'Pro' Equipment

D

Dracven

Suspended / Banned
Messages
47
Name
Thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there,

Apologies if this is a duplicate thread I couldn't find it by searching.

Can anyone tell me what the classification is to deem something as 'Pro' equipment? Surely just because something costs x amount doesn't make it necessarily 'pro'? I read on another forum that someone was told they couldn't be a pro photographer until they had a camera that cost at least £2500! Never mind skill or talent it was just based on the price of the camera body.

So I'm wondering as I'm wanting to get into pro portrait/wedding work what does class as 'pro' and why.

thanks

Thom
 
Dracven said:
Hi there,

Apologies if this is a duplicate thread I couldn't find it by searching.

Can anyone tell me what the classification is to deem something as 'Pro' equipment? Surely just because something costs x amount doesn't make it necessarily 'pro'? I read on another forum that someone was told they couldn't be a pro photographer until they had a camera that cost at least £2500! Never mind skill or talent it was just based on the price of the camera body.

So I'm wondering as I'm wanting to get into pro portrait/wedding work what does class as 'pro' and why.

thanks

Thom
Click to expand...

Pro is short for professional and professional means someone pays/paid you so that could be anything really.

Pro is a tag added to certain items from manufacturers but it is down to them to decide. Nikon for example deem all bodies above the D300s as "PRO" and certain lenses of which there is a list somewhere but you don't NEED a pro lens necessarily. A small part of my day job involves taking photographs. This technically means I am professional (the camera and household insurance companies agree on that!) and the two lenses I normally have with me are AFS105 f2.8G VR (pro lens) and an AFS 18-55 (kit lens).

The AF 50mm f1.8 is not a pro lens but you can get some top results with it!
 
Dracven said:
Hi there,

I read on another forum
Click to expand...

There are other forums :thinking: :suspect: ...

The top end camera bodies are probably a bit more robust, and will have better processing power, lenses will likely be 'faster' aperture, and again a bit more durable.

It does not matter how much you spend, they are all capable tools, and certainly no replacement for ability.
 
the nikon list is as follows

Nikon F5, F6
Nikon D2X, D2Xs, D2H, D2Hs, D3, D3X
Nikon D200, D300,D300S, D700

AF-S DX 35 f1.8G
AF-DX 10.5MM F/2.8G
AF-S 50 f1.4G
AF 16 F/2.8D
AF 18 F/2.8
AF 28 F/1.4D
AF 14 F/2.8
AF 24 F/2.8D
AF 20 F/2.8
AF 28 F/2.8D
AF 35 F/2D
AF 85 F/1.4
AF 85 F/1.8
AF DC 105 F/2
AF DC 135 F/2
AF 180 F/2.8

AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
AF-S 14 - 24mm f/2.8G
AF-S VR 200-400 F/4G
AF-S VR 70-200 F/2.8G IF-ED
AF 35-70 F/2.8
AF-S DX 17-55MM F/2.8G
AFS 80-200 F/2.8
AF 24-85 F/2.8-4
AFS 28-70 F/2.8
AFS 17-35 F/2.8
AFS DX 12-24 F/4G

AF-S 600 F/4
AF-S 400 F/2.8
AFS 300 F/2.8
AF-S VR 200 F/2
AF-S 500 F/4
AFS 300 F/4
AF-S VR 300 F/2.8
AF-S 400mm VRf/2.8G ED
AF-S 500mm VRf/4G ED
AF-S 600mm VR f/4G ED

AF 60 F/2.8D
AF 105 F/2.8
AF-S 105 F/2.8 VR
AF-S 60 F2.8
AF 200 F/4
PC 85 F/2.8
PC-E 24 F/3.5
PC-E 45 F/2.8
PC-E 85 F/2.8

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/pro/Pro_NPU.page?


without wishing to open a can of worns - pro kit is to my mind, kit that allows you to deliver your paying job, right everytime and to worry about the photography, without worrying about your kit
 
all marketing hype. Look at the cameras Karsh, Bresson or Adams were using to create stunning photohraphy

in 2001 this was considered a Pro camera: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/page20.asp
Im not saying dont buy a D3, I am saying consider this: what changed between now and then - are brides more demanding on quality? I applaud the companies for consistently pushing the boundaries, some of the advances are very useful, however... you just need to decide what is good for you, and go and shoot with it
 
Pro equipment is normal equipment used by people who make money from photography.
 
Thanks for the responses guys. Does no-one have any opinions on Canon or other brands though or is this Nikon world? Not that I have anything against Nikon I nearly went over to Nikon last year as I felt I'd never get taken remotely seriously with a Sony.
 
Dracven said:
Thanks for the responses guys. Does no-one have any opinions on Canon or other brands though or is this Nikon world? Not that I have anything against Nikon I nearly went over to Nikon last year as I felt I'd never get taken remotely seriously with a Sony.
Click to expand...

that'd be a bad reason to spend alot of money on new kit. There are good reasons too, but what you produce will result in you being taken seriously, not what you use to produce it.

I can't answer for cannon - I don't know the range so I answwered for Nikon. My comments in general are more important than Nikon's list (atleast in my world)
 
One of the other reasons I was thinking of going over to Nikon was that whenever I zoom in one of my photographs it seems to blur at 100% which I can't understand as it certainly looked crystal clear when taking it. So I wasn't sure whether it was a limitation of the camera or the lenses.
 
boyfalldown said:
the nikon list is as follows

Nikon F5, F6 , D3, D3X

, D700 Tick


AF-S DX 35 f1.8G
AF-DX 10.5MM F/2.8G
AF-S 50 f1.4G Tick
AF 16 F/2.8D
AF 18 F/2.8
AF 28 F/1.4D
AF 14 F/2.8
AF 24 F/2.8D
AF 20 F/2.8
AF 28 F/2.8D
AF 35 F/2D
AF 85 F/1.4
AF 85 F/1.8
AF DC 105 F/2
AF DC 135 F/2
AF 180 F/2.8

AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Tick
AF-S 14 - 24mm f/2.8G
AF-S VR 200-400 F/4G
AF-S VR 70-200 F/2.8G IF-ED
AF 35-70 F/2.8
AF-S DX 17-55MM F/2.8G
AFS 80-200 F/2.8 Tick
AF 24-85 F/2.8-4
AFS 28-70 F/2.8
AFS 17-35 F/2.8
AFS DX 12-24 F/4G

AF-S 600 F/4
AF-S 400 F/2.8
AFS 300 F/2.8
AF-S VR 200 F/2
AF-S 500 F/4
AFS 300 F/4
AF-S VR 300 F/2.8
AF-S 400mm VRf/2.8G ED
AF-S 500mm VRf/4G ED
AF-S 600mm VR f/4G ED

AF 60 F/2.8D
AF 105 F/2.8 Tick
AF-S 105 F/2.8 VR
AF-S 60 F2.8
AF 200 F/4
PC 85 F/2.8
PC-E 24 F/3.5
PC-E 45 F/2.8
PC-E 85 F/2.8
Click to expand...

Droooooool...... I've a long way to go yet ;)
 
To be a member of Canon's CPS you need to have certain "Professional" cameras. The 1D and 1Ds as are the 5D's considered to be "Pro" bodies. ( I think the 7D is also considered a to be in this class as well ). As far as lenses are concerned then it's those with an "L" designation.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the "Pro" tag, a lot of lenses and bodies produce excellent results without someone, somewhere deciding if they are professional kit or not.
 
Dracven said:
One of the other reasons I was thinking of going over to Nikon was that whenever I zoom in one of my photographs it seems to blur at 100% which I can't understand as it certainly looked crystal clear when taking it. So I wasn't sure whether it was a limitation of the camera or the lenses.
Click to expand...

Nikon cameras never take a blurred image, that's the way to go.... :D
 
Canon designate their 1 series cameras as 'pro' bodies (1dsMkIII, 1DMKIV) etc, although there are plenty of togs that have photography as their main source of income use non pro bodies (5D , 7D etc)
 
Dravcen ! don't worry about the sony. I just got a A200 today myself, but I also have nice lens and a Nikon dslr too. just shoot, shoot, shoot, learn, learn, learn. camera stuff doesn't matter that much. business, marketing and your photo skills etc does.
 
Been reading David Ziser's latest book. As a top class professional wedding photographer I was interested to read that one of his favourite lenses is the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS (about £350 from a quick check just now).

I guess that's what makes him pro - getting fantastic photographs from "cheap" equipment. And the money saved is profit - quite useful when you're shooting for a living.
 
Dracven said:
Actually I was looking at the D5000 and found it did the same as my Sony which is why I didn't make the jump.
Click to expand...


forget it ! :) D5000 is a good camera, but it doesn't matter that much. plus there is no built in motor in d3000 and d5000 which I think is a big issue.

the other reason I switched to sony is a850 (hopefuly will get it someday) , for 24mp and full frame in Nikon you would be spending 5k and I don't need to do sports etc, so a850 is a perfect camera for me :)
 
ryanyboy said:
Been reading David Ziser's latest book. As a top class professional wedding photographer I was interested to read that one of his favourite lenses is the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS (about £350 from a quick check just now).

I guess that's what makes him pro - getting fantastic photographs from "cheap" equipment. And the money saved is profit - quite useful when you're shooting for a living.
Click to expand...


+ it looks like he is using cropped sensor right ?
 
Starastin - I was wondering whether to go for the A850 or A900 spec wise the 900 seems better but the 850 costs more so theoretically it should be better. Right now financially I'm stuck with the A200.
 
pro kit as designated by manufacturer normally has higher tolerances to cater for more intense usage

however as pointed out by many whatever you use to make money is your pro kit

professional and quality don't go hand in hand in the world of photographers however when it comes to kit classification from a manufacturers it generally does :)
 
Pro equipment would be the equipment that someone who makes money from photography uses.

I am a pro, but according to my kit list, I don't qualify for Canon Pro Services membership.

There are 2 very different types of pro...

The manufacturer's marketing hype "pro"

The pro
 
I picked up a Canon 1d Mk II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM and a Speedlight 580 MkII flash and I almost fell over backwards as it was so heavy. I would not be able to hold that combo steady enough to get a decent result let alone carry it around all day LOL. I may move up to a 50D at some point but a 1D would not be any use to me.
 
Digikat said:
I picked up a Canon 1d Mk II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM and a Speedlight 580 MkII flash and I almost fell over backwards as it was so heavy. I would not be able to hold that combo steady enough to get a decent result let alone carry it around all day LOL. I may move up to a 50D at some point but a 1D would not be any use to me.
Click to expand...

But you're a girl, being big butch blokes means that most of us don't have that problem ;)

Seriously though, they do get heavy ! Nikon's best ever film camera (and arguably the best film camera ever made) the F6 went full circle and actually became smaller than the F5. Maybe Nikon and Canon will do the same eventually. I suppose Nikon already do with the D700/D3, not sure about Canon's range.
 
jamesb84 said:
Pro equipment would be the equipment that someone who makes money from photography uses.

I am a pro, but according to my kit list, I don't qualify for Canon Pro Services membership.

There are 2 very different types of pro...

The manufacturer's marketing hype "pro"

The pro
Click to expand...

agreed. i dont meet the pro requirements as i use sigma lenses :D but i still make money out of photography.

not sure id call myself a pro either.. delusions of grandure lol
 
ryanyboy said:
Been reading David Ziser's latest book. As a top class professional wedding photographer I was interested to read that one of his favourite lenses is the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS (about £350 from a quick check just now).

I guess that's what makes him pro - getting fantastic photographs from "cheap" equipment. And the money saved is profit - quite useful when you're shooting for a living.
Click to expand...


Totally agree, if you are a pro, you should be able to get a stunning shot using standard equipment. But that is what I keep telling myself anyway...
 
Richard King said:
all marketing hype. Look at the cameras Karsh, Bresson or Adams were using to create stunning photohraphy

in 2001 this was considered a Pro camera: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/page20.asp
Im not saying dont buy a D3, I am saying consider this: what changed between now and then - are brides more demanding on quality? I applaud the companies for consistently pushing the boundaries, some of the advances are very useful, however... you just need to decide what is good for you, and go and shoot with it
Click to expand...

lol...I love it whenever someone comes up with this 'argument'...

Do you seriously think HCB, Karsh and Adams would be using 50-year old equipment if they were working in photography today?
No - they'd be using whatever kit was suitable for the job at hand, which for the most part means pro-kit...

You can get images which are indistinguishable with lower-spec cameras - I did it myself with a friend's D5000 to prove the point to her - but that camera would last about 20 minutes in a Press scrum or in a sandstorm or a thunderstorm - you don't always have time to bag the kit - sometimes it gets wet and muddy.

Being a Pro doesn't just mean photographing weddings - Pro equipment is designed so that no matter what genre the photographer is shooting, the camera delivers, be it weddings, bar-mitzvahs, US Marines storming Afghan compounds or stone-throwing intifada groupies in Gaza...

And some photographers shoot all of those and more in the course of their work...such is the modern workplace for some professional photographers.

Adams didn't, HCB didn't and Karsh didn't. So maybe they could still get by with using an antique camera - most of us don't have that luxury.
 
Pro equipment is good yes, no doubt, I would love it and indeed I will be hopfully getting a "L" lens very soon but it is to a large degree marketing hype. There is no reason in the world that "Pro" results cannot be gained with "Consumer" level equipment. 90% of a photograph is the photographer and 10% is the equipment. Look at the early work of David Bailey or the even earlier work of Dorothea Lange. These guys captured emotion on paper thats the aim, to convery somethign to the viewer. Photography is about capturing light and using it creatively to get the results you want (yes its as simple as that, thats all your doing :)), too many people worry about what equipment they have rather than technique and undersanding how to get the results they want. Yes I too do get caught up in the "oh a nice new shiney lens" syndrome but I have to say I have also learned a lot for my course and also a lot of people on here.
 
Digikat said:
I picked up a Canon 1d Mk II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM and a Speedlight 580 MkII flash and I almost fell over backwards as it was so heavy. I would not be able to hold that combo steady enough to get a decent result let alone carry it around all day LOL. I may move up to a 50D at some point but a 1D would not be any use to me.
Click to expand...

I used just that kit until Feb when I changed to Nikon. I now use a gripped D700 with 70-200 and SB900 so just as heavy. I'm only 5'3" so it is possible. You just need to compensate and learn how to carry it and learn how to make sure you are stable when shooting with it. :) Certainly my wrists know about it at the end of a full day shooting but what the heck! :D

The things that most have not mentioned, though Arkady alluded to, is the build quality, the weatherproofing, the shutter life, the processing power and things like dual card slots.

They are generally bigger and heavier cameras with more robust chassis and bodies that wear less because they don't tend to spend their lives cosseted in a nice warm camera bag.
 
Donki said:
Look at the early work of David Bailey or the even earlier work of Dorothea Lange. These guys captured emotion on paper thats the aim, to convery somethign to the viewer.
Click to expand...

But there again, I never saw David Bailey take a decent sports, wildlife or press pic. :shrug:

Anyone should be able to take a decent image with anything in the confines of a controlled studio but that's not where the bulk of pro kit spends it's life.
 
Arkady said:
Some people just don't get it...
Click to expand...

I guess that was aimed at me, I see your point about needing the "pro" level of equipment and the superior build quality for the job you do. I am not arguing with that. What I am saying is not everyone needs a camer that can survive a war.

Your point about if the older photogapers were about today using the best, of course they would, thats a bit of a no brainer. What I am saying is that look at the results they achieved with the technology they had.

P.S. There is really no need to be patronising :thumbs:
 
AliB said:
But there again, I never saw David Bailey take a decent sports, wildlife or press pic. :shrug:

Anyone should be able to take a decent image with anything in the confines of a controlled studio but that's not where the bulk of pro kit spends it's life.
Click to expand...

Very true but did that make them any less professional? What I am saying is that the word "Pro" is just a label that gets bandyed about. a professional photographer is just that...... their profession is a photographer and they are makign a living from it, no mater what equipment he uses.

The OP was asking do i need to spend £1000's of pounds to be a professional photographer and my answer was no, obviously some professions will need different equipment but to classify equipment into pro, semi pro, consumer etc is just marketing.
 
Donki said:
I guess that was aimed at me, I see your point about needing the "pro" level of equipment and the superior build quality for the job you do. I am not arguing with that. What I am saying is not everyone needs a camer that can survive a war.

Your point about if the older photogapers were about today using the best, of course they would, thats a bit of a no brainer. What I am saying is that look at the results they achieved.

P.S. There is really no need to be patronising :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I wasn't - Pro kit for Pro photographers - if you're a hobbyist then of course you don't need it. But that's not the basis of this discussion.

The results they achieved 'back in the day' were proportional to the kit they used. With current kit capability they'd probably be producing even better imagery - genius shines through all the BS at the end of the day.
 
Arkady said:
lol...I love it whenever someone comes up with this 'argument'...

Do you seriously think HCB, Karsh and Adams would be using 50-year old equipment if they were working in photography today?
No - they'd be using whatever kit was suitable for the job at hand, which for the most part means pro-kit...

You can get images which are indistinguishable with lower-spec cameras - I did it myself with a friend's D5000 to prove the point to her - but that camera would last about 20 minutes in a Press scrum or in a sandstorm or a thunderstorm - you don't always have time to bag the kit - sometimes it gets wet and muddy.

Being a Pro doesn't just mean photographing weddings - Pro equipment is designed so that no matter what genre the photographer is shooting, the camera delivers, be it weddings, bar-mitzvahs, US Marines storming Afghan compounds or stone-throwing intifada groupies in Gaza...

And some photographers shoot all of those and more in the course of their work...such is the modern workplace for some professional photographers.

Adams didn't, HCB didn't and Karsh didn't. So maybe they could still get by with using an antique camera - most of us don't have that luxury.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, im not sayng dont buy the kit, if you need a bomb proof dustproof, weatherproof camera like you do, then only the best will do. It is just marketing hype always takes a level of realism out of the equation

For shooting weddings and portraits, which is exactly what the OP is asking about, you really dont "NEED" the very latest lens or camera, just because it was Just released under the PRO tag. Some argue a Fuji S5 is the perfect wedding camera, and thats based on "older generation" Nikon

If you wanted a vehicle, and you were a courier, you wouldnt want or need a F1 car. However if you are a F1 racing driver, the 0.01% difference the change in some aero dynamic part makes is all the difference. like you say - if Fangio, or Senna were arround now, they could extract the last 0.01% out of the car, and know the difference

Shooting weddings and portraits is a business, and as such, you need a business model, of which cameras needs to be a part. One needs to also factor in duplicate kit and the like. If I pick up a job outside of my model, or the shoot is awkward in some way, and I need a obscure lens, or an expensive lens or back that doenst fit in my regular model, I have a choice based on the following questions

1. will the job pay enough to buy the kit outright
2. whats the likleyhood of shooting a job like that agiain soon

Based on that, I either buy the kit or rent it for a week/day etc.

For a wedding photographer who is starting out, whats the point of investing 15K in kit, which will depreciate by 10K in a year or so, unless your investment will be repaid back to you,. To be frank, a starting out wedding photographer will be damn lucky to clear 15K in year 1
 
Richard King said:
Agreed. However, im not sayng dont buy the kit, if you need a bomb proof dustproof, weatherproof camera like you do, then only the best will do. It is just marketing hype always takes a level of realism out of the equation

For shooting weddings and portraits, which is exactly what the OP is asking about, you really dont "NEED" the very latest lens or camera, just because it was Just released under the PRO tag. Some argue a Fuji S5 is the perfect wedding camera, and thats based on "older generation" Nikon

If you wanted a vehicle, and you were a courier, you wouldnt want or need a F1 car. However if you are a F1 racing driver, the 0.01% difference the change in some aero dynamic part makes is all the difference. like you say - if Fangio, or Senna were arround now, they could extract the last 0.01% out of the car, and know the difference

Shooting weddings and portraits is a business, and as such, you need a business model, of which cameras needs to be a part. One needs to also factor in duplicate kit and the like. If I pick up a job outside of my model, or the shoot is awkward in some way, and I need a obscure lens, or an expensive lens or back that doenst fit in my regular model, I have a choice based on the following questions

1. will the job pay enough to buy the kit outright
2. whats the likleyhood of shooting a job like that agiain soon

Based on that, I either buy the kit or rent it for a week/day etc.

For a wedding photographer who is starting out, whats the point of investing 15K in kit, which will depreciate by 10K in a year or so, unless your investment will be repaid back to you,. To be frank, a starting out wedding photographer will be damn lucky to clear 15K in year 1
Click to expand...

The analogy is flawed - an F1 race car can only do one thing: race around an F1 circuit.
Pro camera kit can be used for anything photographically - that's the point - its versatility is the selling-point.
 
Arkady said:
The analogy is flawed - an F1 race car can only do one thing: race around an F1 circuit.
Pro camera kit can be used for anything photographically - that's the point - its versatility is the selling-point.
Click to expand...


The argument rages on :).

Just answer one question.

Does a professional wedding, studio or landscape photographer NEED what your definition of pro kit is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top