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

<p>So recently I just upgraded from a Nikon D40X to a Nikon D5100 and I am pretty happy, considering the D5100 does everything the D40X does and does it better, as well as the fact that it is VASTLY more customizable and has abilities the D40X simply does not. Back in 2007, when the D40X came out, it was called an "entry-level" DSLR, so when I got it in 2010, that was perfectly fine with me, as I was entering the world of DSLRs. Obviously I grew out of it as I got the D5100. Now, when I received the D5100 I was blown away with it's technology, it being vastly more complex and capable than the D40X. EVEN STILL, it is considered "entry-level" just like the D40X.</p>

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

<p>What makes a camera professional grade? Its like they say"OH, you bought this $3000 camera, that automatically makes you a pro even though you only use auto!" Or, "You bought an entry-level camera, you will never be able to play with the big boys." </p>

<p><br />What makes a camera professional grade? I have been checking them out and it seems like the major difference is that these "pro" cameras, like the D4, are more capable when it comes to layout and not necessarily image quality. 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. The D4's abilities to me do NOT seem like they are worth $6000. Not even close. Its image quality might be twice as good as the D5100, but its price 10x more. The D4 and cameras like it have capabilities that to me, are useless, like its ungodly amount of focus points. I only see the need for one. Even the D40X's three annoyed me. I focus on the object, and move the camera around . It is quicker than finding one of the 11 or 30 different points and going from there. 11 FPS seems like cheating, unless you are shooting a cheetah. </p>

<p>Now, to be honest, I see the usefulness of something like a D4, but for me, someone who wants to make "art" or whatever you want to call it, or rather someone who isn't working for MSNBC shooting the Olympics or out in the Amazon with National Geographic, I just don't see the point in buying a D4 or something like it, especially since I've never had $6000 just sitting there. Even if I did, I wouldn't spend it all at once. For crying out loud, I don't even have a car, and a used one would less than half as much as a D4.</p>

<p>If I had a photography job, and keeping that job depended on getting something like a D4, then yea, I would get it. However, as it stands now, I am not working for NatGeo, I not out shooting cheetahs, and I would buy a car before buying what some people in the photography world call "professional grade" equipment. Someone smack some sense into me. Am I being naive here? 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? Are my abilities as a photographer and level of respect I can achieve things that are dictated solely by my pay grade? As someone on this forum once said, and this is not an exact quote, "Ansel Adams took amazing, timeless photos with a camera made of wood and cloth, and we are bickering over the latest DSLR." </p>

<p>I find this all so absurd and belittling. Like I said before, someone smack some sense into me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A professional NEEDS a camera they can depend on to work when they need it (all the time). Pro cameras are designed to survive rough treatment, and conditions. Amateurs WANT features (real or perceived) and ease of use.</p>

<p>Yea, but some of these "pro" cameras have things nobody needs, like 30+ focal points. Nobody NEEDS that many. They only need one. Plus, what if someone has everything they need with something like a D5100? The industry seems to think they are still "entry level" and that someone with a D4 is a better. You make a good point with the environmental conditions though.</p>

<p>My main point here is that people make it seem like having a pro camera makes a photographer a pro. Joe Schmoe could climb Mt.Everest with a weather sealed D4, but that doesn't mean we will take quality photos. Certainly it is a feat to climb Mt.Everest and make a photo project out of it, but that is more like extreme sports than photography.</p>

 

<p>Matt, pro cameras are about build quality as much as image quality. Lesser priced bodies share much of the componentry sometimes but would be a liability in a war zone or extreme situation where 'failure is not an option'. My advice to you to answer all your questions would be to rent a D4 for a few days and experience it then get back to us.</p>

<p>"Pro cameras are designed to survive rough treatment, and conditions."<br>

<br>

Even this differentiation is becoming obscured over time. My prosumer EOS 7D has a shutter rated at 150K actuations, a magnesium-alloy chassis, weather/dust sealing that while inferior to the 1D series is a lot better than my old EOS-1/1N professional film bodies. The body is every bit as rugged and the shutter's more durable.<br>

<br>

Of course, compared to the true consumer Rebel series, the build quality of the prosumer/pro bodies is much, much better. But even the true consumer bodies are getting better.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Pro cameras are built tougher. It is not a matter of features. You can have a completely manual pro camera or an entry level camera with all the bells and whistles manufacturers can come up with. The shutters on pro cameras are designed to last longer. The bodies are tighter and have better seals. The lens mounts are stronger with pro cameras. </p>

<p>The 30+ focus points were actually developed from the non-pro cameras. But action photographers can definitely use them. A single focus point is great if the photographer can recompose, but fast moving subject matter can make this impossible. You can take the focus point argument even further. When I was a photojournalist, we didn't have autofocus and did a good job with manual focus. This implies that autofocus isn't needed.</p>

<p>I think what confuses you is the issue of "quality". All DSLRs can take quality photos. Some can do it at higher ISO and some have higher megapixels. Professional cameras are not professional cameras because of this. Canon and Nikon's top of the line cameras don't have the highest megapixel capture. It is the cameras just below them that do. The pro cameras have a high enough megapixel with very fast processing, and durable construction.</p>

<p>This hasn't changed since film days. My Nikon F2s didn't take a better photo than an FM or FE, but I could depend on them in conditions that caused an FE to short out (ultra high humidity) or that they would last many more shutter actuations than the amateur cameras</p>

<p>Ok, ok, good responses. What I am getting from this is that it is like driving a car. I could have a fuel efficient, luxury vehicle that makes driving a nice, leisurely, relaxing experience, and it could get me from A to B just like any car, but god help me if there is a blizzard or if I want to go off-roading, even if I am the best driver in the world.</p>

<p>It is the camera's ability to endure in harsh environment and usage that makes it "pro?" I can still take "pro" quality photos with a more fragile camera?</p>

<p>Am I getting it?</p>

<p>What would the D5100 be classified as if it came out 7 years ago? Surely it would not be just an entry level DSLR...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What makes a camera professional grade? Its like they say"OH, you bought this $3000 camera, that automatically makes you a pro even though you only use auto!" Or, "You bought an entry-level camera, you will never be able to play with the big boys."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The words 'professional', 'entry level' and the ridiculous 'prosumer' are simply adjectives and categories made up by corporations in order to target customers and sell cameras, I wouldn't take any of it too much to heart. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At any given time, there are price levels <em>X</em> and <em>X+n</em>, such that any camera whose price is ≥<em>X</em> and < <em>X+n</em> is a "prosumer camera". Any camera priced ≥ <em>X+n </em>is a "professional" camera.</p>

<p>"Features" are not involved in this determination to any significant degree. On any given Saturday night, an "entry level camera" [<<em>X</em>] may have new features not present on more expensive models.</p>

<p>The "designations" reflect the audience the camera is designed to attract, and inherently include the camera's durability to consistently deliver within a range of specifications, often as a function of higher grade components in "pro" bodies than in lesser grade cameras. It has very little to do with the IQ of the resultant pictures. And, No, a professional grade camera won't make you any more of a professional photographer, than a cookbook will make you a chef. Both are just tools. What is between your ears is what makes the difference in which tools you select and how you employ them.</p>

<p>There are NO "pro" or "prosumer" cameras. Most folks have been conned. I know people who have made a very good living from an alleged "student" camera, the Pentax K-1000 and the Olympus Pen F, half frame. I made more money from my cheapo Yashicamat than I ever did from my Rolleiflex, more money from an ancient Nikon F than I ever did from my Leica M2R. I am currently producing gallery-size prints for sale from my Nikon of the Beatles. The lens was a cheapo Spiratone present 105mm f2.5 lens.<br>

Some cameras, of course, fare better in Hurricane Sandy but most photogs don't have that problem. Nobody cares a fig what kind of typewriter Hemingway wrote his stories on.<br>

When I was a big time photog in Neuva Jork and Hollyweird (presidential visits, all major league sports, Broadway backstage, Academy Awards ceremonies, the Olympics, etc.) I can't tell you how many of the big time pros carried grubby looking cameras (they are a tool not a fashion statement) while the wannabees had shiny new toys around their necks. Get over it.</p>

<p>Build quality, ruggedness, reliability. Nikon D4 is a rugged well made DSLR that will stand up to the rigors of heavy use. You could say everything else in Nikons current line up is not so well made. That does not mean you can't make money using another camera body such as a D3200 but there is no arguing which one is better made.</p>

<p>Being used by a professional photographer.</p>

<p>You can certainly doing professional work with your D5100 and many D3, D4 were sold to amateurs so it's not clear as to which is a professional camera and what is not. With that said, without even know the specs just by looking at them I could easily tell that the D5100 is priced approximately 1/10 of the D4. And if the D5100 was introduced 10 years ago it's still and entry level because of how it is built. <br>

If you get back to the good old film days you would see that the top of the line cameras had the least amount of features like auto exposure etc.. but high speed motor drive was always the features on the high end. I don't see the point in trying to explain to you the reason, you bought the entry level and happy with them. That's good and that's why each manufacturers have so many models. </p>

<p>It's just a camera that a professional decides to use. They choose all sorts of models and types that suit their particular needs. </p>

A professional camera is a camera that's in the hands of a professional.

<blockquote>Wayne Decker: <em> There are NO "pro" or "prosumer" cameras. Nobody cares a fig what kind of typewriter Hemingway wrote his stories on.</em></blockquote>

<p>Love those comments, Wayne. </p>

<p>Define Professional. Means basically nothing. Money? How much? Makes their living from their photography? That could be someone on an NFL sideline, on a model shoot in Central Park for Vogue, or a wedding photographer from Durand, Illinois. Different skill sets, maybe different cameras. Who cares? Call yourself a photographer and use whatever equipment gets the job done for you. If you need rapid focus capability and weather sealing then that's the camera you buy if you can afford to do so. What a manufacturing company, or another photographer, defines as "professional" does not matter. In most cases, we're only belittled or "less than" if we allow ourselves to be. Enjoy your new camera! </p>

<p>In some cases, those seemingly capricious categorizations from the manufacturers coincide with a different relationship between them and their customers. If you buy multiple D4-grade cameras and carry on in photography with a pro's hours and income derived from it, you can expect to strike up a more professional relationship with Nikon. They will take better care of you, as a pro, then they will someone who - as an amateur, or a buyer of their inexpensive consumer products - doesn't necessarily represent the visibility, long term repeat business and brand loyalty. Nikon doesn't include their lower-priced gear in such programs.<br /><br />Oh, and ... you better believe that the more complex AF system on the more expensive bodies is useful. Along with the higher frame rates, bigger buffers ... it increases the keeper rate when shooting difficult action-y subject matter. As someone who sells such work, I can assure you that - for me - every penny that goes into those extra AF sensors has been repaid many times over. That hasn't stopped me from also buying a consumer-grade Nikon body (a D3200, in my case), since it's wonderfully small and light for casual walk-around use.</p>

<p>I love these comments. One remark about ruggedness and reliability. You can buy 3 entry level bodies, save a lot of money and have a more reliable system than with one pro level body. That being said I still prefer the prosumer bodies for the possibilities they offer and if I could afford one, I'd buy a pro level camera. Not a rational choice but an emotional one.</p>

<p>And now I come to think of it, my Canon A1, EOS-5 and EOS-5D have each failed once, while the lesser bodies: AE1, EOS 500n, EOS 30 and EOS 10D never failed.</p>

<p> A D40 is never a professional camera regardless of who is using it. A D4 will always be a professional camera body regardless of who is using it. It's about the build quality of the equipment not how it is being used. It's the same with any tools it's not about who is using them. Tools designed and built as professional tools are professional tools even if they sit in a hobbyists home and are rarely used. Thats not to say some cheap brands won't label equipment as professional even though it is cheap cr*p. However that is not the case here we are talking about Nikon that has a reputation of producing profession quality equipment. There is a huge difference in the build of a D4 and a D40, even sat on the shelf without ever being used one is built as a professional piece of equipment and the other is not.</p>

The D5100 is sometimes called an "upper" or "high-end" entry-level camera. It is also in the "prosumer" category, which in fact should be

called "advanced amateur".

 

If these marketing categories really meant something precise, that would put the D5100 close to being a low-

level pro camera. By calling the cameras in the $400 to $800 range "entry-level", there is a marketing suggestion that the customer shoud

start there and that point and shoot cameras are just fancy toys, not intended for serious people. That sales tactic works; lots of people

could take the same photos with a P&S.

 

Pro cameras cost a lot more. They are more rugged and may have advanced features some people need. The same ifs true of power

tools. Cheap ones are garbage. For most activities, both moderate and high-priced ones will do a good job. If you will be using the tool

everyday, you might be better off with a top-of-the line model.

<blockquote>

<p>A D40 is never a professional camera regardless of who is using it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good thing I got this D5100 then? Really though, it sounds like I should stop worrying about this whole "professional" thing. I'm not in a war zone, not climbing Mt.Everest, not shooting RG3 from the sidelines for ESPN, so the build quality of a pro-camera is not that important to me at the moment, especially since I can't afford one anyway. From what you guys are telling me, I should do just fine with my new D5100, am I right? </p>

<p>I mean, 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), and have a camera that can perform well in those rare yet intense situations, like seeing a fast, rare bird. It sounds like I have a camera capable of all that, assuming I am bringing my compositional A-game.</p>

<p>Yes you have the right camera because you feel comfortable with it and you don't see that a 10 times more expensive camera can offer you anything of value. If you feel that way you certainly have the right camera and you should quit worrying about having the right camera. <br>

Like some posters already said your D5100 is not professional grade but it certainly suitable to do professional work with it.</p>