Pro's worry about lighting, Amatures worry about Cameras.
Discussion
" Pro's worry about lighting, Amatures worry about Cameras. " - its a phrase I have heard before, but I came across the perfect example of it today, I had an interesting chat with a photographer working a gig in a children's shop, doing photo's for free and selling the prints there and then.
His camera was worth the same as my flash guns ( Nikon D300 vs 3x Youngnuo 568's )
His lighting was worth the same as my camera ( 3x Profotos B1's + octaboxes vs Nikon D810 )
Now granted his flashes are doing heavy load, 1000's of flashes a day, day in day out, so the requirements are not quite equal, but I thought it was very interesting the almost total inversion of priorities.
Anyone else have the same experience ?
His camera was worth the same as my flash guns ( Nikon D300 vs 3x Youngnuo 568's )
His lighting was worth the same as my camera ( 3x Profotos B1's + octaboxes vs Nikon D810 )
Now granted his flashes are doing heavy load, 1000's of flashes a day, day in day out, so the requirements are not quite equal, but I thought it was very interesting the almost total inversion of priorities.
Anyone else have the same experience ?
I think it's more a case of pros picking their gear based on what they need for the job, after all anything you spend on gear is money that isn't going in your pocket. So for studio lit portraits it's much more about the lighting gear, pretty much any DSLR is going to give great results for the type of work that guy was doing. If you start working in low light conditions or with fast moving subjects then which camera you have becomes a much bigger issue. It's just having the right tool for the job and justifying the business case for any purchase.
There's a road bike I was absolutely in love with. It's a Cube but I cant remember the exact model... carbon frame, looks lovely, would match my mountain bike (also a Cube) but I just couldnt afford it.
So there I was shopping for a carbon framed road bike, ready to buy and had just about settled on a Boardman - so well within the budget range. I was driving home, dreaming about that lovely Cube and lamenting how it just wasn't to be, when I spied a big middle aged fat bloke in full aero clothing - totally colour coordinated - riding my lovely Cube carbon framed road bike at about 3mph, and looking totally knackered!
I felt less bad about not being able to afford that expensive road bike from that moment.
(n.b. all power to the bloke for making the effort, it just made me realise that equipment isn't all that!)
So there I was shopping for a carbon framed road bike, ready to buy and had just about settled on a Boardman - so well within the budget range. I was driving home, dreaming about that lovely Cube and lamenting how it just wasn't to be, when I spied a big middle aged fat bloke in full aero clothing - totally colour coordinated - riding my lovely Cube carbon framed road bike at about 3mph, and looking totally knackered!
I felt less bad about not being able to afford that expensive road bike from that moment.
(n.b. all power to the bloke for making the effort, it just made me realise that equipment isn't all that!)
I think people confuse what a pro is.
He has the tools for the job. He doesn't need to make every shot look like an editorial, or do anything clever with DOF or indeed shoot in low light, with intricate pp.
He just needs to be able to bosh out shots.
I'm a full time shooter, with a very impressive kit list. Yet I wouldn't be able to do those type of shoots day in day out. My speedlights wouldst cut it.
The lesson here is not spend your money on lighting instead of camera, but rather spend it on gear that is specific to your needs.
He has the tools for the job. He doesn't need to make every shot look like an editorial, or do anything clever with DOF or indeed shoot in low light, with intricate pp.
He just needs to be able to bosh out shots.
I'm a full time shooter, with a very impressive kit list. Yet I wouldn't be able to do those type of shoots day in day out. My speedlights wouldst cut it.
The lesson here is not spend your money on lighting instead of camera, but rather spend it on gear that is specific to your needs.
I think it's just a product of the way society is, companies tell us that a better product will make you better at what you want to do. It takes a certain maturity to realise this I think, certainly up until a couple of years ago (I'm 24) I thought that a better camera would take better pictures. I'm not sure I ever really believed that deep down, but it's what I convinced myself.
I imagine the saying comes from the fact a pro, who is taking pictures day in and day out, will realise it's not about the camera very quickly and hence will start to worry about things that actually matter. Depending on their mentality an amateur might go years before they realise/admit to themselves that it's not about the camera.
I imagine the saying comes from the fact a pro, who is taking pictures day in and day out, will realise it's not about the camera very quickly and hence will start to worry about things that actually matter. Depending on their mentality an amateur might go years before they realise/admit to themselves that it's not about the camera.
A pro's aim is to make money. You need a certain quality of product, and a reliability in the gear, but having the most expensive of fanciest isnt the way to do it.
A D300 is a fine camera still, very capable of producing good prints at a decent size, its failing is higher ISO, but you dont need that if you have a bunch of quality lighting!
Flash guns (aka speedlights) are weak and unreliable in comparison to studio lighting.
Read an excellent article once making a very sound business case for the 85/1.8 over the 85/1.2L.
Clients would not notice the difference in dof/quality, but having $$$ in the bank earning interest rather in than in the lens not earning any more was a far sounder decision for a pro.
^ ok that might be different if your entire sales proposition was built around shooting people at f1.2 (some are..) but if not the cheaper gear is as good and leaves you money in the bank.
A D300 is a fine camera still, very capable of producing good prints at a decent size, its failing is higher ISO, but you dont need that if you have a bunch of quality lighting!
Flash guns (aka speedlights) are weak and unreliable in comparison to studio lighting.
Read an excellent article once making a very sound business case for the 85/1.8 over the 85/1.2L.
Clients would not notice the difference in dof/quality, but having $$$ in the bank earning interest rather in than in the lens not earning any more was a far sounder decision for a pro.
^ ok that might be different if your entire sales proposition was built around shooting people at f1.2 (some are..) but if not the cheaper gear is as good and leaves you money in the bank.
MartinP said:
I think it's more a case of pros picking their gear based on what they need for the job, after all anything you spend on gear is money that isn't going in your pocket. So for studio lit portraits it's much more about the lighting gear, pretty much any DSLR is going to give great results for the type of work that guy was doing. If you start working in low light conditions or with fast moving subjects then which camera you have becomes a much bigger issue. It's just having the right tool for the job and justifying the business case for any purchase.
The regular ShotKit blogs about photographers in different filed and the kit they use is interesting - lighting equipment features heavily even for people who have to travel widely and lump it all around.http://shotkit.com
Re. the quality of equipment - there are just too may tempting toys and fantastic gadgets available now, but have a look at what Stephen Gandy says about the snapshoter's demand for the sharpest lenses here!
https://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm#Sharpest%2...
This is what always amuses me about the obsession over review scores, DxO marks, sharpness tests etc. Pretty much every single bit of camera kit produced these days is at the very least capable of producing excellent results if used appropriately. There is a small sub-set of photographers who absolutely require the very best for their work/clients, but in reality it's an incredibly small percentage of photographers.
I know a guy who very successfully shoots travel photos for a big range of clients and often has his work published large in print, yet 'only' uses a Fuji 16mp mirrorless body and one of the cheapest zoom lenses they sell for the vast majority of his work, his work is absolutely stunning. I also know an amateur who pushes his finances beyond the limit because he demands the various best kit, worrying about it to a minute level...his photos never leave his PC.
10 years ago I was shooting motorsport with a Nikon D50, even with the same lens now my work was so much better back then when I didn't have a family therefore had the time to truly dedicate myself to it, I had so many opportunities at the time on the basis of that work. It had 2.5fps and 5 (five!) focus points. Imagine trying to sell that camera now, nobody would touch it.
I know a guy who very successfully shoots travel photos for a big range of clients and often has his work published large in print, yet 'only' uses a Fuji 16mp mirrorless body and one of the cheapest zoom lenses they sell for the vast majority of his work, his work is absolutely stunning. I also know an amateur who pushes his finances beyond the limit because he demands the various best kit, worrying about it to a minute level...his photos never leave his PC.
10 years ago I was shooting motorsport with a Nikon D50, even with the same lens now my work was so much better back then when I didn't have a family therefore had the time to truly dedicate myself to it, I had so many opportunities at the time on the basis of that work. It had 2.5fps and 5 (five!) focus points. Imagine trying to sell that camera now, nobody would touch it.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff