[séamuis]

I havent seen in my whole life anything more overrated that the term 'pro' in photography.

It doesnt make cameras better, it doesnt make you better and certainly it wouldnt make the things cheaper, so please, be just happy of using a semipro (just) camera!!!

like I said, they are just marketing terms.

[m8o]

Do you guys find it hard to trust reviews when the site has everything to gain from a positive review; I mean isn't hard to distinguish between geniune hype/excitement or just a good salesman?

That begs the question does a camera store have anything to gain by selling a Pentax to someone over a CanKon or other? I don't think so...

A buyer not knowing what they want but wanting something will be a buyer of something that the salesman pushes most compellingly. That doesn't mean there will be more sales of cameras on a whole however. What matters here, is what's pushed given the salesman's experience or word that comes down the grapevine, so what direction the sale goes in.

So I'm sayin, usually, the salesman sees to it they're a buyer of a Canon or Nikon. I was given a hard sell to buy a D200 over the K10D when I was buying. I think it's ggggreat that Adorama salesmen may give some people a harder sell to buy Pentax over something else, given that opinion in the review. ...never imagined I'd see the day.

[redpigeons]

I havent seen in my whole life anything more overrated that the term 'pro' in photography.

It doesnt make cameras better, it doesnt make you better and certainly it wouldnt make the things cheaper, so please, be just happy of using a semipro (just) camera!!!

maybe so but most "pro" cameras today have larger sensor and a fast 24-70 zoom.. and that is what a lot of us wants from pentax hopefully in a smaller package then the competition..
if they can give us that with out calling it a pro camera its the same to me I would still be very very happy

[offertonhatter]

As have said in other threads, a "PRO" is the person behind the camera, not the camera itself. I have seen stunning images created by Pros and amateurs using basic cameras, not only DSLR's but compacts. Also I have seen truly awful images made with top of the range DSLR's both by "Pros" and amateurs.
So it is not the camera, it is the person.
I just wish the marketing men would re-phrase the naming of the range, to entry level, advanced and top spec! rather than amateur, prosumer and Pro, as that is what they are. But of course marketing is very powerful, and the person in street is duped by the jargon, as buying a Pro camera will give them Pro images.........Ho hum
The K-7 btw is between advanced and top spec, it is better than advanced, yet has some "top spec" features.....

---

Last edited by offertonhatter; 06-05-2009 at 02:43 PM. Reason: spelling

[séamuis]

maybe so but most "pro" cameras today have larger sensor and a fast 24-70 zoom.. and that is what a lot of us wants from pentax hopefully in a smaller package then the competition..
if they can give us that with out calling it a pro camera its the same to me I would still be very very happy

wouldn't mind the larger sensor, but what 'pro' cameras come with such a zoom? most 'pro' level cameras are sold body only. I have no use for a 24-70mm zoom and wouldn't want one if I were to buy a 'pro' body.

Also I have seen truly awful images made with top of the range DSLR's both by "Pros" and amateurs.

I am not sure that I understand what you say. I am guessing that you are saying that there is not causality between being pro (or amateur) and being a good photographer. If that is what you are saying then I am 100% with you.

Some people tend to identify the work of an elite with what a pro does. That way as soon as they have shooted some friend's wedding or taking some portraits from their neighbours or the like, they think that if they are called pro they will be identified with the elite. That satisfaction increases as soon as they have pro-like equipment since the size and paraphernalia draws people attention and we all know that social attention is a huge drug. That is what Canon's marketing plays so well.

What many (not all) people in these forums fail to understand is that ,as with any other thing in this life, there is a full scale of grays from bad to extremely good photographer (pro or not pro) I have seen full-fledged pros that make a living of their work whose photographic talent is....let us say shaky and that is independent on their equipment, sex, race or moon cycle.

[redpigeons]

wouldn't mind the larger sensor, but what 'pro' cameras come with such a zoom? most 'pro' level cameras are sold body only. I have no use for a 24-70mm zoom and wouldn't want one if I were to buy a 'pro' body.

canon , sony, nikon all have a 24-70 2.8 zoom for their FF "pro" cameras.
mid range fast zoom is a very very useful zoom ...
Pentax used to have FA * pro mid range zoom and today have the DA* 16-50 for the crop sensor .. this lens will not work with a larger sensor

sigma made the 24-70 2.8 with the size and quality that I expect from Pentax so that's good and this lens is on my to buy list

I am a prime lens man myself but this zoom will be extremely useful to me

I will not start another FF sensor or not argument I am only trying to say that I personally do want a Pentax FF camera with a FF mid range zoom...

[offertonhatter]

I am not sure that I understand what you say. I am guessing that you are saying that there is not causality between being pro (or amateur) and being a good photographer. If that is what you are saying then I am 100% with you.

You have it. I know personally an amateur photographer, who had money to burn, and bought a Canon EOS 1D mk3 on the opinion that as it is a pro camera, it will make her a good photographer, yet, the results were poor to say the least.

A good photographer is someone who can say something with a photo, or take a photo which gives a response, rather than just a holiday snap, if you know what I mean.

[nickthetasmaniac]

too bad, that was during the ancient period. before, it takes good eyes and hands inorder to become a pro. with today's gadget, that line between semi/pros and serious amateurs had closed that gap. the only one whose not defined as a pro/amateur are those who take crappy pictures. sad but true.

couldn't disagree more. I've seen absolutely terrible photos taken with Canikon D700 and 5D ('pro' cameras) and brilliant ones taken with K-m, D40, A100 etc etc...

I think a good photo is still 80% photographer.

[Rondec]

There is no doubt that an awful lot of "pros" use crop sensors. Almost all of the wedding/studio photographers around here use Canon 20D or 40D. The reality is that if you are trying to make money at photography, you are going to have to balance the cost of your camera with what will take pictures that make clients come back.

My personal opinion is that most full frame cameras are bought by wealthy amateurs and not by people making a living at photography, but I have nothing to back that up, so take it with a grain of salt.

Edit: I once asked the question about the difference between pro and amateur cameras and the consensus was it had more to do with the support given to the photographer -- turn around time if equipment failed, etc, rather than the specs of the camera itself.

[Rener]

As have said in other threads, a "PRO" is the person behind the camera, not the camera itself. I have seen stunning images created by Pros and amateurs using basic cameras, not only DSLR's but compacts. Also I have seen truly awful images made with top of the range DSLR's both by "Pros" and amateurs.
So it is not the camera, it is the person.
I just wish the marketing men would re-phrase the naming of the range, to entry level, advanced and top spec! rather than amateur, prosumer and Pro, as that is what they are. But of course marketing is very powerful, and the person in street is duped by the jargon, as buying a Pro camera will give them Pro images.........Ho hum
The K-7 btw is between advanced and top spec, it is better than advanced, yet has some "top spec" features.....

Aye, Aye Sir, Well said.

cheers,

Rene

[jmbradd]

There is no doubt that an awful lot of "pros" use crop sensors. Almost all of the wedding/studio photographers around here use Canon 20D or 40D. The reality is that if you are trying to make money at photography, you are going to have to balance the cost of your camera with what will take pictures that make clients come back.

My personal opinion is that most full frame cameras are bought by wealthy amateurs and not by people making a living at photography, but I have nothing to back that up, so take it with a grain of salt.

Edit: I once asked the question about the difference between pro and amateur cameras and the consensus was it had more to do with the support given to the photographer -- turn around time if equipment failed, etc, rather than the specs of the camera itself.

Professional photography is a business and businesses don't chase the latest and greatest tools. For a professional photography the difference between something like a 20d and a 30d and a 5d or 1dmkIII or in our case a k20d and a d300, the difference in money attained as a result of using that tool is minimal where as the cost difference is substantial. I guess you could use the phrase "marginal net benefit" out of context here. Also, the money you spend to upgrade a camera has oppurtunity costs because that same money could have gone to a lens or a flash which dollar for dollar will provide a larger increase in your products quality.

In a nutshell, the cheapest thing that will get the job done and not break.