Pros vs Amateurs

Good post Charles.  I like the expression “Working Photographer” as some of us end up doing pro-bono work for amateur theatre as they could never afford to pay a proper “professional” fee for what is done.  Like many, if not most, amateur groups their performances are of professional standard and so deserve professional level photography.  This is where the “pro-photographer” becomes the “working photographer”.  Some can do this for the publicity of services that they also offer on a paid basis.  I quickly gave up selling prints - this was a nightmare.  So I just do it as an expensive hobby.  At least it does give an opportunity to test one’s skills.

Of course everyone with a camera is a photogrpaher and “players” tend not to be “enthusiastic photographers”. As a result anyone with a camera that wants to give the business a whirl can get a whirl at it - this results in dressing room shots and rehearsal shots of various cast memebers and invited friends with gear used ranging from mobile phones right through to dslr kit of various pedigree.

I did invest in some “to die for” dslr kit and lenses and had enough gigs to become reasonably proficient at this type of work. But once fixed with lenses the constant churn-over of expensive dslr bodies became a chore.

As one of my clients in my real business (not photography) once explained to me “being a tip truck driver is a hard business because anyone who can afford the HP deposit on a tip truck can be a tip truck driver”.

So with the photography scene we have an endless supply of would-be photographers and most of it is a financial morass where the guy with the biggest shiny new truck is king of the heap. It also helps immensely to be good at marketing oneself.

There is a lot of status involved and when I turned up at a rehearsal with several GM5 bodies each with a lens on it I was getting innocent “small camera” remarks - even though it inluded the then incomparable Nocticron.  But they knew my work and trusted in my working professionalism.  I don’t get the same sort of remarks with my faux-dslr G9, especially when I stick it on the end of an EF 400/2.8 on a huge tripod.  

So there is a certain status that the true professional must have and that is big-camera-body and M4/3 mimics this by insisting that the M4/3 body must be larger than it truly needs to be.  The manufacturers cannot be wrong in making and selling these larger bodies as this is what obviously sells otherwise they would soon enough stop making and selling them.  This is despite many who complain about the larger size and others who seem to think that they might as well buy FF sensor bodies once the M4/3 bodies have become larger than the smallest FF sensor body on offer.  Why was the GM series regarded  as a compact pocketable camera only suitable for backups?  Why do “refugees” from the dslr camp give thanks for a “lighter kit” ... “ooh my back - it is happier now” and explain that the M4/3 camera body that they have just bought happens to look just like a dslr and also just happens to be the largest M4/3 camera body in the catalogue.

I used to use a dslr for “working” and other cameras for more protability and “sheer fun”.  The reason why I as a “working photographer” used dslr kit was that when I only had one chance to get the best shot (or shots) I could not afford to miss it or them by a camera muck up - whether settings or sheer reliability.  The dslr body and lens were simply reliable even if they were not as sophisticated.

Now I am confident that my M4/3 gear right through from GM5 to G9 can do the job and that is what I use.

The other thing is the image of the dslr as a “proper camera” so if someone camera unsophisticated were to walk into a store and ask for “a good camera” then they are a lay down misere to be sold a kit dslr and lens.  They were half sold already by seeing the dslr gear that true professionals are using.  But it is all a staus “lie” as when lined up at the barriers with a bunch of other enthusiast photographers who know the gear the tell tale number on the camera bodies show how old the bodies are and how much they cost - and of course a kit lens looks like  ... well a kit lens.  Therefore for serious situations the pecking order is quickly sorted out.  But no doubt the unsophisticated with entry level dslr gear is a bit of a “wow” among their friends.

So we cannot ever under-estimate the status provided by the “proper” dslr camera kit - a lot depends on where you hang out with it.

I think that it would be quite possible to successfully professionally shoot a wedding with (say) two GM5 bodies but wonder just what sort of fee could be negotiated when many of the wedding guests would have “proper” dslr cameras and even mobile phone cameras and are only too happy to show that “their” gear can capture images that “are just as good”.

I wonder just what will happen to those dslr kits once the FF ML camera body is adopted by obvious working professionals?  There is not going to be much difference in look between any FF ML faux-dslr than even a large M4/3 faux-dslr but the real dslr owned by those that wish to look serious is suddenly going to look what it really is - far too large and old fashioned.