What is a "pro" camera? Where is the cutoff point?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:06:10 11:45:13 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 701 Image Height 406
>>2809447
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 482 Image Height 298 Scene Capture Type Standard
> Sensor Quality
> Build Quality
> Control Layout
> Features
If a camera doesn't have the best of all four of those, it's not a professional camera.
Not that it really matters. You can get excellent results out of entry cameras and shit results out of pro cameras. Just depends if you know how to do anything with it.
>>2809456
is there anything more tragic than shitty shots from a pro camera?
the "pro camera" is a fucking myth.
Of all photographers I know who have that so called "pro gear" 9 out of 10 are shit and their photos suck asses.
>>2809457
40% of all "pro" cameras are used in scientific and other documenting capacity where people shoot ISO 10800 jpegs with 5k+ gear
>>2809459
Where I work, they only procure the cheapest entry level dslr models for this sort of work.
>>2809447
A "pro" camera is any camera used to generate an income.
'pro' is marketing
here's your target demographic
Here we fucking go again.
>>2809458
It's okay, 9/10 pro photographers are shit too.
>>2809447
D800 - pro
D750 - consumer pleb garbage.
it's considered professional if you can make money with it
>>2809447
I'd personally think it would be the point where the shutter durability jumps above 200,000 photos or so, since going full time "pro" would mean using the camera a lot more consistently. But that's literally just me, and I'm sure if I were to start looking at what shutters are rated at, I'd find that cameras I do consider pro (5Dmk3?) would be below that point.
stuff a 'pro' camera must have otherwise it is pleb shit:
>best build quality
>complete weather sealing
>screw drive AF for old lenses
>isn't lacking any important functionality (this doesn't count fluff features that aren't critical)
That's it. I don't consider sensor tech to have a particular objective line between good and best.
>>2809893
Says you and no one else.
Camera manufacturers have pretty strict limits on which cameras qualify for their professional service and which ones don't.
>>2809918
You mean every Pentax bodies from entry level (except K-S1 and K-500)? With the kit lens it gives complete weather sealing and has screw drive AF for old lenses.
>>2809925
Not quite. The thing many of those less expensive Pentax models lack is build quality/materials and some control features. I do think Pentax offers best value for dollar at entry level though.
>>2809935
uhm... Pentax has the better build quality and materials compared to the equivalent Canikon models, including the control features.
>>2809945
Are you so fucking rump ravaged that you couldn't even make it to his second sentence where he says exactly that before shitposting?
>>2809459
>used in scientific and other documenting capacity
Can you be more specific?
>>2809998
Not him, but our biology and marine bio department used to house stacks of old bodies of Canon and Nikon cameras. Though, to be fair, the lenses were kit, but there were a few macros. The students always produce shit results with the cameras, and it's a fucking shame because the subjects are always colorful plants and tiny animals.
>>2809998
Scientific, medical, even precision machining companies all use high end cameras (either for fast shutters or super high resolution) to document things like surgeries, infections, microorganisms, flora and fauna, machining processes and tolerances, etc.
Most times, these companies dont shell out for a proper photographer, so the cameras are manned by a barely trained chimpanzee using program with automatic flash, hence the notion that all their professional gear gives shitty results.
FF
>>2809447
A camera can only really do so much. You want to think more about lenses
What a bunch of faggots in this thread, clearly no lolpros have posted yet
A pro camera is any camera with pro support and thats it, a proven track record of reliability doesnt hurt either but even so even the very best most expensive cameras without pro support are not pro cameras.
The cutoff point is simpl, does it fucking have pro support or not?
Fuck you are all a bunch of faggots listing certain specs as if that makes a fucking difference kek
>>2809447
Canon
70/80D/6D - Shit
7D/5D/1D - Pro
Nikon
D7200/D610/D750 - Shit
D500/D810/D5 - Pro
Sony
Everything - Shit
>>2812082
wat about pentack??
>>2812110
They have the most pro body of all.
>>2812110
K-500, K-S1, K-01 entry level without the WR
K-30/50/S2 entry level which is intermediate/enthusiast level on the other brands
K-10/7/5/3 enthusiast/semi-pro level, comparable to most pro-level crop bodies on other brands
K-1, 645D/645Z pro level with all the pro features and workflow a professional photographer needs
Also professional service is not restricted to gear, only qualifying term is having 51% of your income from photography.
>>2812219
Oh, I forgot.
Pentax Q line, ridiculously small IL cameras with sensor shift stabilization and the ability to adapt K-mount lenses.
>>2812110
Everything - Pro
>>2809456
features is iffy for me
i have a d750. flippy screen a feature. is the d810 not a pro camera because it lacks it? is the d700 not pro because of its low MP count of it's sensor or lower usable max ISO?
Daily reminder that this is the only Pro mirrorless camera around at the moment
>>2813799
It's rather disappointing, isn't it?
>>2813799
Pro+mirrorless=oxymoron
>>2809447
Sony a6000 is the cut off. Micro 4/3rds and all ASPC under it are just child's play.
>>2813803
Behold ye among the heathen tis be the troll post of the century!
>>2809457
>photographers working for local newspapers given £5k+ gear with top of the line accessories
>they go to local football matches or parades
>take the blandest photos imaginable
>check a few of them out on Twitter and elsewhere
>Most of them have no interest in photography as an artform, they just point and shoot for a job
I just got a d7100 im i a pro now?
I just got a 70-200/2.8 am I a pro now?
>>2813814
I work with some sports photographers for local papers. Not unusual to see d5300s and 70-300s
>>2813814
It's almost like it's a job, rather than a hobby. Weird.
How many contractors out there have no interest in artistic woodworking?
How many taxi drivers out there have no interest in racing?
Pilots
Or more appropriately: How many journalists out there have no interest in creative writing?
Photography is the medium they use to achieve their goal. It's the means, not the end.
>>2814002
How many /p/ users have no interest in actually shooting photos?
>>2814014
Very few. We all think that we're going to become great photographers sooner or later, once we get the right gear, or the right supermodel shows up at our door in lingerie asking for TFP work for their portfolio, or when they get a job that sends them around the world to the most beautiful landscape locations with tons of free time and one day 2pm (when you happen to be on the location, because who wants to wake up early or skip dinner at Sizzler) looks like dawn through some freak atmospheric phenomenon.
>>2814002
Wow a well written post that made me think. Thank you.
you need to spend at least $3000 USD on a camera body in order for it to be considered pro.
>>2814000
This is truer than people would believe. For a lot of photographers it's just a job. Less money invested in gear/work is more money for things they enjoy.
>>2809456
>> Features
TOP KEK.
>>2809447
Here you'll find all the info you need:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/how-buy-dslr-camera
>And you're welcome!
>>2814097
Is that pic art?
>>2814097
At least draw the character holding the camera at a proper non crooked angle holy shit.
>>2814118
Shut up! She's clearly doing dutch angle. Which is actually german and she looks like only doing it with her eye and not with the camera, but nobody wants nitpicking.
>pro
full frame/expensive mirrorless
>amateur/you're getting there
cropped censor/mirrorless
>poorfag/not a tog
point & shoot
>>2814371
so sony a6300 is pro
>>2814372
i guess
>>2814000
I shot at an f1 grand prix a while ago
was tempted to take my 40d to the canon centre for a complimentary sensor clean lel
>>2812219
I just recently got a k10D and I was incredibly impressed by the build quality.
This thing is miles ahead in just the workspace and thinking. I'd like it to be easier to switch ISO, but the 10 year old dinosaur doesn't like anything over 400 anyways.
Still makes decent photographs if you don't lift shadows too aggressively or crop.
>>2812069
You obviously have no idea how CPS or the Nikon equivalent even work. Fag.
