Pros don't use crop bodies

[bribrius]

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.

sure, but you cant tell what was used to produce a final image without the photographer telling you.
so someone with a lot of talent but poor equipment could easily do better than someone with little talent but great equipment. im not trying to dispose the idea that better equipment can do more, im trying to dispose the idea that better equipment is the benchmark for being professional.

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.

 

[480sparky41 41]

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?

 

[astroNikon]

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

I would say that Equipment CAN directly affect result.

but that doesn't mean that a person with enough money doesn't have the best equipment available and still shoots in AUTO and gets stuff just wrong.

 

[Braineack]

no lecia, no care.

thusly i havent even been able to hire a family photgrapher.

 

[ronlane]

I would agree with Jason right there. I'm not saying that the equipment won't help produce images but if you are getting great images with what you have....

I would have thought that the gear was necessary to be a professional too, but after the latest photocon that I attended and saw well over 300 images from a destination wedding photographer that was using Sony mirrorless system. She said that she used some of the smaller ones because it was easier for her to shoot on location and she loved the live view mode. (She is a Sony Artisan)

 

[pixmedic]

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.

sure, but you cant tell what was used to produce a final image without the photographer telling you.
so someone with a lot of talent but poor equipment could easily do better than someone with little talent but great equipment. im not trying to dispose the idea that better equipment can do more, im trying to dispose the idea that better equipment is the benchmark for being professional.

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.

thats simply untrue.
i know professional photographers still using D3's and D700's. there are plenty of better bodies available now, yet it is not hurting their business to continue using less than the "better" equipment. By todays standards, the D3 and D700 are practically antiquated by many peoples thinking, but less than a decade ago they were the best of the best, and perform no less today than they did back when they were first released.

 

[480sparky41 41]

no lecia, no care.

thusly i havent even been able to hire a family photgrapher.

Loan them one of yours.






Then...................













demand a discount!

 

[tirediron]

A professional is someone who is paid to do a job. It should, but sadly doesn't make any reference to the quality of work. He, or she, will use whatever equipment they feel is appropriate to meet the client's needs. That might be a FF "35mm" body, an APS-C/DX body, an M4/3 body, or an 8x10 film body. For the first part of the digital era, crop-frame was all that was available; EVERYONE, pro, consumer, and MWAC shot with a crop-frame. Now, for some reason, FF is seen as the bench-mark. Looking back through my image bank at some of the stuff I captured with a crop-frame camera, I'm pretty damn proud of it, and I think it would hold up against anything from a FF body today.

 

[Vtec44]

The camera doesn't define you. You define the camera.

You can quote me on that

 

[pixmedic]

Here is a guy that shoots weddings with a M4/3 olympus camera.
not even an APS-C size sensor.
Featured Mu43 Wedding Experience by SSSYURRR Mu-43.com - Micro Four Thirds User Group
this guy is amazing.
i could not imagine this guy not being considered a pro, but he certainly does not use the "best" wedding equipment.

 

[tirediron]

thats simply untrue.
i know professional photographers still using D3's and D700's. there are plenty of better bodies available now, yet it is not hurting their business to continue using less than the "better" equipment. By todays standards, the D3 and D700 are practically antiquated by many peoples thinking, but less than a decade ago they were the best of the best, and perform no less today than they did back when they were first released.

Absolutely, in fact if you compare a working pro and a wealthy MWAC, the pro is the one more likely to have older, beat-up, held-together-with-gaff-tape equipment. Why? Because it does the job he needs it to do, and he can't justify the expense of upgrading it. I still use a D700 for a lot of paid work. Why? Because it does the job. If I need to impress my clients with my gear, I need to find different clients!

 

[KenC]

There will always be some situations which can't be handled without special equipment, e.g., a close shot of the play at second base, a photo of a rare insect that's about 1 cm long, etc., so for these it would be difficult to claim you are a pro without the necessary equipment. However, with a 50 mm lens on a crop body and a lot of talent one could produce amazing portraits, which is probably the most frequent job a photographer gets hired to do.

 

[fjrabon]

David Hobby and Zack Arias are no longer professionals I guess, using those trash crop frame cameras. Land Rover is a trash company, paying amateurs to shoot their ad campaigns on crop frame cameras, can't believe their nerve, selling out and hiring a DWAC like Zack Arias to shoot an ad campaign on a child's camera like a FUJI APS-C system.

 

[tirediron]

David Hobby and Zack Arias are no longer professionals I guess, using those trash crop frame cameras. Land Rover is a trash company, paying amateurs to shoot their ad campaigns on crop frame cameras, can't believe their nerve, selling out and hiring a DWAC like Zack Arias to shoot an ad campaign on a child's camera like a FUJI APS-C system.

Everyone knows Zack is a hack!

 

[ronlane]

There will always be some situations which can't be handled without special equipment, e.g., a close shot of the play at second base, a photo of a rare insect that's about 1 cm long, etc., so for these it would be difficult to claim you are a pro without the necessary equipment. However, with a 50 mm lens on a crop body and a lot of talent one could produce amazing portraits, which is probably the most frequent job a photographer gets hired to do.

I think I understand the point you are making. However, I could easily be a professional photographer without having the equipment to shoot an action scene like a play at second or a macro lens to shoot a flower. (Although, I could free lens that last one with good results) If my chosen genre was portraits, and that is all I did, then I would have no reason to own the other equipment.