[ElJamoquio]

Do you know that "almost all pro cameras sold are 36x24" or did you make that up? My experience is that there are significant number of professionals (people who take photos for a living) who use APS-C cameras.

I completely fabricated it. My statement, of course, is a complete lie, only partially backed up by the fact that almost no (exactly none?) APS-C cameras are sold as "pro".

Anecdotal evidence - for a few years (2008-2012) I saw a different pro event photographer every week. Amongst them, say, 100 pros, I saw zero APS-C cameras. Maybe 10-20 Nikons, the rest mostly 1Ds' or 5D's.

At a separate venue I did see a 'pro' event photographer with a Rebel once.

[Rondec]

I completely fabricated it. My statement, of course, is a complete lie, only partially backed up by the fact that almost no (exactly none?) APS-C cameras are sold as "pro".

Anecdotal evidence - for a few years (2008-2012) I saw a different pro event photographer every week. Amongst them, say, 100 pros, I saw zero APS-C cameras. Maybe 10-20 Nikons, the rest mostly 1Ds' or 5D's.

At a separate venue I did see a 'pro' event photographer with a Rebel once.

I live in a rural area and at least fifty percent of the professional photographers here shoot with APS-C. It probably depends a lot on your competition as to what you feel like you need to shoot with .

[ElJamoquio]

Notice the quotes around "pro", twice (three times if you count this time). There are almost zero APS-C cameras labeled as "pro" by any manufacturer. It might be precisely zero.

[monochrome]

Notice the quotes around "pro", twice (three times if you count this time). There are almost zero APS-C cameras labeled as "pro" by any manufacturer. It might be precisely zero.

Just a question here. Do people who make money taking and selling photographs buy cameras based on whether the maker labels them Pro cameras, or is that label for consumers?

[ElJamoquio]

Just a question here. Do people who make money taking and selling photographs buy cameras based on whether the maker labels them Pro cameras, or is that label for consumers?

Which football team is your favorite?

[monochrome]

Which football team is your favorite?

Man U.

[Rondec]

Notice the quotes around "pro", twice (three times if you count this time). There are almost zero APS-C cameras labeled as "pro" by any manufacturer. It might be precisely zero.

It is pretty weird to be arguing about advertisement-speak. Who really cares if a camera is advertised as professional? The question is can it get the job done and professionals are much better than amateurs are at figuring out what they need to get the job done. Most don't make large paychecks. In my area of the country, a high senior photo shoot will go for between 250 and 350 dollars -- and that includes a disk. Weddings are typically shot for a little over a thousand dollars. Photographers are scraping by and they don't have extra money to drop on expensive gear.

Anyway, I guess I don't see camera bodies as professional. I don't even know what they are marketed as. Is your D600 a professional model? Would your photos get better if you went about and bought a Canon 1Dx? Maybe, but certainly not because of a professional tag that has been placed on it by a brand.

[johnmflores]

I know a lot of pros that don't buy the latest and greatest every time it's released, instead they hold on to older gear because it gets the results that they need and it's paid for. Some of the gear is so old that newer APS-C cameras outperform them. Sure, some of them are gear hounds, but the biggest gear hounds that I know aren't pros.

[ElJamoquio]

It is pretty weird to be arguing about advertisement-speak. Who really cares if a camera is advertised as professional? The question is can it get the job done and professionals are much better than amateurs are at figuring out what they need to get the job done. Most don't make large paychecks. In my area of the country, a high senior photo shoot will go for between 250 and 350 dollars -- and that includes a disk. Weddings are typically shot for a little over a thousand dollars. Photographers are scraping by and they don't have extra money to drop on expensive gear.

Anyway, I guess I don't see camera bodies as professional. I don't even know what they are marketed as. Is your D600 a professional model? Would your photos get better if you went about and bought a Canon 1Dx? Maybe, but certainly not because of a professional tag that has been placed on it by a brand.

My point was that Nikon, Canon, and Sony - with maybe 80% of the ILC market between them, and maybe 95% of the cameras sold to professionals - have decided that their 'pro' cameras are 36x24. I don't think it's an accident that this huge percentage of the market has converged to the same solution. There were other sizes of film available, other sizes of sensor available.

My point was never that people who get paid can't use a different size of sensor. That's silly, I've said dozens of times that you can take the same picture with different sized sensors. Go to Canon, the 800 lb gorilla, and ask for their best camera. Go to Nikon, ask for their best camera. Go to (admittedly less important) Sony, ask for their best camera. It's all the same sensor size.

36x24 might be an accident when compared to 35x23, but that's a silly argument, too. The reasonable argument is that we're comparing, say, 36x24 and 50% bigger, or 50% smaller.

As an aside, my D600 is not a professional model. I could get slightly better results from a D810 but not enough at present for me to justify the currently-$2k-difference. I, of course, don't care what Nikon labels my camera as. That was never the point.

[rburgoss]

Notice the quotes around "pro", twice (three times if you count this time). There are almost zero APS-C cameras labeled as "pro" by any manufacturer. It might be precisely zero.

Does anyone here believe that BS?

Back when everyone had their own digital systems, including Canon, Nikon, (Sony) Konica Minolta, Fuji, and we had the first series of *istD cameras, lots of them were marketed as "pro". Those were the top of the line -built like a tank- heavy, bulky and yes: PRO ORIENTED bodies. They were all aps-c (or at least, other smaller format than full frame).

Now that some of them, especially the "technology and specs rat race competitors" that have their own series of full frame bodies, are now saying that "aps..." is not the what the big shots use. If you want nice professional looking pictures, you have to get the full frame (read: expensive!) gear. With aps you'll get kid's stuff not worth investing for someone like you....

Such argument is seen everyday, from kitchen appliances to cars; from condos to cemetery lots; from vacation plans to insurance companies... you name it! "Our GE fridge can make you a better cook than what Kenmore offers...", "Toyota Prius is what the Hollywood stars drive..."; "This is your chance to be buried with the Rockefellers..."; "Come to Dubai... the new playground for the rich and famous" enough said, this marketing strategy is used widespread because it WORKS to push sales. Vendors (marketing departments) rely on the fact that a very high percentage of the potential buyers (targeted market), are also "victims" of the "me too" syndrome. They are also victims of one of the biggest lies in marketing, which is the promise that such and such tool, appliance, hotel, airline, etc, will make you a better "craftman, guest, traveler, etc". "If you buy this piano... well my friend, this is what Liberace played in Las Vegas everyday, but without all the glitter..."

For me, the need of a ff body relies on using back my SMC A 15/3.5 and my F17-28 fisheye zoom. But as I said on a previous post, I can get away with a 10-20 from Sigma or the 10-24 from Tamron, and of course, the DA 10-17 from Pentax. Either combination is less than $1000.

Don't get me wrong. I do miss the usability (angle coverage) of my wides by using them on an aps-c body (probably including the K3 in the near future), but there are other things I do not want to loose that I got from the aps format, which is a "150" macro Tele @ f2.8 (FA 100/2.8 macro), a "75" macro mid tele (FA50/2.8 macro), a "half hot dog size" "200/2.8" equivalent with internal focusing (FA135/2.8 IF), a potato masher "300" tele @ f2.8 (FA*200/2.8) and a killer portrait lens: a "75" mm from my FA 50/1.4.

I know someone may suggest to carry both cameras (a K3 and whatever FF shows up), but nahhhh... I am loving my new MX-1 more everyday, because its light, it takes no space, poses no threats at security points (as my Tamrac fully loaded!).... you get the picture!

[Rondec]

My point was that Nikon, Canon, and Sony - with maybe 80% of the ILC market between them, and maybe 95% of the cameras sold to professionals - have decided that their 'pro' cameras are 36x24. I don't think it's an accident that this huge percentage of the market has converged to the same solution. There were other sizes of film available, other sizes of sensor available.

My point was never that people who get paid can't use a different size of sensor. That's silly, I've said dozens of times that you can take the same picture with different sized sensors. Go to Canon, the 800 lb gorilla, and ask for their best camera. Go to Nikon, ask for their best camera. Go to (admittedly less important) Sony, ask for their best camera. It's all the same sensor size.

36x24 might be an accident when compared to 35x23, but that's a silly argument, too. The reasonable argument is that we're comparing, say, 36x24 and 50% bigger, or 50% smaller.

As an aside, my D600 is not a professional model. I could get slightly better results from a D810 but not enough at present for me to justify the currently-$2k-difference. I, of course, don't care what Nikon labels my camera as. That was never the point.

I know your D600 isn't "professional," therefore it isn't the sensor that makes a camera a professional model. It is the specifications, build and support offered for a given model. I think Canon is now releasing a pro-specified 7D Mk II, while Nikon is deliberately avoiding releasing a D400. Clearly, Canon and Nikon have a lot invested in making sure that full frame is viewed as professional. Their most expensive gear is in this category, why wouldn't they want to sell as much of that as possible? I just happen to think that if camera companies choose to release high spec APS-C cameras, they sell bunches of them -- to amateurs and to professionals who aren't fixed on a given sensor size.

[johnmflores]

Go to Canon, the 800 lb gorilla, and ask for their best camera. Go to Nikon, ask for their best camera. Go to (admittedly less important) Sony, ask for their best camera. It's all the same sensor size.

Then go to Pentax and ask for their best camera. What do you get? Pro-er!

[rburgoss]

I know a lot of pros that don't buy the latest and greatest every time it's released, instead they hold on to older gear because it gets the results that they need and it's paid for. Some of the gear is so old that newer APS-C cameras outperform them. Sure, some of them are gear hounds, but the biggest gear hounds that I know aren't pros.

Agree... look at the film market. It is not that the pros turned into digital that killed the film manufacturers like Kodak and Fuji. Instead, the pros could easily say that they had film available at reasonable prices, thanks to all the sales done to the regular "Sunday Shooters" around the world. It is when the regular xmas and vacation shooters turned into digital p&s and smartphones, that film sales dropped and production became so expensive, that most manufacturers simply abandoned ship and only a few remained supplying the still demanding but slowly disappearing pros that still use it (plus a very small qty of vintage shooters that resist change and still play music in their open reel Akai's...).

Every single manufacturer relies in their "low cost stuff" in order to be able to produce and sell high end stuff. Only some brands produce only top gear, but you know at what prices (Leica, Hasselblad) but we can consider those "a class apart".

So, every time I spot a "sunday shooter", I quietly say: "thank you... it is your business that lets me buy the expensive stuff at reasonable prices..." Somtimes, I do wish there were more party shooters and spring break photographers around, using real cameras (digital or whatever), because the more business they produce, somehow guarantees the longevity, availability and improvement of the stuff I like to use.

[ElJamoquio]

Does anyone here believe that BS?

Back when everyone had their own digital systems, including Canon, Nikon, (Sony) Konica Minolta, Fuji, and we had the first series of *istD cameras, lots of them were marketed as "pro". Those were the top of the line -built like a tank- heavy, bulky and yes: PRO ORIENTED bodies. They were all aps-c (or at least, other smaller format than full frame).

Now that some of them, especially the "technology and specs rat race competitors" that have their own series of full frame bodies, are now saying that "aps..." is not the what the big shots use. If you want nice professional looking pictures, you have to get the full frame (read: expensive!) gear. With aps you'll get kid's stuff not worth investing for someone like you....

Such argument is seen everyday, from kitchen appliances to cars; from condos to cemetery lots; from vacation plans to insurance companies... you name it! "Our GE fridge can make you a better cook than what Kenmore offers...", "Toyota Prius is what the Hollywood stars drive..."; "This is your chance to be buried with the Rockefellers..."; "Come to Dubai... the new playground for the rich and famous" enough said, this marketing strategy is used widespread because it WORKS to push sales. Vendors (marketing departments) rely on the fact that a very high percentage of the potential buyers (targeted market), are also "victims" of the "me too" syndrome. They are also victims of one of the biggest lies in marketing, which is the promise that such and such tool, appliance, hotel, airline, etc, will make you a better "craftman, guest, traveler, etc". "If you buy this piano... well my friend, this is what Liberace played in Las Vegas everyday, but without all the glitter..."

For me, the need of a ff body relies on using back my SMC A 15/3.5 and my F17-28 fisheye zoom. But as I said on a previous post, I can get away with a 10-20 from Sigma or the 10-24 from Tamron, and of course, the DA 10-17 from Pentax. Either combination is less than $1000.

Don't get me wrong. I do miss the usability (angle coverage) of my wides by using them on an aps-c body (probably including the K3 in the near future), but there are other things I do not want to loose that I got from the aps format, which is a "150" macro Tele @ f2.8 (FA 100/2.8 macro), a "75" macro mid tele (FA50/2.8 macro), a "half hot dog size" "200/2.8" equivalent with internal focusing (FA135/2.8 IF), a potato masher "300" tele @ f2.8 (FA*200/2.8) and a killer portrait lens: a "75" mm from my FA 50/1.4.

I know someone may suggest to carry both cameras (a K3 and whatever FF shows up), but nahhhh... I am loving my new MX-1 more everyday, because its light, it takes no space, poses no threats at security points (as my Tamrac fully loaded!).... you get the picture!

Purple.

---------- Post added 10-01-14 at 05:34 PM ----------

Then go to Pentax and ask for their best camera. What do you get? Pro-er!

Or Phase One, or Hasselblad, or...

Problem is, amongst SLR/SLT's on Amazon, the first non Canon/Sony/Nikon seller is.... the Pentax K1000 at ~58 or something.

You need to go to 75-85 before you get to the K-3 or one of the Panasonic 4/3rds. Above FF is a tiny market. Right now the market has, more-or-less, converged on four sensor sizes for ILC's. 4/3rds, APS-C*, 135, and 44x33.

Of course APS-C is a few different sensor sizes but let's be reasonable.

[johnmflores]

Or Phase One, or Hasselblad, or...

Problem is, amongst SLR/SLT's on Amazon, the first non Canon/Sony/Nikon seller is.... the Pentax K1000 at ~58 or something.

You need to go to 75-85 before you get to the K-3 or one of the Panasonic 4/3rds. Above FF is a tiny market. Right now the market has, more-or-less, converged on four sensor sizes for ILC's. 4/3rds, APS-C*, 135, and 44x33.

So let me get this straight, you want Pentax to chase Canon, Sony, and Nikon on Amazon's best seller list? Those companies that you envy so much are hemorrhaging profits, losing money hand over fist, while Ricoh's smaller volume niche strategy has returned Pentax to profitability.

In what fantasy business world does that make any sense whatsoever?