User submission
31.6K
1.2M
Experiment Reveals The Difference Between Pro Photographers Using $500 Gear VS. Amateur Using $4,950 Gear
1.2Mviews
Tired of constantly being asked ‘what camera did you use to take that photo?’ and ‘what is the best camera?’ photographers at Mango Street decided to show the difference between pro photographers with amateur gear and an amateur with pro gear.
They gave a high-end $3,300 Canon 5D Mark IV with a $1,650 Canon 35mm f/1.4L II lens to their friend who is not a pro, but had a basic understanding of photography. Meanwhile, the two professional photographers got a cheap (~$500) Canon Rebel T3i with low-end lenses (a kit 18-55mm and a 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens).
See the results below.
More info: Mango Street (h/t: petapixel)
Daniel (Pro with Amateur Gear)
Rachel (Pro with Amateur Gear)
Justin (Amateur with Pro Gear)
Watch the video of the experiment below:
1.2Mviews
Share on Facebook
Popular on Bored Panda 
!["Karen Complains To HR About My Body, I Uno-Reverse Her Complaint, [And Now] Everyone Hates Her"](https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/coworker-complains-to-hr-about-womans-body-revenge-latest.jpg "\"Karen Complains To HR About My Body, I Uno-Reverse Her Complaint, [And Now] Everyone Hates Her\"")
The difference clearly is lack of understanding how to compose, which was expected. There is no need for an 'experiment' to determine that. It would've been interesting if they had given the pro gear to an photography enthusiast instead of a random dude with basic understanding of photography.
The video shows some better shots of Justin, a few are as good as the pros' as far as composition and story telling is concerned.
That wasn't the point, the video is clearly trying to show 'gear doesn't matter' in a rather reductive way. We already know gear is a tool and not everything and it's the photographers eye that makes the difference. What I'm saying is it would've been a better comparison if a enthusiast who is good but just can't afford pro gear was handed the pro gear so his skill would've come through and probably made photos on par with the pros.
Well gear does and doesn't matter. It gives you more options and better results when blown up to huge sizes in print for example. But no composition skills or story telling isnst going to be fixed by gear. I agree with Saad, you don't need an experiment to prove that. You need one to be able to create another nonsense article on blogs like these.
I didn't see much of a difference (actually, none, because I don't have the eye for it), but maybe that is the point, or one of the points. I believe, the lack of a big difference between them shows that amateur equipment used by pros is still quality photography. I actually enjoyed the sentiment from the amateur's photography. He seemed to be a different type of photographer, one that didn't do as much dictation, so much as present ideas to the model.
Chase Kolozsy yes
When looking at the stills, I see a bigger difference with composition as stated above. There appears to be more craft put into the professional's photographs than the amateurs, but there were quite a few photos by the amateur that had interesting ideas too, that I thought were executed well. This is probably what the professionals were talking about when lamenting that the amateur wasn't nearly as much of a beginner as they would have liked.
this experiment reveals NOTHING.
You missed the difference in composition.
There is a difference, but looking at the video, there are a few shots from Justin which are as good. And the cameras/lenses give almost the same results for these conditions.
Chris, I did not. there is a slight difference, but it is almost impossible to notice if you do not have any idea about photography.
true. if the differences need pointing out they arent vast enough to count.
it does, there is huge gap in the interestingness of the image
They should have left them unlabelled on this page and let people vote on which was which
And that's how I know you're not a professional photographer, Olga. No offense. But it does show something: photography is an art and some people are more predisposed to do better in it. It's a talent that can't be compensated by expensive gear.
After some research, the other two "Pros" aren't really pros but pretty much hobbyists that have big social media following. Honestly none of the shots are like ad campaign level, its more like good wedding photography. As for sell ability there's no real advantage, Amateur shot's basic poses might work for catalog. Most of the Pro's shots wouldn't even work for generic stock. There's also the model, she's not an agency model and doesn't pose well. Amateur was also given a 35mm on a full frame camera which is hard to work with especially if trying for close shots. An agency model and 85mm or 70-200mm almost foolproof getting pro looking shots. And yes i'm a pro photographer with over decade shooting sports, runway, lookbooks, and catalogs
Olga the amateurs shots lack composition and focus, even though he had the more expensive gear. That is how you can tell which is taken by which. The point of this experiment is to show that no matter the gear, a professional photographer will produce better and more sell-able photographs than someone who has a base understanding of how to use a camera. Also, the professionals photographs are clearer and they knew how to interact and get the most out of the model as possible.
Kristina Krohn +
I guess you're not the target audience, then. Professional photographers and individuals with an interest in photography spot the differences. "It's not about the gear" is the title of the video. People who have dedicated their lives to this art say there is a difference between amateurs and pros, and some (even non-pros) do perceive it. It DOES prove something...
*is taken (why there is no "edit" button?
of course I'm not (: so none taken. but who is the target for this study? and who is the target for photography in general? because for a "normal" person it reveals nothing. you could put all those shots together and honestly I couldn't tell which one of them is take by an amateur.
meh, no difference for a normal observer like me I'm sorry. I do get the point though
Thank you. As a photography geek myself (for a middle schooler at least), I see the difference and lighting, but it's true; the difference is small. What I wanted to congratulate you on is your ability to present your opinion in a more passive way: rather than stating a fact, you're stating an opinion, which is what you should do.
Oh good. The middle schooler is pleased.... i can sleep now..
like you, you mean?
The difference clearly is lack of understanding how to compose, which was expected. There is no need for an 'experiment' to determine that. It would've been interesting if they had given the pro gear to an photography enthusiast instead of a random dude with basic understanding of photography.
The video shows some better shots of Justin, a few are as good as the pros' as far as composition and story telling is concerned.
That wasn't the point, the video is clearly trying to show 'gear doesn't matter' in a rather reductive way. We already know gear is a tool and not everything and it's the photographers eye that makes the difference. What I'm saying is it would've been a better comparison if a enthusiast who is good but just can't afford pro gear was handed the pro gear so his skill would've come through and probably made photos on par with the pros.
Well gear does and doesn't matter. It gives you more options and better results when blown up to huge sizes in print for example. But no composition skills or story telling isnst going to be fixed by gear. I agree with Saad, you don't need an experiment to prove that. You need one to be able to create another nonsense article on blogs like these.
I didn't see much of a difference (actually, none, because I don't have the eye for it), but maybe that is the point, or one of the points. I believe, the lack of a big difference between them shows that amateur equipment used by pros is still quality photography. I actually enjoyed the sentiment from the amateur's photography. He seemed to be a different type of photographer, one that didn't do as much dictation, so much as present ideas to the model.
Chase Kolozsy yes
When looking at the stills, I see a bigger difference with composition as stated above. There appears to be more craft put into the professional's photographs than the amateurs, but there were quite a few photos by the amateur that had interesting ideas too, that I thought were executed well. This is probably what the professionals were talking about when lamenting that the amateur wasn't nearly as much of a beginner as they would have liked.
this experiment reveals NOTHING.
You missed the difference in composition.
There is a difference, but looking at the video, there are a few shots from Justin which are as good. And the cameras/lenses give almost the same results for these conditions.
Chris, I did not. there is a slight difference, but it is almost impossible to notice if you do not have any idea about photography.
true. if the differences need pointing out they arent vast enough to count.
it does, there is huge gap in the interestingness of the image
They should have left them unlabelled on this page and let people vote on which was which
And that's how I know you're not a professional photographer, Olga. No offense. But it does show something: photography is an art and some people are more predisposed to do better in it. It's a talent that can't be compensated by expensive gear.
After some research, the other two "Pros" aren't really pros but pretty much hobbyists that have big social media following. Honestly none of the shots are like ad campaign level, its more like good wedding photography. As for sell ability there's no real advantage, Amateur shot's basic poses might work for catalog. Most of the Pro's shots wouldn't even work for generic stock. There's also the model, she's not an agency model and doesn't pose well. Amateur was also given a 35mm on a full frame camera which is hard to work with especially if trying for close shots. An agency model and 85mm or 70-200mm almost foolproof getting pro looking shots. And yes i'm a pro photographer with over decade shooting sports, runway, lookbooks, and catalogs
Olga the amateurs shots lack composition and focus, even though he had the more expensive gear. That is how you can tell which is taken by which. The point of this experiment is to show that no matter the gear, a professional photographer will produce better and more sell-able photographs than someone who has a base understanding of how to use a camera. Also, the professionals photographs are clearer and they knew how to interact and get the most out of the model as possible.
Kristina Krohn +
I guess you're not the target audience, then. Professional photographers and individuals with an interest in photography spot the differences. "It's not about the gear" is the title of the video. People who have dedicated their lives to this art say there is a difference between amateurs and pros, and some (even non-pros) do perceive it. It DOES prove something...
*is taken (why there is no "edit" button?
of course I'm not (: so none taken. but who is the target for this study? and who is the target for photography in general? because for a "normal" person it reveals nothing. you could put all those shots together and honestly I couldn't tell which one of them is take by an amateur.
meh, no difference for a normal observer like me I'm sorry. I do get the point though
Thank you. As a photography geek myself (for a middle schooler at least), I see the difference and lighting, but it's true; the difference is small. What I wanted to congratulate you on is your ability to present your opinion in a more passive way: rather than stating a fact, you're stating an opinion, which is what you should do.
Oh good. The middle schooler is pleased.... i can sleep now..
like you, you mean?