Non-DSLR Professional camera?

[edgreene]

Are there any non-DSLR 'Professional' digital cameras and if not,

why not?<p>For example: the Panasonic DMC FZ30?

[pjmeade]

Hasselblad?

[skipd]

Most working pros are going to want interchangeable lenses. I have not seen anything like a digital Leica rangefinder camera on the market yet, but I suppose there might be a niche market for them. The limited market would make them ultra expensive in my opinion.

[peter_daalder]

'Professional Photographers' have the ability of writing off their equipment as a work-related expense.<br>This allows most of them to choose the 'best' equipment available, within their available budget...<br> A 16-Mpixel Canon 1Ds II (body), accompanied with the appropriate glass, will fit the bill for many.<br> However, some Pro's who require the 'ultimate' quality, will acquire medium or large format gear, <a href="http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P%2045.aspx"> with a digital back.</a><br>Then again, I even know some who shoot with 8x10" film. There's not much that can beat that kind of quality.

[andrea_lee3]

It also depends what you mean by 'professional'. A lot of the bridge cameras do give

results that are comparable to the 1D and 1Ds in terms of image quality, but the other big

issue is reliability. Also, the ability to interface with studio equipment.

 

The technical answer to the question is that a photographer usually has to take on many

jobs that require different lenses most suited to the situation, and a DSLR is the best way

to switch from macros to portraits, or from studio to outdoor with optimal image quality.

 

I myself dislike reflex cameras in general, but the only digital rangefinder (I think) is the

Epson one, until Leica manages to pull off a digital M. (Though do note that the M was

never a great studio camera.)

 

If you have money to spend, a digital back can be mounted onto many MF and LF cameras,

such as the Alpa or, for the ultimate studio setup, the Sinar. I believe Schneider has a

range of LF-type lenses 'optimized' for digital.

[Ed_Ingold]

A professional could use any camera, including a Panasonic FZ30 or Fuji F10, under appropriate circumstances. In general, though, you buy into a "system" not just a camera body. Nikon and Canon have dozens of lenses and hundreds of accessories that make their cameras suitable for a lot of situations.

 

If by "non-DSLR" you mean "rangefinder", there is the Epson R-D1 which takes Leica lenses. Considering the demand for rangefinder cameras in general is so low that even Leica is struggling, don't look for an explosion in popularity. I would consider an Hasselblad 200, 500 or H with a digital back a "DSLR".

[godfrey]

I know quite a few photographers who could be classed as professionals selling work

produced with a wide variety of fixed lens digital cameras. In general, all that is required is

the ability to understand and exploit whatever the camera can do and apply it to the

situation to be photographed. A quality camera with a high degree of controllability and

responsiveness certainly helps, and gives the photographer more options, but just how

good a camera is needed to do a job depends upon what the photographer is trying to do.

 

For me, the Sony F7x7 series, the Panasonic FZ10/20/30, the Konica Minolta A2/A200, the

Sony R1 have all produced high quality photos on par with what my DSLRs have produced,

depending upon the circumstances. The DSLRs are more sensitive and more responsive,

have additional capabilities, so I tend to use them more, but there are times when the

unique features of one of these fixed lens cameras proves to be an advantage despite

whatever other constraints it might have.

 

Godfrey

[chad_worthman1]

If it's being used by a Magnum photographer in the Congo and Iraq, for award winning photos, would you could call the Olympus digicam line professional.

 

Alex Majoli:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

[Brian]

The Majoli story bears out the old truth about the photographer not the camera, though in fairness the Oly C-5050 and C-5060 compacts that he mostly used are a good deal more rugged than your average P&S digicam (they've also been discontinued).

[peter_nelson1]

<I>Peter Meade , mar 27, 2006; 06:41 a.m.

Hasselblad?</I><P>

A Hasselblad with a digital back <B>IS</B> a DSLR.<P>

 

Anyway, there is no such thing as a "professional camera". There are people who do phtoography for their professions, but the equipment they use depends on their needs. A real estate photographer might just use a little point-and-shoot, for example, and still be able to write it off on their taxes.

[ilkka]

" Hasselblad with a digital back IS a DSLR"

 

Not if it is a SWC with the CFD back, for example.

[kens designer images]

Most professionals do use top-end cameras from Nikon and Canon, mainly because of their more rugged construction and therefore reliability, But many do use prosumer cameras like the Fuji finepix S5100;S5200;S9500-The panasonic FMZ 20 and 30 alas,even though they possess a beautiful leica lens,they produce more noise than others of their type-even at low ISO's. Any slr camera with a digital back, is obviously a digital slr, by nature of the recording medium-the ccd or cmos sensor.<div></div>

[edgreene]

My original question was not rhetorical. My Panasonic FZ20 P&S has 'professional' written all over it: 1/250th flash sync, second curtain sync, full manual operation-etc. I always have my FZ20 with me, even as I never leave the house without one or two of my EOS film 'Robocameras'.<p>My FZ20 performs on a par with the film cameras up to a point. Since I shoot ISO 100 or slower with the film cameras, and excepting those times when the light is 'iffy', shooting with the FZ20 at ISO 80 also nails the shots, again-more than 98% of the time.<p>I'm likely to buy the FZ30 (<i>for the 8MP, not because the FZ20 hasn't performed when called upon</i>) but because the FZ20 cannot make an 11 x 14 whereas the FZ30 can.<p>I bought the FZ20 for it's 'pro-like' features, SLR-like size and that fast, Image Stabilized f/2.8 <i>throughout the zoom range</i> (36mm-432mm) Leica lens. <br>The attached image shows an attribute no film camera (or SLR) can give me: '<i>reach-ability</i>', and an IS, extreme tele capability in a less than two-pound package.<div></div>

[ravi_swamy]

And where is the 8 fps? Autofocus speed? Shutter lag? How is the noise at ISO 1600? Where is the 18mm wide angle equivalent? How much can I blur the background for portrait shots? Only f2.8? What if I want f1.4?

 

Some of us want those features and some don't. Ed, it sounds like you are happy with your camera. There's no need to defend your choice to us but it can't do everything. An SLR isn't always great either, it can't fit in my pocket while a digital point and shoot can.

[jcuknz]

Ed .. go for the FZ30 ... the FZ20 cannot hold a candle to it from a worker's point of view ... The FZ20 was bugging me for it's basic, and common to digicams, cackiness with regard to making adjustments.

The FZ30 has the essentials at your fingertips.

 

But if you had asked the question three/four years ago I would have said a Nikon 5000 or 5700, but the state of the art has advanced considerably since them.

 

The irritating part of this is that my 5700 is holding it's own with the number of 'acceptances' it is gaining for me, and I'm not using it that much now. I'm wondering if the very ability of the FZ's is making me careless. That I HAVE to take greater care with the 5700.