So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
- Thread starter wsmith96
- Start date
L
Loswr
Guest
pwp said:neuroanatomist said:NancyP said:
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...
-pw
I was wrong, it seems...
http://www.promicroscope.com/
I had no idea pro microscopes were so cheap compared to my systems!! ;D
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:pwp said:neuroanatomist said:NancyP said:
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...
-pw
I was wrong, it seems...
http://www.promicroscope.com/
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
Upvote
0
"So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?"
Selecting the right tool for the job and NOT just the photographer behind it.
EX. even the most skillful photographer won't deliver soft wedding pictures with shalow DOF taken with an i-phone or a compact camera.
As it comes to hardware, the better helps most, but its not always needed.
Sure its best if you have the cleanest FF sensor and fast and sharp lenses to shoot in low light conditions costing a 5 digit price range
But it doesn't mean that you can't do eg, landscape with an entry level camera with a 3 digit price range.
So i disagree. The photographer only is NOT good enough without the appropriate hardware for each job, and its always BEST to demand from companies to upgrade the hardware and not being afraid and safe by telling that the photographer is a god with a magic wand that can capture everything.
Selecting the right tool for the job and NOT just the photographer behind it.
EX. even the most skillful photographer won't deliver soft wedding pictures with shalow DOF taken with an i-phone or a compact camera.
As it comes to hardware, the better helps most, but its not always needed.
Sure its best if you have the cleanest FF sensor and fast and sharp lenses to shoot in low light conditions costing a 5 digit price range
But it doesn't mean that you can't do eg, landscape with an entry level camera with a 3 digit price range.
So i disagree. The photographer only is NOT good enough without the appropriate hardware for each job, and its always BEST to demand from companies to upgrade the hardware and not being afraid and safe by telling that the photographer is a god with a magic wand that can capture everything.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I do not see why you think where you bought something has to do whether it is pro-grade or not.
You are right to say "The top end is aimed at people who are willing and able to pay the higher price".
But is also true to say those products tend to be of a better build, quality and lifetime expectation which are things that pros look for!
I know nothing about microscopes, but I would doubt that a consumer grade microscope is the same as those used at multi-million dollar R&D departments or in hospitals that demand the best.
Are you saying that if a trained doctor is using a consumer-grade microscope then it automatically becomes a pro-grade microscope?!
No of course it does not.
Same as if a pro photographer uses a 10D or a point and shoot or a phone to capture his shots. It does not make those cameras pro grade, and as such they are not pro cameras.
Upvote
0
expatinasia said:
In general, doctors use very low end microscopes... if at all. Now lab technicians.... they have decent gear... but if you really want to see the good stuff go to a physics lab for a scanning tunneling electron microscope so you can see those individual atoms...
A real "pro" goes for the gear that get's the job done, not the very best. A doctor in a fertility clinic is not going to get the very best.... they want to watch how the sperm moves, not kill it and check to see if all the atoms are in the right place
Upvote
0
c.d.embrey said:It's all about the right tool for the job. Your list has little or nothing to do with why a pro would pick a tool. As an example; a pro photographer needs to be inconspicuous (dangerous area), would he pick a 1Dx with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, a SL1 with a kit lens or maybe an iPhone ???
At the other end our pro needs absolutely the best image quality. Does he pick a Canon 1Dx or a Phase One IQ 280 (80Mp, ISO 35-800, .7 FPS, 3 Auto Focus Points). Most people will agree that the Phase One IQ 280 is a pro camera. But it's specs prevent it from being a pro camera according to your list
My list was meant to be illustrative, not definitive or exhaustive. I thought this was obvious (note the trailing "etc."). One would certainly add "large sensor" and "high pixel count" to the list (along with "weather sealing" "dual card slots" and many other things. Few CR readers would doubt that the Phase One is a "pro camera". I also think few would think that an SL1 is one also, even if used by a pro. A pro would use an SL1 only if the primary concern(s) were non-photographic (e.g. personal safely). Sometimes the right tool is a non-pro camera.
Like most of photography, this is subjective to some degree and debating definitive criteria is a waste of time. My point was that most of us could easily classify most cameras pretty quickly as pro or non-pro by looking at the features. Why? Because pro cameras have a goodly number of features that most pros understand and appreciate and a sizable subset need and would be willing to pay up for (differing subsets for different features and types of photography). On the other hand, the typical non-pro (*not* CR readers!) would not understand most of the features ("Mirror lockup? Eh?"), the features wouldn't be part of their purchase criteria, and they wouldn't pay up for them. This is true across many fields. Experienced, sophisticated users understand, appreciate, and exploit the special features of higher-end tools whereas inexperienced, less-sophisticated users do not. Most pros are experienced and sophisticated users. Most non-pros are not.
Upvote
0
I worked my way through school cutting meat in a butcher shop. Knives were a disposable item. You sharpened them several times a day and they did not last. No butcher would consider getting "pro" knives... and those silly handles are not meant for someone who uses them 8 hours a day.neuroanatomist said:
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:In general, doctors use very low end microscopes... if at all. Now lab technicians.... they have decent gear... but if you really want to see the good stuff go to a physics lab for a scanning tunneling electron microscope so you can see those individual atoms...
A real "pro" goes for the gear that get's the job done, not the very best. A doctor in a fertility clinic is not going to get the very best.... they want to watch how the sperm moves, not kill it and check to see if all the atoms are in the right place
So are you saying that there is no such thing as "pro grade gear"?
My point is that there is, and it is up to the manufacturer to label it as such.
The 1D X is obviously a pro camera, especially for sports shooters. The 400 f/2.8 ii is also a pro lens. Is it only bought by individual pros? No, agencies, publishing houses, enthusiasts and those that want the best purchase it too.
Does it fit every pros needs? No, but that does not make it any less pro-grade.
If a pro sport shooter sits on the sidelines and shoots pictures with his Samsung Galaxy Note 3 are you seriously suggesting that that phone is a pro piece of photographic kit?
You may say that is a bad example, but would you say that if the guy was using a 5D Mark III because he could not afford the 1D X? But if so, what if you can't afford the 5D Mark III or even II, but you can afford the Samsung Galaxy Note III which double up as a phone when you are not shooting.........
To say that it is the operator which makes his or her tool a pro grade piece of kit is ludicrous in my mind. But it is not a big deal, it is just my humble opinion.
Upvote
0
What I was trying to say is that a pro will use the appropriate level of gear for the job at hand. I don't think that anyone would dispute that as you move towards higher end gear that image quality improves or that cameras like a 1DX increase the odds of capturing that shot under difficult conditions.....and in general captureing the shot is the highest priority for a pro, but it is the task that determines gear and priorities, not some "pro" designation on the gear.expatinasia said:Don Haines said:In general, doctors use very low end microscopes... if at all. Now lab technicians.... they have decent gear... but if you really want to see the good stuff go to a physics lab for a scanning tunneling electron microscope so you can see those individual atoms...
A real "pro" goes for the gear that get's the job done, not the very best. A doctor in a fertility clinic is not going to get the very best.... they want to watch how the sperm moves, not kill it and check to see if all the atoms are in the right place
So are you saying that there is no such thing as "pro grade gear"?
My point is that there is, and it is up to the manufacturer to label it as such.
The 1D X is obviously a pro camera, especially for sports shooters. The 400 f/2.8 ii is also a pro lens. Is it only bought by individual pros? No, agencies, publishing houses, enthusiasts and those that want the best purchase it too.
Does it fit every pros needs? No, but that does not make it any less pro-grade.
If a pro sport shooter sits on the sidelines and shoots pictures with his Samsung Galaxy Note 3 are you seriously suggesting that that phone is a pro piece of photographic kit?
You may say that is a bad example, but would you say that if the guy was using a 5D Mark III because he could not afford the 1D X? But if so, what if you can't afford the 5D Mark III or even II, but you can afford the Samsung Galaxy Note III which double up as a phone when you are not shooting.........
To say that it is the operator which makes his or her tool a pro grade piece of kit is ludicrous in my mind. But it is not a big deal, it is just my humble opinion.
A good example of this is inspection photography. The goal is to determine if there is visible wear and to determine if there is adequate grease on the gears, look for signs of rust, etc.. The access port is 1.5 inches by 6 inches, so the camera must fit through the slot. The camera used takes crappy pictures, but it fits into the gear and the pictures are good enough for the task at hand. I have a so called "pro" camera and L glass in a pelican case on a shelf behind me, but it is the wrong tool for the job, despite being a vastly superior camera. On the other hand, when things are spread out on the bench I love that 100L macro lens.....
Upvote
0
For me a pro body should have at least key features. For a "standard" pro who shoots a lot of events/action/weddings:
+FF body
+High ISO performance usable at least at 6400 or 12800 ISO
+Fast and accurate AF system which can lock in low light conditions (-3IL ?)
+Weather/dust sealed
+High burst rate at least 7/s
+Two cards slots with at least one CF and suitable for automatic backups
+Integrated or external battery grip
+Programmable shortcuts to software functions
+State of the art ergonomics, user should be able to shoot for hours without being disturbed by a poor balance for example
+High MP is not necessary. 20 or 24MP should be enough.
+Integrated remote control for speelites
+Wifi and GPS are plus
+FF body
+High ISO performance usable at least at 6400 or 12800 ISO
+Fast and accurate AF system which can lock in low light conditions (-3IL ?)
+Weather/dust sealed
+High burst rate at least 7/s
+Two cards slots with at least one CF and suitable for automatic backups
+Integrated or external battery grip
+Programmable shortcuts to software functions
+State of the art ergonomics, user should be able to shoot for hours without being disturbed by a poor balance for example
+High MP is not necessary. 20 or 24MP should be enough.
+Integrated remote control for speelites
+Wifi and GPS are plus
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
expatinasia said:
There is higher end gear and lower end gear. Calling the higher end gear 'pro grade' is just a marketing tactic used by some manufacturers to label their higher end stuff. As pointed out earlier, car makers use letters or numbers in the naming scheme for differentiation...that really has nothing to do with professional drivers. "Pro" gear is just an arbitrary marketing designation, it doesn't connote anything about the intended use.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
I think you are perfectly right, and I agree with you 100%.
I think that no matter what the job, the person/company doing it will have different choices as to the level of quality of the tools they decide to use/purchase for the job at hand.
As you say a 1D X, while ideal for sports, will not work for the inspection camera example you used. And, I would presume that there are different quality cameras on the market that are specifically designed for that job, and it depends on the person/company to decide which best fits their needs/budget.
I should just clarify what I meant by a manufacturer designating a product as pro-grade. What I meant is that they will often (depending on product) have consumer lines and then possibly pro-sumer and then pro. These labels do not need to be on the product, it is just what the manufacturer is aiming the product to be. Canon designed the 1D X to be used by professional photographers all over the world, especially sports photographers, and it designed it, and built it as such. But Canon also fully knows that consumers whether they be enthusiasts or something else will also buy the top of the line as well. It does not fulfil the demands of every job, nor every professional photographers' demands but it is a pro-grade camera.
Upvote
0
The pro camera is the one that imposes the least technical limits on your photography adventure. And just simply said the latest technology available at the moment.
Upvote
0
A 'pro'camera is any camera a professional chooses to use. The specs don't matter, only the end result.
Upvote
0
Occams_Cat said:
That is also right. They are "pro" who also do ugly pictures with a 5D mkIII. The photograph takes the picture and not the camera itself. But in extreme conditions... You can do what you want if you have poor light for example every camera will not perform well enough. So specs really matter but not as much as some might think.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
