>>4320051nta, but the usual variety professional photographers (weddings, portrait, event, etc) are usually not overly concerned with quality. They are concerned with ROI and the speed at which they can complete jobs. They are usually doing the minimum a client will find acceptable. Even if the photographer is capable of it, It simply doesn't make sense to put a lot of artistry and thus time into a shot when the people looking at them will never notice or care and therefore does not add to your ability to charge more. So it simply makes sense to use that time instead to get more shots instead.
Secondly the cost of the equipment becomes a huge problem because it doesn't add any value to the output. In the same way that a construction worker's gloves are disposable. They are meant to provide hand protection and it's a simple pass-fail evaluation. If a glove costs $12 and works, you get no added value from a $200 set of gloves, in fact it means you are losing money. Same goes with camera quality for working professional photographers, once it exceeds the pass-fail quality check, it does nothing for them. This is not strictly true when it comes to fashion or product or other kinds of less common pro photography where the quality check occurs at a higher value and does allow them to charge more.
Photojournalists have perhaps the lowest quality standards applied to them. The photos are an afterthought and printed on garbage paper, unless you work for national geographic or something similar, you could use your phone and get away with it.
