[dnas]

The Canon kit lens has changed. Check out what Photozone has to say about the current 18-55IS.

The 18-55mm IS is quite a nice lens, and is WAY better than the older kit lens, but it's only been in the last year or so that the IS kit lens has become standard. The awful old kit lens has been foisted on unsuspecting Canon DSLR buyers for about 5 years though.

And yet you still see some Canon XS/1000D/Kiss F kits with the old 18-55mm.

[pingflood]

The 18-55mm IS is quite a nice lens, and is WAY better than the older kit lens, but it's only been in the last year or so that the IS kit lens has become standard. The awful old kit lens has been foisted on unsuspecting Canon DSLR buyers for about 5 years though.

And yet you still see some Canon XS/1000D/Kiss F kits with the old 18-55mm.

No disagreement there, but don't make me mention the SMC-FA 28-80!

[Biff]

Wow, thanks everyone for all your extremely helpful ideas and insights. This forum is an amazing community of class, glass, humor, and experience. My first post certainly exceeded my expectations!

[pentaxmz]

What exactly are PRO features? does it come with a monthly rebate check?

I thought the person BEHIND the camera was the PRO not the camera?

You're kidding me, right?

There is an implied definition for what is a consumer, a prosumer, semi-pro, and professional camera. You didn't know that?

A professional photographer by definition is a photographer who gets paid for his or her work. He or she will use whatever best suites their particular requirements or tastes. Heck, I just recently posted a message about a pro who makes his living by taking photos with a pin hole camera. I bet it cost him less than $100 and the camera... or rather his fame and technique make him 100's of thousands in revenue.

I should not need to explain and give you examples of which cameras are professional and which ones are semi-pro or prosumer.

Does spending $4000 on a EOS 5D Mark II make you a pro and the guy making a living with a K20 is just an amateur?

Of course not and don't be silly, I never implied any such thing. The fact is professional photographers may use a Pentax K20D or a K2000... or they may use a Canon Rebel. Like I said, they will use whichever camera suits them.

However, there are two exceptions that I know well. A model/glamour will NEVER show up at a shoot with anything less than pro equipment. It's a highly competitive business and reputations can even be hurt by not arriving with the right equipment. In addition advertisement photographers rarely use anything less than a medium format camera.

[flippedgazelle]

Ah... I just knew I would get in trouble for that. But you've taken my quote out of context. I think the original comment was about build quality and certainly not about IQ. Hell, I get great photos out of my Canon SD770IS! I can't take my K20D everywhere.

You mentioned neither build quality nor IQ in your original statement, thus I was left to my own interpretation. Thanks for clearing that up.

The crap found in thrift shops I have visited is:
a) screw mount, old and with lens rot
b) not PK mount
c) usually cosina, store brand, or some other obscure garbage brand
d) poorly maintained with scratches or other flaws

Now, if you are talking specially used camera shops or something like Henry's (of Toronto) or equiv) consignment shops, that is a whole different animal. What you can find in these shops are sometimes Pro photographer's old but quality lenses.

But there is still usually relatively expensive and most often they will be manual focus.

There aren't many thrift shops by me, but I've certainly seen quality lenses (optical quality, that is) on "bargain paradises" like Craigslist and Goodwill. And, sometimes, the "store/obscure brand" lenses use the same glass as the "name-brand" lenses. Some people say the hunt is part of the fun!

Like the Nissan commercial. You know the one where the neighbour, with the bad haircut, walks up to the new Nissan owner and says, "I hear your car is cheap" and the owner sarcastically replies, "It's inexpensive.... but your haircut is cheap"

I concur with you about my poor analogy, however, making such a statement almost implies that Canon and Nikon owners get less value for their money. I believe that it not necessarily that one gets more with a Pentax, but rather, one gets different features. Values are similar.

I've never seen the commercial - perhaps it's not aired in my part of the country - but I do have a bad haircut!

[flippedgazelle]

You're kidding me, right?

There is an implied definition for what is a consumer, a prosumer, semi-pro, and professional camera. You didn't know that?

A professional photographer by definition is a photographer who gets paid for his or her work. He or she will use whatever best suites their particular requirements or tastes. Heck, I just recently posted a message about a pro who makes his living by taking photos with a pin hole camera. I bet it cost him less than $100 and the camera... or rather his fame and technique make him 100's of thousands in revenue.

I should not need to explain and give you examples of which cameras are professional and which ones are semi-pro or prosumer.



Of course not and don't be silly, I never implied any such thing. The fact is professional photographers may use a Pentax K20D or a K2000... or they may use a Canon Rebel. Like I said, they will use whichever camera suits them.

However, there are two exceptions that I know well. A model/glamour will NEVER show up at a shoot with anything less than pro equipment. It's a highly competitive business and reputations can even be hurt by not arriving with the right equipment. In addition advertisement photographers rarely use anything less than a medium format camera.

Sadly, items that are designated as "pro", "high-def", "extra-strength", etc. are often done so not by definition or acclaim, but rather by marketing.