Do you need a certain quality of equipment to be a professional?

Lets say you have a Canon XT 350D, or a Nikon D70, and do strobist-style shots, and your whole setup was under a grand.

Does that make you less entitled to charge normal price for your work? I am mostly thinking on one hand that its about the product, not the process. But, at the same time, doesn't a photographer owe it to the person paying to use a setup which can compete with his peers and competition?

BTW, this is not about me. I just am asking a question, that's all.

I would say, I mean I haven't seen a professional photographer shooting with a point and shoot every day.

Thing is most people who are good enough to be pros know the limitations of the cheaper cameras (because they use to use them) so they get the more expensive cameras (to match their skill level).

You need SKILL not better cameras. But with SKILL come the SKILL to use the better cameras and the realization that your SKILL has surpassed (not surprised...why did I type 'surprised' before?! ) the camera you have and your cheap camera is limiting you. SKILL!!!11

Do you get it yet?

Lots (too many) people get their first DSLR and automatically think this makes them a pro. CRAIGSLIST HERE I COME!

That said, with enough SKILL comes the SKILL to use cheap cameras, but when you have such SKILL then the clients you attract will expect you to have "professional" equipment. So it's best to have it. Like it or not, if you turn up with the same camera they have at home, they're probably gonna be unimpressed. Unless you're taking photos for Art Wolfe or something.

I have done a wedding with a D70s, the couple were more than happy with there photos, no one at the wedding came up to me and said "why havent you got a pro camera then".
I now have a D300, which I got because it was better in low light situations, and soon I am moving up to a D700, all for the reasons Stealthy Ninja has eloquently highlighted.

photobod wrote: I have done a wedding with a D70s, the couple were more than happy with there photos, no one at the wedding came up to me and said "why havent you got a pro camera then".
I now have a D300, which I got because it was better in low light situations, and soon I am moving up to a D700, all for the reasons Stealthy Ninja has eloquently highlighted.

But the thing is that you can produce GREAT prints with a consumer level DLSR. The pro model will improve your shots ONLY if you know how to use it.

If you work is really good, you can command a good price.

The "pro" level bodies have a better feature set which makes things a bit easier. As for the quality of the finished product, the camera is secondary, but as Stealthy said, once you realize that the higher end bodies have a better feature set, most people normally gravitate to it...Now to compare the say D70 to a current prosumer body, like a D90...The D90, being newer will have a better feature set, But that said, I have a D70s & I love the 1/500th max sync speed (which the newer D90 doesn't have) So bottom line is that it doesn't matter what camera is being used, it's the person & their abilities that determine the quality of the finished product...

Grind 4 wrote: ...doesn't a photographer owe it to the person paying to use a setup which can compete with his peers and competition?

Yes, but in many professional photography situations modern, entry level DSLRs in competent hands can compete perfectly well with top of the line gear. Obviously there are some situations where particular features only available on fancier cameras make the job a lot easier. The client is owed what they were promised. As long as they get what they expect they typically don't care much about the gear. Besides pros got it done with less in the past. Compared to the primitive film cameras I used to have to work with any Rebel from the XT on seems like the space shuttle. Just because they aren't the camera of the month doesn't mean they aren't capable.

On the other hand the photographer owes it to themselves to pick quality gear that makes their job easier.

photobod wrote: I have done a wedding with a D70s, the couple were more than happy with there photos, no one at the wedding came up to me and said "why havent you got a pro camera then". I now have a D300, which I got because it was better in low light situations, and soon I am moving up to a D700, all for the reasons Stealthy Ninja has eloquently highlighted.

I've probably already told my story of a wedding guest chastising me for using a no name Swedish camera (Hasselblad) when everyone knows "pros use Canon!"

Great discussion here but look at some of the older images taken with a lower quality camera in capable hands..awesome.One point that is been overlook is the use of editing software,in these days if you aren`t competent with your processing skills your images won`t be the best it can be.

Henry Peach wrote:

photobod wrote: I have done a wedding with a D70s, the couple were more than happy with there photos, no one at the wedding came up to me and said "why havent you got a pro camera then". I now have a D300, which I got because it was better in low light situations, and soon I am moving up to a D700, all for the reasons Stealthy Ninja has eloquently highlighted.

I've probably already told my story of a wedding guest chastising me for using a no name Swedish camera (Hasselblad) when everyone knows "pros use Canon!"

Man you killing me:rofl:

Having top of the line pots and pans doesnt make you wolfgang puck.

So the answer would be no.

Charge what the market will bear and what works for the photographer. If you charge to much for what you do and how they feel about it, then simply put they will stop coming, but if they are fine with it and feel the price is justified and worth it, then business will keep booming.

The more professional the set up feels (regardless of cost) and the more work they see going into a session to the more respect they will give by buying prints and giving repeat business and referrals. If it feels too makeshift, and chaotic, and if the pictures aren't AWESOME, then they are more likely to feel they can simply do it on their own. (I may be misguided in this, but that's sort of how I ended up starting, figured I could do better for a hell of a lot less with a point and shoot LOL) So basically I don't think it really has as much to do with specific equipment as much as how you make them feel about what you are doing. You have to sell the experience and the product, not the stuff. . One thing to keep in mind... better equipment is easier to use and lasts longer... you won't have stuff breaking in the middle of a session which totally ruins the "feel".

Henry,

I was once asked, "What is a Lee-ick-ah"?

And when photographing Roger Tory Peterson in FL, he told me Victor had the same camera I had when he and his wife had their picture taken in Sweden. Roger was shooting with a Canon.

And to answer the original poster, I agree, it's your skills and ability that matters most.

Matthew

All that said. You can definitely BS your way into work by having a fancy camera. But if you don't have the skills to match your camera, then you might as well use a cheap camera in auto mode.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: All that said. You can definitely BS your way into work by having a fancy camera. But if you don't have the skills to match your camera, then you might as well use a cheap camera in auto mode.