'Pro' Equipment

[AliB]

Not a chance... He'd be shooting on an Ebony!

And he'd keep a 1DsMKIII as a back-up!







And then he'd deliberately wind you up by giving away all of his work for free!

and make a living out of telling other people what to do

 

[itsdavedotnet]

feeling good insulting people ? I find this very offensive.

I may have exaggerated with the 5times, but the reality is that people do take amazing, or even better pictures with film.
if I had to choose one camera it would be d3x.

You _can_ take an amazing photo with medium format or a disposible camera from poundland, and you can take a horrendous piece of blurry crap with the D3x....

but the D3x makes it easier and more natural to take professional quality photos with it day in, day out.

 

[Arkady]

...I may have exaggerated with the 5times, but the reality is that people do take amazing, or even better pictures with film...

They did - but usually on larger formats than 120 - now the majority of them take amazing photos on digital cameras instead...

...if I had to choose one camera it would be d3x...

And thanks for proving my point...

 

[postcardcv]

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

I'd agree with this - I'm lucky enough to have some bits that would be considered pro gear and I know that the kit will deliver consistent results. So when the photos are crap there's no getting away from the fact that it's the muppet behind the camera that's the problem.

 

[AliB]

I'd agree with this - I'm lucky enough to have some bits that would be considered pro gear and I know that the kit will deliver consistent results. So when the photos are crap there's no getting away from the fact that it's the muppet behind the camera that's the problem.

:amstupid:

 

[Starastin]

I compared it to 120 because I have one. the results with fuji velvia 50 are amazing, I would post them, but don't have them scanned.

the original post was to people who think that you need a d3x or phase one p65+ to get good results, not to people who have them. there is a good reason why d3x or any other full frame is so popular. you can do everything with it . for example - you can't go higher that iso400 with digital medium format etc and the list is endless.

 

[Starastin]

full frame digital will be my choice soon but I always remember this picture ! and it says a lot to me. maybe I'll be cured when I finally get the FF .

 

[redhed17]

Pro quality cameras change over time, seemingly ever more frequently, Pro quality lenses seem to change more slowly. The lenses make the most difference, but the technological leaps occasionally mean that a great deal can be gained from a body upgrade, and the Pro bodies normally get the new technology first.

It is normally camera technology which pushes the boundaries of what can be achieved at extremes, be that low light, working temperature/weather, frames per second or whatever. Pro photographers sometimes need to work at those extremes, and are willing to pay to get there. Not every Pro photographer will need the Pro camera, but they will probably benefit from Pro lenses which are built better, both in terms of ruggedness but more importantly, quality components and optical quality.

If the intention is to be a Wedding Photographer, then there is an expectation of a certain level of equipment by the clients imho, especially if they are paying a lot of money. Some of those expectations may be justified, some may not, it depends on the type of Photography you do. They may notice the size of the camera, but they may not notice the difference between a kit and Pro lens on the camera for example. If you've worked every shot out, and are sure that your gear can cover those situations, then fine, but Pro gear can give you more options. Don't forget to have backup gear if you plan to do professional work. No good having a great range of lenses if your one body gives up the ghost.

A truly Pro Photographer will be able to get good pics with any camera/lens, as some of the Photographers did in the BBC's Digital Picture of Britain a few years ago, but having the Pro equipment takes their pictures to another level.

Pro quality gear will not make you a Pro photographer though. I read a thread the other day (not sure it was here) that someone had upgraded from a Canon 350D > 400D > 450D, but only used the cameras in Auto/Program mode. Hopefully they have seen the improvements in their images from just upgrading the camera, though maybe not their technique. :shrug: If you have the cash though, and you enjoy the equipment, go for it. As long as you and/or the family are not starving because of it.

 

[Tobers]

A pal of mine has just produced a stunning book of photographs taken with his iPhone. Looks pretty professional to me.

Aside from that, I'd say pro gear is that which can take a bit of a pounding which comes with use day in, day out, and always reliably turn in quality pictures. Generally for Canon kit that means L-series lenses and 1D or 5D bodies. Still - nothing to stop you making money with whatever kit you've got.

 

[Kaouthia]

A pal of mine has just produced a stunning book of photographs taken with his iPhone. Looks pretty professional to me.

Arty perhaps, but not professional. Scaled down to a 2" square on a computer screen, sure they look sharp enough, but I doubt it'd stand up to much as an A2 poster, and last I looked, my iPhone didn't afford manual shutter, ISO & aperture control, hot-shoe or sync port for flashes (or even a built in flash with the ability to set it at minimum power to act as a trigger for optical slaves).

 

[Simon-Australia]

A pal of mine has just produced a stunning book of photographs taken with his iPhone. Looks pretty professional to me.

Too true......

In the end it does not matter how much you spend on gear or which brand you go for, this DOES NOT MAKE YOU A "Pro" (Although many people who spend a lot of money make them THINK they are a "Pro" and tout themselves as this).

If you give an F1 car to an amateur and a standard family sedan to an F1 driver, the F1 driver will win every time, until the amateur learns some moves from the F1 driver. This is why it's good to be a "Second shooter" at Weddings or such as much as you can with a "True" pro. Check their past work first, you don't want to learn from a bad teacher (If you want to become more professional).

On Flikr I have seen far better pictures with more "emotional content" taken with a 5 year old 2 megapixel fixed zoom camera than some shooter with high end Nikons, Canon, Sonys, Penta...........

Most "Pro" photographers for Magazines I know, STILL prefer large format film over Digital and only use a Digital camera to set up their shot before using the "Real" stuff !

Only last week I saw some Wedding shots taken by a so called "Pro" that charged a friend of my sisters an absolute fortune and they were POX ! This person (After I checked the Exif data) was using a Canon 1DS III, ALL F1.2 to F2.8 lenses and they were crap. Having the gear and being a wedding photographer does NOT make you a pro even if you ARE getting paid.

To me, in simple terms, a Pro takes fantastic images will very little effort, just instinct, no matter what ANY ONE on this forums implies. Having 10 expensive lenses and 4 top of the range bodies does not mean you will take great photos or can be called a pro. It amazes me how many people list their gear under their comments. Who really gives a crap ? Only the person listing it I would say

Look at some of the pics on flickr taken with low end cameras and you will see it's true.

An amateur with an F1 car and a big mouth does not qualify as a professional driver :nono:

I may be wrong here, but I bet 90% of people on this forum just enjoy taking pics and are looking for hints and tips from more experienced people and don't give a toss about being a "Pro" or what gear someone else has (They haven't got it, so it doesn't help them) !

In the end, the Camera and Lenses etc are tools. A great craftsperson makes fantastic stuff with basic tools, with fantastic tools, they still make fantastic stuff (With slightly less effort) A "Pro" doesn't NEED to let every one know the gear they have or links to their "Pro" businesses. Real Pros don't need to go into forums. They know they are pros and don't need to let every know they are.

 

[Kaouthia]

To me in simple terms, a Pro take fantasic images will very little effort no matter what ANY ONE on this forums implies. Having 10 expensive lenses and 4 top of the range bodies does not mean you will take great photos.

No, it does not, but somebody who can take great photos will be able to take advantage of the extra features that "pro equipment" provides - and clients often demand.

 

[Dracven]

Jinky binkies, who'd have thought my initial question of what constitutes 'pro' gear would lead to such debate!!!

Thanks everyone, it's certainly been interesting if at times a little heated debate.

I'm going to enjoy being around these forums with such people getting involved.

Thom

 

[Simon-Australia]

No, it does not, but somebody who can take great photos will be able to take advantage of the extra features that "pro equipment" provides - and clients often demand.

I just noticed a few typo's ! I'm tired and it's 2AM and I should be asleep

Yes, I agree to a certain extent, but this means people are relying more and more on the gear, rather than the skills of the photographer. Look at the fantastic pictures with emotions just pouring out from the pictures from the older photographers using basic gear less than 10 years ago.

To me it equates to someone generating a picture on 3D Studio max, printing it out and calling that art. Virtually no skills needed.

Now days, you hear about people taking 30 pictures of a scene, tossing out 27 of them and photoshopping the 3 "Keepers". They rely on RAW, Exposure bracketing, WEB, tweaking sharpness, rotating etc etc. No skills needed anymore. Just shoot off 500 to 1000 shots at a Wedding ! How many rolls of film would that be ? A true "Pro" at a Wedding, if they were gusty and as good as they think, would just take a Memory card with the capacity of 200 pics ? Don't you think ? Naw, they take 5 x 32GB cards so they can take 5000 shots, and 200 will be keepers

Far too easy these days.

Advert for Wedding Photographers

"No Skills Required"

Ce La Vie !

 

[realspeed]

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!

Slight correction the Nikon D300 still is classed as a PRO camera according to the official Nikon web site

 

[Mr_T]

It's threads like this that make me realise how nice it is just to shoot for my own enjoyment, especially from the perspective of a reformed gear fanatic.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

Pro equipment = an eye, a brain & a finger

Everything else has pretty much been said!

 

[Kaouthia]

Yes, I agree to a certain extent, but this means people are relying more and more on the gear, rather than the skills of the photographer.

No, it means more and more that lower end equipment isn't capable of keeping up with the ideas and demands of the photographer and client.

Look at the fantastic pictures with emotions just pouring out from the pictures from the older photographers using basic gear less than 10 years ago.

Yes, but from the point of view of pleasing your clients (pro gear working in a pro capacity), emotion and art isn't always (or often) what clients necessarily want.

To me it equates to someone generating a picture on 3D Studio max, printing it out and calling that art. Virtually no skills needed.

Sure, it takes no skill to load up a model in Maya and render it out, but to actually create, texture and light a photorealistic model takes a LOT of skill, and to animate it to a convincing degree of realism also takes a lot of skill and potentially expensive "Professional" software and hardware (MotionBuilder, motion tracking hardware, etc).

Now days, you hear about people taking 30 pictures of a scene, tossing out 27 of them and photoshopping the 3 "Keepers". They rely on RAW, Exposure bracketing, WEB, tweaking sharpness, rotating etc etc. No skills needed anymore.
The exact position of the clouds, the way the flare shines through gaps in the clouds, the way the reflection of the sky can change off the surface of a lake from moment to moment. Where would you learn the skillset to bend these to your will?

When a professional who knows what they're doing takes 30 shots and throws out 27, it's not because those 27 are crap, but because those 3 are more pleasing.

Just shoot off 500 to 1000 shots at a Wedding ! How many rolls of film would that be ? A true "Pro" at a Wedding, if they were gusty and as good as they think, would just take a Memory card with the capacity of 200 pics ? Don't you think ? Naw, they take 5 x 32GB cards so they can take 5000 shots, and 200 will be keepers

Far too easy these days.

It's no more or less easy than it used to be. A professional who knows what they're doing could just as easily fire off the equivalent of 4 or 5 rolls of film at a wedding and produce the exact same shots. OR they can fire off 3 or 4 times as many shots, and have a wider selection of images to choose from.

The only reason professionals didn't do this with film is because it was so damn expensive & time consuming.

Advert for Wedding Photographers

"No Skills Required"

There's a HUGE HUGE difference between some idiot throwing everything into auto mode and churning out a thousand pics at a wedding in order to try to get 30 or 40 images that might pass some sort of quality control and be presentable to the bride, and a professional who knows what they're doing shooting a thousand pics that would ALL pass the bride's quality control and then narrowing it down to the 30 or 40 best images.

 

[Tobers]

Arty perhaps, but not professional. Scaled down to a 2" square on a computer screen, sure they look sharp enough, but I doubt it'd stand up to much as an A2 poster.

Hmmm...missed point here. The pictures were taken for a small 6" square book, not for A2 posters. Not to worry.

 

[boyfalldown]

Now days, you hear about people taking 30 pictures of a scene, tossing out 27 of them and photoshopping the 3 "Keepers". They rely on RAW, Exposure bracketing, WEB, tweaking sharpness, rotating etc etc. No skills needed anymore. Just shoot off 500 to 1000 shots at a Wedding ! How many rolls of film would that be ? A true "Pro" at a Wedding, if they were gusty and as good as they think, would just take a Memory card with the capacity of 200 pics ? Don't you think ? Naw, they take 5 x 32GB cards so they can take 5000 shots, and 200 will be keepers

Its a well used, tired and somewhat pants arguement. I was flicking through Leah Bendavid - Vals excellent compelation of Nation Geographic photographs - the first page has the following on it

"Depending on the assignment, photographers can come back with 600 to 800 rolls of film, about 20-30,000 frames. But these pictures are not of 20,000 different subjects.Photographers think ahead to the editting process which reduces the number of pictures to a single slide tray -80 shots."

sounds like an even worse ratio then 200 keepers from 5000 shots to me, and it also sounds like your arguements display a considerable lack of understanding.

Advert for Wedding Photographers

"No Skills Required"

tell you what you turn up for that, shoot your 5000 no skill shots and see how long you remain in business.

 

[awp]

Being a pro is about being sent out to cover a different assignment every day and being able to deliver - no matter what. Yes - you need the right gear to do the job - but you need attitude - technique - ability - and expertise too. You don't have time to come on TP and ask what lens to use - or what lighting to hire - you just have to know what will work - and make it work. That is what separates the hobbyists from the pros. How many clicks you make to get the result doesn't matter a jot - what matters is thet you get the shot that was asked for.

 

[Kaouthia]

Hmmm...missed point here. The pictures were taken for a small 6" square book, not for A2 posters. Not to worry.

I didn't see a book, I saw a flash application that scaled them down to about 2 inches on a 24" monitor.

Still, a 6"x6" book is pretty much snapshot size, hardly professional quality.

 

[Spiritflier]

...You don't have time to come on TP and ask what lens to use - or what lighting to hire - you just have to know what will work - and make it work... How many clicks you make to get the result doesn't matter a jot - what matters is thet you get the shot that was asked for.

Hi Andrew,

So how does a professional photographer GET that knowledge without coming to places like TP or taking training or reading books and watching videos? Does it come in a camera manual or are professionals just divinely gifted beings? :shrug:

I thought that being a professional was having the skill to do the job regardless of any other commitments but also be smart enough to know that the learning never stops. Just because someone makes a living from photography doesn't necessarily make them a pro - the standard of their work should do that!

I have one aquaintance (I can't call him a friend 'cos I don't like him) who's a professional photographer and makes a fair bit each month from stock imagery. His work is what I would describe as 'technically competent' but he certainly doesn't have any real 'flair'. Unfortunately, he IS a professional photographer because that's all he does and he makes a living from it... He just happens to be good enough (although not brilliant) to do it.

Regards,
Si

 

[Laudrup]

Maybe they're born with it, maybe it's Nikon.

 

[awp]

There was no TP or internet forums when I taught myself - you made mistakes - you learned - I'm still learning almost 40 years in. The survivors are usually gifted to some extent - yes. You have to make it work - you work till it works...or you don't get the next job.

That's it - it's NIKON - it does help!

 

[Kaouthia]

So how does a professional photographer GET that knowledge without coming to places like TP or taking training or reading books and watching videos? Does it come in a camera manual or are professionals just divinely gifted beings? :shrug:

And who says a photographer DOESN'T read books, take training and ask on forums BEFORE deciding to "go pro" and make their family, mortgage, bills and entire life dependent upon its income? Who says they don't research and learn new things in their spare time when not in the middle of a job with a client?

I thought that being a professional was having the skill to do the job regardless of any other commitments but also be smart enough to know that the learning never stops. Just because someone makes a living from photography doesn't necessarily make them a pro - the standard of their work should do that!

What he meant was that when you're in a meeting with a client and they say "can you...?" you need to be able to say "yes" on the spot and present them with a solution or several, not "gimme a couple of days, I'll post on the forums and see what other people suggest I do". That does not mean that you know everything, just that you know how to meet the demands of your client. This is a pretty common business concept, regardless of profession.

I have one aquaintance (I can't call him a friend 'cos I don't like him) who's a professional photographer and makes a fair bit each month from stock imagery. His work is what I would describe as 'technically competent' but he certainly doesn't have any real 'flair'. Unfortunately, he IS a professional photographer because that's all he does and he makes a living from it... He just happens to be good enough (although not brilliant) to do it.

So, he's a technically proficient photographer, and he knows his equipment and craft well enough to make some money from it. What's your point?

Shooting stock, where you set your own assignments under your own conditions based on your own limitations and the limitations of your equipment, is often very different from the demands of a client brief, where you and your equipment (or knowing on the spot which equipment you don't have that you'll need to hire/purchase) need to be able to stand up to the requirements of anything potentially thrown at you.

 

[Spiritflier]

And who says a photographer DOESN'T read books, take training and ask on forums BEFORE deciding to "go pro" and make their family, mortgage, bills and entire life dependent upon its income? Who says they don't research and learn new things in their spare time when not in the middle of a job with a client?

Before you stand on your soapbox and patronise me again, I suggest you wind your neck in a bit son! :bang:

If you go back and read Andrew's post, you'll see where I was coming from... The inference was obviously lost on you!

Actually, forget that... Read this: "You don't have time to come on TP and ask what lens to use - or what lighting to hire - you just have to know what will work - and make it work".

That's a direct (paraphrased) quote from Andrew! Not my words... HIS! :shrug:

What he meant was that when you're in a meeting with a client and they say "can you...?" you need to be able to say "yes" on the spot and present them with a solution or several, not "gimme a couple of days, I'll post on the forums and see what other people suggest I do". That does not mean that you know everything, just that you know how to meet the demands of your client. This is a pretty common business concept, regardless of profession.

So you'd happily tell a client 'Yes' on the spot even if you didn't know (or have) the answer? Kinda makes you a bit disreputable if you do! Tell me this John... How do you know those so-called demands until the client asks you? Where did I suggest that you tell the client you're going to search for information on an internet forum? Well, tell me?

So, he's a technically proficient photographer, and he knows his equipment and craft well enough to make some money from it. What's your point?

My point is that his work is simply passable - nothing more, nothing less... Not anywhere near what I would class as being outstanding. It obviously sells so good luck to him but I thought professionals were supposed to be above 'mediocre'? Obviously not!

Shooting stock, where you set your own assignments under your own conditions based on your own limitations and the limitations of your equipment, is often very different from the demands of a client brief, where you and your equipment (or knowing on the spot which equipment you don't have that you'll need to hire/purchase) need to be able to stand up to the requirements of anything potentially thrown at you.

You're teaching your granny to suck eggs here John (again)... I'm perfectly well aware of what a client requires from me when I'm asked. I'm also honest enough to say "I don't know" when I don't know. I'd much rather a client was presented with honesty rather than bull***t! What do you do if you're asked something you don't have an answer for? Make it up on the spot and hope that you can bluff your way through it? Not me son... I'd rather be straight and say what I don't know!

I guess my business practices are a little more on-the-level than yours are judging from what you've posted above! Certainly not something I'd expect from a professional!

Simon

 

[Kaouthia]

I had written a long reply to each of your points, but I'm not going to waste that much of my time on somebody like you that has the inability to comprehend basic English.

[Inane drivel snipped for brevity]

So you'd happily tell a client 'Yes' on the spot even if you didn't know (or have)
the answer?

[More idiocy snipped]

Please tell me where I once said that? or even implied it?

when you're in a meeting with a client and they say "can you...?" you need to be able to say "yes" on the spot and present them with a solution or several

I'll rephrase it to make it REALLY simple.

When you are in a meeting with a client, IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO THEIR PROBLEMS, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE YOUR CLIENT FOR VERY LONG.

Are you with me so far? (how's that for patronising, "son"?)

A professional photographer that knows what they're doing understands not only their own equipment and its limitations, but the equipment and techniques that may be available for them to hire or purchase in order to achieve the results the client is expecting.

I have yet to actually come upon a situation where a client has asked me for something I am unable to deliver, however if such a situation did arise, I would simply tell them that I would not be able to do the job and that they should look for somebody else. Although, as I said, this has yet to happen.

Again, this is a simple concept of business. Hopefully my expanded explanation helps you more easily understand this.

I guess my business practices are a little more on-the-level than yours are judging from what you've posted above! Certainly not something I'd expect from a professional!

I guess you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

 

[goldenlight]

I have DSLR bodies for mainstrem work, a rangefinder for discrete work, medium format just in case a client asks for that and a range of fast, sharp, sturdy optics that covers all the bases from 14mm up to 200mm - the bare bones minimum for most jobs.

So your all-singing, all-dancing "Pro" DSLRs cannot cover every conceivable situation then?

 

[goldenlight]

Good grief, I've just read the last cople of posts from Spiritflier and Kaouthia - how on earth can a thread started to ask a simple question about "pro" gear degenerate into such an inglorious bun fight? You two are pros? Well, not very busy ones I'd say, judging by the amount of spare time you have for indulging in pointless arguements.

 

[alexkidd]

just a quick note, someone earlier said something about two types of pro, one being a marketing hype pro and the other the pro

in all honesty i see where you're coming from but disagree, i think i could safely say the nikon pro gear is top quality and lasts the hype i'd say was at the lower end of the market where they're selling a dream rather than the kit

imho obv

 

[Arkady]

So your all-singing, all-dancing "Pro" DSLRs cannot cover every conceivable situation then?

Actually they can - the rangefinder is a left-over from some Theatre work I did back in the 1980's - I just like to have it around for when I shoot some film for myself, likewise the MF cameras - which I keep trying to sell but no-one seems to want to buy - now why is that, I wonder?

 

[Spiritflier]

Good grief, I've just read the last cople of posts from Spiritflier and Kaouthia - how on earth can a thread started to ask a simple question about "pro" gear degenerate into such an inglorious bun fight? You two are pros? Well, not very busy ones I'd say, judging by the amount of spare time you have for indulging in pointless arguements.

Hi John,

I guess that's a fair assessment... Kaouthia does seem to like to do his little peacock routine and last nights' outburst was just too much to swallow. Since he decided to take a swipe in my direction, I wasn't letting it go without a response! You have my apologies though for descending to his level. It was late at night and I struggle to suffer fools gladly!

I'm not a full-time photographer. I actually work in the electricity supply industry. I spend my day working with single phase and three phase systems and chasing people who fiddle their electricity supplies. My photography work is something I enjoy but don't have a need to pursue full-time although I've thought about it on occasion. It's also the reason I tend to get a little angry at some of the self-important types floating about... It's just photography - it's not life or death!

Best wishes,
Si

 

[grahamsewelluk]

I was once told that there are two types of pro kit:
professional - meaning people earn thei money using them - in which case from Canon it would be 7d, 5d, 1d
Professional - call it Professional and double the price and amateur punters will buy it cos they think they are buying a bargain - best examples are thing like camera straps and filters.

 

[Yv]

Just a reminder to all to keep tempers and ego in check please guys, remember, if you can't express your opinion politely, then step away from the keyboard

 

[goldenlight]

Actually they can - the rangefinder is a left-over from some Theatre work I did back in the 1980's - I just like to have it around for when I shoot some film for myself, likewise the MF cameras - which I keep trying to sell but no-one seems to want to buy - now why is that, I wonder?

Then why mention the rangefinder and MF in a stand alone sentence that describes kit which is "the bare bones minimum for most jobs?"

You pros really need to make sure the information you impart to us wannabe amateurs on this forum is correct, I was about to rush out to buy a Leica M6 and a Hassleblad until you corrected that statement!

 

[jamesb84]

Being a pro is about being sent out to cover a different assignment every day and being able to deliver - no matter what. Yes - you need the right gear to do the job - but you need attitude - technique - ability - and expertise too. You don't have time to come on TP and ask what lens to use - or what lighting to hire - you just have to know what will work - and make it work. That is what separates the hobbyists from the pros. How many clicks you make to get the result doesn't matter a jot - what matters is thet you get the shot that was asked for.

Amen brutha!

As a pro sports tog I'm asked to cover all sorts of weird and wonderful sports (including toe wrestling, bog snorkelling and tiddlywinks).

I need to be able to deliver photos of a high standard for my employers every time, even if I have no knowledge of the sport. I need to do that in all locations (which has a big impact on 3G signal), all weathers (can't wait until you're in the dry press room to get your laptop out - those photos need to go NOW). I need to be able to produce something that makes my work (and the agency in general) stand out from the 999 other togs that have turned up...so I need to know what I can do with my camera, and circumstances that will make something unique...is there a different vantage point to everyone else (remember a couple of weeks ago with the Monaco Swimming Pool F1 shots), do I have a different lens in my bag that could do something for me? Can I set up a unique remote to capture something else (Rovers_Andy and I had a great conversation about remotes the other evening - with some really unique ideas)

Thats what makes a pro.

just a quick note, someone earlier said something about two types of pro, one being a marketing hype pro and the other the pro

in all honesty i see where you're coming from but disagree, i think i could safely say the nikon pro gear is top quality and lasts the hype i'd say was at the lower end of the market where they're selling a dream rather than the kit

imho obv

Oooh, that was me (I think you mean me)...I think you may have misunderstood...the marketing hype kit is the brand new stuff like the 1DmkIV or the 70-200 f/2.8IS II. Great stuff but the 1DmkIII and 70-200 f/2.8 IS will suffice. If there's no need to buy it, then dont.

The older stuff like the 1DmkII and mkIIN is great still, I use them...I know other guys who still use the non-IS 400L because it's still a great piece of kit. There is still pro kit thats over 10yrs old...and still works great.

 

[awp]

do I have a different lens in my bag that could do something for me?

LOL - I came across this just last night - shooting a rugby team that had just been awarded some cash for ground improvements - I know sounds dull -I was shooting some nice wide shots with the 24mm - when this other photographer started working with his 14-24mm. Now there were only the two of us and he did offer to lend me his lens - but imagine where you had six togs all working at 14mm and I've only got a 17-35mm - that's when you know you need to spend more on new kit! LOL

 

[Arkady]

Then why mention the rangefinder and MF in a stand alone sentence that describes kit which is "the bare bones minimum for most jobs?"

You pros really need to make sure the information you impart to us wannabe amateurs on this forum is correct, I was about to rush out to buy a Leica M6 and a Hassleblad until you corrected that statement!

IMO you tend to come across as a bit of a prat for posts like this...even for a wannabe amateur...

There's a difference between making a point and scoring points...

I mentioned the other kit I own to demonstrate that I have access to all manner of kit, some of it legacy equipment from pre-digital days, not just a couple of DSLRs I picked up last year and am therefore able to decide what kit I actually need for any conceivable job.
I would shoot digital as a matter of course nowadays, but if a client specified film for whatever reason, I am thus able to accommodate that client's wishes...
Just so as to make sure that people like you who obviously don't know better didn't think I was speaking as one new to photography and therefore unable to make a qualified assessment based on other types of equipment.

I do like to give you wannabe amateurs the full picture after all...

Which also begs the question: why would you wannabe an amateur...?

 

[Voyager]

It's a good point and understandable in view of recent trends with kit-release frequency, but with the latest tranche of Pro-DSLR bodies I think we've finally reached a stage where you can hold onto a current body and be fairly secure in the knowledge that it'll last a good five years or so.

And that only applies to bodies.

Bookmark this comment for May 2015.... What cameras do you think you'll be using then?

Good lenses are good for ever, if you buy right first time.

Unless you were a Canon 'pro' back in the 80's and had a bagful of FD lenses that didn't work with the new EOS bodies.

Of course the manufactures won't do that again... will they?