Originally posted by pentaxmz Oh my....
Brand was mentioned by someone the OP that I was replying to. Regardless, brand is still relevant by the simple fact that Pentax currently does NOT make a professional digital camera. This is not an insult, nor is it a demeaning comment, or otherwise.... it is simple a true fact. Why some Pentax owners get all cranky whenever someone points this FACT out just bewilders me.
.
Again, "professional" wrt gear is marketing speak. I will gladly agree that Pentax doesn't make a FF camera, but the terms "professional," "prosumer," "semi-pro," etc are all just made up terms largely based on price point. I don't get cranky when someone says Pentax doesn't make a "professional" digital camera. I've been paid for photos made with my Pentax. And my DLux4 p&s as well. I just object to rather mindless ratification of ad copy without consideration of what the term really means and how language affects opinions and sales.
Originally posted by pentaxmz
BTW, with all due respect Nostatic, you comparing apples/oranges.... pros don't usually use a Hasselblad (or Phase One) for a fast action model shoot. Medium format cameras have their place, just not where action shots are done.
Ahh, so now it is a "fast action" model shoot. I don't believe that was specified previously. So now you're changing the apples to pears. For that I'll agree. But for many "model shots" MF is king.
Originally posted by pentaxmz
As much as I want to agree, your statement is a little misleading. If your reputation is important, you probably wouldn't show up at a gig with an entry level DSLR of any brand and Sears branded lenses. This has nothing to do with logos or any other nonsense. But it has everything to do with performance, reliability, IQ, and to repeat reliability! Reliability is one of the key reasons why professional photographers spend a lot of money on the best equipment available for the dollars they have to spend. There is a reason why there is a market for $2000 camera bodies. Contrary to what some forum members have implied, these photographers are not stupid people.
I have never implied that people who make their living with a camera are stupid. I may have implied that people who live and breathe spec sheets and believe that Dxo tests and brick wall shots are the indicators of "quality" and "professional" spec are misguided.
I have seen *every* type of electronic device fail. In general paying more will get you something that will take more abuse, but there is a reason that people bring multiple cameras to a shoot. When we're on location we have redundancy *everywhere*. It doesn't matter how much the gear cost. We use what is best from the job - from what you'd term "semi-pro" up through "professional." Right tool for the right job. That is part of what being "pro" is - understand what tool to bring out of the bag and how to apply it. In a current project we pulled out a VCR tape deck and ran footage shot at 1080i through it 3 or 4 times to get "the look" we needed. Many would call that amateur gear and approach. We called it brilliant because when the sponsor saw the footage in the environment he was totally immersed in the story.
I understand your overarching point but I still bristle at the equation of gear cost to "professional" photography. There is a correlation but they do not equate because there is more than one type of professional. If you pick a subset of assignments then you can make some generalizations - like sports photogs using fast bodies and long lenses. But if you broaden the horizons you find that all sorts of gear gets used, and especially more in the arts, the *person* is the most important piece of hardware. The electronic bits mean very little. My g/f has sold a number of photographs all taken with p&s cameras. They hang in galleries all over the world as well as in private collections. Since she was paid for them I believe she qualifies as "professional." But her Digital Elph wouldn't really put her in that camp. So do we focus on the gear (easy to quantify) or the product ( harder to quantify unless someone buys it).
I acutally think we see fairly eye to eye, but I'm taking you to task on the language use as I think that meaning gets skewed by playing fast and loose with terminology. And then things get codified that really have alternate or in fact *no* real meaning,a and before you know it, we've got a marketing campaign break out before our very eyes.
Last edited by nostatic; 07-21-2009 at 11:02 PM.