Mango Street lab put together a fun video where two individuals, one a pro and one an amateur, shoot the same model and compare results. The catch? The pro is shooting with a kit costing around $500 used: a Canon T3i and 18-55mm kit lens, plus a 40mm F2.8 pancake. The amateur on the other hand is using a kit costing nearly 10x as much: a Canon 5D Mark IV and 35mm F1.4L II.
In the end, both photographers get great shots – it turns out the amateur had more skill than he let on. Despite this, the point is clear: gear alone can't make up for actual photographic skill – something that comes largely from time spent behind the lens. And a good photographer can usually make strong images, regardless of the camera used.
Now stop reading about gear and go shoot! It's the best way to improve.
I'd like to know the details of their lighting setup. The video makes it look like natural light, but the photos seem very well lit. Lighting would be a great equalizer when it comes to pro vs amateur gear.
The photos or the prints to be used destination should define the camera, lenses and the necessary equipment. I am not a pro, but about 5 years ago agreed (did not better) to help my friend artist to photograph his paintings, which images should be sent to a publisher. All I had were Olympus E-510 and a small tripod. However, I have learnt and added/replaced hardware: strong tripod, light, color checkers, camera and monitor, calibrations, printer and its profile, soft proofing, Raw. Plus add a new camera and lenses. Olympus E-510, Canon T1 or T2 were not match for the job. Camera is a tool, which should be right for the job.
The video has shown screen size photos. Can these photos to be cropped and printed 13x19. What would be the print quality including sharpness and noise?
As an amateur, I agree: for internet, prints up 16" long side for a photo club competitions an entry level modern DSLR with APSC sensor should be more than sufficient. - I like the video!
This shows that even in this digital age with cameras that have every feature you could want or need even in an entry level SLR, it is the skill and experience with the elements of photography that ultimately decides the success of a great photo. A pro is still a pro and this will prove out every time.
The point the authors are trying to emphasize is valid in suitable conditions. When there is a studio setting, lighting, etc., the pros can do it even with a brownie.
When the situations get tricky, the ISO needs to go higher, you want to be able to change settings quickly without diving into the menus, then even the pros start looking for better equipment.
In any case, it has raised some interest again in my old XTi. I need to get a couple of cheap pancake primes and start using it again - at least in good light.
It's an important difference. Gear will always result in better photos in a certain way, but talent matters to give images what matters in a different way.
This reminds me of a demonstration we conducted back in the early 90's in the context of microcomputers and software training. In those days sale staff made money from the hardware and would give away the training to sell it. As a trainer I found this devaluation of skills extremely frustrating. To make our point we set up two data projectors, one attached to the latest PC fully spec'd with maximum RAM and the other to an older more modest unit. Both machine used the same applications and operating system. On the hi-spec machine we put a salesman who was all about the gear, on the other one of our trainers. They then produced a series of fairly standard documents and spreadsheets and we compared the time and quality of their work in real time. The trainer absolutely slaughtered the salesman.
Our point was, and mine still is, that it is all about the outcome, and the human elements is still the dominant factor in the quality of the result.
I might add that when PC's first came out everyone took training because there was no precedent, so they learned to use the software in a structured, effective manner. These days people are believed to know how to use this stuff so there is minimal training, yet their experience is usually not applicable to a business environment, and I find many users less capable than they were back then after training. As I watched someone painfully killing a document over a long period using a sophisticated word processor, it was like giving someone a hi-tech drill and watching them pound in nails with it...
As someone playing around with photography and learning as I go, I just want to ask, what skills are they talking about exactly? His utilisation of available light? How to talk to the model and positioning her? Capturing those in between moments between poses? Knowing which aperture/shutter speed etc. to use? Is there anything else I'm missing? Just asking because I'd like to know if there are other technical aspects of photography that I'm not aware of and can work on.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head - they're mostly talking about the light and pose - things that come with a combination of practice, expertise, and natural talent. E.g. think about the shots in natural light from the window; even with the model in a set pose, there's a lot of options in how the angle of that pose in relation to the light defines areas of shadow, and then the angle of the photographer for the actual image. Also knowing what poses will work best for a given model, having, more confidence in directing the model, grabbing candids betwen shots, and so on.
There are also a lot of technical techniques you can use to achieve specific effects that an amateur might not be fully aware of beyond manipulating shutter & DoF. Just on lighting you've got backlighting, rim lighting, hair lighting, Rembrandt lighting..., modifiers like umbrellas, snoots, reflectors..., using/simulating classic lighting effects like film noir..., all of which can completely an image's tone.
I remember being on the sidelines of a football (soccer) match and there was another parent with a Nikon D3xxx, and I nailed a shot of my son saving a goal. We were comparing photos after, and she commented maybe she should get a camera like mine.
sigh.
She simply had the camera on full auto, wasn't even using exposure compensation, let alone program shift.
Few of her pictures were accurately focussed, most had poor exposure (the weather was a mix of bright sunshine interspersed with dark clouds, so exposure was tricky) and she wasn't anticipating the actual timing of the kick, so missing the shot entirely.
All those things could have been overcome with her humble D3xxx, if she had only read and practised a beginners guide to photography!
a photographer who worries about equipment is an amateur a photographer who worries about money is a professional a photographer who worries about light is a photographer
Why do so many enthusiats have scorn for photographers who happen to have the financial means to buy expensive gear? I started taking pictures and developing my own prints in a darkroom about 40 years ago on a stringshoe budget. I used to worry about my equipment because it limited me. I am more affluent now and own some excellent digital gear. I worry less because I can shoot better pics in poor light, crop without sacrificing too much definition, and Photoshop anything about the composition I do not like in post. My photography has impoved, dramatically. I like this confidence. For me, photography is much more enjoyable with the latest and greatest gear. Nor do I consider myself a snob. I'm a bit of a collector and appreciate fine equipment for what it is. Photography is not all about the light, the message, the story, the composition... Photography means different things to different people for different reasons. The journey can be equally as important as the destination.
There is very little difference in image quality between Canon's pro and consumer gear save for high ISO. Many pros carry Rebels as backups simply because the rendering is very close and overall operation is similar. I shot with both Canon FF and Rebels and barely noticed any difference outside of DOF. If you got the FF itch but don't want to spend the money get a rebel.
Seems to be much more about working with a model than knowing what to do either piece of kit. I could tell you all about the pros cons of either setup and what shots might be ideally suited for either but if you sit me in front of a model I'd probably waste her time and mine, just not in my wheelhouse!
Weird choice of kit. "Amateur" kit has much better range of focal lengths, only drawback is less control over DOF. Now, give the "pro" kit a 24- or 28-70/2.8 and see how that works.
Or, you know, realise that an APS-C dSLR is still a pretty sweet piece of kit and give the professional photographer a compact zoom from 2010.
I'm sure the pro would get great photos even with substantially worse gear, but IMO that gear selection is not very helpful. But then, this article was for getting clicks, not to truly inform, so I guess mission accomplished.
Gear matters for action shooting, it's all about focus. It also matters for DOV control cheap lenses limit you. But a good photographer can adapt and for years sports photos were taken without ANY autofocus nor screens to check. Not sure this video proved any of this, but I appreciate the attempt.
Just wanted to note that while the 40mm pancake is cheap, it's actually a very good lens. It was actually the only lens I used on my 5D Mk II for a couple years. Great for walking around.
I understand the spirit, but the execution is a bit unfair. First of all choosing to do portraits in good light, where resolution, low light capabilities, dynamic range and AF speed are not really important. Second choosing a 35mm for portrait? The 60 mm (40mm x 1.5) is a more natural perspective for portrait. What would have been the result making sport picture (maybe even indoors), the professional using a tamron 70-300 4.5-6.3 and the amateur something like a 400/2.8 with a set of multipliers?
I understand their point, but they completely went about this the wrong way. All they should've done is state, "here is the camera I bought for under $400 and here are the photos I was able to produce". That's all that was needed not the comparison to an average photographer with expensive gear. Silly approach.
What I would've done is got a Canon 5D classic off Kijiji, got a couple of the cheap lenses: 50 mm F1.8 and an old manual 24 to 70 mm F2.8 lens. Processed the raw files in the cheapest software available. It's still amazing the quality of photos that old camera takes, and I've seen them on Kijiji for under $350 Canadian dollars. 50mm F1.8 EF lens used for under $50 and manual 24-70 lens for under $100, with cheap $10 adapter to EF mount.
It used to be that one needed talent, a 100 000 dollars worth of knowledge, and ten thousand dollars worth of equipment to do "pro" level work. Nowadays only the equipment entry fee seems to be lower...
I think they disadvantaged the amateur with that 35mm prime lens. It's not even close to what I'd choose in that setting. It forced him to either get too much background or a nasty close-up perspective.
What was this supposed to convey? That a more expensive camera doesn't help one specifically in framing a better studio shot?
This had nothing to do with the features that most 'better' systems offer: things like autofocus speed, buffer performance, sharpness, tonality, dynamic range, noise performance, depth of field control, ergonomics & controls, build quality, etc.
It's sort of like comparing a basic car to a sports or luxury car--with the comparison being: "Can you get from 'point a' to 'point b' with either car, assuming flat pavement and no curves?"
The correct conclusion is not along the lines of 'Therefore, the equipment is irrelevant.'
Not quite how I saw the message. If someone sucks at photography, they shouldn't blame the gear (or putting it nicer, if someone wants to improve in their photography skills, they shouldn't automatically go to the most expensive gear available). Taking your car example, it's like someone struggling to be a good driver, so instead of practicing with the cheap car they already have, they go out and buy an expensive car because it's they feel it is the gear's fault, not theirs. This video reminds me of the video series pro photog with a cheap camera...or something like that.
The purpose was to convey that you get more out of learning and having the experience shooting than relying on technology. A better car analogy would be, give an amateur a Porsche and a pro a Honda and who finishes the race first?
So, if you had another $1000 to spend, do you get a nicer camera or do you take photography lessons? The latter gives you more bang for the buck.
I used the car analogy on purpose--the key was in the test.
I don't know if you followed the the car analogy I used: it wasn't a race because nothing about the test challenged the technical capabilities of the cars, just like nothing here challenged the technical capabilities of the cameras.
This is not like giving an amateur and Porsche & a pro a Honda and seeing who finishes the race first--it's more like seeing who can park the car in a straighter line. The Porsche's superior specs become less relevant in parking; but a race would have had more technical challenges and required more skill.
If the scenario was for both photographers to shoot fast moving subjects in challenging lighting with closer looks at comparisons, this test would make more sense, just as a race does.
I look at this differently, having excellent equipment means that any screwups cant be put down to the equipment holding me back. Its just me that sucks...
As a professional, I like to state an observation regarding that (constant) discussion. First, just because someone accepts money for what he or she is doing, does not mean, he or she is not doing it with love or passion: Many people say: Amateurs are the better choice, they do the job out of love- accepting money were always something negative. That`s simply wrong. Another thought: I often observe, that amateurs are doing outstanding work- if they can choose the time, the subject, the outside & personal conditions under which they shoot. What makes clients choose pros though is, that a professional produces a maybe not outstanding, but a predictable outcome under any (!) set of conditions, regardless of: weather, time, gear, tight deadline, outside conditions, regardless of his own mood or state or safety, regardless of the often lacking motivation or support of the people he must work together with. Even in a worst case scenario, a good pro reliably delivers something "usable".
I couldn't agree more. Consistency is a defining feature of professionalism. Professionals' quality of output in any field will vary (relative to each other and even relative to non-professionals); however the key difference between an amateur and a professional is indeed professionals' ability to reproduce or produce (for the first time*) similar results...reliably and repeatedly... in same and different situations in which they are qualified. *New professionals may not possess a slight advantage over non-professionals with many years experience, as new professionals (once qualified) probably have learned better practice, new tech, better processes, but may or may not have practical experience 'applying' their new knowledge at level of quality that rivals an experienced amateur's.
DrBlackjack: I was encouraged by fotopizza's comment as it gives me a goal to strive for in my photography. I appreciated fotopizza's comment because it deepened discussion from the original article / youtube post. I imagine everyone might agree with the general conclusion of the article ("...a good photographer can usually make strong images, regardless of the camera used..."), but distinguishing between a professional and amateur may allow amateurs, like myself, to aspire to improve the consistency of what they produce... in my case I would like to achieve this type of consitency...with whatever gear I have, under any conditions. Thank you fotopizza, your post gave me something to reflect on and to strive for in my photography.
Indeed you did. We have all seen both stellar, mediocre and bad pictures from both pros and amateurs. Some pros are excellent at doing business but shoot mediocres pictures. Some amateurs are excellent but won't make it their profession. And some pros are good at business and deliver stellar quality. Being an amateur means only you are not making money from your pictures.
Yup.... in all honesty, a good amateur can have way more skills than a pro. In almost any area. Usually a professional will do better, know more tricks from their trade and have a better workflow, simply because they are engaged with their task more time.
I think there can be an interpretations of semantics too. Amateur can mean in the right context someone who just dabbles and professional someone who explores in depth. I think both views can be used depending on context.
Like for example- amateur results or professional results usually refer to not so good work in the first, good work in the second.
Not saying the interpretation you used is wrong but it's not the only one.
The interpretation that amateur is "bad" and professional is "skilled" is just plain wrong. The words do not even mean those!
Professional means person of profession and works up to profession requirements. Amateur is borrowed from Latin amātor (“lover”), from amō (“to love”) and means that you have other interest than a money to the subject.
There are other words as well like "unprofessional" and it doesn't mean "non-skilled" (like by the logic above should dictate if professional means skilled) but that one doesn't act and work like a profession requires.
A professional can't have a personal opinions about the job doing, that is professionalism. Meaning you can't choose to whom you work or who gets you hired. But so easily a personal opinions and judgement comes to play and causes unprofessional behavior.
No, it's not "plain wrong" - look the definition in the dictionary. Webster has both meanings actually for amateur (both I mentioned).
"one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science The people running that company are a bunch of amateurs. " - webster.
Same for professional though a bit perhaps more implied "characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession"
This is used often to denote a certain level of standards contrasted with amateur- as I said- *in the right context*. I am certainly not disputing the other interpretation.
As for the etymology of the words- sure, but words change over time from their root, so it's hardly a fixed quantity. Otherwise we would be speaking Latin for that and we don't.
As for a professional not having personal opinions about their job- I have no idea where you go that. Whether you express those opinions...
Whether you express those opinions or not is a different matter. And the prices you pay for doing so. But there are sure several professionals that have expressed their opinion about something job related. Same with "you can't chose who you work with" - again, it depends. I know of several jobs that the person to do the job declined to do the job for the client because the client could not agree, did not want to agree or made unreasonable claims for the establishment of the service contract. So that's not true either.
The very last sentence may certainly be true for some situations, but doesn't represent the universe of possibilities..
If you are a professional, then you will do all the work for everyone regardless their race, age, religion or any other similar things. If you do define your profession to be something else like you are a Christian priest, then it is normal that you don't wed Muslims or Hindus... But if you are a butcher, then if you deny to butcher one client cows because you lost to him in card game... You ain't a professional.
If you will define in your work description what services you do apply, it is then your rights to do so as well. So if you want to work only on monday and friday, then you can do so! It is your business.
Tommi K1... that has nothing to do with being a professional. Choosing who to work for in regards of their race or religion, granted, could be possibly a case of racism or discrimination. and while I think every person is entitled to their own choices, I prefer people that can see past those two very basic filters.
Regarding age... in the case of photography, there are many cases of professionals specializing in certain type of photography kids / babies, for example... some hair stylists do so too. I wouldn´t regard them as "less professionals" for narrowing their field of work to a certain age group.
And for the "any other similar things" is too broad of a stroke to accept it bluntly. One can have a strong view on a certain subject, and choose not to work for a person who totally oppose these views, or goes against a certain set of values you have. I regard this as an underlying ethics which may be valuable in some cases... for example choosing not to do work for a publicly known bigot, or racist, could be among the lines of said choice (to give but one example). I would never regard a person as unprofessional for choosing to go with their convictions against an unethical client.
The choice to do a certain job or to refrain from it can be a statement by itself on occasion. And part of being a good professional could very well be knowing when to step down.
@matpan. I think you have misunderstood everything I wrote.
If you are a professional, you can always specilize to something very specific thing (oh dah!). But that doesn't mean you will reject then the customers based something else.
Like okay, someone speciality and business is to photograph a babies in sleeping positions etc by drugging them. It is their business. But then if they start to say "Oh, I don't shoot dark skinned babies" or "I will decide is your baby beautiful enough to be worth the time..." then they are not professionals.
Professionalism doesn't allow personal opinions. This is the whole core thing in the professionalism.
Like if you are laywer, it is job to do your best no matter of what, to represent the case. If your personal opinions comes to your way of you being professional, then you can withdraw basing it to personal conflict. And that is understandable. But professional means you try to put your personal opinions a side. It requires you notice those.
@Tommy I guess you misunderstood me too, I did not say it would be professional to discriminate someone by their skin color or degree of beauty (I guess if you are strictly a fashion model photographer your clientele auto / filters itself in this regard tho). I was talking about denying service due to a conflict of ethics as in (your client is a racist, for example) Let´s poise an EXTREME and highly unlikely case. I have a photo studio, Kim Jung Il comes in, "would you take my picture?" (while it is arguably a great opportunity to photograph a public figure like him and is likely a bad example) I wouldn´t see as unprofessional a denial of service on the bases that you prefer not to work for a known genocide / murder / dictator.
A state appointed lawyer may have the obligation to serve the most terrible of criminals, but such is the inherent nature of his position, since the criminal system must warrant a defence to every individual. But a private law firm can decline a client based on such basis. Still, the lawyer example is not quite comparable, since it plays too close to a civil right to a legal defence. Whereas a photographer, a baker, a hairdresser just provide "luxury" services, which in no way hinder any legal right. I such cases the principle that "the House reserves the right of admission (or refusal of service" applies.
The right of refusal of service, when it does not constitute discrimination against any protected class, is a right that any business owner and professional has.
you can read more about guidelines on this right here, there sure are more extensive sources on this:
And I stress once again my point. The liberty to make a political or ethical statement by declining (or sometimes accepting) to provide a service to a certain individual, is a right that any professional has, and I consider it a constituent part of his professional persona. Nothing wrong with denying to make a photoshoot of someone based on your complete disagreement with their ideas, as long as it is not outright discrimination. Is a right that I consider close to the freedom of speech, work speaks for itself sometimes.
even my daughter could have made some nice pics with her iPhone in a setting like this.....the real challenge would have been: here's a space, a model, a background some gear and a (flash)light package, go ahead and put everything together and shoot!
I addition you have talent. Some time ago (it'll explain) I was a member of a University photography club. Some of the members knew everything ( ;-) ) about photography, but their pictures, urgh... Then came a young chap; never held a camera; bought a Praktika (this is the explanation); shot his first B&W roll and showed it on our weekly tuesday eveving. They were just beautiful.
I do not fully understand why photographers are offended when they got asked to give advice about gear. If one is interested in something and knows someone who has knowledge, he turns towards him for advice. Is that not normal?
What I understand though is that photographers are upset, if it shines through, that the one asking has an attention span of a child because he thinks there is no skill involved and one only needs the right gear to take good pictures.
not exactly fair. it does prove a point sure, but this is in an all-white environment really, not too dark, nothing really in the background to be out-of-focus, and just stationary subjects. Allows for low ISO, plenty of time to nail focus, not really showing off any bokeh, etc.
The kit lens + rebel trying to keep up with fast moving things, dark environments, busier backgrounds etc... would be a pretty poor experience. The 40/2.8 isn't too bad at least.
It wouldn't change the point. The unskilled one will get a shot with better color tonality, ISO, resolution of a mediocre result (on average). The skilled can make something off the wall with high constraints. After all no constraints is the enemy of creative and in a way, good art.
When the Fujifilm X-T2 arrived, it was more than just a modest upgrade to the already impressive X-T1. While the new X-T3 hasn't changed the overall design of the camera, this model is way more than an upgrade; rather, it's a quantum leap.
The Movie Maker is a compact, motorized slider designed for phones, action cams and small mirrorless cameras. We think it's a fun little kit and a good value proposition for the cost, provided you can work around a few of its weak points.
Nikon's Z7 is the first camera to use the all-new Z-mount, the company's first new full-frame mount since 1959. We've put together our first impressions based on quality shooting time with a pre-production camera - check out what we've found.
We got some hands-on time with a pre-production LX100 II to get a better feel for the improvements Panasonic's brought to the table. Here's a rundown of what's new – and what we think.
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Fujifilm released a firmware upgrade for its X-T3 mirrorless camera that addresses issues with distortion compensation and the mechanical lock on SD cards.
British photographic engineer MTF Services is claiming the world’s first third-party lens adapters for the new Nikon Z system with a collection of four units designed to allow cinema lenses to be mounted on the mirrorless full frame bodies.
The X-T3 is our first opportunity to analyze what's likely to be Fujifilm's next generation image sensor. Take a look at how it performs next to the competition in our studio test scene.
Nikon will cease offering Brazil-based customer service and technical support, though the company stresses that it will still offer technical assistance and warranty repairs for valid warranties.
Two years ago, CatLABS of JP announced a plan to save Packfilm from the dead. Now, it's announced it's giving up its efforts to better focus its resources elsewhere.
The GoPro Fusion is designed to make it easy to capture 360-degree video and stills. We took it out recently on a typically hot Seattle summer day to see what it can do.
Canon and Nikon finally entered the full-frame mirrorless market this summer with the brand-new RF and Z mounts. Now that we've had some time with the cameras, we wanted to revisit our earlier predictions and take stock.
Blackmagic Design has announced the public beta of its new Blackmagic RAW video codec. The company says the new format combines the benefits of shooting Raw video with the ease of use and smaller file sizes usually associated with non-Raw video files.
The Atomos Ninja V external video recorder and monitor will be ready to ship at the end of this month. The 5.2in Ninja V is designed to provide a smaller option, while still offering many of the features of the larger 7-inch models.
Having shot with the camera, spoken to Canon and read the tea leaves, here's what DPR Technical Editor Richard Butler thinks the EOS R tells us about Canon and the RF's mount's future.
After last week's teaser, lighting manufacturer Profoto has announced its 'small big' new product. The B10 is designed to be used as studio flash head but in a very small body, and has a powerful continuous light source for videographers as well.
Manfrotto has introduced a new two-in-one tripod to its Befree lineup. Called the Befree 2N1, this new addition is both a tripod and monopod in one and is available with both of Manfrotto's locking mechanisms.
Apple has unveiled the next generation of its iPhone X in the form of three variants: the 5.8" iPhone XS and 6.5" iPhone XS Max with OLED screens, and the 6.1" iPhone XR with an LCD and single rear camera.
Ahead of the launch of the CamRanger II the company has announced a mini version of its wireless remote control system that it says has a longer range than the original in a body half the size.
Lens manufacturer Sigma has announced a trio of fast cinema lenses for full-frame camera systems, that it says will also be available in the future in the LPL mount for Arri’s large format camera system.
LumaPod is a a new tripod being funded on Kickstarter that takes just four seconds to set up and uses patented tension technology to keep your shots steady in a compact design.
Comments