Does gear really matter?

tenoverthenose

It seems to me like there has been a lot of discussion here lately about camera gear and specifically what gear to use for weddings. As some of you may know, I had been asked by three clients in a row what gear specifically I used as they looked at my photographs and albums. Honestly I didn't know how to respond. Sure I could list off every piece of gear I use, but that's not what they really wanted to know. They wanted to make sure that I was using gear that was up to their standards.

Does having more expensive (seemingly better) gear make us better photographers and/or make our work more valuable in and of itself?

I just wrote a longer version of this on my blog. What do you think?

Qarik

just make sure that gear is not the limiting factor in your shooting. simple as that. That's why pros have pro gear. It will let you shoot what you imagine with the least amount of technicaly difficulty in a variety of situations.

heatherfeather

I read your blog and it was such a great reminder... not that I think I don't need my next big purchase, lol! Creativity and vision create a photograph way more than the next cool gadget. Nicely written!:D

zoomer

Gear can determine your style.
A good photographer can use whatever gear and whatever style and create amazing images.

A poor photographer can't do it with even the best gear.

It is not the gear.

l.k.madison

Somebody just opened a can of worms here!!

I say, no, it absolutely doesn't matter, BUT you've got to know what you've got, what it does and how to use it. Clients should respect you for your WORK, not for what you use.

For example, I attended a friend's wedding in October, she wanted me there as she was getting ready, knowing her photog wouldn't do it. I brought my entire kit (at the time, pre-40D) and ONLY used my XT, 50 f/1.8 and NO flash. So a camera I got consignment for $200, a $100 lens and that's it. Her mom bought hundreds of dollars worth of my prints. Just because you spend obsene amounts of money on top of the line gear, does not make you a top of the line photographer worth obsene amounts of money. I scoped out her "pro's" equipment, he spend over ten times more on just the gear that I saw (before his lights) than I did on my XT/50 combination. His shots were AWFUL, full of harsh side lighting and out of control flash that just didn't do her justice - at ALL. He kept giving me weird "What are YOU shooting with?" looks, but I didn't care.

I mentioned this thread to my husband and his example: We went on a photoshoot just for portfolio purposes in September, one girl I barely knew and her cousin volunteered to bring prom dresses out on a rainy, muddy day. The cousin's favorite picture (which is STILL her Facebook picture) was taken with a $25 Holga on black and white film. We had three shooters there and her favorite was taken with a toy.

Know the limits of your gear, but don't let your outdated or lower end gear be an excuse for a bad shot. Maybe sometimes it can even help your creativity to push a "lesser" piece of gear to it's absolute limit. Obviously fast glass is a must at times, but don't think you have to have the latest and greatest in what you do.

Anton Corbin's shot with disposable cameras many many times, it's all in knowing what your camera can do.

Art Scott

tenoverthenose wrote:

It seems to me like there has been a lot of discussion here lately about camera gear and specifically what gear to use for weddings. As some of you may know, I had been asked by three clients in a row what gear specifically I used as they looked at my photographs and albums. Honestly I didn't know how to respond. Sure I could list off every piece of gear I use, but that's not what they really wanted to know. They wanted to make sure that I was using gear that was up to their standards.

Does having more expensive (seemingly better) gear make us better photographers and/or make our work more valuable in and of itself?

I just wrote a longer version of this on my blog. What do you think?

No more expensive gear does not make any one a better photog if they truly know how to use the gear they have........However in a wedding Situation You need to have gear that will do the job with Minimal fuss and guess work........

Remember a wedding can be as fast as a lot of sports.....especially during the recessional and if your camera can't keep up there are missed photos........how will it do at high ISO's............


You do not want a camera that can't keep up with the processional or recessional or that can't shoot at an iso higher than 400 if needed also your speed lights need to be fast recyelers,so battery packs are essential........


I used to drive people nuts when they tried to look at my camera bodies name plate.......I had black duct tape (before I learned of gaff tape) over all of the info plates.....or a prospective client would ask, as they did you.....what gear I used and RI would answer.....the proper gear for the job......NO NO NO what brand do you use......My reply.....what brand do you want me to use?? I can rent anything you desire me to shoot with........
I rented Hassy's and lenses for clients that demanded the best equipment.........figured I was in the service industry and would give the client what they wanted....my local rental company has long went out of business and that is a crying shame........

Qarik

l.k.madison wrote:

Somebody just opened a can of worms here!!

I say, no, it absolutely doesn't matter, BUT you've got to know what you've got, what it does and how to use it. Clients should respect you for your WORK, not for what you use.

For example, I attended a friend's wedding in October, she wanted me there as she was getting ready, knowing her photog wouldn't do it. I brought my entire kit (at the time, pre-40D) and ONLY used my XT, 50 f/1.8 and NO flash. So a camera I got consignment for $200, a $100 lens and that's it. Her mom bought hundreds of dollars worth of my prints. Just because you spend obsene amounts of money on top of the line gear, does not make you a top of the line photographer worth obsene amounts of money. I scoped out her "pro's" equipment, he spend over ten times more on just the gear that I saw (before his lights) than I did on my XT/50 combination. His shots were AWFUL, full of harsh side lighting and out of control flash that just didn't do her justice - at ALL. He kept giving me weird "What are YOU shooting with?" looks, but I didn't care.

I mentioned this thread to my husband and his example: We went on a photoshoot just for portfolio purposes in September, one girl I barely knew and her cousin volunteered to bring prom dresses out on a rainy, muddy day. The cousin's favorite picture (which is STILL her Facebook picture) was taken with a $25 Holga on black and white film. We had three shooters there and her favorite was taken with a toy.

Know the limits of your gear, but don't let your outdated or lower end gear be an excuse for a bad shot. Maybe sometimes it can even help your creativity to push a "lesser" piece of gear to it's absolute limit. Obviously fast glass is a must at times, but don't think you have to have the latest and greatest in what you do.

Anton Corbin's shot with disposable cameras many many times, it's all in knowing what your camera can do.

just becasue a pro can get decent results with rebel and 50 1.8 doesn't mean "gear absolutely doesn't matter". If you can't get the shot you want because your gear won't let you ..then gear matters.

l.k.madison

Qarik wrote:

just becasue a pro can get decent results with rebel and 50 1.8 doesn't mean "gear absolutely doesn't matter". If you can't get the shot you want because your gear won't let you ..then gear matters.

Yes, but to an extent, it doesn't matter. During a wedding, yes, you need a camera that can handle a high ISO.

Nobody asks the carpenter building your cabinet what brand hammer he uses, you have cabinets at the end of the day/week/month/year...

And I second what Art said about taping over the brand names, that sounds like a great idea, actually. (Gaffer's tape is a staple in our house, between the photographer and the musician, we swear by that stuff)

Qarik

l.k.madison wrote:

Yes, but to an extent, it doesn't matter. During a wedding, yes, you need a camera that can handle a high ISO.

Nobody asks the carpenter building your cabinet what brand hammer he uses, you have cabinets at the end of the day/week/month/year...

And I second what Art said about taping over the brand names, that sounds like a great idea, actually. (Gaffer's tape is a staple in our house, between the photographer and the musician, we swear by that stuff)

you always hear..a good pro with point and shoot can out do an ametuer with $5000 slr. This is situational. Yes the pro will be able to get amazing results by fully taking advantage with the llimitations that he has. But what can the pro do with the $5000 slr? A lot more. So yeah...equpiment matters.

I imagine customers who ask about equipment are just doing their due diligence on photographer and to get warm fuzzy.

Kinkajou

When I was prepping and doing research for my first wedding, I was checking out sites that give brides advice about what to look for when choosing a photographer. Multiple sites said that brides should ask what kind of camera the photog has.

This is pointless 90% of the time, right? I mean, if you take someone off the street and ask them if they know the difference between a Nikon D40 and a Canon 40D, A 7D, XTi, and a 5DMII, a 70-200 f2.8 and a 70-200 f4... I think it's safe to say that good number of people would admit that it all sounds like a jumble of numbers and doesn't mean anything to them. I mean, it would be like me asking what kind of tools the dude who fixes the dent on my car door uses. He could tell me he uses a potato and that would be just fine as long as he knows what he's doing and in the end my door looks like a door again.

Anyway, I guess my point of all this rambling is that if they are asking because they actually know something about cameras and are just curious, give them as much info as they want and use it as a bonding experience. If they're asking because some wedding website told them to ask, then it might be better to just grab the camera and show it to them.

Blurmore

In client meetings, no one has ever asked specifically what gear I use. I assure every client that I always have a backup body or 2. For people who were shooting weddings BEFORE the dawn of the digital age, this is a very interesting question. Does gear matter? No. Can it change, transform or dictate your style? Certainly. The first wedding I shot as a subcontractor during the film > digital transition I was sent out on a job with a main photographer who was furnished 3 pro packs of 220 for his Fuji AF 645 with fixed 30mm lens....which he used FOR THE WHOLE CEREMONY. I with a 20D 70-200 17-85 85 prime turned in a COMPLETELY different product than he did being constrained by his equipment. Was his stuff bad? no...just different. A year later this large wedding mill photo company made me photographer of the year for the region. Could I have done that with a single camera and fixed 30mm lens? Maybe...but it would be a lot of work. I have seen VERY uppity brides give instructions to their party planner that their wedding only be shot with a Nikon and "Nikon brand lenses" but they obviously read that kind of bullshit in some bride's magazine and spat it verbatim to their planner (and I shot their wedding with a Canon and various lenses and they loved it). Its a tough thing to debate, but if someone came to me with a well stocked kit from the early 80's (Hasse 500 with 80mm and 150mm, mamiya c330 with 80, and a manual or AF 35mm camera with decent super tele and standard zoom, meter, tripod, appropriate lights, triggers, a couple propacks of portra or NPH 400 and 800 for the 35mm) I'd like to think I could produce a very similar product to what I deliver out of a DSLR and modern lenses. Would it be AS MANY winner shots? Hell no, but would everything be there and enough of it? I'd like to think so.

What makes it tough to debate is the fact that no one wants to make a paid job a guinea pig. But fantasy abounds, and I think that if I attended a wedding as a guest, with no equipment, I could do a damn good job with the best camera in possession of another guest, or purchased at the local big box "wedding impossible" style.

tenoverthenose

For me, my gear is not a limiting factor. I have enough to get the job done, even when half of it breaks down. A few months ago I even ended up shooting a wedding without my camera back, just one body and two primes to prove it. Sure, there might have been ideas in my head that I couldn't pull off because of limitations, but there were a lot more ideas in my head that I did pull off.

On the other side, I've done many weddings where guests have nicer camera bodies and lenses than I did. Was I somehow nervous that they would get better images than me? Not in the slightest.

I have come to view my gear as tools that give me options to express my vision. Over the years I have collected the tools that get the job done for me, the way that I see things. I sold my 50 1.2 and "downgraded" to the 50 1.4 and would be shocked if anyone could tell the difference by looking at a print. I use a 1DII outside for action because of its focusing ability over my 5DII - despite its megapixel rating. I use the 35 2.0 instead of the 35 1.4 because I like the sound the 2.0 makes... wait, that's not right.

If I present my work (which does cover a vast range of photographic situations including dim ceremonies, dark receptions, and fast moving processionals) and the client loves them, what difference does it make how I got there? The camera itself does not create photographs, the photographer does. I know my gear inside & out and can tell what a shot will look like before I touch my camera.

Moogle Pepper

I remember your FB status message about this! It was..it helped lighten my day.

VayCayMom

Can you accomplish what you want, does your equipment do what you need to produce your vision? Everyone has a different vision, thus different ways to arrive there. If skill levels are equal and the answer is yes, then the equipment you are using is fine.
BUT marketing to our clients ( snobbish? or even ignorant ) desires if the final photograph is not the #1 priority for them, that is entirely a different ball of wax!

Moogle Pepper

But in all seriousness, Qarik said it best:

Qarik wrote:

you always hear..a good pro with point and shoot can out do an ametuer with $5000 slr. This is situational. Yes the pro will be able to get amazing results by fully taking advantage with the llimitations that he has. But what can the pro do with the $5000 slr? A lot more. So yeah...equpiment matters.

I imagine customers who ask about equipment are just doing their due diligence on photographer and to get warm fuzzy.

mmmatt

Moogle Pepper wrote:

But in all seriousness, Qarik said it best:

Scott_Quier

It would appear that I'm going to counter a lot of what has been written here.

There are extreme examples that can/do support each end of this discussion/debate:

• A hack with $5K of gear is still a hack and will seldom create an inspiring/moving image though it will happen from time to time (think one million apes with one million typewritters and Shakespeare's plays).
  
  
• The flip side of that coin is that a top-shelf photographer will be hindered, if not completely blocked, from creating art if he/she does not have equipment suited to the task at hand. Consider - the photog wants to make a underwater image but does not have an underwater housing. He (or she) is dead in the water (pun most definitely intended ).

The short version of the above is....

The camara does not make the photograph, but often times, it's only the camera that makes the photograph possible.

The_Fat_Zebra

- An entry level body with a flash sync speed of 160/1 will limit your outdoor portraits where you feel you need a higher shutter speed.
- An entry level body with slow and poor auto-focus will make you miss shots, and hunting will be highly frustrating.
- Poor high-level ISO constraining you to 800 or so will severely constrain you where flash is not an option.

Those are relatively basic things that require at least a mid-level camera body, and hence gear does matter. But once you reach a certain threshold of quality, such as a choice between Sony A900, Nikon D700, or Canon 1DII...; perhaps the discussion is less relevant.

Ed911

l.k.madison wrote:

Somebody just opened a can of worms here!!

I say, no, it absolutely doesn't matter, BUT you've got to know what you've got, what it does and how to use it. Clients should respect you for your WORK, not for what you use.

For example, I attended a friend's wedding in October, she wanted me there as she was getting ready, knowing her photog wouldn't do it. I brought my entire kit (at the time, pre-40D) and ONLY used my XT, 50 f/1.8 and NO flash. So a camera I got consignment for $200, a $100 lens and that's it. Her mom bought hundreds of dollars worth of my prints. Just because you spend obsene amounts of money on top of the line gear, does not make you a top of the line photographer worth obsene amounts of money. I scoped out her "pro's" equipment, he spend over ten times more on just the gear that I saw (before his lights) than I did on my XT/50 combination. His shots were AWFUL, full of harsh side lighting and out of control flash that just didn't do her justice - at ALL. He kept giving me weird "What are YOU shooting with?" looks, but I didn't care.

Know the limits of your gear, but don't let your outdated or lower end gear be an excuse for a bad shot. Maybe sometimes it can even help your creativity to push a "lesser" piece of gear to it's absolute limit. Obviously fast glass is a must at times, but don't think you have to have the latest and greatest in what you do.

Anton Corbin's shot with disposable cameras many many times, it's all in knowing what your camera can do.

Hey, do you mind showing us some of your images from the XT, 50mm wedding so we can see what you are talking about...say 10 or 12 of the wedding.

I have no doubt that you did a good job, and I am of the same mind as you...that you don't have to have the latest and greatest gear to shoot a wedding. I'd like to see what can be done with a $200 dollar consignment camera and 50mm lens.

I look forward to seeing your work.

Moogle Pepper

Well this is also a matter of trust too. I don't know the consensus of the general public's knowledge about camera bodies (or lenses for that matter.) but they could possibly just want to know what you are shooting with and your back ups. But, as in your case as I read, he followed up with a "8mp? pfft" mentality, sounded more like the guy didn't trust you. For some oddball reason. Trust is extremely important, regardless of what business or thing anyone is doing.

I kinda believe if that they ask once, innocently, they should be informed. But if they respond with a "pfft" type of verbatim than .. it is definitely time to let them go.

tenoverthenose

Scott_Quier wrote:

It would appear that I'm going to counter a lot of what has been written here.

There are extreme examples that can/do support each end of this discussion/debate:

• A hack with $5K of gear is still a hack and will seldom create an inspiring/moving image though it will happen from time to time (think one million apes with one million typewritters and Shakespeare's plays).
  
  
• The flip side of that coin is that a top-shelf photographer will be hindered, if not completely blocked, from creating art if he/she does not have equipment suited to the task at hand. Consider - the photog wants to make a underwater image but does not have an underwater housing. He (or she) is dead in the water (pun most definitely intended ).

Scott I really agree with you here! As I learn and grow as a working photographer I have come to realize that there are many great tools and gadgets marketed towards photographers that I just don't need. Sure, my photos would be sharper and have more detail if I shot everything on a medium format with a nice set of primes. I could also get to jobs faster if I had a new sports car....

I am rarely hindered by gear, although there are lots of things I don't like about my gear. Why can't my Canon cameras focus in a dim reception? Why do my flashes never seem to have enough power? Why do my memory cards fill up so fast? There are a lot of things that I am honestly not that happy with, but so what? To think that the next piece of gear just over the rainbow is the silver bullet is crazy.

As a working photographer this is even tougher. Suddenly I am trying to make a profit at a very difficult business and every expense counts. Every piece of gear I buy needs to be able to earn me more money. So can I really justify the cost between a 50 1.2 and a 50 1.4, can clients tell the difference? I know I couldn't, so I sold the 50 1.2.

At the end of the day, I fall back on my artistic vision. It trumps gear and will let me get over the equipment hurdles in my way.

LeeHowell

It's a vicious cycle
Being a photographer of any sort requires a certain degree of tech-savy, and with that comes the desire to continuously stay ahead of the curve...Especially when said "curve" is the bride's cousin standing next to you with her Canon Rebel T2i while you, the professional, are being paid to snap away on your Rebel XT. Suddenly your tiny LCD and the missing 10 million pixels seem to jump out at you!

Right??

Or perhaps you're more confident with that Rebel XT in your hands than the bride's cousin is with her T2i. Notice how she's not griping the camera correctly...Probably getting some pretty fuzzy photos...Unless, wait...She's got an f/1.8 IS lens. I've got this crappy 18-50mm f/5.6 kit lens...Damn!

The answer is, it all really depends. Are you actually good? Do you spend more time fixing the high noise your XT causes than the overall image is worth?

I started with an XT...Moved up to a 20D...Got a 30D, gave the XT to my sister in law and now my 20D is my backup. I've been 2nd shooter alongside a friend who uses a 5D MkII...I think my photos were just as good, if not better. I also had good glass though. Do I own that good glass? No...I rented it.

If this is something you enjoy, and you're good at it, you have to start somewhere...And the proof is in the pudding. If your clients like the end result, then so will their friends whose wedding you'll be shooting in 3 months, and then their friends...And at some point down that road, you'll acquire the gear you need. Then they'll come out with something new, you'll drool, and the whole process starts over again :-P

Moogle Pepper

LeeHowell wrote:

Being a photographer of any sort requires a certain degree of tech-savy, and with that comes the desire to continuously stay ahead of the curve...Especially when said "curve" is the bride's cousin standing next to you with her Canon Rebel T2i while you, the professional, are being paid to snap away on your Rebel XT. Suddenly your tiny LCD and the missing 10 million pixels seem to jump out at you!

Right??

Or perhaps you're more confident with that Rebel XT in your hands than the bride's cousin is with her T2i. Notice how she's not griping the camera correctly...Probably getting some pretty fuzzy photos...Unless, wait...She's got an f/1.8 IS lens. I've got this crappy 18-50mm f/5.6 kit lens...Damn!

The answer is, it all really depends. Are you actually good? Do you spend more time fixing the high noise your XT causes than the overall image is worth?

I started with an XT...Moved up to a 20D...Got a 30D, gave the XT to my sister in law and now my 20D is my backup. I've been 2nd shooter alongside a friend who uses a 5D MkII...I think my photos were just as good, if not better. I also had good glass though. Do I own that good glass? No...I rented it.

If this is something you enjoy, and you're good at it, you have to start somewhere...And the proof is in the pudding. If your clients like the end result, then so will their friends whose wedding you'll be shooting in 3 months, and then their friends...And at some point down that road, you'll acquire the gear you need. Then they'll come out with something new, you'll drool, and the whole process starts over again :-P

This is not what Tenoverthenose is getting at. His argument is that potential clients are looking at what camera(s) a photographer is using instead of the work- prints, albums, shown wedding after wedding of mind blowing consistent work, being shown. Not gear one starts with when he/she starts.

His work is really phenomenal which makes it even more interesting of a discussion. But that's another story for another time.

LeeHowell

I'm sorry - I thought my post WAS relevant, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Moogle Pepper

LeeHowell wrote:

I'm sorry - I thought my post WAS relevant, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I am not saying yours isn't.

Gear is not the end-all-be-all, but it definitely helps.

LeeHowell

That's okay

I actually remembered that there was a really great article on this exact topic in last month's RangeFinder!

PDF of the article is here

l.k.madison

Ed911 wrote:

Hey, do you mind showing us some of your images from the XT, 50mm wedding so we can see what you are talking about...say 10 or 12 of the wedding.

I have no doubt that you did a good job, and I am of the same mind as you...that you don't have to have the latest and greatest gear to shoot a wedding. I'd like to see what can be done with a $200 dollar consignment camera and 50mm lens.

I look forward to seeing your work.

Of course!!!

Here's her un-edited proof gallery http://www.madisonsquared.com/proofing/kleinpeterwedding (They're dark and flat, I promise I edited the keepers her mom bought) Shot 97 actually shows when pro photog and I clicked at the same time, I kinda liked what it did to her dress. Shot 117 is the hired pro, so you can scope out his gear, too - ignore the WalMart sticker, he's a pretty well-known local photographer.

Just for comparison reasons, here's the shot that he took that is now her Facebook picture: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lkmadison/4523896582/&quot; title="Not my shot by L.K.Madison, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4523896582_82e306f2c1_o.jpg&quot; width="200" height="249" alt="Not my shot" /></a> I'm not sure what he was thinking with that flash, I do know that he bounced at least some of it off the VERY high ceilings from his flash he had stationed in the balcony.

Keep in mind that I wasn't the hired pro, so during ceremony, I had to stay out of his way (even though she granted me a front row seat).

*Go easy, these aren't posted for C&C for a reason, I've come a LONG way since I did these.

LeeHowell

l.k.madison wrote:

Of course!!!

*Go easy, these aren't posted for C&C for a reason, I've come a LONG way since I did these.

I think you got some nice shots...I still love to use my 50mm f/1.8, as do most other photographers I know in my area. Proof that even though WE know the build quality suck and the lens is cheap, the client would never know by looking at the finished product ;-)

Fun tidbit...Ever reverse mount your 50mm? Can get some interesting macro shots by manually focusing and holding the lens in place.

l.k.madison

LeeHowell wrote:

I think you got some nice shots...I still love to use my 50mm f/1.8, as do most other photographers I know in my area. Proof that even though WE know the build quality suck and the lens is cheap, the client would never know by looking at the finished product ;-)

Thanks! They're not my best by any means, I've come a LONG way since then. I did the same deal with another friend (who was also a bridesmaid in that wedding) with my 40D and WAY better glass, but I'm proud of what that little 50 can do, it's tied for my favorite lens.

Fun tidbit...Ever reverse mount your 50mm? Can get some interesting macro shots by manually focusing and holding the lens in place.

I've heard of doing that, I'm not that coordinated. I can rarely manually focus without a little bit of help, but it will definitely be something to try the next time I get bored.

Melodica

It doesn't, it shouldn't, but it does, and it should.
Hi everyone - I want to chime in here for a change! (It's about time I become more active... Right? Maybe?)

I think that, since the prices of pretty good quality point-and-shoots and DSLRs have come into the realm of average consumer affordability combined with their very easy usage (re: being able to pick up a prosumer kit at Wally-World and post photos online for your friends to see minutes after firing the shutter and the like), we have come to the point where just about everyone everywhere in our society has a good (or what they'd consider to be good) digital camera. This is what has brought us to the point of having to endure conversations that usually end up something like: "How many megapixels is that? What??!?!!?!? My iPhone is better than THAT."

That being said, I do believe that gear does matter, it's just what "we" consider good gear and what "they" consider good gear don't match anymore.

I can't count how many times I have garnered attention, once even a small crowd, while out with my Hasselblad - people have NO idea what it is sometimes! I have actually been asked "Is that a CAMERA, or an old video camera or something???" by someone holding a prosumer DSLR.

Like every other occupation, your gear is just your set of tools - it's what you do with them that counts. It just sucks that photography in particular is an industry where the clients (and just casual members of the general public) are tending to be opinionated as to what brand of gear or how many megapixels this or that is. Do these same people scoff at the carpenter who built their cabinets because of what router setup he uses? (Probably not, because a titanium-tipped router bit whirring along just waiting to gnaw off your fingertip or worse fly about the room like razor-edged bullet is much more intimidating to this ilk than picking up a camera and popping off a couple snaps - which they'd do, then feel like they're on par with Robert Frank and HCB.)

Like the consensus here seems to be, what it comes down to is this: No, it doesn't (read: it shouldn't) matter IF you can work well with what you have access to. (Now, would I try to shoot an outdoor, candle-lit nighttime wedding with my no-speedlite-havin'-can't-shoot-above-200ISO-otherwise-the-people-just-get-in-the-way-of-all-the-noise Nikon D1??? Oh HECK no.)

wadesworld

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I think we can all agree that:

1) We would not hire a wedding photographer work-unseen for our daughter's wedding if he told us his only equipment was a Canon Powershot.

2) If said photographer showed us lots of examples of stunning wedding work he'd done with said Powershot, we might hire him anyhow.