So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?

[wsmith96]

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.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

This is a question for the underpants gnomes.

 

[wsmith96]

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?

 

[wsmith96]

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.

 

[jdramirez]

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.

I could use the original 1d and it would only be marginally effective at capturing the shots that we take now (outside of ideal light)... big doesn't mean better...

 

[Khnnielsen]

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.

It is difficult to make a list of features.

Sometimes it is the little things, that is important, when you are talking about pro gear. For example pro camcorders from Panasonic and Sony have more or less the same button layout. That way I am instantly familiar with a broad range of cameras across different brands.

 

[Besisika]

The person holding it.

That's the right answer.

This one reminds me Brad Pitt's mission to Israel in the film Wold War Z.
Even though it totally makes sense that "the person holding it" is the right answer, and even though "everybody" seems to be convinced about it, I will try to be that 13th man of that film and please let me know how wrong I am.
Let me begin by adding a salt to the wound.
To me that statement is just a big lie to your own self, no offense intended at all. That is what I feel.

In his glorious days, give a mandolin to Jimmy Hendrix. Do not advertise it. And let's see how many people will be satisfied vs how many would through him rotten tomatoes.
Michael Jordan wouldn't wear any shoes fabricated by some African villager when he wants to face Magic Johnson, and even the mighty Ronaldo wouldn't put any shoes on him to play the world cup, except the one the branch he has tested.

Frankly, a professional gear is the best among the best, not any, it is the one a professional would choose when facing his most feared nightmare.
I dare that every single one of you would not pick up any gear when facing the most important assignment of your life. Whatever gear you pick, that is the professional grade gear for you.
Tell me if I am wrong.
Back to the question, only 1DX has been the professional gear I have met. It simply works for me and I have no doubt in my mind, whenever I have it in my hand that if I fail, it wouldn't be the gear, it would be me. The fps, the built, the buffer, double CF card, powerful battery. 5D3 is not at all.

Result, result and consistent result in an acceptable time and cost by the customer; that is my definition of professional gear, never a one time success by chance.

Again, I understand your position. I am just trying to be that 13th man in that film. Now, it is time for you to tell me I am wrong and thanks for sincere answer.

 

[pwp]

The person holding it.

+1 Hah! These were the exact four words that formed quickly for me as soon as I saw the thread subject line.

-pw

 

[Orangutan]

The question is missing context. The preliminary question is to define what "professional photographic work" is. After you answer that question you can answer the equipment question: it's the gear needed to accomplish professional photographic work to the satisfaction of both the photographer and the client.

 

[pwp]

OK, I'll come back to this one. While "the person holding it" is the first and extremely accurate answer, for the OP it's a fairly glib answer too.

I look to a pro-grade camera to be well enough made and have adequate performance benchmarks and ergonomics to not get in the way of the process of achieving great images. And that will vary according to the sort of projects you're likely to take on. When I'm working well, the camera almost disappears from my consciousness and I'm just getting the images.

So while a 5D3 will deliver in spades for an events projects or most commercial projects, it's not necessarily going to suit a sports shooter or news shooter who will look to a 1DX class of camera, one that will hack the daily grind in often robust conditions and in any weather. Some advertising, high-end art and landscape shooters genuinely need medium format. For some the perfect working camera will be a high megapixel Nikon with a tilt-shift lens.

I saw a piece on TV about a news shooter working in Afghanistan who carried four or five iPhones, swapping over the sim card to the next iPhone as the battery ran flat. He could be highly unobtrusive, almost invisible. He could do a quick edit sitting in a car or truck and send images to his news-service instantly, all from the iPhone. So the iPhone is the perfect "pro" camera for him.

-pw

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Suppose I need a photographer shoot a wedding with me. If I had to choose between the options below, I decide by the number 2:

OPTION 1 - Only one 5D classic + 28-135mm

OPTION 2 - One T5i with grip + 17-55mm + 430EXii + other T5i + Sigma 50mm Art

 

[Halfrack]

Too many folks here are equating a 'pro camera' with a 'pro photographer'. A pro photographer can use the tools available to create a great image. A pro camera is a camera designed with durable components and has a longer R&D cycle compared to a consumer camera. A pro camera should work in any condition, take a licking and keep on ticking. A pro photographer can plot their way through a situation and will select gear based on their experience, not based on what is advertised as 'pro'.

IMHO 5D mk3 is a low end pro camera, with a lot of advanced technology, while the 1Dmk4/1Dx are pro cameras.

 

[Orangutan]

Too many folks here are equating a 'pro camera' with a 'pro photographer'. A pro photographer can use the tools available to create a great image. A pro camera is a camera designed with durable components and has a longer R&D cycle compared to a consumer camera. A pro camera should work in any condition, take a licking and keep on ticking. A pro photographer can plot their way through a situation and will select gear based on their experience, not based on what is advertised as 'pro'.

IMHO 5D mk3 is a low end pro camera, with a lot of advanced technology, while the 1Dmk4/1Dx are pro cameras.

There are pro photographers who would never choose a 1D-series for their studio work. Some studio photographers believe that anything short of MFD is not a pro camera, yet a Hasselblad probably can't take the same "licking" that a 1D can.

Furthermore, longer R&D cycles are irrelevant: if Sony releases a FF SLR next week with 80MP and 16 stops of DR (with other expected performance) on a $3k body made from plastic, you can bet a bunch of pros are going to grab one and make money from it.

A pro camera is any device a pro photographer uses to accomplish professional work Beyond that, it's a question of which professional camera suits a particular area of photography

 

[Don Haines]

As so many have said, it is the person behind the camera.... and being a pro, that person will pick the right tool for the job.... be it a 1Dx, a GoPro, or an iPhone. Everything has it's time and place and a real pro will not limit their options...

 

[Loswr]

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.

In different geographies, Canon places different cameras on either side of that enthusiast/pro 'line' – so even within Canon the definition is arbitrary. AFAIK, the 6D isn't in the pro category anywhere, yet it's fairly equivalent to the 5DII and both are used by many pro photographers.

What about pro lenses? Canon's L-series is 'pro' but the red L stands for 'luxury' (an inessential, desirable item).

I have a 1D X and ~$30K worth of lenses, I don't know many (and none personally) professional photographers that can spend on gear what I spend on my hobby. I know pros who make a living (a quite decent one) shooting with 20D bodies.

Canon wants to sell cameras (and lenses) to people who take pictures, whatever they're called.

 

[Loswr]

Suppose I need a photographer shoot a wedding with me. If I had to choose between the options below, I decide by the number 2:

OPTION 1 - Only one 5D classic + 28-135mm

OPTION 2 - One T5i with grip + 17-55mm + 430EXii + other T5i + Sigma 50mm Art

If that's how you prefer to make your decision, ok...after all, it's your decision. Personally, I'd choose based on the quality of their portfolios, not the gear they used to develop them.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Suppose I need a photographer shoot a wedding with me. If I had to choose between the options below, I decide by the number 2:

OPTION 1 - Only one 5D classic + 28-135mm

OPTION 2 - One T5i with grip + 17-55mm + 430EXii + other T5i + Sigma 50mm Art

If that's how you prefer to make your decision, ok...after all, it's your decision. Personally, I'd choose based on the quality of their portfolios, not the gear they used to develop them.

Obviously, the technical ability and artistic vision of the photographer is more important than the camera. As the subject of this topic is the camera, I did a comparison between a camera supposedly amateur and other professional.

Actually I saw a photographer shooting a paid job, with the combination: 5D classic + 28-135mm + Nikon SB600 flash.

 

[candc]

To me pro quality means that it is built to hold up to heavy everyday use with the features needed to do a specific job without unnecissary features to get in the way or break.

 

[pwp]

It has to have the word "pro" written on it. If those three letters are missing, it is not a "pro" camera.

That's funny! ;D

Too many folks here are equating a 'pro camera' with a 'pro photographer'.

That's right. Put me behind the wheel of a professional race car and I'd probably smash it at the first corner. 1DX ownership will make most photographers deliriously happy but it won't turn anyone into a pro.

Ahhh....the minutia of definitions, it's the pixel peeping of language.

-pw

 

[dryanparker]

The person holding it.

And making money with it.

Yes to Neuro's point, but not necessarily yes to RL's.

Not every professional makes a living (or any money at all) using their camera. Think of all the fantastically talented hobbyists out there, or perhaps fine art photographers. These are "professionals" in terms of their knowledge, capacity and portfolio quality, but it's not necessarily about money.

That said, I'll concede to RL that "professionals" are often described by some associations (ASMP, for instance) as those making a living with their camera.