What differentiates a Profesional camera from a Consumer one?

Bristolian

Bristolian

Messages
4,436
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay, so let me set the scene. Up until a few months ago I was employed as a sales engineer for a large multi-national company, working just 3 days a week. For the past six years I have also been working as a self-employed portrait and wedding photographer - a weekend warrior if you like - also for 3 days a week. The photography business has been steadily growing and I needed to be able to commit another day a week but my employer (quite understandably) wasn't willing to go along with that so at the end of September I decided to make photography my full-time occupation and resigned from my sales job.

My camera equipment is Nikon and I've been using a couple of D300 bodies with a mixture of DX and FF lenses. The budget I set aside for turning the business from part to full time included replacing the D300's with a couple of FF bodies and, obviously, replacing the DX lenses with FF ones. So I got to thinking about which body I was going to buy and figured that whatever I chose needed to not only have professional features but also to look the part too. Joe Public doesn't know a D800 from a D40 but he "knows" a big camera means great results :D

I began looking at the new D600. It's within the budget and is the latest FF offering from Nikon so I'd almost convinved myself it was what I needed before I even looked at it. Now I'm not so sure :thinking: To my mind, a "professional" level camera should provide just the controls that a photographer needs to get the results he/his clients require using his/her skill and knowledge. Things like "scene modes" which include great swathes of automation reduce or even remove control of the image capture and puts it in the hands of the computer inside the camera. To my way of thinking that makes it little more than a very expensive (albeit very high quality) point and shoot .... or have I got this completely wrong :shrug:

I would be interested to hear your views :thumbs:
 
In my mind you have it wrong, just because it has scene mode does not mean you have to use it :)

It's the results YOU get out of the camera that matter not the fact the Nikon have made it simpler for others to get ok images. Why should Nikon/canon leave out these feature as its only a bit of software code they already have written.
 
Last edited:
Not that I'm familiar with the Nikon range, but I suspect that manufacturers are trying to open up the full frame market to a larger audience - and so are perhaps fitting more "assisted" features (to put it kindly) to some of their lower end full frame offerings to tempt some away from crop bodies.

While as a purist I can see your point, if the body otherwise ticks all the right boxes I wouldn't worry about it :)
 
I think the simple answer is build quality, whether its a camera a cordless drill or kitchen knife.....not the best examples. If it is used on a daily basis it must take the use and abuse this can have on any item. You could find 2 tools with almost equal features but vastly different price and build quality, they may do the same job once but repeat it time and time again and see which one fails first.
 
A camera that makes a person money is surely a professional camera? It might not be the most logical choice, but a person could make money using a Nikon D5100. Just because a camera has scene modes doesn't mean they have to be used.

David Bailey is probably most famous for using the Olympus OM1, which wasn't really a "professional" camera of its day, but he did very well with them as a pro photographer.
 
I can see your point but some people may have plenty of money but little interest in photography but when purchasing a dslr want 'the best' (whatever that means) and things like scene modes are there for them. The manufacturers don't want to leave those features out and exclude those buyers.

I am sure plenty of people only ever use their dslrs in auto mode or scene modes (not everyone who buys a dslr is into photography, they just want to record life events, take pictures of their kids or whatever and perceive a dslr as offering the best image quality). If they are budget limited they will get an entry level dslr but there is probably a large and lucrative market who can afford the higher end dslrs but still want to use it as basically a very high quality point and shoot camera.

If you don't need/want these modes it's easy enough to ignore them.
 
I think that the purchase of a new body should fulfil the current needs of the photographer. One of the first articles I read when I got back into photography was from Stop Shooting Auto blog. The point she made was that you should only upgrade your camera body when there is a feature or features that is actively holding you back. She made the point that her first upgrade was because she found the viewfinder too small and it was affecting the quality output of her work. The new camera improved this, but she had already identified what the problem was and its solution.

I agree with tbm - Manufacturers are always trying to up-sell their products to encourage the consumer to part with their cash so perhaps some features are not truly 'professional' but would make the purchase of that product more accessible to the masses.

Reasons to upgrade would be things like - better build and weather proofing, more functions 'close to hand' rather than buried in menus, faster performance, better onboard software, capability for specialised attachments/cables/additional power, specialist features (flash capability/faster fps/dual card slot). Etc.

In summary - identify what you need to improve your standard or simplify your workflow and buy appropriately. If you have successfully built your business thus far on the equipment you have, do you really need to upgrade just to cement your full time status? I assume as you are earning a part of living now you have already achieved professional status. You should - as part of your business plan - identify your equipment with a current value and replacement schedule and have a contingency in place for replacement outwith that schedule (ie breakdown/damage). By all means have an idea what you will be replacing with what but if it is working for you now, why rush?

As far as what delivers 'great results' - let your sales pitch demonstrate that - not the size of your equipment ;)
 
Last edited:
I was shooting a wedding a few months back where Gary (GHP) assisted me.

Gary turned up and he really looked the part, suited appropriately, 2 gripped cameras with a chest strap, a car load of pro lenses and then there was me with my D7000 & 50mm and x10 as a wider lens lol.

If I had of let that both me I would have had a really tough time...but being comfortable with myself and my skill level I actually enjoyed the challenge and I didn't let myself down.

If I were a full time pro that would have been stupid as the amount of booking I would get from looking the part would have easily covered the cost of extra equipment.

That is what I had to do at the time but if I were shooting weddings every weekend I would definately aspire to have the optimum requirement of equipment whilst still having the dexterity to work effectively.

In an ideal would I would want 2 gripped bodies, a FF to cover the wide and normal range and a DX to cover the tele range and from my experience they would both HAVE to have a quiet mode as a non-negotiable. Shooting video and all you hear is "clunk, clunk, clunk"...very annoying for all involved.

I definitely feel that if it's your job, you should look the part but if not then your concern should be "can you do it?".

Well done for taking the plunge :)
 
Last edited:
i think a professional camera is one with someone competent behind it

i try not to complicate things lol
 
Bristolian said:
I began looking at the new D600. It's within the budget and is the latest FF offering from Nikon so I'd almost convinved myself it was what I needed before I even looked at it. Now I'm not so sure :thinking: To my mind, a "professional" level camera should provide just the controls that a photographer needs to get the results he/his clients require using his/her skill and knowledge.
Click to expand...

The D600 does exactly that
 
Dave1 said:
A camera that makes a person money is surely a professional camera? It might not be the most logical choice, but a person could make money using a Nikon D5100. Just because a camera has scene modes doesn't mean they have to be used.

David Bailey is probably most famous for using the Olympus OM1, which wasn't really a "professional" camera of its day, but he did very well with them as a pro photographer.
Click to expand...

The OM1 and OM2 were professional specced bodies of their time with a massive support system available for them, the OM10 was the consumer body atthat time.
 
The person using it - in my experience it is often keen amateurs with the latest "whizzbang" equipment, whereas the pro uses what gets results (and is often old and battered)
 
I would say a camera with scene mode would not be classed as pro.

The only mode you need as a pro is M

The pro cameras as with all other things are expensive because they are built differently to consumer stuff, ie built to be battered on a daily basis.

How many builders do you see with an Argos special pro cordless drill at £18.99, the real ones use Dewalt ect at 100's of pounds.
 
I would say a camera with scene mode would not be classed as pro.

The only mode you need as a pro is M
Click to expand...

just because a camera has/hasnt got modes doesnt mean the user will use them... a pro wont rely on them but occassionally may use them....

its like buying a merc with air conditioning, cruise control and heated seats.... the driver is the same of the bog standard model without heated seated seats- they'l still drive it the same way!!
 
IMHO only, a "professional" grade camera is one with a combination of features that go beyond just making images. There's weather-sealing, top-notch components (shutter, for example), frame rate, dual memory card slots and so forth. The sort of things that people who shoot thousands of images a week want and need.

A professional photographer is someone who makes his/her living from photography (or at least gets paid for photographic work on an ongoing basis. That doesn't mean they produce great photos or even better photos than the average hobbyist, but they probably produce quality images at a higher ratio of "keepers" to "non-keepers."

Truly gifted photographers, as with any other group of visual artists, have an eye for images and the skill to capture them with a wide variety of tools that surpasses what we mere mortals can routinely produce. Give me top-of-the-line "pro" gear and I'll still not match their output except by luck and happenstance.
 
Dave1 said:
David Bailey is probably most famous for using the Olympus OM1, which wasn't really a "professional" camera of its day, but he did very well with them as a pro photographer.
Click to expand...

Don't believe all you see - Bailey was paid by Olympus to advertise their gear. I wasn't sure he used it for non-Olympus funded assignments.
 
It's down to build quality and different features. Looking at Canon dslr, a pro camera will probably ditch the "muppet" mode settings and built in flash, but have better AF, faster shooting tates, and have lots of little features such as viewfinder shutter or the ability to change the file name prefix, not just use img-1234
 
hunter20ga said:
IMHO only, a "professional" grade camera is one with a combination of features that go beyond just making images. There's weather-sealing, top-notch components (shutter, for example), frame rate, dual memory card slots and so forth. The sort of things that people who shoot thousands of images a week want and need.
Click to expand...

That actually answers the question IMO, most of the other answers are addressing the question 'what makes a pro tog' ... not what was asked.
 
gramps said:
That actually answers the question IMO, most of the other answers are addressing the question 'what makes a pro tog' ... not what was asked.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...guilty as charged :) Didn't read enough of the OP :bonk:

It's a tricky one when I think about it...

Pro press photographers will probably want to use a top of the range body.

Pro wedding photographers will be happy with a mid-range such as 5D / D800 etc)

All other areas will be using either of the above catagories so I would say that is where the "pro" level starts and stops - built for the job and will last the duration. A D5200 with a 400mm f2.8 will not even last past lifting the combination so I don't really think that could be classed as pro, even though its perfectly usable image wise.
 
Pros use the assisted modes and aren't ashamed of it. I was reading an article about the D800 which was tested out last year by a very well respected pro and he said he often uses aperture mode etc..

A good photographer will get the best results out of the camera they have. Good lenses help. I also think full frame gets better results tho if you know what your doing and have decent lenses, having recently upgraded from DX to FX I'm amazed with the photos as have friends and family.
 
You can have all the scene modes you can possibly think of but it won't help you with composition and other photographic fundementals
 
This is my 2nd rant on FF of the day.

There are better cameras for pro's than a 600d, not necessarily more expensive either - but crop cameras.

As a pro, shooting Nikon;

Weatherproofing (only really matters if your lenses are weatherproofed too)

twin card slots

build quality

Quick and easy to use (helps if both bodies are the same).

Whether it's ff or not is completely insignificant, there's barely a camera available that will be the unusable in terms of IQ.
 
WOW! So many responses in such a short time - thank you :)

Can we keep the discussion to the main question I posed though: what do you think defines a professional camera and why?

I deliberately posed this question in the Talk Equipment forum so let's do just that :thumbs:
 
Bristolian said:
what do you think defines a professional camera and why?
Click to expand...

Ok, now the only answer in my head to that specific question is:

A pro camera is whatever camera is used to make money from the images it creates.

Mobile phone, compact, crop sensor small body or full frame with battery grip incorporated.

Then there are different tools for the job for various needs.
 
Last edited:
Bristolian said:
WOW! So many responses in such a short time - thank you :)

Can we keep the discussion to the main question I posed though: what do you think defines a professional camera and why?

I deliberately posed this question in the Talk Equipment forum so let's do just that :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty much been answered but looking at what nikon themselves term as pro, they all (dslr's) follow a fairly common theme. All are more or less the same size (large and ergonomic) though obviously some have a built in grip. They are all metal construction under the skin. Other than very early examples they all have more or less the same basic control layout though slightly different for gripped models. None have a full auto mode to speak of. They all feel like they're built to take punishment and weigh in appropriately. Newer models generally have some level of moisture protection. Oh, and they all qualify for NPS should that be important.

I don't think iq necessarily enters the equation as long as whatever you're using reaches a minimum standard for your application. You could make an argument to say that in some circumstance a d3200 let alone a d600 could offer better iq than a d4 but I think most pros would still go for a d4 for many other reasons.
 
A professional could use any camera but that doesn't make the camera professional.

Professional is just a term being used to portray a camera that is of high build quality, high performance and high IQ along with functionality and features that a professional photographer would expect.
Terms to denote lesser models such as prosumer, consumer etc,. are just levels that are lower down. As Professional is just a term rather than a set of internationally defined criteria there will never be any true definition.
 
ernesto said:
A professional could use any camera but that doesn't make the camera professional.
Click to expand...

And conversely an amateur can use any camera but that doesn't make the camera a consumer model, which is why I was hoping to make this a purely equipment thread but some people can't separate the gear from the guy or gal when they see the word professional :)

Professional is just a term being used to portray a camera that is of high build quality, high performance and high IQ along with functionality and features that a professional photographer would expect.
Terms to denote lesser models such as prosumer, consumer etc,. are just levels that are lower down. As Professional is just a term rather than a set of internationally defined criteria there will never be any true definition.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, Chris, but I think most members of TP understand the professional and consumer concept and it was their views on the differences that I am interested in.
 
gad-westy said:
I think it's pretty much been answered but looking at what nikon themselves term as pro, they all (dslr's) follow a fairly common theme. All are more or less the same size (large and ergonomic) though obviously some have a built in grip. They are all metal construction under the skin. Other than very early examples they all have more or less the same basic control layout though slightly different for gripped models. None have a full auto mode to speak of. They all feel like they're built to take punishment and weigh in appropriately. Newer models generally have some level of moisture protection. Oh, and they all qualify for NPS should that be important.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Nikon appears to clasify the D600 as a "consumer" camera on their web site but it can be used to qualify you for NPS so mayne they're confused too :shrug:

I don't think iq necessarily enters the equation as long as whatever you're using reaches a minimum standard for your application. You could make an argument to say that in some circumstance a d3200 let alone a d600 could offer better iq than a d4 but I think most pros would still go for a d4 for many other reasons.
Click to expand...

I agree that the difference between professional and consumer bodies IQ has virtually disappeared over the last few years - at least in the Nikon brand anyway - making it a mute distinction.

But the question is, why would the pro still choose the D4?
 
Bristolian said:
....
I agree with you here, Chris, but I think most members of TP understand the professional and consumer concept and it was their views on the differences that I am interested in.
Click to expand...

Why?:thinking:
You always struck me as an intelligent, down to earth bloke. What does it matter what a bunch of internet strangers think is a 'professional camera'. The important thing is that you can use it to produce professional results.

What that means to you, both in terms of usability and image quality is subjective. From the way your business is going, you're getting professional results from your current gear - so what do you think a move to FF would give you?

For the kind of work you're planning you don't need the bulletproof build that press / sports photographers need, but you need something that'll stand up to regular use, be easy to use - and all the other stuff I said before.
 
Bristolian said:
..

But the question is, why would the pro still choose the D4?
Click to expand...

Build quality.

But that's such an obvious answer.:shrug:

a £15 drill from B&Q will make holes in wood, but if you were planning on using a drill every day, you'd spend a lot more. You can get a set of kitchen knives from Wilko's for a tenner - but my Japanese Chef's knofe will still be in daily use in 20 years time.

a d3100 will get you decent photographs, but would you choose to use it day in-day out?
 
Bristolian said:
But the question is, why would the pro still choose the D4?
Click to expand...

The only pros I know who have a D4 (who shoot for the wires) use it because they are rough with their kit every day, they need the reliability and the shutter should last a lot longer thus a better investment when you're shooting 500k+ shots a year. Batteries last 4-5x longer too.

They don't need or want the resolution that comes with other cameras, a waste of time that only slows them down and eats space. This is one reason why I went for a D700.

And of course to be used as a weapon, the 1D I had was very good in this regard. ;)
 
Adam_M said:
They don't need or want the resolution that comes with other cameras, a waste of time that only slows them down and eats space. This is one reason why I went for a D700.
Click to expand...

This does make me wonder how much farther they'll go with upping the pixel count every year. The D3200 for example being 24MP just seems so stupid.
 
Bristolian said:
...which is why I was hoping to make this a purely equipment thread but some people can't separate the gear from the guy or gal when they see the word professional :)
Click to expand...



I really think that you need to pause and think for a second. There's a very good reason why you've received the answers tha t you have.

A professional camera is one that makes you money- full stop. As such my X10 is professional because it's taken shots that have ended up in the nationals.

Forget what the camera looks like. What do your images look like and what can't you achieve with your current D300s?

Any decent working photographer is going to tell you that you need to work out how much extra money an upgraded camera is make you and then decide if it's financially viable. That includes taking into account resale value of current kit, estimated depreciation of new kit etc etc.

A working photographer uses the right kit for the job; and that's the honest answer. If you want another one, then go by the manufacturers classification.
 
Pro cameras generally have what pro's need, usually nothing more or less...

Good build quality
Long lifespan
Weatherproofing
The best or close to the best IQ you can buy

The earlier comment about pro's only using M is a pile of crap

The difference between a pro, and a non pro is that the pro buys a camera as a tool of the trade, and thus tends to buy with their head. If the tool will be profitable, it will be worth buying
 
DBT85 said:
This does make me wonder how much farther they'll go with upping the pixel count every year. The D3200 for example being 24MP just seems so stupid.
Click to expand...

For such a small chip, probably double that figure and then physics and the width of light rays become a problem. Though Canon had a ASP-H sized prototype that was 120mp.

Want to see something insane? Google Vexel Ultracam Eagle. 20,000 pixels on the longest side. Not exactly hand holdable though.
 
I think all cameras have the ability to take the same quality of image, however pro spec have, better build quality, etc better features, higher rated shutters etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top