Been reading a lot of the reviews/first impressions on the new crop of DSLRs. In almost every review they attempt to make the distinction between an enthusiast/beginner DSLR vs a professional DSLR. The strange thing is, the beginner camera does everything and sometimes a lot more than the "pro" benchmark cameras do but they cost anywhere from three to five times less.

So considering today's DSLR cameras is it just the price tag that determines beginner vs pro? Is photo pro determined by the $$$$ of his equipment?

I can't speak for other brands, but for Nikons the criteria aren't that mysterious:

1) Viewfinder. Most pro bodies have a larger, clearer viewfinder with more of the image available than less expensive bodies

2) Level of weather sealing (the "pro" models will have extensive weather sealing internally, usually unseen unless you take the body apart),

3) Shutter. Pro bodies have shutters designed to withstand many more actuations than non-pro bodies. Shutter ratings are usually given with the camera specs.

4) Frames per second rates. With Nikons anyway, the pro bodies have the highest level of FPS, requiring larger buffers, different firmware, sometimes different shutter boxes, to stand the speed.

5) Sensors. The Nikon pro bodies have, for the most part, sensors specific to the pro bodies which are not the highest megapixel count sensors since that would reduce frames per second. The D4s had a 16MP sensor and the current D5 has a 20MP sensor. Sometimes you see a pro sensor in a non-pro body, such as the D4 sensor in the Df, or the D3 sensor which they put in the D700. But these are exceptions. Since the D3, the D4 and the D700 are no longer in production, they really do constitute exceptions. My D810, with it's 36MP sensor, is good enough for any "pro" who doesn't shoot fast action like sports, but it's not really a pro body for that reason alone.

6) Other stuff. Pro bodies often have connectivity options not seen on other bodies, like ethernet connections or high speed HDMI connections. They also usually have not only the ports but the firmware allowing tethering so that you can control the camera from a laptop to an extent not possible any other way. Studio photographers use this often.

Bottom line, pro photographers know who they are and know when they need those options, or not. That doesn't mean they never use any other body, since they quite often do if they don't need the options that come at a price, a weight and volume that makes them a pain to carry around.

Wink, as I said, the lines between Enthusiast and Pro models is becoming more and more non-existent. All the things you listed I can find in many enthusiast models today and more.

Granted, you don't see enthusiast models with 30+ MP sensors, but most have 20+ as a standard today.

As often as I change camera bodies for better sensors and features it simply does not make sense to shell out for "Pro" models. I can buy three new bodies over time rather than getting stuck with a 4 - 6 year old "Pro" model. Plus I can sell my gently used bodies for retail price in Africa as the prices there are outrageous.

Opus1, I agree with you, for the most part. One thing that Wink didn't mention is full frame sensors. To some, that is an issue unto itself that will cause them to buy pro.

For the rest, you are correct. For example, I happen to be a Pentax person. The main reason was so I could use all of the lenses from my film days. But a couple years ago I bought a Pentax K-3. Not cheap. but not pro price either. It offers all of the things mentioned by Wink in items 1-4. The viewfinder is .95, 100%, it is water and weather sealed, Wi-Fi via optional flu card, 24megapixel and 8.3 frames per second. For $1200 with the lens kit, not bad at the time. Not cheap by my standards, but still not $3-4K or much higher.

I did, just for grins, buy a Nikon 3400 with two lenses just to replace my point and shoots and it does a fine job for that with 24Megapixels and light weight. For $500, it seemed the thing to do. If it breaks when I have it in the truck, I can sell one of the lenses and make up most of what I paid for it.

I believe this is a Rigby vs Winchester discussion. You can have a stable of Winchesters for what you put into a Rigby. Both kill with equal efficiency, however the Rigby guy does it looking a little more professional - at least in his mind.


Waiting for my enthusiast T7i to arrive. Already sold my T5i for what the T7i cost me. Just haven't found the need to drop $3K+ on a new body.

I agree completely.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
I can't speak for other brands, but for Nikons the criteria aren't that mysterious:

1) Viewfinder. Most pro bodies have a larger, clearer viewfinder with more of the image available than less expensive bodies

2) Level of weather sealing (the "pro" models will have extensive weather sealing internally, usually unseen unless you take the body apart),

3) Shutter. Pro bodies have shutters designed to withstand many more actuations than non-pro bodies. Shutter ratings are usually given with the camera specs.

4) Frames per second rates. With Nikons anyway, the pro bodies have the highest level of FPS, requiring larger buffers, different firmware, sometimes different shutter boxes, to stand the speed.

5) Sensors. The Nikon pro bodies have, for the most part, sensors specific to the pro bodies which are not the highest megapixel count sensors since that would reduce frames per second. The D4s had a 16MP sensor and the current D5 has a 20MP sensor. Sometimes you see a pro sensor in a non-pro body, such as the D4 sensor in the Df, or the D3 sensor which they put in the D700. But these are exceptions. Since the D3, the D4 and the D700 are no longer in production, they really do constitute exceptions. My D810, with it's 36MP sensor, is good enough for any "pro" who doesn't shoot fast action like sports, but it's not really a pro body for that reason alone.

6) Other stuff. Pro bodies often have connectivity options not seen on other bodies, like ethernet connections or high speed HDMI connections. They also usually have not only the ports but the firmware allowing tethering so that you can control the camera from a laptop to an extent not possible any other way. Studio photographers use this often.

Bottom line, pro photographers know who they are and know when they need those options, or not. That doesn't mean they never use any other body, since they quite often do if they don't need the options that come at a price, a weight and volume that makes them a pain to carry around.

That's the same for Canon cameras. For example, all those white color lenses you see at sporting events are Canon, and the cameras used by those pro photographers are designed for accuracy on fast moving subjects at various lighting and weather conditions, and usually have lower megapixel sensors.

The higher megapixel sensors aren't necessarily used for sports of fast-moving subjects. All depends on what the specific photographer wants. if he or she wants to buy a pro camera body with a high MP sensor and all the other features offered on a camera designed for sports and weather handling, then Canon (or Nikon for that matter) offers a sort of "compromise" camera that has a little of both features.

Another example is the pro-cameras used by the world press, which include cameras used in war photography (2016):
https://petapixel.com/2016/02/...ld-press-photo-2016/

Now, take a look at the same cameras for 2017, and you will notice that the ones on top aren't necessarily the top of the line camera from each manufacturer. This in turn is an indication that the photographer is the key for achieving a winning image, not necessarily the camera:
https://petapixel.com/2017/02/...ld-press-photo-2017/

Professionals sports photography is a two camera brand world: Canon and Nikon. The photographers have a lot more money tied up in their lenses than in camera bodies, which they change out as new ones come along with better technology.

Good lenses are forever, camera bodies become obsolete every two years. This is not a Winchester vs Rigby situation. The good Canon lenses and the good Nikon lenses aren't that different in price, both being very expensive.

Nikon 400mm f/2.8 costs $12,000
Nikon 600mm f/4 costs $10,000
Nikon 200mm f/2 costs $6,000

What part of a Winchester or Rigby are you throwing away (or replacing) every two years?

Pro camera bodies are designed to get the most out of those expensive lenses, not vice versa. Take a look at what a 400mm f/2.8 lens costs, or a 600mm f/4 lens from either manufacturer. When you shoot fast action sports at night in stadiums or in arenas for basketball or ice hockey, you need the fastest lens and the fastest body, allowing the best IQ at the highest ISO, you can get. If you go deeper into the subject you will also find out that there aren't a whole lot of other camera/lens makers even making those lenses. I get the impression there is little understanding of a sports photographer's requirements. Consider that he takes 15,000 to 20,000 shots per month, maybe more. He shoots in low light, at fast moving subjects and works in a time-crunch where the ideal situation is the pics are sent automatically to editors miles away as soon as they are taken. What equipment do they need? Do you need that?

If I put my 105mm f/1.4E Nikon lens on any Nikon camera body it will take a picture that is as good as that camera body can take at that focal length, since are no better lenses at that focal length. But that lens costs more than most people are willing to spend, thinking erroneously that the camera body is the important investment.

Rent a top of the line lens one day and try it out. You'll stop worrying about camera bodies and start wondering how you can afford a lens that makes a difference, no matter what camera you use.

There are many professional photographers who do not shoot sports, and all of the above is not applicable to them, their indifference to those issues cannot be measured. If you do primarily street photography, an almost pocket-sized Ricoh GR with a fixed 28mm lens for $600 is all you need for professional results. A Leica Q offers exactly the same thing, but it costs $4,000. Now we're in the Winchester vs Rigby paradigm. If you do primarily landscape photography you'll be using a tripod and you will want a sensor with the greatest dynamic range maximizing your ability to get the most out of RAW files for post-processing and, for the most part anyway, wide-angle to short telephoto lenses and will want lots of megapixels for your enlargements. You may even manually focus and your tripod will cost more than $1,000. You won't care about all the stuff the "pro" bodies offer.

If you do a lot of photography you will know what you want and why you want it. For most photographers it's not a "pro" body. But going "cheap" because you think megapixels or "frames-per-second" makes for a good camera body (because a "pro" body has the same thing) is to totally misunderstand what will help you take better pictures.

Lastly, I've found that for most photography the latest-greatest technology adds little to my ability to take a good photograph. If you want full frame, buy a used D700 or D610 (or the equivalent Canon) for under $1,000 and concentrate on buying good lenses. You may not need another camera body for years. It's amazing to me how many people think recent camera bodies somehow take "better" pictures than one made 3 or 4 years ago. The fact is, they don't. When did Bluetooth capacity help you take a picture? When did greater megapixels help you take a better picture? Never has, never will. On the contrary, greater pixels means greater photosite density means better lenses required to get any upgrade in image quality. Over the last few years camera manufacturers have been forced to improve their consumer lens lines because those old cheap lenses were in fact downgrading image quality with the new sensors, because the difference between a good lens and a so-so lens becomes glaringly apparent.

The moral of the story is: UPGRADE YOUR LENSES FIRST. Constantly changing bodies is akin to "sweating the small stuff". If you're still fixated on the bodies or Nikon vs Canon, watch this (alert: requires long attention span):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT14RrsDW18

There's also a good video imbedded in this article on the D500:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500


If it stops raining here I'll put some good lenses on my old 10MP Nikon D60, do some appropriate post-processing and try to show you what I mean.

IF Canon's new dual pixel CMOS autofocus does what it claims, there will be a lot of sports photographers switching over to the new sensor. Will be interesting to see how much of an improvement it is.

Wink as far as chasing Megapixels, more is not necessarily better unless there is an improvement in the sensor and processor. That is largely why I did not jump from the Canon T5i to the T6i. But with the advancements in sensor, autofocusing, metering and processing, the T7i is a no brainer and it cost me under $200 to make the jump.

This is true in so many equipment heavy "hobby's"

If you tailor the equipment to the task you can spend more wisely.

I try to tell this to the guys that buy tricked out 1911's. bevertail this, ambi that, extended this, funnel that. Then they use the piece for bullseye shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:


Lastly, I've found that for most photography the latest-greatest technology adds little to my ability to take a good photograph. If you want full frame, buy a used D700 or D610 (or the equivalent Canon) for under $1,000 and concentrate on buying good lenses. You may not need another camera body for years. It's amazing to me how many people think recent camera bodies somehow take "better" pictures than one made 3 or 4 years ago. The fact is, they don't. When did Bluetooth capacity help you take a picture?

There are a lot of choices relating to camera features, and lens technology. For example, a lot of professional/non photographers (hobbyists, enthusiasts, etc) don't want to haul heavy cameras and lenses. It gets quite tiresome to walk around with a heavy camera-gear bag, and some are using mirrorless cameras.

Olympus, Fuji, and Sony are offering great little cameras, but some of these aren't cheap at all. The Olympus M. Suiko pro lenses are nothing but outstanding and relatively small in size. I have heard that a problem affecting some of the Sony cameras relate to battery power consumption, but the sensors are second to none. That said, excessive battery power use is something that affects all mirrorless cameras.

Lots of good info and reasons posted here. For me it started back in 1963 when I bought my first Nikon FTN. I have been a fan of Nikon every sense. I have other brands of lens that supply special needs. My current camera body is a Nikon D4s which never stops impressing me with its ability to capture the image. Cameras are like rifles we each have our favoriate. The secret is to take as many pics as possible because these days the cost of seeing what you have is zero not like the analog days. Software helps save many a photo or improve what was not possible in the field.

Samm

quote:

Originally posted by Steven R Gierke:
Lots of good info and reasons posted here. For me it started back in 1963 when I bought my first Nikon FTN. I have been a fan of Nikon every sense. I have other brands of lens that supply special needs. My current camera body is a Nikon D4s which never stops impressing me with its ability to capture the image. Cameras are like rifles we each have our favoriate. The secret is to take as many pics as possible because these days the cost of seeing what you have is zero not like the analog days. Software helps save many a photo or improve what was not possible in the field.

Samm

Back in the days of film I used a Nikon F3 with a motor drive, and so on. Then a few years ago I switched to Canon, and stayed there. I use a Canon cropped-sensor camera for wildlife, sports, etc., and a Canon FF for taking photos of the auroras, people, and so on.

But sometimes I grab my wife's mirror-less Olympus when I don't feel like carrying the heavy camera gear.

I didn't mention it in my list of things a pro would want in a body, but today it's almost a requirement that the body have the ability to fine tune the autofocus function for each lens. Less important with wide-angle lenses, it's really a "must" for telephoto lenses for either wildlife or portrait photographers.

Lot's of "advanced" camera bodies have this, but it isn't always available on entry level models.

Actually a lot of the enthusiast cameras do that as well. I know my Pentax K-3 does. Not sure about the Nikon 3400, don't think so.

I found a link with a list:

https://www.mtdhelp.com/hc/en-...justment-Oct-9-2016-


Looking at that list, I don't think there's a "bad" camera on it. A good photographer can get "professional" results with any one of them. Some are just better equipped for certain types of photography than others.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Actually a lot of the enthusiast cameras do that as well. I know my Pentax K-3 does. Not sure about the Nikon 3400, don't think so.

Yes, most Canon cameras, include a lens adjusting feature.

EOS 50D
EOS 70D camera
EOS 80D camera

EOS 7D camera

EOS 7D Mark II camera

EOS 6D camera

EOS 5D Mark II camera

EOS 5D Mark III camera

EOS 5DS, 5DS R cameras

EOS-1D Mark III
EOS-1Ds Mark III cameras

EOS-1D Mark IV camera

EOS-1D X camera

EOS-1D X Mark II camera

That's a great link Wink. Thanks!