How often do amateurs show up with better gear than the "pro."

[gcmj45acp]

Went to an in-law's wedding lastnight with my 7D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS as well as my 580 EX II just in case I needed my own light source. Was going to leave it all at home but, the wife unit asked me to bring my gear just for family photos she would distribute via email/Flickr/Picasa. Now let me say I am by no means a pro and don't pretend to know a damned thing about shooting a wedding. But I know enough from interviewing and hiring my own wedding photographer that I needed be sure no one had trouble with my gear and I needed to make sure I stayed out of the real photographer's way.

I being part of the bride’s extended family, it was easy enough to ask for and receive permission from both families but, no one knew exactly where the photographer was. He was onsite, but they couldn’t point him out to me. But, photographers contracted to shoot weddings are often easy to spot before you see their gear. They typically dress down so as not to stand out but they still stick out like a diamond in a goat's butt. Why do so many wear all black or look light beatniks by the way? And of course, there is just a certain attitude or demeanor about them in that they don't typically appear to be nearly as happy as the other guests. So I spot THAT guy just as the ceremony starts…too late to check with him but, I think I’m smart enough to stay out of his way.

Now I’m not a gear snob but, I wouldn't expect a "pro's" gear to be several notches below my own or otherwise comparable to the entry-level gear in the hands of a third of the guests. I also typically expect to see at least two 20D or D200 type bodies at the least. Perhaps one of the bodies is a spare on the off chance the primary dies. Alternately; I might expect, one body with a "normal" lens and the other with a "long" lens. But this wasn’t what I saw.

No, instead this guy is shooting the wedding party’s walk down the aisle with a Nikon D40/D60 with 18-55mm kit lens and SB-400 flash. It gets worse….Every time he shot, I could hear a focus confirmation beep indicating the camera might have been shooting in full-auto mode or at least was still in factory configuration. And that is the entirety of his rig other than a tripod that came out for portraits later. I haven’t seen his results but the joke of the night was the fact the guy was busy checking out my gear rather than shooting as the bride and groom cut the wedding cake. Someone also noted I shot more than this guy did which I can’t verify.

I took 450 photos last night and tossed almost three-forths of them. I am really interested to see this guy’s results. I only used the flash for about two dozen of the original shots and those were all group shots after the reception. Otherwise, I avoided using the flash so as not to disturb the photographer. But, tell me…How often does this kind of stuff happen? It almost seems like this guy bought a camera and just started calling himself a pro. And no one has seen fit to call him on it.

[ndsimm]

chances are they've been in business less than 3 years and probably charged less than $1000

[Tom]

Originally Posted by ndsimm

chances are they've been in business less than 3 years and probably charged less than $1000

Exactly. What city's craigslist were they hired from?

[dwilliams35]

Cuts both ways: I've been asked to do weddings just because I've got a cooler camera than the bride does.

On the other hand, I guess there would be a theory out there that a camera that costs less than my first car could lend some "obscurity" and unobtrusiveness to the practice? Like you're just the third groomsman's little brother, instead of a big-time pro?

[ronocnikral]

are there a couple guest at weddings that have "better" gear than us? almost always. but i don't know if you would consider us "pro."

it's all relative. sans your 17-55, everything you own is better than what we would roll in with, and newer.

but, we have 2 5d's backed up with 30ds and a 20d if we are in pinch. we bought our 70-200 before IS was around. not to mention some sb-28 flashes. we'll most likely use this gear until it dies or until we feel a true benefit of upgrading. i think this is within your expectation of what a "pro" should have, but i plan to continue using the 5ds for at least 2 more years, barring any major technological breakthroughs.

reason, well...we're running a business. at the end of the day we could afford to upgrade everything and still make our profit. or, we could continue shooting with what we have and make even more money. keeping up with the latest and greatest is a surefire way to cut your profits at our level, $30k-$40k/year gross. guests can look at our gear and laugh, but we are able to still satisfy our clients.

would i like 5dmkiis or 1dsii or iii. yes. will it pay itself out in print sales and bookings? most likely not. would i rather have more cash? yes.

let the pictures be the ultimate judge. that's what is preached here all the time. that and apparently not judging people....

[Michael Antares]

The other perspective, and a novice one: don't we all get our start somewhere? I'd be interested in comparing results as well.

What comes to mind is, why not offer yourself for weddings you'll be in attendance for? There are many reasons why it may not be a good idea - just a question.

As to the newbie, I myself may be doing a wedding with a 50D, a 50mm f/1.8 II, a 28-130mm f/3.5-5.6, and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, along with a mediocre 430EX Speedlite. Pretty amateur setup, nowadays. But if I know how to use my equipment, and make sure I dedicate those hired hours to getting the best memories possible on camera, then haven't I done what I was hired to do? Or am I treading blindly where fools dare not wander?

Please note the number of previous posts :-) When I say just getting started, I mean I bought in September 2009.

Cheers,
Michael

[ChristopherCoy]

Its funny how everyone always rants about how a camera is 'just another tool', or 'its not the camera, its the photographer', but yet when someone has lesser gear than your own they're labeled as a 'craigslist pro' before anyone knows the entire story.

[dlanter]

Had a similar experience a few weeks ago at my niece's college graduation. I had my 70-200 2.8 & 24-70 2.8 with me and after asking permission from some college staff I setup my tripod off to one side in an aisle. Right before the ceremony was to begin the "pro" photog came up to me looking over my gear. I thought he was going to try to ban me from shooting but instead he asked to borrow my 24-70 when I wasn't using it. After laughing & saying no I noticed what was hanging on his shoulder, XTi & kit 18-55 with the popup flash open.

[XoZe]

OK...I don't get this. I've read thread after thread after thread here, recommending to save & buy top of the line, rather than having to incrementally upgrade gear. So, if you follow this advice, wouldn't you ecounter others with "lesser" gear than you, more often than not?

I've also read several threads of others stating that a good photographer can capture a good picture regardless of the equipment. So....

So, as a beginner, should I go for the best equipment as I can afford, or make the best of the equipment I already have?

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by XoZe

I've also read several threads of others stating that a good photographer can capture a good picture regardless of the equipment. So....

Some people are gear hounds and like to have the best.

They do make it seem that its the camera that makes the photograph.

If you have a decent camera and a good lens, that should be all you need to make excellent photographs.


I don't think many full time pros upgrade as often as amateurs. If you are in it for the money and the tool you have is working, it would be tough to make a business case to upgrade.

You have to run the business side of your business.

[groovyone]

I did at one wedding, to the point he was asking me a lot of question about my technique and gear. (Thanks Chris and Ken for the technique) I think he may have been a friend of the family though.

[ptrd]

^both :)

I've seen both sides and I'm just a hobbyist. I went to a friend's wedding and the hired photographer had gear to be envious of, even his secondary shooters.

Then I've been to another friend's wedding where I had better gear and people were asking me to take pictures. But this was a quick budget wedding and I just wanted to be a guest, not a photographer.

[ldelacruz]

An old school pro with years of experience wouldn't need all the newest high dollar equipment to achieve professional results. Plus he is in business and would treat it that way when buying new gear.

The proof is in the photos. You should post yours!

[ndsimm]

just to clarify my point, my concern was not necessarily the gear, but rather the settings used by the photographer according to the OP which leads me to believe there is a lack of experience...

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by christophercoy

its funny how everyone always rants about how a camera is 'just another tool', or 'its not the camera, its the photographer', but yet when someone has lesser gear than your own they're labeled as a 'craigslist pro' before anyone knows the entire story.

+1