Anything you buy is good enough - discuss !!!

[DiddyDave]

Have you got the stats for that?

Why would an amateur have more money than sense just because they aren't 'professional' - do you have anything to actually back that up?

I think the maths is made-up, but the assertion is largely true

There are a couple of Pros at my camera club and we have the gear we need to do the job. When the D3 came out 3 amateurs immediately bought them and changed their DX gear to FX, yet these people don't produce large prints, don't need the D3's high ISO capability and tbh shoot crappy photos as they rarely figure in the club comps

There are others into wildlife that have decent 500mm lenses but want the 500mm f4 of both Canon & Nikon and are saving for them - they will not see any improvement in their photography but cannot be convinced otherwise

Gear lust is indeed rife at club level

As a Pro our gear is merely a tool - if that tool can do the job perfectly well and costs £2,000 rather than £5,000 we will buy the £2,000 gear. It's being ruled by your head, your income requirements and your accountant here whereas many amateurs' cash is truly spare and if enough they can be ruled by their heart's desire and Sod what their head (or wife) may think

As Hoppy says - that's not a bad thing - being able to buy & enjoy what you want rather than simply what you need is fun - and worst way going they are merely wasting their money, but helping to lower the price for Pros

DD

 

[DiddyDave]

Whether there are solid facts to back it up or not, it's a fact that the only real justification a pure amateur has for buying any photographic equipment is that he/she wants it.

Camera equipment is a luxury item for those not using it commercially.

A professional (mostly) buys the equipment they need.
An amateur buys the equipment they want.

Purchases made by professionals are weighed against the amount of use and the amount of money that kit will generate. Any purchases made in error, i.e stuff that either isn't fit for purpose or not used enough to justify it being kept, are sold-on fairly quickly to fund other equipment purchases.

God you're quick

DD

 

[Arkady]

God you're quick

DD

yup: 1/4000sec at iso 24,000

 

[DiddyDave]

yup: 1/4000sec at iso 24,000

Ah - the shooting a leaping black cat in a cellar settings - nice

DD

 

[cyclone]

Camera equipment is a luxury item for those not using it commercially.

While I normally agree with pretty much everything you say, I'm not convinced that is 100% accurate.

 

[gingerweasel]

While I normally agree with pretty much everything you say, I'm not convinced that is 100% accurate.

If we aren't reliant on it for our income then it's a luxury item. Whilst we get a lot of enjoyment out of it's not essential for us to get by.

I can honestly say every piece of equipment I've bought has been a want rather than a must.

 

[Arkady]

While I normally agree with pretty much everything you say, I'm not convinced that is 100% accurate.

Safe Food is a necessity.
Clean water is a necessity.
Shelter (pref warm) for you and your family is a necessity.
A job to pay for the above (assuming you're not a dole-bludger) is a necessity.

Anything else is a luxury.

Having a camera is a luxury. Your not taking photos will not make you or your family go hungry.
They might even eat better if the money earmarked for cameras was spent on food instead.

 

[Dave Pickett]

For the first time since the introduction of digital imaging we now have cameras available where the next generation will produce little or no increase in IQ at the most-used settings.

Think that is spot on. The same happened with computers. In the days of 386 processors etc, even a spreadsheet sort would take ages so upgrading made good sense. Now its instant and a new computer to most will make no difference whatsoever.

I produce great images (by my poor standards!) with my D60/90/s5pro and consider myself fortunate to be able to afford such a great outfit which in truth I really dont get enough use out of.

It is however my hobby and I have seldom worried about justifying my purchases.

That said I am now looking at getting a 70-200 f2.8 for equestrian stuff, but the reality is for most of what I do the 70-300vr that I have is an amazing lens, and with the D90 I can up the ISO in dull weather so I really dont need the wider aperture........the purchase of the 70-200 is on hold.

I will look at the D90 replacement, and whilst I know it will make no improvements to my photographs I will be tempted if it's a decent upgrade....

 

[Undercrank]

http://slashedcanvas.info/photography/photo11.htm

 

[malla1962]

Safe Food is a necessity.
Clean water is a necessity.
Shelter (pref warm) for you and your family is a necessity.
A job to pay for the above (assuming you're not a dole-bludger) is a necessity.

Anything else is a luxury.

Having a camera is a luxury. Your not taking photos will not make you or your family go hungry.
They might even eat better if the money earmarked for cameras was spent on food instead.

This statement is very true! Other than the above everything in life is a luxury, be it a sports car, fast motorcycle or a £3000 watch. If you can pay your bills and have money left over for luxury items I see no problem blowing it on a new car, fast bike or whatever you like, my $10 flea market watch tels me the time just like any other.
Im not a pro by any means but I do make money from photography and when I want something I will buy the best I can afford and im sure there are a lot of AM's out there that feel the same way.

 

[HoppyUK]

This statement is very true! Other than the above everything in life is a luxury, be it a sports car, fast motorcycle or a £3000 watch. If you can pay your bills and have money left over for luxury items I see no problem blowing it on a new car, fast bike or whatever you like, my $10 flea market watch tels me the time just like any other.
Im not a pro by any means but I do make money from photography and when I want something I will buy the best I can afford and im sure there are a lot of AM's out there that feel the same way.

It's all about money. Everything always is at the end of the day.

Those that have it, don't have a problem spending it. And those that don't, and make a virtue out of the somewhat illusory theory 'I haven't got it because I don't need it' and 'I use skill and knowledge to get the shot, I don't want expensive equipment' often with jealous overtones of 'all the gear and no idea' aimed in the direction of anyone who appears to have more disposable income than they do.*

It was always thus.

* The fact that they also have a nice car and a pretty wife often doesn't help

 

[ColinB]

The whole pro/ams thing is balls in my opinion.

Just because a person might be an amataur doesn't mean they don't 'need' certain gear to achieve the images they are aiming for. Take an amateur sports photographer, if they can get better images with a state of the art camera, and they need those shots for either their self-satisfaction, a project, or to break into an industry, then there need is as real as that of the pros.

Secondly, just because you might be a pro, doesn't mean you are adverse to gear lust. I know two pro's in my local area who buy the new stuff just to say that they own state of the art gear - do they 'need' half of gear? Not really, they were taking decent pictures with their old stuff.

What I've seen in this thread is a number of comments passed as fact when they are just opinion based on no research and anecdote, which to be fair is to be expected, it's human nature afterall, and I see this behaviour in other forums in many other subjects when it comes to a pro/am divide.

 

[Arkady]

The whole pro/ams thing is balls in my opinion.

Just because a person might be an amataur doesn't mean they don't 'need' certain gear to achieve the images they are aiming for. Take an amateur sports photographer, if they can get better images with a state of the art camera, and they need those shots for either their self-satisfaction, a project, or to break into an industry, then there need is as real as that of the pros.

Secondly, just because you might be a pro, doesn't mean you are adverse to gear lust. I know two pro's in my local area who buy the new stuff just to say that they own state of the art gear - do they 'need' half of gear? Not really, they were taking decent pictures with their old stuff.

What I've seen in this thread is a number of comments passed as fact when they are just opinion based on no research and anecdote, which to be fair is to be expected, it's human nature afterall, and I see this behaviour in other forums in many other subjects when it comes to a pro/am divide.

Sorry Colin, but you just missed the point entirely.

An amateur doesn't 'need' anything, as it's just a hobby - the fact that they choose to buy something is irrelevant - however they choose to justify it to themselves.

A professional 'needs' whatever they buy because it's their livelihood - it puts bread on the table, so to speak.

 

[grumpybadger]

There are others into wildlife that have decent 500mm lenses but want the 500mm f4 of both Canon & Nikon and are saving for them - they will not see any improvement in their photography but cannot be convinced otherwise

That's a tough call. I really reckon my 500/4 was the single most important step in upping the quality of my photographic output. The lens is now almost 3 years old and, weight aside, I have no regrets.

On bodies, I did skip a generation and have gone from a 6 year old 1DsII to a new 1DIV. Very similar resolution although the new one is 1.3x crop and very similar quality of output in my opinion. Am I happy with the 1DIV? Yes. Was it value for money? Certainly not. There have been many times when I've wondered whether the £3k to upgrade was worth it. Sometimes the 10fps is helpful but it is very rare indeed for the way I shoot. The AF is slightly better but not a lot. It's a great camera but it fails the value test. I'll keep it but I hope I don't fall for the new camera factor again in a hurry.

 

[Starastin]

I've seen pro wildlife tog with a good tele paired with 400d or something very light, sorry don't know the models. but well. he had 3 pairs + tele lens.

 

[ColinB]

Sorry Colin, but you just missed the point entirely.

An amateur doesn't 'need' anything, as it's just a hobby - the fact that they choose to buy something is irrelevant - however they choose to justify it to themselves.

A professional 'needs' whatever they buy because it's their livelihood - it puts bread on the table, so to speak.

I see what you are saying - to a degree, if we take this tack any futher we then get into a discussion about the merits and validity of ones needs over another, which will get us nowhere.

Getting back to the OP's message. My point is that Pro's/Ams alike suffer from gear lust and buying equipment when it's not that much beneficial effects both equally as they are both human, their reasons for the purchase are sometimes differnet, but still, the OP has a good point in that whatever you buy today is usually good enough (a few exceptions aside).

A pro could make pictures and a good living 5 years ago with the technology of the time, why is it so much different now - sure, they can get more convenience and time-saiving, but their business wouldn't suffer if they continued to use the same technology that they used 5 years go. Although I'm sure some will argue that point.

 

[Daysleeper40]

It's all about money. Everything always is at the end of the day.

Those that have it, don't have a problem spending it. And those that don't, and make a virtue out of the somewhat illusory theory 'I haven't got it because I don't need it' and 'I use skill and knowledge to get the shot, I don't want expensive equipment' often with jealous overtones of 'all the gear and no idea' aimed in the direction of anyone who appears to have more disposable income than they do.*

It was always thus.

* The fact that they also have a nice car and a pretty wife often doesn't help

I do agree with you and I'll admit to a teensy bit of jealousy when I see people buying vast amounts of very expensive kit just because they can. Fair play to them though - it's their money, who am I to say what they should spend it on. I could spend all my hard earned cash on camera equipement but we like a nice holiday and days out - maybe a meal out occasionally. It's down to your priorities really... I'd love to have it all but that isn't going to happen!

There is no getting away from the fact that some people do have "all the gear and no idea" though - it's not always jealousy talking... and I dread to think how much money has been spent by some

Maybe it's how I was raised - I'm pretty frugal re buying my self "luxury" items (clothes / make up / camera equipement... anything like that).
Always have been. I really appreciate what I do have too.

The whole pro/ams thing is balls in my opinion.

Just because a person might be an amataur doesn't mean they don't 'need' certain gear to achieve the images they are aiming for. Take an amateur sports photographer, if they can get better images with a state of the art camera, and they need those shots for either their self-satisfaction, a project, or to break into an industry, then there need is as real as that of the pros.

Secondly, just because you might be a pro, doesn't mean you are adverse to gear lust. I know two pro's in my local area who buy the new stuff just to say that they own state of the art gear - do they 'need' half of gear? Not really, they were taking decent pictures with their old stuff.

What I've seen in this thread is a number of comments passed as fact when they are just opinion based on no research and anecdote, which to be fair is to be expected, it's human nature afterall, and I see this behaviour in other forums in many other subjects when it comes to a pro/am divide.

In short - it's not balls.

I don't know if you've heard of Maslow's Hierachy of Needs?

If you rely on Photography to provide the money to meet your physiological / metabolic / safety requirements there is a genuine need for you to have the kit to be able to produce the best results possible.

As a hobbyist the purchase of high end camera equipement may meet your need for self actualization, could improve your self esteem - but it's the level of "need" that you have to think about.

 

[goldenlight]

Sorry Colin, but you just missed the point entirely.

An amateur doesn't 'need' anything, as it's just a hobby - the fact that they choose to buy something is irrelevant - however they choose to justify it to themselves.

A professional 'needs' whatever they buy because it's their livelihood - it puts bread on the table, so to speak.

True up to a point. But the distinction becomes blurred by professionals who are also keen amateurs, i.e. the also take pictures as a hobby. Then they may be tempted to buy unnecessary gear from a hobbyist's viewpoint - they don't need it but they want it. In fact I suspect that most pros are hobbyists at heart - I'm sure all the pros who spend time on this forum don't do so to improve their business or their income.

Conversely, some amateurs become so good that becoming professional is a realistic aspiration. They may be starting to sell a bit of work but realize that they will need better gear in order to make them truely competetive with full-time professionals in the same market. Such a person, by your definition, doesn't need better camera equipment to feed and shelter his family because his day job already provides for that. However, he may need it if he is to stand a chance of realizing his ambition to turn pro.

Your basic premise is true, but as with so many things in life it's not quite that simple and the boundaries do become rather blurred. So long as everyone is happy it doesn't really matter. The only time it becomes harmful is if an amateur becomes hooked on always buying the greatest and latest to the extent of getting into financial difficulties or failing to provide sufficiently for his family.

 

[goldenlight]

I

A pro could make pictures and a good living 5 years ago with the technology of the time, why is it so much different now - sure, they can get more convenience and time-saiving, but their business wouldn't suffer if they continued to use the same technology that they used 5 years go. Although I'm sure some will argue that point.

The problem is that the minimum acceptable standard to many customers increases in line with the available technology. For example, five years ago even the best low light sports photographs would often be either noisey or with some of the action blurred. that would be acceptable to publishers because it was the standard. However, as high ISO performance has rocketed since then, a pro without the latest kit today will struggle and could easily go out of business.

 

[Arkady]

A pro could make pictures and a good living 5 years ago with the technology of the time, why is it so much different now - sure, they can get more convenience and time-saiving, but their business wouldn't suffer if they continued to use the same technology that they used 5 years go. Although I'm sure some will argue that point.

Because the goal-posts move - sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot.
The latest incarnation of Pro DSLRs has given us outstanding high-iso capabilities that five years ago were not possible...

The next generation of releases probably won't move the goal-posts quite so much, so it may be possible to stick with existing technology for a few years longer than in the past.
For example; I'm comfortably using lenses that range from brand-new to 15 years old - I did buy some newer kit a year ago, realised it wasn't quite the leap forward I'd hoped-for and quickly sold it on, releasing cash for stuff I needed more urgently...
I bought two D3x bodies, realised they didn't cover all the bases and got rid of one of them in order to buy the D3 bodies that do cover my needs better.
I'd like a D3s, but I'll not buy one unless my customers demand the kind of images that I can only realise by purchasing one.
The 'best' doesn't necessarily mean newest or most expensive - though it is usually the case.

As a professional, if the competition is using up-to date kit and you're not, then you will suffer.
As an amateur it matters not at all - but if it's your job then it matters a lot.

 

[ed_o_brain]

Interesting thread!

I don't think I'd be in any rush to upgrade my D700 when it's replacement comes out. In fact, shooting that wedding together, there didn't seem much in it between using the D700 and D90 - not in terms of the resulting images anyway.

 

[fracster]

If you want something and can afford it, go and buy it.Life is too short .

If you need something to complete a job and can afford it, go and buy it.

Simple really......

 

[Rovers_Andy]

So your threshold is printing A3...

Let's see some scenarios. Let's condider 400D / D60. If we add good glass (pro zoom, or even a cheap prime), use necessary filters, software, etc, we can easily get a great landscape print. D100 - no thank you, I'd rather try my luck with film.
Can 400D / D60 take a picture of a cyclist winning a race? A football match at night? Not a chance!
Can 400D take wedding dance photos in the darkness? We'd need f/1.4 or 1.2 lens, and probalby a flash. D3s can do that much easier.

Is it all done and discovered? Maybe for uncle Joe, not for me.

I used 400D under lights at PNE when i started in 2008 and it worked fine

 

[DiddyDave]

This thread has not quite made it to 'War' status yet - but it's getting there

DD

 

[ColinB]

Maslow's Hierachy of Needs[/URL]?

If you rely on Photography to provide the money to meet your physiological / metabolic / safety requirements there is a genuine need for you to have the kit to be able to produce the best results possible.

As a hobbyist the purchase of high end camera equipement may meet your need for self actualization, could improve your self esteem - but it's the level of "need" that you have to think about.

I'm aware of Maslow's theories (I've studied psycology), and to a degree you make a valid point about the hierachy, but this is a very simplistic manner in which to view the human's needs/wants, his theory only explains a small degree, and his hiarachhy doesn't take into account personality types, so it's only of basic use.

The pace of technology however is a good argument, but again, I think it's just another way of justifying a purchase that in reality isn't needed. Photography is art, and noise/grain etc just a factor of that, if you work is begin graded by the amount of noise, then sure, get a better camera that can produce work at higher ISO's, if not, then it's not a major consideration.

Art is subjective, and yet issues like noise/grain are being used as a yard-stick to measure the level of need for a camera, when in reality it's not such a major issue, if the picture is good enough, a bit of noise/grain isn't going to take away from the message, composition and overal effect of the image.

Like most arguments, this one espeically, there are exceptions and caveats, but I still think that most upgrades are just for the sake of uprgrading, rather than a die-hard need.

 

[AliB]

If you want something and can afford it, go and buy it.Life is too short .

If you need something to complete a job and can afford it, go and buy it.

Simple really......

A studio and a blad it is then Ade!

Even if I can afford something I will put months of research into it before I buy it. I did not go spending a small fortune on 2 D700's a range of lenses and flashes in Feb because the cameras look prettier than my bank balance.

I bought them because as Arkady says, I'm in a business where client expectations are high and my kit was in danger of falling into the category of not quite cutting the mustard. I did not buy them for the short term gain though, it's a costed purchase over three years and with selling my existing kit cost me just over £2K. Over three years the lenses retain most of their value and the bodies can be replaced after three years. The only awkward point is they they will reach that point together! So I may buy just one new one and relegate one to backup rather than balacing their use as I do at the moment. So I will need to be careful and consider the retained value of them and work out when I need to hammer one body and slow down on the other if I am then going to keep it as backup.

So in short, for me, they are business assets that I just happen to like.....a lot!

 

[HoppyUK]

This thread has not quite made it to 'War' status yet - but it's getting there

DD

I thought my 'ugly wife' jibe might do it, but no luck so far...

 

[fracster]

A studio and a blad it is then Ade!

Even if I can afford something I will put months of research into it before I buy it. I did not go spending a small fortune on 2 D700's a range of lenses and flashes in Feb because the cameras look prettier than my bank balance.

I bought them because as Arkady says, I'm in a business where client expectations are high and my kit was in danger of falling into the category of not quite cutting the mustard. I did not buy them for the short term gain though, it's a costed purchase over three years and with selling my existing kit cost me just over £2K. Over three years the lenses retain most of their value and the bodies can be replaced after three years. The only awkward point is they they will reach that point together! So I may buy just one new one and relegate one to backup rather than balacing their use as I do at the moment. So I will need to be careful and consider the retained value of them and work out when I need to hammer one body and slow down on the other if I am then going to keep it as backup.

So in short, for me, they are business assets that I just happen to like.....a lot!

So point two applies then..............

 

[DiddyDave]

Interesting thread!

I don't think I'd be in any rush to upgrade my D700 when it's replacement comes out. In fact, shooting that wedding together, there didn't seem much in it between using the D700 and D90 - not in terms of the resulting images anyway.

"My Wedding" do you mean???

And that last bit is surely the whole point - not in terms of the resulting images anyway

It's only when it gets down to the output, prints usually, that it really matters - and even then not much it you're not viewing it closer than a reasonable viewing distance. Same with images in Wedding albums, they are almost always significantly smaller than the camera's native output, so any noise is minimised simply by being smaller!!!

I have a fav shot of all my family framed beside me - it's a 10x8" print of easily good enough quality taken by an old lady stranger on my 4mp camera-phone a couple of years ago If I'd handed her a D2Xs and 17-55 f2.8 would it have been any better? [Ignoring her broken wrist with the weight] Nope - not in the real world anyway

DD

 

[AliB]

You are missing one significant point though David. While a I totally agree with what you are saying about output/prints I think there is the not insignificant point that you need to have been able to shoot the blasted thing to be able to output it

 

[DiddyDave]

You are missing one significant point though David. While a I totally agree with what you are saying about output/prints I think there is the not insignificant point that you need to have been able to shoot the blasted thing to be able to output it

That's what a camera is for - I thought you knew that



And I don't think that's been missed either, you could have shot every recent image with your older gear - with more time/effort/skill/tripod/couples locked into place Or just shot it wider and shrunk the images to less than 10x8" to hide the movement more

I sold a shockingly noisy image as a 12x10" and it was a crop at that - OMG I thought as it arrived only the day before the mother was to collect it - she cried with joy at it and obviously didn't notice the 'shocking' noise. Sometimes we try a bit too hard for perfection. Years ago I'd have had to push my 400 ISO film 3 stops for some shots and passed the grain off as a 'feature'

DD

 

[AliB]

couples locked into place Or just shot it wider and shrunk the images to less than 10x8" to hide the movement more


DD

That's the important bit for me though. I don't have to time shots so I shoot them when they are at their stillest just to get the shot any more. I'm not having to employ firearms techniques and wedge myself against stationary objects to be able to shoot those slow shutter speeds. I shoot the shot I want, when I want it! Yes I'll still use a tripod in church and keep it as low as I can but it's not a compromise any more which to me is worth the cost

 

[DiddyDave]

That's the important bit for me though. I don't have to time shots so I shoot them when they are at their stillest just to get the shot any more. I'm not having to employ firearms techniques and wedge myself against stationary objects to be able to shoot those slow shutter speeds. I shoot the shot I want, when I want it! Yes I'll still use a tripod in church and keep it as low as I can but it's not a compromise any more which to me is worth the cost

A technique lead purchase - perfect sense - and the point of my thread really

(totally OT - now 3 photographers at one Wedding - now that's overkill Ali )

DD

 

[AliB]

lol yes that's the second time we have "triple teamed" a wedding

There was a point to it though, I spent a lot of yesterday working with Paul, rather then Mark so the lead and second shooter roles become interchangeable between us and we all know exactly what to shoot when for each other.

It was a great chance for me to go through a whole wedding, hardly take a shot and just walk round looking at the angles and composition they were both working at the same time. A higly educational day and I spent more time on customer service than on shooting anything

 

[DiddyDave]

lol yes that's the second time we have "triple teamed" a wedding

There was a point to it though, I spent a lot of yesterday working with Paul, rather then Mark so the lead and second shooter roles become interchangeable between us and we all know exactly what to shoot when for each other.

It was a great chance for me to go through a whole wedding, hardly take a shot and just walk round looking at the angles and composition they were both working at the same time. A higly educational day and I spent more time on customer service than on shooting anything

Did they get a 'Training Day' discount then! - just reminds me - I want to post a new thread

DD

 

[AliB]

No but they didn't get charged for the extra pair of hands either Of course Mark discussed it with them beforehand it they were fine with it and actually said they appreciated the extra attention as I fixed/carried the train and generally did all the detail sorting.

 

[mrtoad]

buy what you need...how do you know what you need until you buy, use and then decide if its enough...or too much
peer pressure and media hype may push you into a corner where you think the only way out is ...£££
some folks get their photographic needs...family snaps etc...with pos cameras and decent pp and printing

 

[goldenlight]

I thought my 'ugly wife' jibe might do it, but no luck so far...

Why should we get upset about your ugly wife? :shrug:

 

[ed_o_brain]

"My Wedding" do you mean???

Yup!
At least I didn't write 'our' wedding

And that last bit is surely the whole point - not in terms of the resulting images anyway

It's only when it gets down to the output, prints usually, that it really matters - and even then not much it you're not viewing it closer than a reasonable viewing distance. Same with images in Wedding albums, they are almost always significantly smaller than the camera's native output, so any noise is minimised simply by being smaller!!!

When I'm shooting for pleasure, I'm still using my D40. Somehow using it gives me more satisfaction then the bigger beastly dSLRs. Admittedly, when I was shooting for somebody else I would rather be using the D700 or the D90 simply because there are more shooting options in low light and a few more buttons make it faster to change the ISO, metering, focussing. (...not to mention the D40 being a little rudimentary with just three focussing points)

Also, the D40 fits in with my other passion. Cycling! Anything bigger is a dead weight in my rucksack and if I get knocked off and break it, I'm not going to cry. Too much! I don't see any need to change it. It just does the job perfectly.

I have a fav shot of all my family framed beside me - it's a 10x8" print of easily good enough quality taken by an old lady stranger on my 4mp camera-phone a couple of years ago

Dare you to second shoot a wedding with one!

 

[dinners]

The whole pro/ams thing is balls in my opinion.

Just because a person might be an amataur doesn't mean they don't 'need' certain gear to achieve the images they are aiming for.

Sorry Colin, but you just missed the point entirely.

An amateur doesn't 'need' anything, as it's just a hobby - the fact that they choose to buy something is irrelevant - however they choose to justify it to themselves.

A professional 'needs' whatever they buy because it's their livelihood - it puts bread on the table, so to speak.

I think it's down to how you're wording it Colin but I do agree.

'Requires' is perhaps a word which is applicable to both Pro and Am.

Certain shots 'require' certain kit regardless of whether the person behind the camera is enjoying their hobby or doing their job.