How CAN you be a pro..

  • Thread starter Thread starter SimonH
  • Start date Start date
Is this thread for real?
 
People take photographs.. not cameras. A wedding shot on a DX camera can easily be far superior to one shot on a FX camera if the photographer has more talent. Unless you plan on printing your wedding albums larger than A3 it makes no difference.


/thread.
 
The majority of our wedding photos were taken on compacts and the best camera there was a D50. Some were even taken using (dare I say it?) film! APS film at that. The photos probably mean more to us than those of many other couples since they were all shot by guests (and our marriage has lasted far longer than many others). Like most couples, after the first year or so, we rarely look at our album - we know what happened and all our friends who weren't there have seen the photos.

The only thing that would stop a pro photographer being a pro photographer would be a total lack of camera! As has been shown many times, the equipment just makes some shots easier than other kit might. Reducing pro photography to weddings is rather foolish too - it may be one aspect but there is a lot more to photography than that!
 
this is one of those daft arguments (like raw vs jpeg and nikon vs canon) that comes up from time to time with little grounding in reality

you "CAN be a pro" using a Dx format in exactly the same way you can using an FX format, or indeed a film slr , or a medium fotrmat/large format/rangefinder etc. what makes you a pro is that people pay for your images and go away satisfied , and thats far more down to your ability, skill, and experience as a photographer than the format you use
 
i always thought for sport photographers a DX system would be better for the reason that you get more magnification without the need for converters etc. i could be wrong but wouldnt mind an opinion

i have started shooting some rugby and love the fact that i can put a 200mm lens on and get the same reach as a 300mm lens.
 
without wanting to side track into that argument - you can also get the same feild of view on a fX by cropping the image , which so long as the pixel density of the sensor is dsimilar may be a better option.

At the end of the day the highest spec bodies tend to be fullframe , and for that reason most pros use full frame - although thats not to say a good pro can't take a perfectly reasonable picture with an entry level camera if he has to (for example in andy rouses life in the wild he cites a time when photographing dolphins both his top spec film SLRs packed up from salt spray and he finished the assignment with a canon D30 (which only had a DX 3MP sensor and was more basic than any current entry level dslr)
 
big soft moose said:
At the end of the day the highest spec bodies tend to be fullframe , and for that reason most pros use full frame - )
Click to expand...


Also not strictly true as most Canon pro bodies in circulation are 1.3 crop, and as more pro sports and newspaper photographers use Canon, I'd say it'll be very close to the dominant format until everyone moves to the 1dx.

Although, many pros bought the last new 1d's when the 1dx was launched because they didn't want to pay the premium for the ff.
 
Phil V said:
Also not strictly true as most Canon pro bodies in circulation are 1.3 crop, and as more pro sports and newspaper photographers use Canon, I'd say it'll be very close to the dominant format until everyone moves to the 1dx.

Although, many pros bought the last new 1d's when the 1dx was launched because they didn't want to pay the premium for the ff.
Click to expand...

well yes - I tend to include 1.3 crop in the FX bracket , using that as short hand for " larger than aps " - that said if pros don't want to pay the premium for the 1DX there is always the 5D3 or 6D , which you see a lot of pros at weddings and such using
 
SimonH said:
.. using crop-sensor cameras?

Now that full-frame digital sensors are comfortably established in the more high-end cameras on the market today, is it really feasible for a pro to hold on to DX format cameras for their pro work? Is it inevitable that we'll begin to see pro photographers arguing that all serious pro photographers are using full-frame bodies? Is that happening already?

If you're a pro photographer using FX format bodies, have you considered, or even started, using this fact as part of your pitch for, say, wedding shoots?
Click to expand...

This makes no sense at all. Your camera is a tool, a recording device. Depending on our work pro photographers normally look for certain performance benchmarks, such as fast frame rates and weatherproofing if one shoots sports, and good low light capability for weddings. But the fact remains that the majority of DSLR cameras produced in recent years easily meet those criteria. Having the correct tools for the job is one thing, but it is totally irrelevant unless you have the skill and experience required to produce merchantable images. I'm fortunate to have top spec equipment at my disposal, but if I put it into the hands of one of my trainees then the results will be no different to the results they will produce with pretty much any camera. The unfortunate fact is that your camera will not light your subjects, nor will it pose them, or interact with them, frame your image or choose your locations, process your shots, etc etc. Sadly that all takes many years to grasp.

I shoot with two primary systems, one being my 5D MkIII bodies and L lenses, the other being my OMD and u4/3 lenses. I very rarely use the MkIII these days, that would only be if I were requiring fast tracking focus for the rare occasions when I am photographing a fast moving or erratic subject, or representing Canon. The OMD covers most of what I do, and I have some very demanding clients and I have very high personal standards.

The whole depth of field argument makes me laugh. Sensor format is but one of several factors which you can manipulate to control your depth of field, and more often than not the format which offers the most DOF will prove to be the most useful. For example, let's say I'm photographing in a dim location where I am not allowed to use any flash. You might instinctively think that I would reach the MkIII, but in most cases you would be wrong. After all, in a dim environment I will be increasing my ISO and opening the aperture, right? Correct, except on the MkIII my DOF might be very shallow indeed, particularly if I'm fairly close to my subjects, and unless I can manipulate the situation to ensure that each of my subjects is on exactly the same plane of focus, one or more of them will be slightly de-focused. The beauty of the OMD is that I can fit a fast prime lens and shoot wide open, gathering all that lovely light, but I will have almost 2 stops additional DOF than my full frame DSLR. This also means that I will be working at about two stops lower ISO on the OMD, totally negating the ISO advantage of the FX camera, but mercifully lightening the load on my poor old joints. And the IQ and dynamic range from the OMD is spectacular. There are also many other scenarios where the additional DOF offered by a slightly smaller sensor body will help you out.

My clients have no influence over the kit I use, that is my decision and mine alone. They choose me based on my work, my reputation, and to an extent my qualifications. I have no insecurities about being judged on the size of my camera.

So, in terms of your proposition, my answer is a very emphatic no. From what I am seeing more and more professional photographers are turning to more compact systems, because they are sick and tired of knackering themselves hauling around several kilos of 'the big stuff'. Unless you're doing the kind of advertising photography which demands massive resolutions then the full frame argument is growing increasingly weak.
 
Last edited:
My brother and his wife are staying over for a few days and I just asked them if they booked a session with a portrait photographer, would they prefer a full-frame or cropped camera was used?

The look I got back was something like...

35tllr.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's why you would never ask your clients that question. Because they have no understanding of what is being put to them (and if they did, they wouldn't care in the slightest). It's like going to the garage and the mechanic asking me which tools I'd like him to use. I don't care - all that matters is his judgement and his ability to do a good job.
 
Lindsay D said:
That's why you would never ask your clients that question. Because they have no understanding of what is being put to them (and if they did, they wouldn't care in the slightest). It's like going to the garage and the mechanic asking me which tools I'd like him to use. I don't care - all that matters is his judgement and his ability to do a good job.
Click to expand...

Quite.

Though if the mechanic asked a tinkerer who knows a bit, I bet many would love the mechanic use something fancy and in-vogue, even if totally unnecessary. Someone like my Brother, on the other hand, would just want the car fixed.
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
Quite.

Though if the mechanic asked a tinkerer who knows a bit, I bet many would love the mechanic use something fancy and in-vogue, even if totally unnecessary. Someone like my Brother, on the other hand, would just want the car fixed.
Click to expand...


My clients are intrigued when I whip out the OMD. It's also a great opportunity to educate them on the fact that it's not the kit which creates the image (one of my personal bugbears). When they see the results I get from using a little camera the penny finally drops, and I score extra brownie points for creating something which is poles apart from what they will ever produce from their own cameras, which might be 'bigger' than the one I'm using.

PS - I've had some pretty shoddy work done over the years by garages/mechanics who have state of the art setups.
 
ZoneV said:
My brother and his wife are staying over for a few days and I just asked them if they booked a session with a portrait photographer, would they prefer a full-frame or cropped camera was used?

The look I got back was something like...

35tllr.jpg
Click to expand...

HAHA!! this literally made my day, fantastic and i'm sorry but the whole thread is a total crock of crap, irrelevant of whether the OP meant it to come out as it did or not is not the point, who gives two sods what camera is used, I could give my DSLR to my mate and then use my Galaxy s2 and still make a better picture, totally stupid, totally pointless.
 
I don't mind what format my cameras are most the time, just as long as I have 2 working ones and the other tog has 2 working ones with us when we shoot a wedding that'll do me..

lens trump body any day of the week if we are talking equipment.

camera-phone-photography.png
 
Lindsay D said:
My clients are intrigued when I whip out the OMD. It's also a great opportunity to educate them on the fact that it's not the kit which creates the image (one of my personal bugbears). When they see the results I get from using a little camera the penny finally drops, and I score extra brownie points for creating something which is poles apart from what they will ever produce from their own cameras, which might be 'bigger' than the one I'm using.

PS - I've had some pretty shoddy work done over the years by garages/mechanics who have state of the art setups.
Click to expand...

Fair play Lindsay. I have no doubt you know what you're doing (I'm sure I've seen some of your work either on here or linked-to from here at some point). :thumbs:
 
I say that a pro can use crop or ff, the main reasons I'm looking to get a Canon 6D to use my 600d as backup is: weather sealing, pro EF lenses (that I can use on both) and the ability to upload images to laptop using the wireless function..
 
I remember watching " We'll take Manhattan " based on David Baileys week shooting Jean Shrimpton for Vogue . He was shooting on 35mm at the time , but they wanted medium format and brushed his images off telling him to reshoot them . He sent his shots off to some guy who photographed the images on medium format . This somehow then made the images acceptable , same image just a different format negative . Crazy .
 
Its either a good picture or its not.

The only person who will care about sensor size is you.
 
Phil V said:
It's a complete nonsense.

If we take a top pro as being 100% perfect, then the real bottom end pro or part time wannabe as being 10%, the difference between FF and crop sensor would make less than 5% performance difference in the hands of any photographer - it's hardly close to being a deal breaker, whilst there are still so many important differences between photographers.

If I was a customer, my priorities would be:
  1. Price
  2. The quality of the photography
  3. The personality of the photographer
  4. The quality of the presentation products.

I'm not sure how I'd care what gear he was using.
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
Pookeyhead said:
People take photographs.. not cameras. A wedding shot on a DX camera can easily be far superior to one shot on a FX camera if the photographer has more talent. Unless you plan on printing your wedding albums larger than A3 it makes no difference.
/thread.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting debate as to who really needs the quality, obviously some pro's will be very quality focused but you could argue that most aren't likely to need to print large. Many serious amateurs on the other hand view large prints for themselves or their friends/family as far more important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top