Sorry I haven't posted in a while, it has been a very busy time for me. I'll be trying to get out my review of the Olympus 14-35 f2.0 lens shortly and also a closer look at the Panasonic GF1 and 20mm f1.7 pancake lens. It's snowing hard here today resulting in my afternoon shoot being canceled so I thought I'd blog a little about a little online quarrel I had with a photographer recently.

I had this interesting debate with another pro photographer on a forum last week. The subject was about Sony cameras and whether a professional photographer could use Sony for their work. There seems to be no debate that certain pro's could (commercial, portrait) but as far as weddings go or other jobs where high ISO ability is desirable the debate was somewhat heated. The pro I was debating with felt that his work was made better by the ability to shoot at ISO 12500 and produce excellent results. He felt that a choice of Sony as a primary camera for a wedding photographer was a negligent or poor choice. I believe he was a Nikon guy. I rallied back with the opinion that while having the ability to shoot at high ISO's is great, it has made for some really lazy photographers today. When I'm using my 5DmkII there are times when I've used ISO 6400, but rarely. I try my best to keep it at ISO 3200 or lower to get the best possible files for my client. I have no problems with using whatever light is available to me to get the shot, whether that is a flash, natural light or a studio strobe or video light. The other pro rallied back that using artificial lights was distracting and intrusive and didn't allow for natural moments.
There is a good point there, and the use of natural light, or understanding of it can be a powerful tool. I'm just reading between the lines here with statements that suggest that photographers must always keep purchasing the newest, most whiz bang equipment to do a suitable job.
Can you shoot a wedding with a Sony A900? Yes (many do). Can you do a professional job and deliver your clients a great product without being negligent by having (what he thinks is) substandard gear? Yes.
Frankly, I am getting kind of tired of the endless pursuit of the best and brightest equipment as a crutch for the excuse that "I'm not as good of a photographer as (insert famous name) because he/she has a Nikon/Canon so and so camera and lens." Higher ISO's, more megapixels, whatever, they might
make our jobs easier but they don't make us better photographers or artists. The work done by photography icons years ago were shot with film, and crappy dslr's and far surpass the quality of the work done by most professionals nowadays. Any venture over to Flickr will show that there are some young talented photographers getting amazing results from point and shoots.
I'm as much of a gear nut as the next guy. If you've read this blog before you know that I can obsess about lenses and cameras beyond what is reasonable, but I draw the line at letting my equipment define me as a photographer. I get offended by the people that are so brand loyal or hung up on owning the newest camera that they look down their long noses at photographers using 'old,' 'outdated,' or 'inferior' equipment. Give
Marco Grob a point and shoot and most of the rest of us a D3x and he'll kick most of our artistic butts all day every day (in no way has Marco endorsed my opinion or have I even met him, I'm just using him as an example of someone that could probably kick by arse with a point and shoot). So while I've been shunned and looked at as loony by some of the folks in my professional photographer forum, I stand by my right to be dumbstruck by those that proclaim that anything short of the newest, best equipment is a offense to professionalism. You are a better photographer than your camera, or at least you'd better be unless you have very deep pockets. The only people that should disagree are camera manufacturers.