Who or what is a prosumer - and have you ever met one?

[JDMvW]

<p>The "Pro-Am" I was speaking of, was that of <em>camera</em> marketing, not sport. NTIM</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji in particular has nailed the prosumer market</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on your view of the industry: to me the classic prosumer cameras are cameras like the Canon 7D, 6D, Nikon D610 etc. These are cameras that are much more expensive than a casual photographer would buy, but are not the "flagship", and most expensive cameras these companies produce - which by convention are "professional", and yet a professional can use prosumer product with no "shame" and without really losing much in terms of capabilities. The issue then becomes one of comparing these demonstrably prosumer cameras with other makers' cameras for the features and price brackets. If similar - these then can become prosumer cameras too. It's all rather silly of course, and I see some (such as Andy L above) classify the Nikon D800 and 5DIII as prosumer cameras, something I would not agree with. So it is clearly something we can argue about for a long time!</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I think I are one. I am a part time pro. My camera is my most expensive single tool and therefore, i want the greatest bang for my buck since it effects the bottom line. I believe the d700 I use is a prosumer camera. It had the build quality that would reliably handle my more than occasional yet less than full time use. It had an image quality and features that satisfied my needs for 3k less than the flagship body. My glass, pro, period. My lighting gear, as complete as any studio. My work with a prosumer body, well lets say good enough to be asked to be in charge of a PPA mentor program. But no, I do not use a flagship pro body, I use a prosumer. It's a business cost/benefit analysis for me. Next, looks like the 810. As Ansel said, the most important part of the camera is the 12 inches behind it. I have never had a client ask which camera body I use. They just want to see the results. </p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>Who or what is a prosumer?</p>

<p>A Prosumer is a Proponent of Sumer ~ an ancient region in southern Mesopotamia that contained a number of independent cities and city-states of which the first were established possibly as early as 5000 b.c.: conquered by the Elamites and, about 2000 b.c., by the Babylonians; a number of its cities, as Ur, Uruk, Kish, and Lagash, are major archaeological sites in southern Iraq. <br>

<br>

Have you ever met one?<br>

<br />I've never had the pleasure.<br /><br>

;~)<br /><br>

Cheers! Jay<br /></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Jay wins the chicken dinner.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>When I bought my Nikon FM many years ago (others I knew in my college dorm were also buying them) it was affordable (compare to the F2) but built to the quality (if not durability) of professional models.<br>

Seems to me that pro equipment (not just cameras) is expensive, as economy of scale doesn't allow for the low prices. By allowing for high-end amateurs, the prices come down. <br>

Now, note that the Nikon D70s won't meter in M or A with AI lenses. There is no reason for this, other than to discourage pros from using it. <br>

So, seems to me that an important part of prosumer equipment is intentionally discouraging pros from using it.</p>

[bryce_l.]

<p>You want a new piece of photographic equipment. Do you accept the line the sales person strings you or do you read various publications printed or on-line to assist you in your decision? A consumer is the former, a prosumer could well be considered the latter.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Tan-legged prosumers are sometimes blown off-course, and one or two can sometimes be spotted mixed in with a flock of common blue- and black-legged consumers, e.g., http://dansplainephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WWPW-Nashu-Group.jpg.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[angie_nelson]

<blockquote>

<p>These companies are savvy to social media and forum chatter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The online conversation is often dominated by idle complaining, whether that is valid or not. Often the complaints are given by people who don't understand the process of photography in the first place, thus the result of this "savvy"-ness is a machine that guesses what you want. In my experience, it guesses wrong and I'm more comfortable with a simple mechanical device, even though it is slower and more prone to human error. At least I can only blame myself for problems.</p>

<p>Examples of things I must do to avoid the bad results of my DSLR "guessing wrong" : <br /> * having to turn off the interpolation, anywhere at any time, that simply shouldn't exist in my opinion<br /> * having to guard against digital zooming (why does that even exist?)<br /> * having to turn off "auto-awesome" or any other silly exposure or focusing feature <br /> * not having the choice of setting the iso where I want it (nobody cares right?), or having the iso become some kind of crazy exposure compensation instead of a function of grain and sensitivity<br /> * kludgey color management that treats "daylight" settings as a blue light filter so I'm forced to run in something warm like "tungsten" for skin tones, even outdoors.. I assume this means the camera is guessing that I want it to "look like daylight" not to look like the actual scene in front of me that happens to be daylight.<br /> <br /> Many cameras have fixed some or all of these problems, but for these reasons I still shoot a considerable amount of film. I find myself spending large amounts of time setting up my digital camera to undo the "automatic" behavior of my digital camera, and even then, some of the settings reset after a frame or after a change of battery, etc. It's very frustrating for me and I'm not new to digital, I just haven't adjusted to having my hands tied.</p>

<p>When I ask myself what I really want, I want a fully manual SLR camera that records onto CCD or CMOS exactly what appears before me, and gives me the artistic options that a film camera does, plus some new ones. I don't know if that makes me a "prosumer" but it makes me different from a typical consumer.</p>

<p>Maybe it's like this:</p>

<p>A consumer wants pictures that look nice, easily. <br>

A prosumer wants pictures that look really nice, easily. <br>

I want pictures that are potentially artistic, I don't care if it's difficult. </p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p>Still can't understand the problems people are having with "prosumer". I run a small business. Its main activity is writing/translation. We have around 6 PCs. I don't need super high end spec but I do need durability, so I buy professional grade PCs from the HP "Probook" series.<br>

My secondary activity is photography - I need top-grade image quality and big files, but I don't give my cameras the beating that some pros (especially sports photogs) do, working in rain with big heavy pro telephotos and a motor drive with a fast fps rate, so the "prosumer" or "semi-pro" Canon 5D Mark II is my choice here. If I were regularly shooting pix for use on billboards, the Canon's 63MB files might well be too small, and I'd have to stump up for a "professional" MF digital camera.<br>

I have also done some pro sound recording in the past, mainly classical groups with internal balance where I can go straight to a twin-track stereo master - in this case, I was very well served (as were very many radio journalists) by a Sony DAT machine and a Sony condenser mic, essentially prosumer items, with top-notch sound quality but with virtually none of the functionality of a 24- or 48-track studio set-up. I find the idea very strange indeed of "prosumer" being some kind of vanity label to snare the unwary or the deluded.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>It came to pass that technology evolved enough that professional and consumer gear have gone in quite different directions. Then it became necessary for people who aren't professionals but find no fun in the consumer offers to have something that can work and feel more similar to professional gear, but needs nowhere meet the same standards. Such is called the prosumer market. It has zilch to do with price or power, nor does it need anyone's derision. Real Prosumers aren't really keen on the term because all they really into to be is consumers, but the majority of consumers are interested in quite a different technological approach. 'Enthusiast' is a synonym, but feels too emotional.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>In other words, a prosumer is what we call an amateur now that the word amateur got undesired connotations. Real Amateurs were there before there were consumers.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I am truly amazed at some of the opinions expressed here. @ Angie - none of the "Examples of things I must do … " exist with my Canon 5D, or as far as I am aware with any other comparable DSLR. There is no interpolation, automatic or otherwise, digital zooming is for viewing post-exposure only (why does it exists on simple cameras - because it's cheaper than providing a good zoom lens), and using auto modes or not is a simple matter of selection - you don't have to use them, although I personally find AWB useful 99% of the time, auto ISO too, since this means if you are shooting at ISO 100 or 200 and suddenly want to take a snap in "available darkness", you don't miss. Secondly and more important, being artistic is NOT repeat NOT a matter of having more dials to twiddle but of developing a unique artistic vision. On balance (and I've been taking pictures for 60 years as a amateur and pro) I'd say a good digital DSLR is an invaluable tool to help achieve this.<br>

@ Antonio - if there is one identifying feature of an amateur, it is someone who wants pictures but has no interest in technology. This was the target market for the first Kodak box camera in 1888 ("You push the button, we do the rest!"), today the same kind of person is using a camera phone. You say prosumer gear meets nowhere near the same standards as pro equipment - as I explained (at length), prosumer gear is close or equal to pro equipment in term of the results delivered but not in terms of durability or functionality, Yes, some people do buy cameras with extra bells and whistles for vanity reasons, but others choose equipment for totally practical reasons on the basis of careful deliberation.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

@David, I'm amazed that you replied to what I wrote without reading it. You're using the modern notion of amateur, which has nothing to

do with the historical one. Historically, an amateur was someone who loved some field but didn't work in it. More or less the opposite of

wanting the results without the process.

[dhbebb]

<p><em>@David, I'm amazed that you replied to what I wrote without reading it. You're using the modern notion of amateur, which has nothing to do with the historical one. Historically, an amateur was someone who loved some field but didn't work in it. More or less the opposite of wanting the results without the process.</em><br>

Actually Antonio, I think I did understand what you are saying - the meaning of the word "amateur" has not really changed, its main meaning is as you say "someone who love some field but [doesn't] work in it", with the secondary meaning of "someone who is not very good". Even in the days of the Daguerrotype there were amateurs pushing (or even driving) carts about full of mercury and cyanide, and the Brit Julia Margaret Cameron was one of the 19th century's great amateurs, although working with a professional's 12x15 plate camera. It would probably be less confusing to drop the word "amateur" and instead call technophobes "snapshotters" and serious "art for art's sake" people "enthusiasts" (even though you think this is too emotional). There would then be room for a further category of "technofreaks" or "gadget junkies" - of which there are rather a lot in Japan, with quite an influence on camera development.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I'm married to a prosumer and have two daughters who have made the all-pro prosumer category.</p>

[angie_nelson]

<p>I 100% agree with what you said here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Secondly and more important, being artistic is NOT repeat NOT a matter of having more dials to twiddle but of developing a unique artistic vision. On balance (and I've been taking pictures for 60 years as a amateur and pro) I'd say a good digital DSLR is an invaluable tool to help achieve this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've only been on this forum for a few days but already it's clear to me that if I mention film, people think I hate digital. I hate the annoyance of automation when it gets in the way of what I'm trying to achieve. I'm also aware that in most places there is a difference between DSLR and "prosumer" which would be a point and shoot that has some options for custom picture taking but usually not a fully manual mode. I think the 5D falls in the category of DSLR because it's fairly large and has interchangeable lenses, among other features (if it's Mark 3, then it has dual memory cards, right?).</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with having a camera that has no TTL rangefinder, has only one lens that's superbly sharp, and timesaving features that produce very nice pictures. But it's cheapening the art if a "professional" can only use such a camera because they don't understand digital ISO versus film ISO, and the reason why camera shake prevention is so essential in digital, but was never developed for film (correction: gimbels for handheld video cameras). And various other facts that only someone who spent at least some time with a manual 35mm would know.</p>

<p>Prosumer describes the product, and the market segment, not the person. If I am using such a camera, or you are, it's not because "I am a prosumer." We're not labeling ourselves. I might use my old Dimage if I'm just going to a party with friends and want web shots. That doesn't make me a consumer. I might use any camera today and the label on me is still "Angie." Whether I'm a professional is a function of whether I sell prints or otherwise make money with my pictures. Personally I'm a hobbyist, meaning I prefer professional gear but I try to make it within my budget because I have a day job for money.</p>

<p>A consumer, hobbyist or professional might buy a prosumer camera for any number of reasons. Prosumer is about the scope of usefulness of the item (by extension, reasons for buying it are usually within the scope of usefulness), but not about labeling people. So I guess, no I haven't met any prosumers, but I've seen lots of prosumer cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[frode]

<p>The funny thing is that what is pro today is toy tomorrow. So pros of today cannot use their present gear to make pro pictures tomorrow. How did they "dislearn" their capability?</p>

<p>(Btw: Dimage A2 was promoted as a prosumer camera when it was introduced. It had everything a DSLR had except a mirror and a lens mount. Who would call it prosumer today? The A2 was my first digital camera, back in 2004.)</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>> As you can see, this is all very confusing. </em></p>

<p>Not confusing at all. The word's been in common parlance her on PN for a decade or more.<br /> It was always obvious to me its definition: a<strong> higher end</strong> user-photographer (a spendier demographic) than a mere run-of-the-mill consumer, digi-Rebel shooter with $50 plastic lens.</p>

<p>Prosumers obviously are not full time pros who make most or all of their living from photography.</p>

<p>Easy enough?</p>

<p><em>> The equivalent in the car business is "near luxury". What it means, no one knows.</em></p>

<p>LOL! Good one.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>@ Angie:<br>

<em>I hate the annoyance of automation when it gets in the way of what I'm trying to achieve.</em><br>

I fully understand this - yes, it is a fact that some prosumer cameras are designed to be as easy to use as point-and-shoots but deliver better quality. The manual functions are accordingly buried in some menu or other and any settings you make default to auto when you switch the camera off. You can find all the functions you are looking for (easy-to-select full manual, for example) if you spend enough on a DSLR, but if you want this functionality for little money, the clear option is film. Film of course does not have the instant feedback of digital and costs a lot in the end for the film itself plus processing, but it sounds as if this is less important to you.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think it's a rather silly distinction: professional vs prosumer vs consumer gear. It is either good for what it is supposed to do or it is not. Period.<br>Maybe that it used to be that, in the days when quality still counted for something, quality gear was too expensive and the expense could only be justified by either the gear earning its keep or by having so much money that you wouldn't notice that you spent a considerable amount. Then you would have the 'good stuff' only people producing a return on their investment could afford, and the 'good enough stuff' people who only use the gear for fun could afford. But are those days not long behind us now?<br>Nowadays, if anything, the distinction is indeed mainly (money still plays a role too) in how many pages of autotranslated gibberish you need to wade through before you know how to switch a thing on and snap a picture. The more there are, the more 'pro' the equipment apparently is.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"The equivalent in the car business is "near luxury". What it means, no one knows."</i><br><br>Why, yes we do. Near luxury is luxury you do not need a car for to get to. As opposed to luxury that is too far to walk or cycle to reach.

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I think it's a rather silly distinction: professional vs prosumer vs consumer gear. </em><br>

Believe it or not, there are people who get paid to think about this all day long - they are called product managers. It may be hard to understand what they do (basically, they try to identify to whom they are selling and make sure their products are appropriate). Consider if you will Pentax 35 mm cameras, which were pro items in the 1960s, were then eclipsed by Nikon and Canon and never returned.<br>

Pentax made some excellent lenses, their 60s Takumars and Super Takumars and more recently their "Limited" series were superb, and for many years they made the best super-telephoto (non-mirror) lenses in the world in the range 800 to 1200 mm. BUT - they had no effective product management, made middle-of-the market cameras that were quite good but not outstanding, and failed quite badly when they tried to make a pro camera (the LX, which was good and loved by many amateurs but wasn't what pros were looking for).<br>

It is only recently with DSLRs that Pentax has staged something of a comeback. In general, knowing your target market and defining features and prices accordingly is vital!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

O, i believe you, David.<br>There are far too many people who go out and buy a bit of their desired self-esteem rather than something that is reasonably fit for the job. So a large group of professionals can make a good living deciding how to sell that to them. Silly in itself, since there is only one simple answer. And one that has been known for ages to boot. Flattery. Still people get paid to think about it all day long...<br>But maybe these buyers of self-esteem can have both, i.e. also a camera that works well. Would be perfect then.<br>But there still are people who are 'just' looking for a machine that does what it is meant to do well enough. Now what shall they be called?

[Robin Smith]

<p>I'm not pro-Sumer, but pro-Hittite.</p>