Ever wondered what is defined as Pro level camera?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#1
Simply the most expensive there is or the equipment the Pros swear by or by the amount of features or by coverage by media or specially custom camera or something else?

With Nikon D3x being $8k in foreign currency, is it expected that respected Pros must switch to the the D3x to maintain their status or the expectations of the clients who understand only "if want best photos must use best camera" and usually is most expensive Nikon has.

In general, will the Pros lose customers to others who switch to the newest highest end while they retain their current system?

Even the Sony A900 is reasonably priced with the features it offers and Sony is relatively a newcomer to DSLR. Can consider as a Pro body?
 

Last edited:

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
36
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#2
Erm, you asking a question, or making a statement?

Clients generally can't be arsed is you're using a D3/D3x or even a 1D/1Ds Mk.II/III. As long as the camera is BIG, can already. (Really)

According to what I can interpret of the situation, pro level DSLRs command a premium because their production run is generally lower than consumer-level cameras. And yes, features like Full-Frame sensors, which cost substantially more to produce, and increased durability of construction of the body and shutter mechanisms.

It is not true to say that pros will automatically go for the top-of-the range gear each time some new model is released. There are overheads to content with, and it does not make good business sense to spend $10++k on a single body when your current gear is sufficient to meet your demands. There are quite a few pros who do not use top-of-the line gear to fill their ricebowl. The ones who are so obsessed with "must get the best gear to get the best photos" tend to be the ones who aren't sure of what they are doing (rich, non-pro gearheads perhaps?). In producing a "good" photo, the camera is but one small part of a longer process. The cash saved could be used in investing in a good computer for post-processing, for example.
 

OldFlower

New Member
Mar 19, 2008
392
0
0
Jurong West
#3
Personally, price of equipment (lets skip focus on camera bodies) does not define one a pro.

Any camera or lens you use, if you are being PAID to shoot anything, you are technically - a pro. And if, whatever you capture is sought after regardless of what you use, you are a pro.

But if one collects, the onus of acquiring such pricey new spanking model cameras, is on the collector. No pros involved here - unless of course, the collector, is also a Pro.

;)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#4
With Nikon D3x being $8k in foreign currency, is it expected that respected Pros must switch to the the D3x to maintain their status or the expectations of the clients who understand only "if want best photos must use best camera" and usually is most expensive Nikon has.
no.

only if the needs of the client requires it. for example, for some genres like landscape photography.. d3x can be useful.

anyways, if i am not a professional, who cares? whatever makes me happy. i also won't begrudge people who can buy d3x, even if they do not seem to know how to use it. nothing wrong with being rich after all.
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#5
Pro = you make money from it, all else is irrelevant. If I'm looking for a professional photographer, I don't ask to see his equipment, but his portfolio. If clients are easily impressed by equipment alone, life would be so simple.

As a pro, you buy what you need to get the job done, and what would make your job easier. Of course, most of us, pro or otherwise, have a love for shiny new gadgets...
 

CS TAN

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2007
3,663
0
0
Hong Kong
#6
There are at least two kinds of pros. One that is already famous about their work, portraiture or wedding photographer e.g. In that case, the clients will not care about what camera they use becos they already have total confidence in that person.

Another kind of pro is the one who have just started out and will need equipment to impress the clients. The gear might be pro but the skill might not.

I totally agree with lennyl that clients should be focus on the pro's portfolio instead of equipment. I know I will...
 

Dec 2, 2006
811
0
0
41
#7
The camera doesn't define a pro, it's the photog. Saying that, I've seen reporters with just a 30D and 17-85 IS covering a press release and another with a 1DmarkIII and 16-35 f2.8 at the same event.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#8
I don't know about now, but in the past, a professional level camera had distinctive differences from enthusiasts or hobbyist level gear in that:

1) They were built much more rugged and durable, and may also be somewhat weather-sealed
2) Had much longer lasting shutters
3) Fired at a much higher FPS
4) Were usually part of a modular system which was extremely comprehensive
5) In relation to #1 - were usually made of metal, titanium, aluminum and magnesium; you'd be hard pressed to find polycarbonate in a pro camera
6) Costed more, were bigger and heavier
7) Usually featured scaled-DOWN sets or amount of features that a pro would probably never need or use (the theory behind it was KISS and Murphy's law)
8) had very comprehensive viewfinder systems with interchangeable screens and prisms
9) had to be at ease with just about any genre of photography at a moment's notice
10) had to be eminently easy to use - pros shoot; they don't have time to fondle gear
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#9
Simply the most expensive there is or the equipment the Pros swear by or by the amount of features or by coverage by media or specially custom camera or something else?

With Nikon D3x being $8k in foreign currency, is it expected that respected Pros must switch to the the D3x to maintain their status or the expectations of the clients who understand only "if want best photos must use best camera" and usually is most expensive Nikon has.

In general, will the Pros lose customers to others who switch to the newest highest end while they retain their current system?

Even the Sony A900 is reasonably priced with the features it offers and Sony is relatively a newcomer to DSLR. Can consider as a Pro body?
first thing... most camera manufactures (not all camera manufactures interested to produce pro grade cameras) don't earn much from selling Pro level cameras, in facts, they have to damp a lot of money into the R&D of the pro level cameras, the huge profits are coming from selling consumer grade cameras.

second thing, who define the particular models of camera is the pro grade camera??? the answer is camera manufactures, they are the one claims their camera is the world best and many professionals are using it.

third thing, most professionals photographers are just simply choose the right tool to do the job right, be it pro grade gears or not...

forth thing, are professionals concern about many other none professionals getting better gears then them? all I can say is most pros are very much care less, as they count on their skills and experience more than just the gears.
 

shuhry81

New Member
Oct 19, 2008
135
0
0
Singapore
#10
Personally, price of equipment (lets skip focus on camera bodies) does not define one a pro.

Any camera or lens you use, if you are being PAID to shoot anything, you are technically - a pro. And if, whatever you capture is sought after regardless of what you use, you are a pro.

But if one collects, the onus of acquiring such pricey new spanking model cameras, is on the collector. No pros involved here - unless of course, the collector, is also a Pro.

;)
i second that!! LOL!!!!:bsmilie:
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#11
Still, you cannot deny the fact that clients look for hints and clues of "pro-ness", which often means a big-ass camera and huge-mama lenses...
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#12
Still, you cannot deny the fact that clients look for hints and clues of "pro-ness", which often means a big-ass camera and huge-mama lenses...
in which case, the choice would not be Canon, Nikon or Sony... Il'd be Hassey, Phase One, Leaf or Sinar... not that most clients I've met know/care...
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#13
in which case, the choice would not be Canon, Nikon or Sony... Il'd be Hassey, Phase One, Leaf or Sinar... not that most clients I've met know/care...
wow, the clients very discerning.

seriously though, even though someone has a hassy it doesn't mean he's necessarily good.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#14
wow, the clients very discerning.
the quoted post asked for big is beautiful what... and the price tag for those even more shocking than the size ;p

haven't met a client who object to too small a camera... its up to the photog to know what equipment can cover what job...
 

Last edited:

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#16
Doubtlessly, much of photography lies within the skills of the photographer. However, my point was merely to illustrate the fact that, clients, may they be the ignorant or discerning sort, do actively look for hints or clues to corroborate the photographer's claim that he is a professional, which, fortunately or unfortunately, includes the photographer's equipment.

You may be surprised the amount of leeway a (in this case, probably ignorant) client is willing to give once he believes that the photographer he engaged is a professional. While I'm not inclined to say that the photographer can easily submit lousy work, a couple of flagrant technical errors may be glossed over thanks to what I call "equipment psychology".

Yet, I have never denied the fact that it is the photographer that matters the most. Indeed, excellent photos have been produced again and again with inexpensive or inferior equipment, and I do concur that the photographer is his best asset. My point is that going for a shoot with a Nikon D40 may raise certain eyebrows at the time of the shoot, and may cause some distress for the client. But hey, if you handle it well, both technically with the pictures and the psychology of the clients, you're on your way to being a professional too.
 

ahbian

Senior Member
May 23, 2006
2,467
0
0
#17
Anything the security at concerts rejects at the door, is a Pro Level camera.
 

Tianz16

New Member
Feb 6, 2008
73
0
0
#20
ya.. the camera needs to be big then you are pro liao le.

even though you use a 450D, just add on a hand grip flash with big big lens maybe 70-200 haha
then you are a damm pro no need to what one.. click on the button the picture sure come out nice..

above are all crap. agreed on the fact that there is no pro camera as no matter what camera that you use it is the person which will determine how the picture will come out to be. as long as it is decent enough a 1000D can be use to take Pro level photos... of course the skills of the person will have to be much much better. as techonology helps improve/assist and not take over the photo taking process. :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom