What Makes a Professional Camera Exactly That - Pseudo-Rant?

<p>Back in the day they use to call it "Heavy Duty" or Industrial grade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can I not have a lucrative business, or amazing photos, or any amount of respect, just because I am using the $600 camera and not the camera that costs 10 times more?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>　<br />Well, take some amazing photos and we'll see!<br />　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are my abilities as a photographer and level of respect I can achieve things that are dictated solely by my pay grade?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>　<br />There will always be people in the world who will look down on you because you don't have the nicest clothes, or live in the nicest neighborhood, or drive the nicest car, etc, etc, ETC. The problem is usually something wrong with them, not with you.<br />　<br />Enjoy your d5100, I love mine! One thing I can't understand is why Nikon doesn't make any more "upscale" models with the articulated LCD. Is it a ruggedness issue? It sure helps with composition in awkward positions, and it helps to keep the screen clean as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There are NO "pro" or "prosumer" cameras."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.nikonpro.com/">Nikon Professional Services</a> specifies qualifying standards for professional photographers and eligible equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Back in the day they use to call it "Heavy Duty" or Industrial grade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That actually sounds like a much better term. It implies that the product will survive longer and be less prone to wear and tear. Calling it "professional" makes it sound like anything else won't produce good results, regardless of how it is built.</p>

All camera can take photos. The term professional was really coined when the rugged film SLRs were around. Cameras

like the Nikon F or Canon F1 could almost literally stop a bullet. They lacked some of the features of their cheaper

siblings but the designs were unchanged and supported for many years. As they evolved they became system cameras

where different accesories could change how the camera behaved. The prism could be changed for different approaches

( waist level, speed finder etc...) and to add modes such as aperture priority. The focusing screen could be changed to

change the metering pattern and motors / winders could be added - on Canon to give shutter priority. These cameras

were very sturdy - I remember pop photo testing the "New F1" in the shower. I still have my pair of New F1s and they

have survived almost 30 years of abuse and bad conditions - one was even kicked down a mountain and has the dent to

prove it. As we moved through AF bodies and into DSLRs Nikon and Canon kept these designations of pro bodies. Of

course with a DSLR reliability and durability are less important t.han with an old film body. You would shoot a film body

for many years but with a DSLR obsolescence creeps in quickly. One area where the pro bodies still have advantages is

battery life (they have much bigger batteries) controls (at least with Canon the controls are much better and you don't

have the silly mode dial) and shutter reliability. Build quality is very expensive but with an all electronic camera perhaps

becomes less important. I am sure that my Leica M6 and Canon F1 s will still be going strong long after the last D3 has

died.

<p>Going out on a limb here: Entry cameras aren't necessarily fragile. Remember the celebrated free fall of a Canon Digital Rebel (XT?) with 18-55mm IS lens from an altitude of 3000 ft into a muddy field? The camera and lens survived. These entry cameras are a lot tougher than we give them credit, although the working parts might not stand up to as much wear.</p>

<p>For me, the differences between consumer and pro are somewhat fuzzy. Pro cameras are cameras that tend to be preferred by pros. This doesn't necessarily correspond to what the manufacturers designate for us as consumer, prosumer and pro. For instance there are a lot of Canon lenses that pros are very comfortable using that are not L ("Luxury") lenses (Canon's elite lenses designed for pro use). Likewise, pros will sometimes use unlikely cameras for various reasons. Lots of photojournalists shoot with PowerShot G series cameras, for instance (not even SLR cameras).</p>

<p>For me, the user interface of a Nikon D40 or a Digital Rebel is an exercise in frustration. The cameras I prefer have plenty of designated buttons and wheels, possibly even a joystick. I can use them mostly without scrolling through menu screens. Consumerish functions (e.g. cryptic automatic modes -- flower in front of mountain mode or mystery green rectangle) are often minimized or absent. The viewfinder is large and bright. It also feels comfortable in my hand. (Different people prefer different sizes of cameras.) The camera isn't necessarily complex or packed with features. My 5D is a very simple camera, for instance (designated "prosumer" by Canon). What makes the camera work for me is that it is intuitive to use. I can do what I need to do, and I can do it quickly. I really don't care what Canon designates for me as "professional." I just use a camera that works well for me. And because I'm using it as a pro (nowadays more as a semipro), it is therefore a pro camera.</p>

<p>NPS created a distinction between pro and non-pro as much to save themselves the hassle of dealing with broken D70's, D40's and D50's as anything. </p>

<p>Feature and functionality wise - the "pro" camera of 5 years ago - the D2x lags far behind the current D3200 and D600 - neither of which are "pro" bodies. </p>

<p>On a Nikon the biggest difference is how accessible features / functions are - you can change both aperture and shutter speed on a D3200 as well as on a D4 - but the D4 puts more of the controls at your fingers. </p>

 

<p>The main thing that makes a camera a professional camera is the ability of the person using it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Calling it "professional" makes it sound like anything else won't produce good results, regardless of how it is built.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is more your perception than anything else. The "pro" gear isn't generally about better results per se, but about more reliably producing them on demand, day in day out. If your gear fails because you used it while following a bride from the church to the limo in the rain, then your results are not going to be good (because they won't exist for any shots after the gear failed). <br /><br />If the more expensive AF system, or the higher frame rate, or the bigger buffer allow you to get a shot (or an in-focus shot) that a slower camera or less nimble AF system can't be relied on to help you nail, then the results - a crucial frame missing from a sequence, or a subject's perfect moment, slightly out of focus - aren't as reliably good. Differences like that are far less important for people who can shoot on their own schedule, or when the weather suits them.<br /><br />"Amateur" <em>doesn't mean </em>"less good." It means "done for the joy of doing it," as opposed to "done for a living." And of course it's possible to professionally shoot using gear that - if it breaks or doesn't deliver - doesn't matter, because perhaps the genre, subject matter, or customer expectations/deadline aren't make-or-break. Landscapes, product shoots, interiors, etc ... not the same as events, sports, etc.</p>

<p>Some of the best pictures on this site were taken with prosumer cameras, if that's any consolation. </p>

<p>There are enough people chasing 'magic bullets' who have money to burn, that the camera manufacturers think it worthwhile to make up these words and market their goods accordingly. I've never seen a pro buy a camera based on what the manufacturer called it. Pros buy tools that will do the job they need to get done, period. If it's better for them to buy 10 throw-away 'entry levels' rather than one 'pro' camera, then that's what they'll do.</p>

<p>Speaking personally, I got over that whole 'magic bullet' thing and started concentrating on pictures, and I've found that my best pictures were made with obsolete 'pro' cameras on occasion (like my 12 year-old Canon D30), but as often as not I've used a P&S or even the 1950s equivalent of a P&S. However, people like me are completely invisible to camera manufacturers. I've only ever bought 2 new cameras in nearly 40 years of shooting, and I returned one of those. Both were P&Ss.</p>

<p>If I were, heaven forbid, a wedding photographer, I would be forced to use different tools. That is perhaps the one field in photography where the camera is part of the performance, and not just a tool to produce images.</p>

<p>I think the problem here is simply one of definitions. Each manufacturer has a top range of heavy duty, weather sealed and fully featured cameras which they have arbitrarily designated "professional". This would seem to be a ridiculous category name as, of course, people can earn their living using a wide range of camera bodies and many professional photographers simply don't need such heavy duty cameras with the expense and weight compromises.</p>

<p>By same token, many amateurs do need these "professional" bodies for the type of photography that they do - trekking through deserts, up mountains, shooting on racing yachts, in inclement weather, for motor sports, etc. Whether or not they earn their living doing that is irrelevant - and as Harry says, amateurs often produce the best images.</p>

<p>It would be better if the top tier of cameras from the various brands were simply designated "Heavy Duty" or "Premier Line" or something more relevant - the term "professional" seems a little misplaced and confusing to me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I keep thinking of the term military specification or milspec. A camera sold to professionals will meet a higher level of quality control (one hopes), have closer tolerances, be up to latest features of connectivity and have all the ports and outlets that pros use. Lately, there is a demand for water resistance which costs extra to design and fabricate. For lenses, the label is similar. Higher specification, assuming use under more torturous conditions. Prosumer is a wishy washy term. All of this is fodder for forums that dwell on small marginal differences in results. The results nowadays are pretty good at all build and price levels. All DSLRs nowadays have a basic professional look. Under the hood the real pro ones have alloy bodies, and they feel and weigh a bunch. I have used the Canon top of the line F-1 in the day with its titanium shutter curtain and it took little time to see the difference from say an FTb which had a cloth curtain shutter. Nowadays I don't get to compare bodies much. They come and go. Lenses interest me more. But Matt M., I would not get sucked into the status business. It is as pointless as yesterday's megapixel race.... I got some of my most appreciated shots years ago with a Canon MC point and shoot because it was comfortable to use and with me at the time. But one fall and it went <em>kaput,</em> so that would rule it out for pro( i.e. paid) assignments.<br>

In film days, there was a status buzz to shooting weddings with the pricey Hasselblad, but so many moneymakers here used Bronica SQA. Or even a cheaper Mamiya C330. All professional, some just gentrified Swedish like the Volvo brand. </p>

Galen Rowell shot some of his best work on an N80, which most people considered to be a hobbyist's camera. He was

also a big fan of the F100, one of those bodies which used to be tagged with the ridiculous "prosumer" label.

 

(What the heck a prosumer is I still can't figure out. A pro who consumes cameras?)

 

Look at any gathering of press or sports photographers. Some will carry D3/4 and 1D type bodies. Some will carry

D700's or 5D2's or 7D's with or without grips. All of these folks are professional photographers, not because their cameras meet some

set of standards, but because their WORK does.

<p>Matt Murphy - "Using my upgrade as an example, its like the D5100 is 2x better than my D40X, for $600, and the D4 5x better for $6000."</p>

<p>This is called diminishing returns and is the same with practically everything else.</p>

<p>Don't worry about this. In reality, it takes care of itself. If you become successful enough with your D5100 to threaten its longevity, the money will appear for an upgrade -- and remember, you'll need a spare(s). If you can make pictures that look good/compelling enough, only a few will care what was used to make it. </p>

<p>Don't forget that cameras are more than image-making devices. They're also <em>signifiers</em> of status, something that is important to many amateurs (and pros). This sells more than a few top-level models. As you become more knowledgeable you wil realize how important it is for you to do your part and the gear to match your actual needs and personal predilections. For Henri Cartier-Bresson, it was the then radically small, small format, relatively low image quality Leica. For David Burnett, a lowly (but light weight) Canon AE-1. For David Hurn, a Canon Rebel film camera. For Terry Richardson, a Yashica T4. Many use Holgas, Dianas, point and shoots, etc. I could go on, but the point is that the right tool isn't always the most expensive pro model, specially if weight is a consideration. Most of these photographers used other cameras in different circumstances. </p>

<p>Enjoy your D5100. Make pictures with it, and don't worry about the "pro" models.</p>

 

<p>My goodness, this subject sure brings out a lot of response.</p>

<p>Matt, my first thought when reading your original post was, why does it matter? <br /> You seemed to be offended by the label "entry level DSLR". You used the term "belittling" in connection with this.</p>

<p>Do you feel belittled? Shoved aside? Not taken seriously? Do 'pros' carrying $16K/15lbs of photo gear over their shoulder snicker at you?</p>

<p>Probably not. So....don't worry about it. Go do your thing, smile and be happy, your photographs will speak for themselves, whatever they say and no matter what gear you used.</p>

<p><em>I simply do not understand this categorization.</em></p>

<p>What does it matter? It's not the tool that you use but the pictures that you make that matter.</p>

<p><em>What makes a camera professional grade? </em></p>

<p>A professional camera is a camera that is designed for the professional photographer in mind, based on their requirements and feedback from existing models aimed at this market. Typically this includes good ergonomics, good controls (i.e. specific buttons for important controls, a separate dial for aperture etc.), fast and reliable autofocus, high quality viewfinder, weather sealing and robust build, etc. Something that is made for the professional photographer in mind. A D5100 has numerous issues that would bother many experienced shooters including a fuzzy pentamirror viewfinder from which you can barely see if the image is in focus or not, awkward controls, too small size, autofocus that doesn't work with many older lenses; so sparse AF point spacing that you can't position the subject where you'd want in the image (of course you can focus and recompose if the subject is static but if it's moving and you're shooting at f/2 or f/1.4 then you're out of luck with the D5100/D3200 etc.). The user interface of the D5100 would drive me crazy (I'm not a professional photographer though, but photography is close to being the purpose of my life). The quality of the viewfinder image is central to the user experience of a DSLR for me. I just can't stand it when the image is such that it forces me to try to see the subject better and more clearly and fail, time and time again. I would like the D5100 (or D5200) for macro because of its LCD, but the optical viewfinder is of such quality that I will not buy the camera.</p>

<p>But this is just me; there are other people who use it and obviously get good results so if you like it use it and make the pictures count. That's all that matters - what you think of it, and what kind of results you get.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>basically what I want to achieve is quality enough to be able to sell prints up to poster size, have images good enough for publication should I get a decent photography job (newspaper, weddings, I dunno)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

People used to use the D1x and D100 for that so what you have now is more than capable.</p>

<p>What makes a professional camera is the photographer holding it.</p>

<p>My Nikon F3 bodies do not have the word "pro" anywhere visible . My Mamiya RZ67 however actually does state "Pro II" on it. Therefore, I'm only a pro when using the Mamiya. If only everything in life was as simple as this. :-)</p>

Marc Todd: Too funny! Thanks!

<p>Mr. Murphy...</p>

<p>Today it is mostly advertising, pricing and sales pitch. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Well, unless anyone has anything else to say, I do believe we have settled this issue.<br>

You are all professional forum posters. Seriously, do threads ever go south on this site? This site breaths etiquette. I may never ask photography questions anywhere else. </p>

<p>"Seriously, do threads ever go south on this site?"</p>

<p>Not that I can recall.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously, do threads ever go south on this site?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's the "Off Topic" forum...</p>