Can m4/3 be used professionally?

In answer to a question on a forum about using m4/3 as a professional, I wrote this:-

"I've used m4/3 professionally ever since it came out. Stock photography, weddings, events and educational and industrial jobs both for stills and video.

One of the important things about earning your living from photography is that you make the decision on what to use based on how well it will get the job done in any given situation.

If m4/3 does the job for you then use it, if not use something else. If people pay you they expect results, and they expect those results to be consistently good, what they are looking for and worth the money they paid you to get them. If you know, and I mean really know, that m4/3 can do that then there's no problem.

As other photographers have pointed out, going back a few years we were using cameras that are nowhere near as good in terms of IQ, speed and usability as current m4/3 cameras. Indeed I was shooting weddings and studio portraits with a Fuji S2 Pro in 2003/4 as were many of my colleagues. A GH2 is a vastly superior camera to that in almost every way.

The most important thing isn't what gear you use but how well you know it and can get the best results from it. You also have to be sure that it can do the job, you can operate it so that it can do the job, its reliable enough to do the job and the results will justify your fee.

If you think it might do the job then thats not good enough. When I use m4/3 for "pro" jobs I am sure it can handle the demands of those jobs because I've tested, I've used it before etc. If I have a job where I'm unsure if it will do it or not I use something else that I'm 100% sure of. Even then I'll make sure I have backups for everything.

Being professional is more about what's in your head rather than what's in your bag."

The concept of "Professional"

Written as a reply to this thread:- http://www.mu-43.com/f35/pro-9520/


"Pro" or "Professional", when applied to photographic equipment more or less becomes shorthand for:-

Equipment that might be regarded as high-level in terms of performance and/or construction and/or price and ownership and use of which would serve to illustrate that the owner/user could be regarded as knowing what they were doing/capable of doing a good job/providing a satisfactory outcome for the fee paid. While at no time indicating whether any of these things are true, the mere presence of such equipment in the hands of the user indicates that at least they can afford it and if they bought it they might just know how to use it. If its expensive/well built/made by somebody well known there is a good chance that it might probably survive the job, it might make us look or sound good and even if the user is incompetent and a complete fraud will give us reassurance that we haven't squandered our hard earned cash. This attribution of worth and quality by the mere possession of expensive/quality/hard wearing tools and the confidence it tends to instill in both the user and the customer reassures both. None of us like to be thought of as incompetent or unable to fulfill our obligations, and the possession of equipment that helps us to overcome that is a handy thing to have, particularly if we have some misgivings about our abilities. By describing one of their products as professional, or having it described as such by others, companies can contribute to our confidence and give us the illusion that even if we don't know our armpit from our elbow, at least we have a piece of equipment that might just get us through by the virtue of it being expensive/well built/made by somebody well known etc. It also functions as a badge or a uniform and clearly states to those we seek to impress and indeed ourselves, that we are up to the task. It makes us look competent even when we may doubt our own abilities, it makes us look less like an enthusiast and hobbyist and makes us look more experienced and capable than we may feel or look without it. It takes away the concept of the amateur, the dabbler and the dilettante, and replaces those unflattering terms with concepts of reliability, trustworthiness and ability. If we look like we know what we are doing we may well end up really knowing what we are doing, and in a situation which is new to us and we are uncertain of, anything that helps up to overcome our sense of fallibility is worth every penny/dollar/yen etc.

The Rental Approach

Two other photographers with whom I moderate a flickr group talked recently about the "rental" approach to owning photographic gear.

"I have an attitude of "rental" to cameras... If you really want to try it, buy it then sell it again on Ebay."

Regular readers here will know that this is very much the way that I approach equipment.

The nature of Digital cameras with the sensor (or "digital film") in the camera and the constant evolution of the technology, means that camera models go out of production much quicker than they did in film days. In 1987 I bought a Pentax 645 Medium format film camera. I used this until 1996 when it was stolen in a burglary. I replaced it with another Pentax 645. This was exactly the same model that I had bought in 1987. I used it until 2001 when I sold it. It was still current, again with no changes from the original.

Contrast this with digital. The Panasonic G1 was announced in September 2008. Panasonic have recently announced that they have ceased production of this camera. Since that initial announcement two new cameras, the GH1 and GF1 have been released and very shortly the G2 and G10 will be in the shops.

All manufacturers work on a much shorter product cycle these days. Many of us chop and change our gear on a regular basis and are constantly in search of the "next big thing"

So is this a capitalist plot to subjugate us economically and keep us constantly salivating at the developments on the horizon? Or just a reflection of a constant ever evolving technological heaven? One, both or neither may be true but what is certain is that buying cameras these days doesn't have a sense of longevity about it.

Back in October 2009 I was talking about the possibility of using m4/3 in "pro" situations http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2009/10/g-series-pro.html and I posted the picture at the top of this page. Of the kit in that picture I currently still own the GH1, 20mm F1.7 lens and the bag! Everything else has been sold on ebay.

There's been no great changes in that time. The G1 is still a good camera. However I have bought a Samsung NX10 + lenses which to some extent has replaced parts of that outfit. I certainly prefer the results from that camera to those I obtained from the m4/3 kit in terms of stills.

Things change, things move on. They always did, but at a much slower pace. The technology constantly improves, constantly evolves. Just recently, a firmware update for my M9 + a revised Lightroom software package has suddenly expanded the possibilities for that camera. The release of the Canon 550D with its incredible specification and low(er) price is making me question whether I should keep my 5D Mk II.

Contrary to the popular myth that "Professionals" trash their cameras, nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from news and sports photographers who work under difficult and often very "camera unfriendly" conditions, most treat their equipment with care. It is obviously in their interests to do so. I'm no exception. I treat my cameras with great respect and they are in extremely good condition when I sell them. Consequently I can get good prices for them, which makes the "rental" approach much less financially draining than it would be if I was less careful.

Currently my intention is to invest more in my Leica system, with the addition of more lenses. Stock photography is my core work and the M9 gives me the best quality results I've ever got from a camera. It makes sense to use this as often as I can. I will still need a camera for commercial work and for the amount I do the 550D should take care of that. If I was a full-time commercial photographer, it would be different and I would definitely need something more robust. However I'm not, so I won't. (As an aside I've just remembered which brand was considered the most unreliable amongst my full-time photographer acquaintances back in the film days. Any guesses? It was Hassleblad.)

The GH1 is staying as mainly a video camera. Used with the 20mm f1.7 and my fast Nikon & M-mount primes it is capable of quite astonishing results, as was demonstrated in the recent Zacuto "shoot-out" http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/1D%20Mk%20IV

I like the Samsung as a light, small "long-distance" camera when I need autofocus, so that should take care of my needs and preferences for the time being.

However there are two intriguing rumours currently circulating. As we are approaching April 1st. these are issued with a warning! One is that a famous photographer is testing an AF FF rangefinder system with a 35mm f1.2 lens. Another is that a Leica rep. has been saying that the company is working on an AF system for their next M Series model. Take these as improbable speculations and wish-list dreams.

UPDATE -

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/af_rangefinder_blog/\

maybe this is more than a rumour!!!!

D

Professional Photographer

This is very funny.

http://www.27bslash6.com/photography.html

Pro Kit

Back to an old theme.

Written in response to this thread:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33951204

Do have a look at the photographer referred to first. Great Images.

http://giannigalassi.typepad.com/

There are many types of "professional" photographer and the kit that they choose to use depends on how they make their living. Gianni Galassi is a fine art photographer and can basically use whatever he wants.

I wrote a piece on my blog about this, citing the examples of Donovan Wylie and Alex Majoli who are both photo journalists who use compact cameras for their work.

There is also the example of magnum photographers who used Leica cameras in the days when 35mm was not regarded as professional.

Gianni on his website says:-

"I know, many pro have their customers attend their shootings, and they need to "wear" a big and expensive camera to impress them and prevent them from thinking that taking a good photograph is an easy task. And I'm aware that too many photographers have already had their customers stolen by the current point-and-shoot camera technology (which is, on the other hand, really outstanding!)."

There is unfortunately a perception that "Big Camera = Good Photographer" and though we all know that is a false impression, for someone making a living with their camera, perception can be everything. I walked in to a factory on a commission a while ago & pulled out a D3 + 70-200 F/2.8. Everybody took one step backwards and immediately assumed I knew what I was doing. They had no evidence to know what kind of photographer I was, but the gear I used seemed to indicate to them that I was to be taken seriously.

A good deal of my income is generated by stock and library photography & I can use whatever cameras I like for that. Consequently I use m4/3 much of the time. I have no problems with quality & I love the size, weight & unobtrusive nature of the cameras.

For commissioned work I have started taking along m4/3 cameras in addition to a Canon 5D Mk II outfit. My company is already shooting video on two GH1's and clients don't have any problem with that. Whether they would accept us turning up with a GF1 or an E-P1 for stills photography is another matter. However since we can "establish our credentials" with the Canon, whatever we use after that is basically left to us.

I know of a event portrait photography who "hides" a m4/3 camera inside an old plate camera. He disappears under the cloth takes the picture and re-emerges. No-one has ever complained about the quality of his work.

On the jpg issue, it depends entirely on the camera. Many news, sports, event and wedding photographers use jpgs. Where speed is critical they are invaluable. The busier you are, the less time you have to process images. I did back to back weddings recently & shot everything on jpg. I just didn't have the time (or to be honest - the inclination!) to process 3000 images. I find that in certain situations, such as using high ISO's in low light situations the camera does a better job of noise reduction than I can shooting raw. This is certainly true of my Canon & m4/3 cameras.

The P word

There are some words that I would like to eliminate from the photographic vocabulary. "Enthusiast" "Pro-Sumer" "Hobbyist" are all particularly horrible. The photographic press in particular seems very fond of these. But most of all I would like to see the back of the word "Professional" used in conjunction with Photography.

I've been recently involved in a couple of discussion threads and these are a few examples of what turns up.
''But I can't see the Pen ever being anything more pro-spec than a pro-sumer level product."
"This question is to those of you who have been or are "pro" photographers and bought into the m4/3 system. "
"Proffesionals (sic) or not in this forum already know what m4/3 stand for and how it compares to DSLR from the big boys. Know already what niche the camera is into. "
"I said that more professionals "bad mouth" because obvious they know much more than u"

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am reluctant to use the "P-word" and I am in fact embarrassed to use it. I'm not sure why entirely, but I think its something to do with the fact that I earn my living doing what I love. I'm sure there's some guilt somewhere about (almost!) enjoying every minute of my working life, whereas many other people don't have that privilege. If anyone asks me what I do, I always say photographer, with no adjectives.

I know it isn't the same, but do we have hobbyist dentists, enthusiast butchers, pro-sumer machine guns?

It isn't just photographers that the p-word gets applied to, its the equipment. This camera model is a "Professional model" "Pro-Sumer model" "Enthusiast model". "This lens is not Pro-Spec but would suit a hobbyist."

I realise that this is quite common within the arts. We have "Amateur Dramatics" "Hobbyist Painters" etc. when people engage in activities for fun & not to earn a living. Theres an example right there - is it not possible to have fun whilst earning your living? I once asked the question on a thread as to why was there a distinction between "enthusiast" & "professional".

It shouldn't be necessary to say it, but just because someone makes his living from photography is no guarantee of anything. Martin Parr makes a lot of money from his photography I believe. (Draw your own conclusions!)

I realise I'm spitting into the wind here & none of these terms are going to go away anytime soon, but I will continue my campaign none the less.

Some things to consider:-
1. Donovan Wylie and Alex Majoli are photojournalists who are known for using small compact cameras for their work. Often in war zones.
2. Jaques Henri Lartigue and Julia Margaret Cameron were "Amateurs"
3. When 35mm first appeared it was widely regarded as a format for "Non-professionals"
4. One of the most famous images of recent times, the fireman holding a baby at the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, was taken by Charles H. Porter IV, an "Amateur"

These things should be true & self-evident (But apparently aren't)
1. We are all photographers - whether we earn our living from it or not.
2. The fact that we get paid (or not) to take photographs has no bearing on either the quality of our work, or the amount of commitment, knowledge & skill that we bring to it.
3. The equipment that we choose to buy has little influence on either the quality of our work, or the amount of commitment, knowledge & skill that we bring to it.
4. The fact that we are catergorised by photographic manufacturers or commentators is insulting and has little influence on either the quality of our work, or the amount of commitment, knowledge & skill that we bring to it.
5. The choices that we make in terms of our lives has little influence on either the quality of our photography, or the amount of commitment, knowledge & skill that we bring to it.
6. We should make judgments on our own & others photographic output in terms of its own intrinsic qualities, rather than by the employment status of the photographer or by the equipment we/she/he use(s)
7. Personal preference in terms of methods of working or choice of equipment doesn't define us as photographers. It is what it is - personal.
8. Throughout the history of photography, quality of work has been defined by personal vision, rather than the size of a bank balance or a gratuitous label.