November 26, 2014, 12:36:16 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - wsmith96

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 33
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:29:23 PM »
Can't wait to see the price!  This may become my second L lens :)   I was holding off on a 400 f/5.6L to see if unicorns really existed.   It appears they do.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: November 04, 2014, 10:46:07 AM »
Thanks everyone for all of your responses!

I've worked on my kit for quite a while, and though not as impressive as other people's kits, it does the job very nicely and appears to be similar to what you are looking for.

Here's what I have:
T1i - first camera that I learned a lot on
60D - recent second camera - bought refurbished for $460 from canon.   I'm still not sure if I like it or not, was wanting increased frame rate, but it's still a tad slow for me.  It also seems to produce dark images if I follow what the meter is telling me.   I'm exposing to the right now to produce normal looking pictures.

General - 17-55 F2.8 - this lens is the second most used out of my kit.  It produces great images every time. No issues with dust.
Wildlife/sports - Telephoto - 70-200 F2.8L Mk II - this lens is the most used out of my kit.  It produces great images every time, pricey, but worth it.
Macro/Portrait - 60 2.8 - I've had a great experience with this lens, but if I were to do it over, I would have saved and gotten the 100 F2.8L - mainly for the working distance and IS.  I will replace this one.
Wide-Angle - 10-22 - this is another lens that does a great job.  I don't have experience with the new 10-18, but the 10-22 won't disappoint.
Portrait - 50 1.8, 85 1.8 - they both do a great job, though I've found the 85 to be a bit softer on my 60D.  Don't be discouraged on the 50's plasticy feel.  If you are kind to your equipment it will produce nice images for little money.
Wildlife - Teleconverter - 1.4 Mk III - I use this with my 70-200 for wildlife.  It will turn this lens into a ~157-448mm FF equivalent F4 IS lens.  The image quality doesn't suffer from what I can tell and focus speed is still quick.

Good luck on your kit building!

Software & Accessories / Re: DxO OpticsPro 10 released
« on: October 29, 2014, 04:03:40 PM »
good catch -- very sneaky

I'd have to pass.  In a year it would be worth $5000, then the next year $2500, then the next year $1800.  I'm not necessarily an early adopter of large priced items.  Besides, they'll obsolete the model with a rebel that has wifi, cellular data and quad pixel AF.  Then the complaints will start right back up.

* disclaimer - of course, if it were making me significantly more money than what my previous camera would, that may change my mind.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:42:22 PM »
Neuroanatomist, here's a "pro" microscope for you:
Image the full thickness of a live mouse's cortex! But you must have seen this - I put it up here for the entertainment of other geeks.

Cool stuff!

Kinda my point, though...where is it called 'pro'?  I have scopes costing from $1,000 to $800,000 – none of them are called 'pro microscopes'.   ;)

Must be time to trade-up Dr Neuro...


I was wrong, it seems...

I had no idea pro microscopes were so cheap compared to my systems!!   ;D

Remember what we said earlier about equipment with Pro in the name :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 05:35:46 PM »
I thought it had to say "Leica" somewhere on it?

or either NASA or Air Force

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:26:20 AM »
Generally speaking, a manufacturers top of the range product is aimed at pros. Take knives, pans, laptops (the business lines), and I presume microscopes etc.

My Calphalon Commercial cookware was bought at Macy's, and my Wusthof pro knives came from Williams-Sonoma...not a restaurant supplier.  I've never seen a 'pro' microscope.  General Motors ran a marketing campaign for their Professional Grade trucks...I know a few people who use them to commute to their professional office jobs.

The top end is aimed at people who are willing and able to pay the higher price.  "Pro" is purely a marketing distinction.

If you are able to go into the kitchen at a restaurant, I bet you won't find calphalon or wusthof knives either.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:23:35 AM »
I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).
Errm, being pedantic for just a moment...I have a Macbook Pro laptop. Must make me a pro! Whoo-hoo!
This is an entertaining thread!  8)   I hope the OP has got something out of it.


The word "pro" used in a product name is often used to entice people to buy up - especially in compute equipment.  As an example, I don't remember the models, but one of the series of macbook pro's was pretty much identical to a lower range HP business laptop. A friend of mine was able to run a bios hack and run OSX from 2 ~$2000 macbook on a ~$450 HP laptop.  Of course, the HP didn't have the all metal body, but that was the primary difference.

Yes, I did get something out of this thread.  I had read in another thread that having a better auto focus system on the 6D would make it more professional.   To me that didn't make sense as there are many others out there that use the 6D that find the camera fine.  What I believe the person was saying was that the 6D's capabilities didn't meet their needs, but that doesn't necessarily make the 6D less of a professional camera - it just wasn't the right one for them.

I found that most are struggling to provide a definitive list of attributes that make a camera a professional camera.   I also found that comments kept shifting to the person behind the camera, rather than focusing on the camera itself - which comes back to the difficulty answering the question.  The one attribute that has been repeated, and that I also agree with, is build durability to maintain the operation of the camera through daily use.  Beyond that, I think it's up to the owner and their needs.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:01:20 AM »
You're all wrong.  Only the D810 is a pro camera and you all know it!

No! GoPro! The name says it all.... Go Pro.....

Nobody would mount 29 D810's to their car, but they would (and did) with GoPro :)
To me it sounds like a recommendation  ;D ;D ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:45:07 PM »
Put it this way: among current wedding/event photogs, how seriously would you take someone who is using a Rebel XS (1000D) as his/her only camera?  What about a sports photog using a 60D?  I'd feel more confident that the "pro" was serious about his/her work if they were using 7D (sports/wildlife), 5D or 1D series bodies.

So, it is then the perception given to the client?  Does that go back to the notion that a camera is more professional based upon the amount of money it is, or because, in the example provided above, they are physically bigger?   I do agree that a 1D is very impressive looking on the sidelines.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:39:12 PM »
This is a question for the underpants gnomes.

:)  actually, it was meant to make people think.   Cheers, and what are gnomes doing in your underpants?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:31:46 PM »
The person holding it.

Clearly that isn't the whole answer. Canon have a line of cameras aimed at professionals with a distinct set of features, which appeal the kind of people, who take pictures for a living.

This is the point that I'm getting at.   For example, the 5D series camera I have considered to be the ultimate wedding photographer's camera.   Now along comes the 6D.   It is generally plastic, it does not have all of the bells and whistles that the 5D series do, but it does have some that the 5D series do not have.  The 6D can also be considered a fantastic wedding photographer's camera.   So why would the 6D be less of a professional camera than that of the 5D?

My theory is that it is the professional who sets the criteria for what they consider to be professional grade equipment.  They are the one's making the money and most professionals I know, in any profession, will spend only the right amount of money on the right tool to do the job.

I recently went with a wedding photographer to a shoot to be an unpaid apprentice to see what it's all about.  I was stunned when he whipped out a Nikon 5100 and a kit lens, and that was all that he had.   It went against all that I believe and had read in the forums here on CR.  There was no backup, it was a crop sensor camera with an average lens.   He didn't have a flash either.  I was expecting at least 2 cameras, a few lenses in the f/2.8 or larger range with one being a 70-200, another being 24-70 and the last a macro of some kind. Maybe an assortment of flashes and portable modifiers.   At the end of the day, though, the bride was happy. 

Now I still would bring at least two cameras to such an event for redundancy purposes, but looking beyond that - the bride was happy.  That is when I started to question what I believed a professional level camera should be.    I can see the build quality being a valid differentiator, but I'm failing to see anything else at the moment.  Even support levels are questionable to me since that is a choice that, in the example given above, CPN does not want to offer the level of service to a T3 that they would provide to a 5DIII.

I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer here.  From the responses so far, it appears that "professional grade" falls to the perspective of the professional and what they value in their respective tools.   This was a fun thread to post - thank you for all of your responses.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 02:12:53 PM »
Build, Performance, Features.

A solid photographer can take great photos with crap equipment and a n00b can screw up even the best of top end gear.

A pro camera is often more metal allow than plastic and has better weather sealing.

If you shoot studio, and are making a living from it, do you need weather sealing?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 33