There is no such thing as a pro camera

moot point

Profesional photgraphers make money from selling photgraphs surely

If you are teaching then it's more about establishing credibility than selling phographs - for example you take 500 unbeleiveable pictures and dine out on that credibility

or you must pay the rent from somebody buying the photgraphs you took last week

eNo said:

Leif Goodwin said:

Jrobe said:

someone who can't find a better paying job.

Nikon should be marketing primarily to the rich amateurs with good jobs. They are the ones with the money.

Click to expand...

Ha ha. You are probably right, these days it is not easy to make money as a photographer, or so I have read. I note that the big names spend a lot of time teaching in class and on field trips.

Click to expand...

And that isn't photography? Those big names wouldn't get anyone to sign up for their classes unless they had some photography to back up what they teach.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Home page: http://imagesbyeduardo.com

Story-telling: http://imagesbyeduardo.com/main/wedding-photography-los-angeles-story-telling/

Click to expand...

Shotcents said:

Every time a new high-end DX or FX body comes out there are folks wondering if it's a pro camera!

Is it pro?
Why isn't it pro?
Can I be seen with it and say I'm a pro?

Cameras are tools, just like paint brushes.

Click to expand...

Please do not confuse the tool with the tradesman.

I agree. Cameras are just tools.

And there are professional tools and not quite professional tools. A camera is considered professional when its maker states that they designed and made it with the intentions of professional use. These are normally high performance and very tough pieces of gear that will give dependable, high quality output under adverse conditions consistently. Nikon says the D3s, D3x and the D4 are professional cameras. What makes them that is the makers intended use and the targeted user.

I do not think we users should question that.

Similarly, there are professional photographers and non professional photographers. A professional photographer is one who makes the majority of his or her income from taking and selling photographs.

I also agree with the notion that using a professional camera does not a professional photograper make. Nor do all the professional photographers necessarily use professional cameras.

But still, without any doubt whatsoever, there is such a thing as a professional camera.

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

Shotcents said:

Sorry, people. I'm not going for it, not even a little.

I might accept the notion that a D3200 is not a "pro" camera as it's quite limited compared to my D800. But overall my D800 is every bit as pro as a D4, perhaps more so depending on the application. The same goes for the new D600, which is certainly going to find it's way into many pro kits.

The D800 shoots at the highest resolution....needed by some pro shooters.

The D4 shoots with incredible speed and is built like a tank....needed by some pro shooters.
The D600 has high resolution and is more compact....needed by some pro shooters.

Click to expand...

The above does in no way contradict what Myshkin wrote (and other agreed with), it looks rather like a rebuttal of a misinterpretation of what Myshkin wrote (and other agreed with).

What he wrote was quite simply that some gear is designed specifically with pro use in mind. Other gear is primarily designed for other uses. Like recreational use.

Shotcents said:

Pro's don't worry about a camera's theological status as a prosumer or pro camera. It's all nonsense.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But it does not take away that some gear is designed specifically for pro use. Other gear is designed with other goals.

Shotcents said:

The tools analogy is pretty awful. The cameras above are ALL high-end photographic tools.

Click to expand...

In terms of image quality, yes. In terms of full time and enduring use, no.

Shotcents said:

I could even toss in the D7000 for good measure, since it's a popular 2nd body in some pro kits. This is more like comparing a good Makita cordless drill to a good Dewalt. The clown who tries to tell me one is "pro" is just that; a clown.

Click to expand...

You seem terribly insulted that cameras you like are not classified as "pro".

You are confusing what can be used professionally with what was specifically designed to be used professionally. Any pro user can grab any camera to get a picture, that does not then mean that camera was designed to be used professionally.

Pro gear - and yes it exists - are simply put gear where a high priority is put on usability, durability, quality - and the main compromise made is to let the price slip away upwards.

Can such pro gear be used by hobbyists? Certainly. Can a camera designed more with the hobby user in mind be used professionally? Certainly. But it does not change the fact those cameras where designed for specific users. And it is the design and the intent of the design which distinguish pro gear from hobby gear.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

+1... and these pro bodies are of extreme importance for nature & wildlife photographers...

Nikon's pro quality gear list:

http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf

myshkin said:

There is cameras designed for the professional which is why its called pro class. This doesn't mean you can't be a pro with a prosumer or consumer camera, but pro cameras exist.

Click to expand...

--
Cenk Ogurtani
http://www.facebook.com/CenkOgurtaniWildlifePhotography

Grevture said:

You seem terribly insulted that cameras you like are not classified as "pro".

You are confusing what can be used professionally with what was specifically designed to be used professionally. Any pro user can grab any camera to get a picture, that does not then mean that camera was designed to be used professionally.

Pro gear - and yes it exists - are simply put gear where a high priority is put on usability, durability, quality - and the main compromise made is to let the price slip away upwards.

Can such pro gear be used by hobbyists? Certainly. Can a camera designed more with the hobby user in mind be used professionally? Certainly. But it does not change the fact those cameras where designed for specific users. And it is the design and the intent of the design which distinguish pro gear from hobby gear.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your contribution.

A well balanced and reasoned post. This is also very much how I see the "pro gear" issue.

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

You sound like someone who must have been laughed at as a kid for bringing the wrong lunchbox to school. Seriously, your preoccupation with what is or is not considered a pro camera makes it seem like appearances matter more than substance to you. Anyone who really didn't care what is pro and what is not would not have bothered to print a single word about it.

Shotcents said:

Sorry, people. I'm not going for it, not even a little.

I might accept the notion that a D3200 is not a "pro" camera as it's quite limited compared to my D800. But overall my D800 is every bit as pro as a D4, perhaps more so depending on the application. The same goes for the new D600, which is certainly going to find it's way into many pro kits.

The D800 shoots at the highest resolution....needed by some pro shooters.

The D4 shoots with incredible speed and is built like a tank....needed by some pro shooters.
The D600 has high resolution and is more compact....needed by some pro shooters.

Pro's don't worry about a camera's theological status as a prosumer or pro camera. It's all nonsense. The tools analogy is pretty awful. The cameras above are ALL high-end photographic tools. I could even toss in the D7000 for good measure, since it's a popular 2nd body in some pro kits. This is more like comparing a good Makita cordless drill to a good Dewalt. The clown who tries to tell me one is "pro" is just that; a clown.

Robert

Click to expand...

--
Mike Dawson

Peter Jonas said:

Similarly, there are professional photographers and non professional photographers. A professional photographer is one who makes the majority of his or her income from taking and selling photographs.

Click to expand...

Peter Jonas said:

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

Click to expand...

I have always found that particular definition of "professional photographer" contradictory to reality.

Tell me who's the pro:

1) Harry, a local studio photographer who shoots high school sports, proms, weddings, etc., makes $31,000 per annum with his photography. He also substitute teaches at the local high school and makes $8,000 per year doing that.

2) Tom, an attorney with an M.D. degree, specializes in high dollar medical tort cases, averages $635,000 per annum and photographs celebrities and fashion models in his home studio and makes $112,000 from that.

Fill in your answer below using a #2 pencil

(A) = both are professional photographers as they are both reaping reasonable income from photography. ( use common sense as to what's reasonable )

(B) = Harry is the professional photographer because his largest income is from photography.

(C) = Tom is the professional photographer because he made more money from photography than Harry.

(D) = whether you're a pro or not has nothing to do with where your main income comes from.

(E) = both answers A and D are correct.

There's only one correct answer above.



--
Teila K. Day
http://www.teiladay.com

michaeladawson said:

You sound like someone who must have been laughed at as a kid for bringing the wrong lunchbox to school. Seriously, your preoccupation with what is or is not considered a pro camera makes it seem like appearances matter more than substance to you. Anyone who really didn't care what is pro and what is not would not have bothered to print a single word about it.

Click to expand...

Why get personal about it? This is how intelligent debate declines into trolling.

No, I'm not all that concerned with my gear "status." I buy what works for ME, not what the copy, ads or reviews claim and I alone determine how it can fit into my work.

Thus anyone who's looking to strangely validate their tools or toys with imaginary "pro" status is what I'm discussing. We're at a point now where these high end DSLR's are all tools capable of professional results. The ease in which they can accomplish the required results are not dictated by price anymore. If a pro is looking for a small light weight DSLR with high resolution the D600 is the best choice. Depending on the subject matter a D5100 or D3200 might do the job as well.

For my needs the D800 is a FAR better camera than a D4. Price is not a factor. And pro status? C'mon.

Robert

Shotcents said:

We're at a point now where these high end DSLR's are all tools capable of professional results. The ease in which they can accomplish the required results are not dictated by price anymore. If a pro is looking for a small light weight DSLR with high resolution the D600 is the best choice. Depending on the subject matter a D5100 or D3200 might do the job as well.

Robert

Click to expand...

This man speaks the truth!

People used to bicker over "pro camera" or not. This was when a 12MP DSLR was groundbreaking and a 6 MP entry level DSLR was $1000 with a kit lens.

If you remember those times, there were clearly major IQ advantages to a "pro" model.

Now we have 24MP "entry level" cameras for less than $1000, and 22MP "pro cameras" for $7K.

The differences in IQ come down to ISO noise. And the subjective DOF differences.

A properly lit, and exposed shot from a plastic beginner camera, will be so close in quality to a "pro" camera, no one can tell the difference.

The differences in the cameras (other than IQ at high ISO) are that the $7K camera can take 300K pictures in the desert, rainforest, or war zone, and the "entry level" camera would not survive.

Many professional photographers use camera bodies that are not "pro". Including the White House Cheif Photographer...

You continue to miss the point. You think the use of "pro" needs discussing? No it doesn't. That's the whole point. In an ironic twist the simple fact that you think the use of the word "pro" needs to be discussed in a sense validates its use. Why in the world would it bother you that people and camera companies use the "pro" designation for certain products?

--
Mike Dawson

michaeladawson said:

You continue to miss the point. You think the use of "pro" needs discussing? No it doesn't. That's the whole point. In an ironic twist the simple fact that you think the use of the word "pro" needs to be discussed in a sense validates its use. Why in the world would it bother you that people and camera companies use the "pro" designation for certain products?

--

Click to expand...

Mike, it's no bother at all. But I do see threads where someone asks if the Nikanon D666 is a pro camera. What's the real difference? The better shooters I know do it for pleasure and artistic merit, not money. Their requirements are no less "pro" and in fact are often more demanding.

If anyone is really concerned with ultimate capability of a camera, asking if it's "pro" is probably the worst value indicator. Pro's don't seek out the very best IQ from a file in many cases because it's not part of the business model. I'd think it would be wiser to ask, "Is this camera suitable for serious enthusiast shooting?"

Anyway...it's just a discussion; nothing to get upset over.

Robert

Teila Day said:

Peter Jonas said:

Similarly, there are professional photographers and non professional photographers. A professional photographer is one who makes the majority of his or her income from taking and selling photographs.

Click to expand...

Teila Day said:

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

Click to expand...

I have always found that particular definition of "professional photographer" contradictory to reality.

Tell me who's the pro:

1) Harry, a local studio photographer who shoots high school sports, proms, weddings, etc., makes $31,000 per annum with his photography. He also substitute teaches at the local high school and makes $8,000 per year doing that.

2) Tom, an attorney with an M.D. degree, specializes in high dollar medical tort cases, averages $635,000 per annum and photographs celebrities and fashion models in his home studio and makes $112,000 from that.

Fill in your answer below using a #2 pencil

(A) = both are professional photographers as they are both reaping reasonable income from photography. ( use common sense as to what's reasonable )

(B) = Harry is the professional photographer because his largest income is from photography.

(C) = Tom is the professional photographer because he made more money from photography than Harry.

(D) = whether you're a pro or not has nothing to do with where your main income comes from.

(E) = both answers A and D are correct.

There's only one correct answer above.

Click to expand...

By the definition I used and you quoted, the correct answer is B.

By the same definition Tom is a professional attorney. I am not worried about Tom, because if his case is real (as it may well be), then it is an exceptional case.

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

eNo said:

I know Canon, Nikon, etc. calls their gear "pro", but professional is really about the person, not the gear. Ever heard of a professional hammer, or a professional band saw?

Definition : A professional is someone who earns money at their profession.

So if we insist on using the term for inanimate, objects, then any equipment that earns you money is "pro."

There, that means my D7000 is "pro," even if yours isn't.
--

Click to expand...

all very good points terry richards a prime example

Of course they have pro line tools. Heavier duty, longer lasting, better warranty.

I can't believe people are having this discussion.

Pro equipment is not equipment that magically makes you take good photos. Pro equipment may have LESS features and be MORE difficult to use. Instead, it's reliable, predictable, and perhaps better performing - although that isn't very important.

Pro equipment is a shortened phrase meaning "equipment suitable for use by pros." And it has nothing to do with whether you made money w/your cell phone. It's still not "pro" equipment.

Jeez.

eNo said:

I know Canon, Nikon, etc. calls their gear "pro", but professional is really about the person, not the gear. Ever heard of a professional hammer, or a professional band saw?

Definition : A professional is someone who earns money at their profession.

So if we insist on using the term for inanimate, objects, then any equipment that earns you money is "pro."

There, that means my D7000 is "pro," even if yours isn't.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Home page: http://imagesbyeduardo.com

Story-telling: http://imagesbyeduardo.com/main/wedding-photography-los-angeles-story-telling/

Click to expand...

This entire thread was only made so that this guy could showcase his pretty basic picture of some kid. Nothing more.