Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
User submission
31.6K
Experiment Reveals The Difference Between Pro Photographers Using $500 Gear VS. Amateur Using $4,950 Gear
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)
RELATED:
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
What do you think ?
Saad 8 years ago
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.
Hugo Raible 8 years ago
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.
Load More Replies...
Limin Huang 8 years ago
meh, no difference for a normal observer like me I'm sorry. I do get the point though
Wulfur 8 years ago
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.
Load More Replies...
Alberto 8 years ago
The difference of quality cannot be seen on a 800 pixel long image on a monitor… Show a crop @100% and we will understand the difference ;)
Chris Sprucefield 8 years ago
Forget image quality, and look at the composition...
Load More Replies...
Hugo Raible 8 years ago
I'm sorry, but for this kind of picture, with enough light and if you don't do 100% crops, an entry level DSLR and a pro level DSLR make NO DIFFERENCE. Give the pros a crappy single-use camera, the amateurs a medium format camera and print the stuff on A0 posters. Then we are talking.
Felipe Schelb 8 years ago
I guess they are trying to say that if you are an amateur and have the best camera available, it will be a waste because you won't use all the camera potential. And they showed that pro photogs can use cheap cameras and make nice pictures because they have skills that an amateur doesn't have. I think the experiment is valid because that's reality, I'm an amateur and I have the same entry level camera because that's what I can buy and if I was shooting with that expensive a*s camera, I wouldn't bring out his full potential, nor I would need a camera that expensive because I don't work with that.
Load More Replies...
Linda Janssen 8 years ago
The camera change was made because often amateurs want to invest in an expensive camera thinking that will make their photo's better and more HQ, this "experiment" was made to explain that the quality of your camera does nothing for your skill, amazing photos can be made with a throw-away-camera if you now how to use it.
Linda Janssen 8 years ago
so many spelling mistakes, darn it, an edit button would be nice
Load More Replies...
Louie Neira 8 years ago
It always helps to know what you're doing. A camera is just a tool like any other.
Tolga IŞIKYILDIZ 8 years ago
Everything should be almost the same, except shooter and the camera, to make a rightful comparison.
Michael Day 8 years ago
For amateurs, it may be important to have better equipment because somehow it gives a "sense" of confidence. You could debate what is the reason for people spending more money in their working equipment. Personally i do believe that what makes a photo amazing is the training of the eye and the practice at understanding your personal view, but if spending money works for someone to help keeping them motivated and also with the confidence in the work they are doing i wouldn't be harsh with them. Also this are raw photos or they have been edited? A better way to portrait your fancy camera point would be to see the work of Miroslav Tichý who made his camera from trash and had AMAZING work done. Best vibes.
Romário Eichlig 8 years ago
I can see what you mean, but I have to say that this was a, with all due respect, a lame experiment (sorry if "lame" is offensive, I'm not a native, so I lack words). Both pros could have shown how they can set up their gears in order to take better-than-average pictures, thus making it extremely clear how techniqu is way more important than gear. But then all pictures look pretty much the same (regarding light, etc) and could easily be mistaken by works of the very same person. I mean no offense, but I can't see how this is helpful or instructing to a layman.
Saad 8 years ago
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.
Hugo Raible 8 years ago
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.
Load More Replies... Limin Huang 8 years ago
meh, no difference for a normal observer like me I'm sorry. I do get the point though
Wulfur 8 years ago
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.
Load More Replies... Alberto 8 years ago
The difference of quality cannot be seen on a 800 pixel long image on a monitor… Show a crop @100% and we will understand the difference ;)
Chris Sprucefield 8 years ago
Forget image quality, and look at the composition...
Load More Replies... Hugo Raible 8 years ago
I'm sorry, but for this kind of picture, with enough light and if you don't do 100% crops, an entry level DSLR and a pro level DSLR make NO DIFFERENCE. Give the pros a crappy single-use camera, the amateurs a medium format camera and print the stuff on A0 posters. Then we are talking.
Felipe Schelb 8 years ago
I guess they are trying to say that if you are an amateur and have the best camera available, it will be a waste because you won't use all the camera potential. And they showed that pro photogs can use cheap cameras and make nice pictures because they have skills that an amateur doesn't have. I think the experiment is valid because that's reality, I'm an amateur and I have the same entry level camera because that's what I can buy and if I was shooting with that expensive a*s camera, I wouldn't bring out his full potential, nor I would need a camera that expensive because I don't work with that.
Load More Replies... Linda Janssen 8 years ago
The camera change was made because often amateurs want to invest in an expensive camera thinking that will make their photo's better and more HQ, this "experiment" was made to explain that the quality of your camera does nothing for your skill, amazing photos can be made with a throw-away-camera if you now how to use it.
Linda Janssen 8 years ago
so many spelling mistakes, darn it, an edit button would be nice
Load More Replies... Louie Neira 8 years ago
It always helps to know what you're doing. A camera is just a tool like any other.
Tolga IŞIKYILDIZ 8 years ago
Everything should be almost the same, except shooter and the camera, to make a rightful comparison.
Michael Day 8 years ago
For amateurs, it may be important to have better equipment because somehow it gives a "sense" of confidence. You could debate what is the reason for people spending more money in their working equipment. Personally i do believe that what makes a photo amazing is the training of the eye and the practice at understanding your personal view, but if spending money works for someone to help keeping them motivated and also with the confidence in the work they are doing i wouldn't be harsh with them. Also this are raw photos or they have been edited? A better way to portrait your fancy camera point would be to see the work of Miroslav Tichý who made his camera from trash and had AMAZING work done. Best vibes.
Romário Eichlig 8 years ago
I can see what you mean, but I have to say that this was a, with all due respect, a lame experiment (sorry if "lame" is offensive, I'm not a native, so I lack words). Both pros could have shown how they can set up their gears in order to take better-than-average pictures, thus making it extremely clear how techniqu is way more important than gear. But then all pictures look pretty much the same (regarding light, etc) and could easily be mistaken by works of the very same person. I mean no offense, but I can't see how this is helpful or instructing to a layman.
Related on Bored Panda
248
118