Minimum specs for a pro camera

[Caimin]

At some point, when I've saved enough pennies, I'd like to invest in a pro camera. What kind of technical specs define a camera as "pro"? The only thing I've seen regularly is "at least 6MP". But there must be more to it than that...

I mostly shoot street scenes and people - I'm not looking at something highly specialised like sports photography or macro photograpy.

Basically, I'd be looking for a camera that would help me deliver good prints. Any pointers would be really helpful. Thanks.

[cmM]

The lenses you use are just as much, if not more important than the body. You can get great prints from quite a few DSLRs in Canon's current line-up.
You say street scenes, ... first thing that comes to mind is a full frame 1DsMkII and a nice sharp L lens.

[Caimin]

Thanks, that's a point I'd not thought of. In terms of the body, would you say the 1DsMkII was a "minimum" - or could I use a less expensive body?

The Canon I have at the moment is great but it's only 3 MP. If I took a shot that was saleable from an artistic point-of-view I still couldn't sell it to a local magazine because it would only be 3MP. I'm just trying to gauge which camera to go for to eleminate this technical obstacle to potential sales.

[Mike Panic]

if the camera is light tight - then thats all that matters - get good glass and call it a day

[RichardtheSane]

The only thing that defines a camera as a pro camera is the person behind the viewfinder.

I should think any canon DSLR will do the trick nicely as long as you have good glass.

Do you have a budget?

[cmM]

no, a 1DsMkII is deffinitely not a minum... as a matter of fact, it's about the maximum as far as bodies go :-P. You could do just fine with most of the Canon DSLR, as I said, and some good glass.

The only thing that defines a camera as a pro camera is the person behind the viewfinder.
Amen!

[defordphoto]

You can produce sellable, professional prints to any news service, magazine, calendar makers, whatever with ANY of the Canon EOS line from the D30 to the 1-Series. (Period)

[Ogrt48]

A good photographer.

[ilcounican]

Having recently published an article on this very topic, I have reiterate what others in this thread have said and what I promoted in that article: truthfully, it's the photographer that is the professional, not the camera. The camera is merely a tool tailored to varying needs of professional photographers. If your skills and technique are where they should be, you can produce salable images no matter what SLR you're using. The 1Ds MKII is probably at the top of the line now, and if it fits your needs, save for it; but if you have to ask, then likely a less expensive body will do fine. Consider the 20D for that matter.

[primoz]

"Pro camera" label is just something what makes camera more expensive and your photos not even a bit better. Minimum requirements for label "pro camera"? Definitely not pixels... for me. I'm shooting with 1dmkii with 8mp, old 1d with 4mp, and even older dcs520 with 2mp. And they all give photos which sell. For my type of shooting (sport) it needs to be fast and it has to stand some more (ab)use. For someone elses it has to have 10+mp and speed is not important, for another one it has to be small so it doesn't stick out on streets. It all depends on what you need, but I would still say pixel count is not most important thing.

[12345Michael54321]

What kind of technical specs define a camera as "pro"?
1. Determine which technical specs you want and/or need, in order to do what you consider "pro" work.

2. The cameras meeting all of these wants/needs (or, if none meet them, then those cameras coming closest) are "pro" cameras. For you.

For some photographers, a camera may need to use at least a 4x5" piece of film to be considered "pro." For others, it may need to have at least a 6 fps motor drive and output a 10 mp RAW file. For others, it won't be "pro" unless it is small and lightweight enough to be carried easily while mountain climbing and be capable of functioning without batteries and in temps of -40 deg.

The point being, the definition of "pro" varies. So figure out what constitutes "pro" for you, and don't worry about whether your determinations are the same as mine.

Once upon a time, there were just cameras. Then there came professional cameras and amateur cameras. Eventually, we wound up with "pro," advanced amateur, prosumer, amateur, and various other marketing labels. Frankly, it's gotten ridiculous.

But I suppose it sells cameras, and makes the mass market camera magazines happy.

[Vegas Poboy]

Consider what part of the market you want to capture & go from there. I have the 20D as my main & the 10D as a backup it carries me for all of the work I do, small products, portraits and sports. I stay away from large commercial customers so I don't need anything greater than what I have. I do purchase good fast lenses & know my camera well. I would suggest anything from the 20D & up. The rebel does not have enough creative features on it to handle most work in general. Also I've had some clients ask what inventory I own to insure I have the equipment to get the job done it's more impressive to have the 10D, 20D or 30D and up than the rebel. Not beating up on the Rebel owners it's a decent camera but it has limits for large amount of pro work.

[Avalonthas]

No such thing as a pro camera. There is is only a such thing as a pro photographer, and many proclaim themselves to be one when there really not. Pro status comes with experience. There is no garuntee that you will be a better photographer if you go from a 3MP to a 6+ MP DSLR, as the only garuntee's in life are Death and Taxes, but if ur good with a small cam, imagine the possibilities with a good piece of equipment. I would suggest starting with a low end DSLR, such as a 300D, and more preferbly a midrange with the 350D XT. Eventually you will catch L fever and within a year I can bet 20,000 rolls of 100 ISO film that you will want to buy a 20D or something above it :P

[Caimin]

Thanks so much for all your replies - you've given great advice. Much appreciated!

[neil_r]

Minimum specs for a pro camera.
You say street scenes, ... first thing that comes to mind is a full frame 1DsMkII and a nice sharp L lens.
Well if that is "Minimum Spec" it don't leave a lot of room for an upgrade.....:confused:
N

[Steve Parr]

Before my latest foray into photography, I played music (I'm a guitarist). Well, in the world of guitars, "US Made" is the catch-phrase. "US Made" denotes quality.

I started out on a cheap Korean-made guitar, and made my way up to a nice collection of American made guitars (Fender, Gibson, Martin, Taylor, Hamer). Yes, I had "pro" gear, but they certainly came at "pro" prices.

My daughter, who also plays, bought a Mexican-made Fender, which sells for roughly 1/3 of a similar American-made model. I took it to a show one night, and was amazed at its' playability and how good it sounded. In all honesty, I wasn't able to tell much of a difference while I was playing. There were, of course, some obvious differences in the guitars, but enough to justify spending three times as much?

Certain aspects of a guitarists set-up are critical, say, like the amplifier, and should always meet certain criteria.

So, when I sold some musical gear to buy some photo gear, I took the same approach. I could've spent gads of money on a body, but I'm not paying the mortgage with it, so would it be wise to do so? No, probably not. I bought the 300D.

The lens, I think, will serve in the same capacity as the amplfier, that is, that it's critical. I don't have the "good glass" yet, but I will in time. Just like my not starting out with all-tube driven Marshall and Fender amplifiers, so will I not start out with "good glass". In time, though, but not right now.

I've seen some absolutely amazing shots on this forum that have been taken with little P&S jobs, and I'm amazed at the quality of the shots. Had you asked me, I would've sworn up and down that the photographer used a "pro rig".

I honestly believe that, to a very great degree, it's not the camera (or, as was the case with me, the guitar). 'Tis a poor craftsman who blames the tool.

Hope that didn't ramble too much...

Steve

[PhotosGuy]

I've seen some absolutely amazing shots on this forum that have been taken with little P&S jobs, Very true, Steve. A $10,000 cam suitable for a particular "Pro job" may be totally unsuitable for another. It's the results that count.
I mostly shoot street scenes and people A good P&S should do the job without attracting too much attention.
OTOH, I'd be much happier with a 300XT & a 70-200 f4 L for under $2K.

[ChristopherMartin]

I find this discussion very interesting. I am by no means a pro, I have only been paid once to take pictures and they were pictures of bus ads on parked bus' with a crappy 2 MP Samsung Digital Camera. You guys make a lot of good points. It also got me to remember something I learned while selling consumer electronics, and that is Title. Companies will often label their product a title to make people think they NEED to have it and if they don't they lose quality. Case in point?

Progressive Scan DVD players. A few companies decided to create a Progressive Scan DVD player for the few TV's that actually have progressive scan built into them, most TVs don't have progressive scan in them but before long the industry started tacking that on to every player they made and before long people with perfectly good DVD players were replacing their no progressive scan DVD players with ones that have it. If they noticed any difference in picture they either had a broken DVD player before or it was psychological and they sold them self it looked different. What's my point and why am I talking about DVD players on a Camera board? My point is it is all salesmanship, companies always want to talk you into spending more money then you need to spend on something you don't need. That is how they make money.

My SLR I still use is an Elan 7 35mm Camera, said to be "entry level pro" by Canon or someone, I have taken pictures with it that leave a photo professor I know amazed at the quality of them. He uses nothing less then a EOS 3 (the pro camera) but uses a EOS 1. I still love this camera despite I have to put that small tin cartridge in it and then take it to a shop to get them developed.

The Camera is merely the brushes you use to create a masterpiece on canvas. If you can’t paint then the finest brushes will be useless to you. It’s also important to note that famed photographers like Ansel Adams & Co didn’t use anything close to what we presently use.

Great discussion, thank you also for all that gave their input into this thread, you gave a lot of useful info to me also. Have a good day.

[Pekka]

Progressive Scan DVD players. A few companies decided to create a Progressive Scan DVD player for the few TV's that actually have progressive scan built into them, most TVs don't have progressive scan in them but before long the industry started tacking that on to every player they made and before long people with perfectly good DVD players were replacing their no progressive scan DVD players with ones that have it. If they noticed any difference in picture they either had a broken DVD player before or it was psychological and they sold them self it looked different.

Well, I do notice a difference when using progressive scan and I don't think I suggest myself to see it. :)

About the original question: IMHO people should really stop concentrating too much on words like "pro", "amateur" or "semi-pro" when talking about cameras. Instead concentrate on a list of features, functions and quality needed. Fill out the list, check the market. If you see something that does all in your list get it. If you cannot afford it start reducing your list and seek again. It actually is that simple!

For example, in street photography (I imagine it means here candids and handheld street life shots) you might want foremost to have a camera that is inconspicuous, which has relatively good high ISO noise levels and can take very sensitive lenses and has quiet shutter noise. 1.6X FoV crop helps there. So: D30, D60 and 10D would fit that nicely - I would not choose 20D because of its shutter noise and not 1D series because they have inbuilt grip which makes it too big and visible. For lenses: 100/2, 85/1.8 or something fast and small - 135/2 or 85/1.2 if you can afford it and think that their "visual appearance" do not draw attention too much.

If street photography means architecture & night shots with tripod, then almost any camera with low long exposure noise (and perhaps remote control) will do.

[HKFEVER]

For example, in street photography (I imagine it means here candids and handheld street life shots) you might want foremost to have a camera that is inconspicuous, which has relatively good high ISO noise levels and can take very sensitive lenses and has quiet shutter noise. 1.6X FoV crop helps there. So: D30, D60 and 10D would fit that nicely - I would not choose 20D because of its shutter noise and not 1D series because they have inbuilt grip which makes it too big and visible. .

How about 350D? I am looking for a backup but I have trouble to choose between 350D & 20D.

[Wazza]

"350D or 20D". Do all your other cameras use BP511 batteries? I would choose the 20D if they do. I was liking the look of the 350D, until I realise they've made their own batteries. It's not much of a deal.


The photographer itself, always makes the pro part of the occupation label. Not that camera itself. I've seen a few pro people locally, using 300Ds. A guy shot a work celebration, and he had a 300D, with a fairly cheap lens, and a 480EX flash. He said he shot most people shots, including weddings. If you know what you're doing, you should be able to get close print quality images. Obviously not as good as a 1dsmkii, but for a camera 1/6th the price. That's great.

[cactusclay]

In the past, pro bodies were made to be used day in and day out, they were built more rugedly, had faster shutter speeds, faster flash sync speeds, more complex metering systems and usually the motordrives were capable of more frames per second. I don't know about the pro digitals, because I can't afford them, but the 20D seems to work well for me now and has most of what I would look for in a pro film camera.

[Pekka]

350D could work also just fine... haven't used it, though.

[blundar]

Pro camera minimum right now would be defined as:

Canon 20D + f2.8 glass + ETTL shoe mounted flash.

That is just purely minimum to me. Opinions may vary as to what is acceptable for minimum. Technology is also always on the move also changing what minimum should be.

[Andy_T]

Another 'pro' aspect that might be more important than MP is the durability of the camera.

If your business depends on that your camera works flawlessly every day and stands some abuse, a used 1D might be more suitable than a new DRebel XT.

Best regards,
Andy

[KennyG]

The Pro camera debate will go on, and on, and on.....

Simply, it is about the tool(s) to do the job. A pro sports photographer needs very different tools from a pro portrait photographer, who needs different tools from a wildlife photographer, and so on. They all need one thing however, reliability and predictability. The camera should not break down and you should not have to worry that the focus is behaving itself or WB is measured correctly for example.

To do almost all pro photography is very expensive. You have to get to venues or events to do your job, or set up a studio in a specific way. Nearly all of the time these are unrepeatable events, you fail first time there is no second chance. You can incur a cost for no reward, not a good way to run a business.

So, if the camera/lens/flash/etc meets the technical specifications you need, will be reliable and produces accurate results time after time, then it is pro equipment. Even then, we who shoot for money (the mafia do that too you know) always have a second camera/flash/lens/etc, just in case.