is Leica SL system for professionals?

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

It will trigger but not TTL afaik. 

That's fine. I'm planning to switch to a S5II, so in the meantime I can sell my Godox with a Nikon hotshoe and get a flash with Panasonic compatibility, so in case I get back into the Leica fold with the SL3-S or the SL4, the Panny flash will still work.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

More than 50% of their income is derived from photography. Very simple. 

I don't think it is that simple at all. By that definition many of the most famous photographers of the twentieth century (Cartier Bresson, for example surely earned more from his family wealth than his photography, at least until later in life) are not professional. I know many people I would consider professional photographers who earn the majority of their income from other sources (often teaching, working for museums, working in creative industries) who still ultimately are viewed by the world at large as photographers. This has only increased as time has gone on as the salaries for photographers have plummeted as compared to cost of living. Here in Iceland by that definition there are vanishingly few professional photographers. If it is solely about earnings, then you are really only including wedding photographers, commercial photographers and a few journalists. Any sort of arts, education or advocacy is completely out, and I don't think there is a credible argument that those people are amateurs.

Edited February 22, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Pelu2010]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Does anyone know if a Panasonic flash will trigger on the SL2? So far I tried only Canon and Nikon flashes and they both work.

Yes, they do 

[LBJ2]

7 hours ago, Biotar said:

But Nissin run with the Leica-protocol. At the same time, I use the MG10s with the SF C1 on SL or M and simultaneously in an open group with Air10s on my Backup-Lumix S1 or Sony A7r/s.

The Nissin system is not too bad for pros.

Leica SF-60 and SF C1. I use this system too and also like being able to use across both SL2 and M cameras. Pretty much gets the job done with not a lot of added weight or complexity. 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

That's fine. I'm planning to switch to a S5II, so in the meantime I can sell my Godox with a Nikon hotshoe and get a flash with Panasonic compatibility, so in case I get back into the Leica fold with the SL3-S or the SL4, the Panny flash will still work.

Not much wrong with the S5II I recently got one and it meets my expectations. 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I don't think it is that simple at all. By that definition many of the most famous photographers of the twentieth century (Cartier Bresson, for example surely earned more from his family wealth than his photography, at least until later in life) are not professional. I know many people I would consider professional photographers who earn the majority of their income from other sources (often teaching, working for museums, working in creative industries) who still ultimately are viewed by the world at large as photographers. This has only increased as time has gone on as the salaries for photographers have plummeted as compared to cost of living. Here in Iceland by that definition there are vanishingly few professional photographers. If it is solely about earnings, then you are really only including wedding photographers, commercial photographers and a few journalists. Any sort of arts, education or advocacy is completely out, and I don't think there is a credible argument that those people are amateurs.

Exactly. There are very few professional photographers. But there used to be a lot. Sadly it is that simple.

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, pgk said:

Exactly. There are very few professional photographers. But there used to be a lot. Sadly it is that simple.

I am sorry, but I cannot agree. I think it is overly reductive to make everything solely percentages of earnings. Especially in this case, since money alone is rarely an indicator of anything other than access to money. It seems you would say that someone who spends most of their time photographing professionally (that is engaging in work on behalf of clients or for the purpose of display, promotion or the production of work for sale) is no longer a professional if for some reason they make a dollar more from another source? The example that springs to mind for me right now is Mary Ellen Mark. I met Mary Ellen when she was alive, and I cannot think of a more professional photographer. She lived and breathed photography and worked at it doggedly as a journalist, for advocacy and for the art market. She also happened to live in New York for ages and ages, and owned a studio in Soho that she presumably purchased for some insanely cheap price in the 60s or 70s, as so many of the boomer generation were able to do. I visited her studio and its location and size mean that it was worth millions, and though I don't have her 1099's, based on other photographers I know I am sure she was not making millions with her photography. William Wegman was in a similar situation. The Times did a feature on him a few months ago where it was casually dropped that he sold his studio in Manhattan for 15 million dollars, and had bought it for well under a million in the 90s. I am sure he was well paid as a photographer, but I cannot imagine he earned more than that than he did selling that studio. I could be wrong...but in any case, I think it is incorrect to make it solely about the primary source of income. At least to me it is more about the primary purpose of one's time and whether or not you produce work for clients and/or some purpose beyond your own amusement. Clearly I am not talking about an uncle who gets 200 dollars to photograph his nephew's wedding or a dance recital etc. But anyway, I am just so tired of every single thing in life seemingly viewed through the lens of market capitalism. Professionalism is a mark of skill, the purpose of the work and the proportion of time spent doing it, not some arbitrary percentage of earnings.

Edited February 23, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[hansvons]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I could be wrong...but in any case, I think it is incorrect to make it solely about the primary source of income. At least to me it is more about the primary purpose of one's time and whether or not you produce work for clients and/or some purpose beyond your own amusement. Clearly I am not talking about an uncle who gets 200 dollars to photograph his nephew's wedding or a dance recital etc. But anyway, I am just so tired of every single thing in life seemingly viewed through the lens of market capitalism. Professionalism is a mark of skill, the purpose of the work and the proportion of time spent doing it, not some arbitrary percentage of earnings.

You are right, of course. I can very much relate to "I am just so tired of every single thing in life seemingly viewed through the lens of market capitalism." Moneymaking is a dark lens through which to evaluate the world. It's materialistic and defying the nature of art. 

A few whataboutisms: What about all these pros who don't work in their original profession anymore or are retired? Is the retired physician now an amateur and hobbyist when asked for advice, or maybe seen as what they are, a retired doctor (can one be a doctor without the "professional" tag?) What about those art professors whose income is 75% of their teaching salary? What about this well-off artist whose work is nothing short of outstanding but doesn't need to pay their bills by shooting weddings or product shoots (likely 85% of what pros do)?

Hannah Arendt once said that men of leisure changed the world. Was Cezanne a hobbyist painter or Schopenhauer an amateur philosopher, only because he hadn't tenure and was the offspring of a wealthy Gdansk family? There are so many others. And, of course, there are those who worked their way up from nothing and had to earn their income with their art. But only seeing them as the real" pros is quite a Marxist view.

[pgk]

7 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Professionalism is a mark of skill, the purpose of the work and the proportion of time spent doing it, not some arbitrary percentage of earnings.

It isn't, believe me. i've met 'professional photgraphers' who were technically incompetent but who made their living from photography (fewer these days I suspect).

In the past I have known a lot of photographers who derived their main source of income from photography as it was possible for them to do so, and who sometimes could make good money from photgraphy. Many were very good indeed and making a decent living enabled them to take better images. I'm sure that this is still possible but few of the photographers I have known think that photography is viable today on its own. Which in essence means either ather work or some form of external income beyond photography.

One problem has always been the part-time freelancer who often already had a job which produced an income. This has always been the case and has been a problem because they have tended to cream the fun work leaving the more complicated jobs to professionals. But my impression is that full-time professionals are now a smaller percentage of people making money from photography than they once were.

I would not recommend anyone taking up photography as a profession today because it is relatively poorly paid for the most part and the work is spread too thinly.

But to get back to one point, photography has always been an amateur dominated activity from its inception when it was the realm of the well-to-do, which it still is to a large extent, although mobile phones have put image making well within the grasp of many more fortunatel. This has left the advertising departments of camera and lens makers with a problem. Selling stuff which is 'professionally' used is seen as an accolade for its viability, but photographers can and do use every brand including phones, and splitting out the professionals amongst them is difficult. Which is why most of the so-called 'professional photographers' used to promote camers are not making the bulk of their living from photography. In my opinion this is a disingenous use of the word which for most has an implied meaning of doing a desribed job for a living.

Its worth taking a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession which throws many other 'features' of professionalism into the pot too - disciplined, educational training, etc. - and it does comment on salaries. Professions have long been associated with incomes and trying to shift the meaning of the word when another is probably required is not going to work.

 

[LocalHero1953]

I suspect we have two different notions of 'professional' here, one income-based and the other skills-based. Pick your definition.

I was a professional geologist for a while: I earned full time employment income as a geologist, and I had letters after my name (CGeol) that certified I had the necessary skills and years of experience. When I retired, I no longer had any income as a geologist, but kept up the payments that allowed me to use the CGeol letters. Was I still a professional geologist? I no longer pay for that certification. Am I still a professional geologist? (I don't think so).

On the other hand, there were plenty of geologists in my same employment who never bothered to apply for the accreditation that allowed them to use the letters CGeol. It was not a requirement for employment (unlike, say, engineering, law or medicine), so why bother? Were they professional geologists? I think so.

Any attempt to define 'professional' more precisely in an activity as unregulated as photography is bound to end up in endless debates like this. 

Photographers are tradesmen anyway, not professionals, so should go round to the back door. Only lawyers and doctors may knock on the front door.

Edited February 23, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[hansvons]

8 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Photographers are tradesmen anyway, not professionals, so should go round to the back door. Only lawyers and doctors may knock on the front door.

Interesting. That's a very British way to look at it.

---

The discussion may suffer because words often have their counterpart, meaning the opposite but often with a twist. In that case, it's amateur vs professional, implying that anyone who's not a professional (in the sense of profession) is an amateur (in the sense of not knowing their craft). There are, as @pgk rightfully pointed out, professionals who are not particularly significant in what they do and amateurs who are masters of the craft. However, that is not what the terms amateur and professional mean in an unbiased way. There's a twist in these words beyond the fact that one earns an income and the other doesn't. And this must be taken into account, as language in its use is the measure and not in its original meaning. English is not my first language; maybe I miss some nuances.

[LocalHero1953]

26 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Interesting. That's a very British way to look at it.

But, I hope, historical!

[pgk]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Photographers are tradesmen anyway, not professionals, so should go round to the back door. Only lawyers and doctors may knock on the front door.

I think that the term professional was originally applied to photographers who made their living out of photography (the likes of Francis Bedford (photographer to the Prince of Wales), Farnham Maxwell-Lyte, Vernon Heath and others) because of their privileged background, education (sometimes Oxbridge) and qualifications. Such practitioners were not the sort of people who would have been expected to go round to the bac door. Such people were certainly not tradesmen and would have had the front door opened for them😁. 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I suspect we have two different notions of 'professional' here, one income-based and the other skills-based. Pick your definition.

Professions such as the medical and legal ones suggest both so its not a choice. I may be wrong but I don't recall any medical or legal professionals who undertake their professional unqualified or unpaid. The same word can shift meaning depending on its application but in the terms of professional when applied to photography it should have the same meaning as it does when applied to other professions suggesting that a professional photographer should technically be both qualified and make his/her living from photography. The meaning of words can be important and many arguments are not about a specific topic but more about the way words are used to determine aspects of that topic. With photography there often seems to be a perceived 'kudos' about being a professional which I would suggest has/is no doubt has been promoted by photographic equipment manufacturers.

On topic, the question of a camera being of 'professional' quality is really not about whether it can be used to make money, but whether it can take the sustained (hard) usage of being used heavily and whether it has the backup from its manufacturer to sort out any problems quickly and effectively. Its about implication rather than anything else.

[LocalHero1953]

23 minutes ago, pgk said:

Professions such as the medical and legal ones suggest both so its not a choice. I may be wrong but I don't recall any medical or legal professionals who undertake their professional unqualified or unpaid. The same word can shift meaning depending on its application but in the terms of professional when applied to photography it should have the same meaning as it does when applied to other professions suggesting that a professional photographer should technically be both qualified and make his/her living from photography.

Doctors and lawyers are not allowed to practice as professionals without the appropriate letters (qualifications, experience and peer appraisal). Geologists and photographers can. Does that make them less professional than doctors and lawyers?

 I’m not trying to argue a point other than to suggest that trying to define such things too tightly is inevitably un reliable

[pgk]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Doctors and lawyers are not allowed to practice as professionals without the appropriate letters (qualifications, experience and peer appraisal). Geologists and photographers can. Does that make them less professional than doctors and lawyers?

 I’m not trying to argue a point other than to suggest that trying to define such things too tightly is inevitably un reliable

Indeed, however either a photographer or geologist with appropriate letters and who derives the majority of their income from photography or geology would still qualify under the definition as being 'professional'. Otherwise, to be pedantic, the term is probably being misused rather than used loosely for the simple reason that it can apply but often may not. As I said this is probably due to misappropriation for a number of reasons. Perhaps those without letters and/or who only derive some of their income are indeed tradespeople and they are the ones who should enter by the backdoor🤔😆.

[BernardC]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

One problem has always been the part-time freelancer who often already had a job which produced an income. This has always been the case and has been a problem because they have tended to cream the fun work leaving the more complicated jobs to professionals. But my impression is that full-time professionals are now a smaller percentage of people making money from photography than they once were.

I would not recommend anyone taking up photography as a profession today because it is relatively poorly paid for the most part and the work is spread too thinly.

That was always the case. Full-time professionals have always complained about part-timers "stealing jobs," even if those jobs were not lucrative.

One long-term trend is for people to derive part of their income from photography, as part of providing a product. You can be a photographer who also writes, shoots video, organizes events, publishes, contracts, etc. It's very different from our impression of having a local photographer with a walk-in studio who shoots every wedding, graduation, newborn, ribbon-cutting, passport renewal, portrait, construction project, small business advert, restaurant menu, real estate listing, etc., but it's photography nonetheless. One can bemoan how the "gig economy" has led to the end of steady employment, but photography was always an independent business anyway. I've known a few salaried photographers working in academia, government/military, and industry (and press a long time ago), but most were always freelancers.

[pgk]

56 minutes ago, BernardC said:

One can bemoan how the "gig economy" has led to the end of steady employment, but photography was always an independent business anyway.

But it is now leading to a situation where those people undertaking photography have neither a wide range nor an in-depth skill level. Which is fundamentally detrimental to the more complex and technical side of photography. We will end up with a plethora of very good amateur specialists who may neither have the time nor inclination to tackle complicated paid work.

I have undertaken photographic consultancy to build equipment for specialist applications. Prior to my involvement in one situation the business involved used a University for design and build of a specific rig. This worked well enough but I was asked to design and source parts for a portable version which I did. It was the difference between theory and practical application based on experience and understanding of the fundamental problems involved. I don't actually know of any other photographer who had been prepared to try to do so in the viable vicinity anyway). Most photographers were as you say, 'gig' photographers, part-time freelancers with limited experience/understanding. This is not how an economy which prides itself on the supply of high levels skills can operate.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

47 minutes ago, pgk said:

But it is now leading to a situation where those people undertaking photography have neither a wide range nor an in-depth skill level. Which is fundamentally detrimental to the more complex and technical side of photography. We will end up with a plethora of very good amateur specialists who may neither have the time nor inclination to tackle complicated paid work.

Canada offers several technical photography degree programs, and I know people who have graduated from these programs. Strangely (or not), none of them spent the bulk of their career in the industry, although one was a classmate of Edward Burtynsky (known for his art worldwide, but more relevantly known for owning one of the big labs in Toronto). I also know many working photographers who didn't take the subject in school.

I agree that these schools server a purpose, but I don't think that they are necessary for the majority of working photographers. For one thing, they don't teach people how to run a business (or at least they usually don't). Also, photography has an art component that can't be taught. It's similar to music school. For some musicians, learning solfège and medieval orchestration will be of great benefit, but you can also build a career in the industry without having a music degree. There's room for both.

[Photoworks]

21 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Any sort of arts, education or advocacy is completely out, and I don't think there is a credible argument that those people are amateurs.

there are professions like artists and educators.

A professional photographer is still someone who makes most of the income from photography. There is nothing wrong with having it to be a hobby.