Can you be a professional photographer...

[blt123]

...with just a point and shoot camera?

I am by no means a professional, but with advances in technology, I think a point and shoot would do the trick at stuff like weddings. What about a portrait studio? I wouldn't see why not. The only drawback would be psychological to the consumer. At a wedding or portrait studio, you want to see a big SLR on a tripod, not a point and shoot.

[tonylong]

Originally Posted by blt123

...with just a point and shoot camera?

I am by no means a professional, but with advances in technology, I think a point and shoot would do the trick at stuff like weddings. What about a portrait studio? I wouldn't see why not. The only drawback would be psychological to the consumer. At a wedding or portrait studio, you want to see a big SLR on a tripod, not a point and shoot.

Well, there are "professionals" who have "made a name" for themselves using compact/P&S cameras. And hey, Annie Liebowitz made a recent TV appearance touting an iPhone-type camera.

So, to be perfectly accurate, yes, you can be a "pro" with just a point and shoot camera.

Then, a followup question would need to be, is a P&S camera the "right tool for the job"? Will it get all the shots a "pro" needs to get? Or, would it struggle, say, in lower light scenarios, will it struggle to properly "catch" action of various types, or to get the right depth of field for portraits and such? If any of the above scenarios apply, then I'd say no it would not be the "right tool".

And, a big part of being a "professional", not just in photography but in any craft/trade, is having the right tools for the job. Sure, you can "play" with alternatives, but...

That being said the last P&S camera I've used was several years ago. Yes, I was able to get a lot of good shots with the various ones I've used. But I learned quickly that they had "real" limitations, hence my adoption of DSLRs for "serious" photography (although I'm not a "professional").

[watt100]

Originally Posted by blt123

...with just a point and shoot camera?

I am by no means a professional, but with advances in technology, I think a point and shoot would do the trick at stuff like weddings. What about a portrait studio? I wouldn't see why not. The only drawback would be psychological to the consumer. At a wedding or portrait studio, you want to see a big SLR on a tripod, not a point and shoot.

it could be more than a "psychological" drawback but why not shoot a wedding with an iPhone and market the latest technology

[MikeFairbanks]

The title "professional photographer" is far too broad to put a definite answer on that.

[blt123]

I was watching on TV the protests in Chicago during the NATO summit last week. There were more people taking pictures than there were protesters. They would show one protester or one police officer with about a dozen people taking their picture. With the cameras a few inches from their faces, does it really make a difference if you use a point and shoot, a smart phone, or an expensive DSLR?

[x_tan]

? Leica M9 or Canon Gx1 are P&S or not

[Luckless]

If the tool does the job you want it to with acceptable ease, then it is the right tool for the job.

In some cases a smaller camera format such as a point and shoot is going to be the right tool for the job simply because that is the only size that is going to allow the job to get done. Small "sports" cameras are something that you are seeing more and more of, especially for video.

As a programmer I have used an ancient 486-66 computer running MS-DOS in the last year on a job. It was a last resort type deal because of a technical error, but it was just enough to do what we needed done without having to wait weeks to get the parts we needed on location. By no means would I want to use that equipment for the vast majority of my work.

I have heard about professional photographers who apparently still use vintage gear in the style common from 100 years ago. Part of their business offerings were using something unique and different.

[Sam6644]

There's no reason why you can't.

Anyone who shoots a ton of photos, like pros typically do, would probably end up frustrated with a P&S at some point though.

[FlyingPhotog]

It's all about optimizing the light and / or finding interesting or appealing subjects.

Getty licensed a set of images of NY Yankee players that were captured in a Men's room with an iPhone but they were lit using LED panels and had a pretty cool style.

[Sam6644]

This guy seems to be getting the job done with a G12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxfR-y2N0jY

[birdfromboat]

we print our own name badges and ID cards where I work. Every one of the 900 people in our company got their picture taken by a tiny P+S on a tripod, operated by someone making an hourly wage doing office help in our human resources department, i.e. a professional photographer.

Yep, you can.

If you had been around in the 1800's with a cellphone camera, Jackson hole wyoming might be called blt123 hole wyoming. Every year for christmas I would get a new blt123 calendar. But it would have meant waiting 150 years for someone to invent a computer and ink jet printing so maybe not. Just sayin

[DC Fan]

Yes. The photographer's skill and vision count for more than equipment.

Some o f the best examples come from established industry professional Dave Black. He wanted to eliminate the problem of a SLR's shutter noise at golf tournaments. So he used a Nikon Coolpix 8700,which was virtually silent. No shutter noise meant he could get image of golfers during their entire swing.

Writing from experience, I've made money with images from a Fuji FinePix S7000. The Fuji was one of the better compact Digicams of its era. I got an image from that camera that was published "full bleed(from edge-to edge on the page) in a magazine and looked good.

Even in the 35mm film era, there were highly regarded compact cameras, such as the Olympus Stylus Epic, with its 35m f/2.8 lens that would serve any skilled photographer well.

Originally Posted by blt123

...with just a point and shoot camera?
I am by no means a professional, but with advances in technology, I think a point and shoot would do the trick at stuff like weddings. What about a portrait studio? I wouldn't see why not. The only drawback would be psychological to the consumer. At a wedding or portrait studio, you want to see a big SLR on a tripod, not a point and shoot.

[MikeFairbanks]

All that said, however, a point and shoot is not what you want to show up with when shooting a wedding on a paid assignment. You're going to regret it in a big way.

[watt100]

Originally Posted by MikeFairbanks

All that said, however, a point and shoot is not what you want to show up with when shooting a wedding on a paid assignment. You're going to regret it in a big way.

yeah, there's a reason most wedding photographers don't use a P&S camera

[D. Vance]

Originally Posted by MikeFairbanks

All that said, however, a point and shoot is not what you want to show up with when shooting a wedding on a paid assignment. You're going to regret it in a big way.

That, and for bird and nature photogs, most of them have almost no reach on zoom.