Wanna be a pro? Buy a DSLR

[maxofrome]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is the sentence I hear currently on weekly basis when I met professional photographer that like my "Leica" style but suggest me to move to DSLR to jump in the real "pro" world.

 

Now this sentence disturb me a lot because prior to shot with my M9 I did not find a personal style and no magazine were interested on my works. Now my "Leica" works were published twice and I have no desire to move back to DSLR, but I would like to have your opinion on that.

 

My intention is to make photography more than an hobby and I do not desire to invest my money in an DSLR again. I am crazy or soon I will be "out of the market?".

 

Massimiliano

[jaapv]

My definition of a pro is a photographer that derives (part of) his/her income from photography. So if you sell, let them yap....

Plenty of Leica M pros on this forum.

[Luke_Miller]

Obviously photographers shooting with digital M bodies can (and do) produce professional quality images. And those who derive income from those images are professionals in my book.

 

I shoot both the M8.2 and Nikon DSLRs. For the occassional paid shoot I grab my DSLR kit. I do so because it will allow me to shoot almost any subject in virtually any venue under almost any circumstance. So I am confident of getting the shot I am being paid to take. While I love my M8.2 and use it for almost all my personal photography, it is not the best tool for much of my work.

[enboe]

I have read similar comments from others, especially regarding wedding photography. Comments like, "I thought it would be bigger, I mean, your camera." (grins) In the end, the results win people over. Now on to the extra step.

 

We, as M users, are used to taking an extra step, or three, to control our images. When showing work to a prospective client, perhaps a small footnote of camera and lens selection would help build confidence before the shoot. If questioned, remind them of the samples they liked so well, then explain this is the exact same body and lens, to the serial number, that were used to produce those results.

 

Oh, and also a few comments about how M's don't scare children or people like big DSLR/lens combinations do, so you get a more-relaxed, natural expression.

 

Just thoughts.

[Rolo]

There is no agreed definition for a professional photographer other than the taking of money in return for images. In my case, my Income Tax Return lists me as a Professional Photographer and it makes it clear what I do for a living and a substantial part of my income.

 

There are a few professional photographers in the Forum's Membership and some of those will own other equipment including dslrs and larger format equipment. A few, like me, will shoot primarily with digital M's. I shoot weddings and portraits with two M9's, plus film M's, plus MF film gear.

 

M9's do not have the flexibility that dslrs have and I wouldn't recommend M9s unless you have a clear understanding about your future needs. For someone starting their professional photography career, a dslr is likely to be a much better fit and will provide saleable images for a much lower investment.

 

A much more detailed statement of your intended market is required to advise further. If you plan to work in a niche documentary market then two M9s might cope, but in general magazine illustration you won't have the tool you need with just a rangefinder.

[skinnfell]

As others have said, if you make a living from your pictures, then you are a Professional.

 

However, as most pros discover, it is very hard to make a living off doing ONLY the kind of photography that you prefer personally. Only the most successful professionals can afford to lose or turn down assignments that requires them to go outside the comfort zone.

 

Let's face it - there are VERY few things that a M9 can do that a similarly priced DSLR cannot do. It's just that the M9 does a few things a lot better, mainly offering very high image quality in a very small package.

 

So, in other words, it is entirely possible to be a pro and only shoot M's, if you can afford the luxury to turn down those assignments that require equipment that the M's does not offer.

 

However I personally believe that almost any story can be told with a M and a 50mm, it is just that some of them isn't going to look anything like what the customer had in mind.

It can be very risky business indeed trying to convince customers to accept (and pay for) something completely different than they expected.

[maxofrome]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thank you everybody for your comment and tips. I fully agree about the definition of a professional photographers and all matters are about the return of investment. I am quite sure that using a DSLR (as I did, I still own Pentax camera and few lens) I can invest less than on an equivalent M system and have a ROI much in advance.

 

Now about kind of photography , I had this feedback: magazines are in search of collaborator that can do picture, shoot video and write their article all in one human beings, lowering the cost of their resources and covering all the aspect of a modern magazine (from print to web) in one shot. Now one of the biggest limit I can face with an M camera is that cannot shoot video and if M10 will do I cannot afford the possibly 10K$ for it.

 

I have the same idea of some of you to use both solution, a small APSC camera (cheaper than a digital Full Frame) and my M9 with 35 and 70 summicron to try to cover all the aspect of my work but little bit scary to create "confusion" using two different system.

 

Mostly I do not do wedding, I shot for reportage on assignment (public events, backstage, street photography) and never cover sports or this kind of topic. Possibly this is a limitation for my job and my income but I have the feeling I cannot do all.

[gjames9142]

Given what you do, one of the new Fujifilm Pro's might do it for you --perhaps the one with the 24-600 zoom. More than adequate for editorial work. Leicas are awfully expensive. I make my living doing this and I can't afford the armory of lenses many hobbyists seem to have. More power to them. Since I am not at all interested in photographs where nearly evrything is out of focus, I don't need a fast, ultra-modern lens. At 5.6 to 8, the older lenses are brilliant, and I am not getting any complaints about the prints.

[Messsucherkamera]

I have read similar comments from others, especially regarding wedding photography.Comments like, "I thought it would be bigger, I mean, your camera." (grins) In the end, the results win people over. Now on to the extra step.

 

We, as M users, are used to taking an extra step, or three, to control our images. When showing work to a prospective client, perhaps a small footnote of camera and lens selection would help build confidence before the shoot. If questioned, remind them of the samples they liked so well, then explain this is the exact same body and lens, to the serial number, that were used to produce those results.

 

Oh, and also a few comments about how M's don't scare children or people like big DSLR/lens combinations do, so you get a more-relaxed, natural expression.

 

Just thoughts.

 

Hmmmm...

 

Then apparently truly professional wedding photographers use only 16x20 view cameras.

[pgk]

DSLR = versatility = more varied images to sell.

 

Leca M = niche with specific attribute = limited market.

 

Both have their positive sides but for editorial/video go for a DSLR. That said its a competitive world out there and anything that can give you an edge has to be welcomed. On the other hand if you honestly want to make a 'profit' as opposed to recouping some costs, then a DSLR is the way to go. Very few can make Leica M photography truly profitable I would say.

[Seeingeye]

This blog entry by Kirk Tuck is very illuminating. It's worth noting that the guy is something of an equipment freak and his turnover for gear is very rapid. In the few months I have been following him, he has bought and sold a Nikon V1 system, sold the m43 equipment he writes about in the article as well as all the Canon DSLR gear he had been using. He is currently shooting Sony A77 and A57 DSLRs and a Nex-7. It is probably just a matter of time before moves on to something else.

 

He has used everything listed for professional shoots, including the V1, although he does have the advantage that the client is often not present so does not have to show up with a big camera for the sake of appearance.

 

This the article at the The Online Photographer which kicked off the debate and there was a short follow up a while later.

 

In my view, even budget level equipment is very capable these days and used within their limitations produce very good results, which is what clients are really interested in. Just look at what Michael Reichmann had to say on the matter. The differences compared to our Leica gear are perhaps not as great as we would like to think, but that does ignore that shooting with a Leica is a more tactile experience.

 

Regards

 

Mike

[FlashGordonPhotography]

While I think that th M is probably the wrong camera for 95% of pros, for the other 5% it's a camera that allows them to work in a way that no other system on the market does. So you seem to be well and truely in that 5%. Me too.

 

Generally I find that the "pros" who dismiss the Leica (or any camera) out of hand have never used one, don't understand it and have a severe case of tunnel vision. I've handed my camera to other pros and either they couln't operate it or they dismissed it it out of hand because they couldn't function without a camera that made all the decisions for them.

 

 

I'm not knocking DSLRs. I use them several times per week for work.

 

 

Gordon

[zlatkob]

A much more detailed statement of your intended market is required to advise further.

This is correct. One buys the camera that is suitable for one's work, whatever that work may be. Whether a camera is suitable or not quickly becomes apparent on the job, when the photographer intuitively feels how well the camera is serving its purpose.

[thighslapper]

Well this sort of argument is frankly bo**ocks as usual.

 

It's the guy behind the viewfinder and mastery of ones tools that is by far the main factor.

 

George Daniels (RIP) made the finest watches ever seen for many generations and his early ones were made mainly by hacksaw, file and a huge amount of dedication learnt ability....

 

I make jewellery as a pastime and no amount of expensive gear circumvents experience, trial and error and sheer hard work to master a few basic tools and techniques.

 

Any reliable modern digital camera with even modest specifications should be capable of making you cash if you have the ability and experience.....

 

of course you wont LOOK like a pro without 20kg of oversized gear strapped about your person .... but thats a misguided impression that the uninformed and gullible are fed by the media... ....

[NZDavid]

This thinking is actually now outmoded. I have spotted many professionals at events using smaller cameras (eg, Olympus OM-D) because they have realized they do not need the weight and the bulk of DSLRs to produce top-class images. As a result, perceptions are changing. You will still see many pros laden down toting heavyweight bricks (and risking back, neck, and shoulder injuries), but in most instances they really don't need to.

[garysamson]

Obviously photographers shooting with digital M bodies can (and do) produce professional quality images. And those who derive income from those images are professionals in my book.

 

I shoot both the M8.2 and Nikon DSLRs. For the occassional paid shoot I grab my DSLR kit. I do so because it will allow me to shoot almost any subject in virtually any venue under almost any circumstance. So I am confident of getting the shot I am being paid to take. While I love my M8.2 and use it for almost all my personal photography, it is not the best tool for much of my work.

 

+1

[Messsucherkamera]

While I think that th M is probably the wrong camera for 95% of pros, for the other 5% it's a camera that allows them to work in a way that no other system on the market does. So you seem to be well and truely in that 5%. Me too.

 

Generally I find that the "pros" who dismiss the Leica (or any camera) out of hand have never used one, don't understand it and have a severe case of tunnel vision. I've handed my camera to other pros and either they couln't operate it or they dismissed it it out of hand because they couldn't function without a camera that made all the decisions for them.

 

 

I'm not knocking DSLRs. I use them several times per week for work.

 

 

Gordon

In the days of Yore, the "true mark" of a professional photographer was a 120/220 format camera in hand. Now it's a bigass DSLR with a 24mp (minimum) sensor and a somethingteen to 70mm zoom that takes a 77mm filter.

 

Who makes up these "rules" anyway?

 

More importantly, why do people buy into them?

 

If I'm attending a wedding or another event and see a photographer shooting with a Nikon D4/28-70/Metz 45 CL4, I don't give it a second thought. If (s)he has an. M3 with a 50/1.4 ASPH, I think "DAAAAAAYUM! A real shooter!!"

[jdlaing]

In the days of yore the true mark of a Professional Photographer was toddling into the bank to deposit the checks.

[MichaelRabern]

Group,

 

For many years I made my living taking surveillance photos (and video). I don't think for a minute I ever cared if it was Nikon, Canon, dslr, etc we just grabbed whatever was working or worked for the job at hand, and we went. I learned the art of the photo through trial and error. Long and fast lenses at night and long and small lenses at day was just one of the rules I made when I was fighting sleep deprivation and dehydration. (yes there are little demons that come out at night)

 

Now that I am more interested in the artsy side I prefer Leica, although daylight training this past year I used my 135mm, and the students seamed to all ask "who makes that?" I chuckle. My personal working kits have been sold or givin to the more motivated on my teams, but I don't care what I have as long as it works. The finer part of photography is lost, but it's worth mentioning.

 

I think the pro part needs to be more important than the kit part. That pro part is the 80/20 rule, very little time will be spent taking your shots. I am sure some may disagree, but getting the photo right may blind the question of what did you use to take it.

 

To be practical: Tackle fever in Leica could cost you 40k, in the the dslr range you could do a lot more for the same money. This is why us hobbyists have a lot of kit to envy. Beg, borrow, and...well buy later, when you know what you need. I bought my first camera 10 or so years after I started. Good luck.

 

V/r

 

Michael

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Archiver]

On the weekend I shot photos and video for an Elvis impersonator gig. Normally I use the 5D Mark II for paid work, but this time I also took the M9 and Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5.

 

The Canon, with the 24-105L, was fast and versatile and produced very 'realistic' looking images. The M9 gave me images with a lot more character and that unique look which is a combination of the Zeiss lens and M9's sensor. The client will get a combination of images from both cameras. I am not confident enough in my M9 skills to shoot all paid work with it, but I'm more than happy to do certain aspects. The 5D Mark II and a few good zooms is just much more versatile and easier to use, and I can get more reliable results.