom with her 4K gear is on the sideline, standing up. I have my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 and monopod sitting on the ground on the end line getting the shot of her kid with a lot cleaner background composition.

Monopod with a 70-200F4 looks very unprofessional, a 300F2.8L should be on the monopod and 70-200 would be hand held

You are right, but I never said I was a pro. I'm just a hobbyist and that's what I have. All my money goes to keep that boy in soccer and the girl in competitive cheer. And since he is 6 and plying on a small field, I don't need more reach than a 70-200 on a crop camera.

you too? i paid a hundred bucks for track sneakers yesterday. Once you have kids it never ends..

 

[DandL]

...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)

^^^ QFT. I have a hard time understanding why people get so worked up about a title or label. I used to make my living as a carpenter, but I never labeled myself as a "professional" carpenter. Now I make my living as a computer tech. I don't label myself as a "professional" computer technician. If I sell a few portraits, or photograph a few weddings, why should I be concerned whether or not I'm considered a "professional" photographer? If I made 100% of my income as a photographer, why should I be concerned about the title? What difference does it make? As long as my customers are happy with the quality of my work, and they continue to pay me for it, does it really matter if I'm considered a "professional" photographer?

Why do people get so hung up on being called a "professional" photographer? I don't get it...

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

As long as my customers are happy with the quality of my work, and they continue to pay me for it, does it really matter if I'm considered a "professional" photographer?

Well, it could.

I'm a "professional photographer" in every sense. If someone were to ask me if I were a "professional", and I said "No", how do I know that they weren't asking because they needed to hire one? If I don't consider myself a "professional", why would I expect my clients (who are fabulous in the "word of mouth advertising" category), to do it?

 

[Braineack]

pros would use DX bodies if they ever made a D400

 

[pixmedic]

pros would use DX bodies if they ever made a D400 [emoji14]

Dont need to wait. Plenty of pros used, and still use, D300's.

 

[otherprof89 31]

I'm talking real pro, not someone who has picked up a digital camera and calls himself a pro after one job you need to be earning 50+ % of your total income to be classed as pro

what if your other job pays 10 million a year

Didn't you misspell "crap"?