Choosing a professional camera

[jtblueberry]

So we all agree... A pro can use a $500 camera and sell the results to happy customers. But, better quality can be had from higher end cameras.

Case and point: I had to use my 10D for backup when my 1Ds was sent in for tune-ups. Unexpectedly, the family bought a 30x40. The images were really good in smaller prints and on screen but I was unhappy with the enlargement. To my surprise, the family WAS really happy with it. It's all subjective...everyone's opinion of quality and what's good enough is different.

Anyway...i'll try to stop side-tracking this thread...get the best camera you can afford, which sounds like a rebel xti or similar nikon. Make your decision based on what future lenses you want.

 

[krye]

Dude, What's it to ya? All I've seen (and it's only been today) is a bunch of looking down your nose at people because you're supposedly a "Pro" photographer. If you are going to tell me that the image quality from a 1D series is so far above and beyond what can be done with a Rebel XTi then it's you who are making absurd statements. I'm no pro, nor do I pretend to be one, but I do associate with many of them and even they freely admit that it's not the image quality that is better in a Pro grade camera, it's the build quality and the accessories (and in Canon and now Nikon's case the fact that it's FF and therefore functions as advertised with ultra-wide lenses).

You as a "working pro" out of all people should know that technology advances so quickly that it is no time at all before the entry level either uses the same tech as the older pro stuff, or has passed it entirely. And if you think you can look at an image hanging on a wall and tell me which camera took it, then you've really been snowed haven't you?

Plus, last time I checked those 1Ds MKIII cameras couldn't even focus correctly most of the time.

Anyway I don't even care since I'm making pleasing images with my Pentax gear that most so called "Pro's" won't even look at. So you'll understand why I don't take too much stock in what they have to say.

Exactly! His "pro" camera that he paid through the nose for becasue it's the "best" will be the "non-pro" entry level camera a year from now. So how do you put a label on "pro"?

For the newbies: Go out and buy the most expensive camera you can afford/justify, and I bet it'll be just fine.

 

[jtblueberry]

My 1Ds lasted me 5 years and I could keep using it (it's basically my back-up now). Most people would still consider it a pro camera. Another local photographer went through a d30, a d60, and a 20d, now he has a 5D in that same time...
I paid out the nose for it because I really wanted to go digital and lesser cameras didn't cut it at the time in my opinion.
I recently got the 5D's because I wanted matching cameras which are beneficial for the many multi-camera events that I do. I feel they are the best camera in that price range (actually the only full-frame choice really). And they're cheap for what you get. That is what my budget justifies...so that's what I got. That's all you can recommend to anyone.
It really is amazing how cheap quality cameras are these days.

 

[ayale99]

To the OP -

Lenses are what make photographs, the body just holds them. If you really enjoy photography you will likely find it an expensive hobby. Glass is expensive!

I can't help you much in your price range. I think that range is really just for P&S cameras. You might pick up a used digital DSLR with a kit lens in that range and that would be a good start - but I bet even a 20d will be more than that, I've got a 10D that I hold onto as a backup body and it takes good pictures in the outdoors with good light, but high ISO performance is horrid compared with more modern bodies. If you could find a 10D and a decent lens, that would be a good start.

Don't forget the cost of computer and hard drive space to store all the photos you're going to have as well

Exactly what I was going to say. For a $500 budget, I would look into a used Canon 10d. You should be able to find one for under $500. But, the real quality is in the lens. I'd say get the 10D, save up for more lenses...then a better body. Camera gear is expensive once you get hooked!

 

[krye]

Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm not a photographer. I just wandered into this forum because I was looking at an Aperture 2 post. Anyway, what does the "d" mean when you guys are talking about 5d, 10d, 20d.... Is that like a megapixel thing?
If anyone can point me to a good read on "getting into pro photography" I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

 

[pointycollars]

hello.

i have a passion for photography, but i never used a profetional camera before. and i dont know much about it. i want to buy the best camera for under 500$

i usually photograph landscape at daytime, including buildings, nature, animals... i think i need a camera with good zoom power

what sthe best choice for me?



Thanks

I know it's been mentioned in the thread briefly before, but I would highly recommend the Nikon D40 kit. It's smaller and lighter than other DSLRs, like the 30d or the D100, and it's a great transition into the SLR world for someone who has never used one before because it has almost all the features of a standard SLR - it can be as manual or as automatic as you want it to be. I have one myself, and I love it. Plus, the benefit of being an SLR is that you can always get new and better lenses for it without having to buy an entirely new camera like you do with point-and-shoots.

The D40 kit (lens and body) is $549, I believe - but you might be able to find it on sale for less now because the D60 is on the horizon.

 

[Sdashiki]

ase and point: I had to use my 10D for backup when my 1Ds was sent in for tune-ups. Unexpectedly, the family bought a 30x40. The images were really good in smaller prints and on screen but I was unhappy with the enlargement. To my surprise, the family WAS really happy with it. It's all subjective...everyone's opinion of quality and what's good enough is different.

When it comes to "art", only the artist sees the flaws.

Patrons think you are a god.

Could be paint, could be a photo, always the same.

Baaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[arogge]

so whats the best DSLR?

Maybe it's this camera.

 

[840quadra]

I shoot professionally with anything from a 1ds all the way down to a Powershot Pro1 . It all depends on what you are shooting, camera settings, and the desired effect. I currently own a Pro1 and a 40d and make the same amount of money for images shot from either camera.


I would look first into what camera lens system you want, and then build an array of high quality lenses to go with them. I currently have double the amount of money into my lens collection than I do in cameras themselves.

 

[frood02]

I would probably recommend a point and shoot with some manual controls (like a Canon G9) or entry level dSLR with kit lens (Canon Rebel XT or Nikon D40). But really, many of the manufacturers have comparable products, but they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

Sorry if I offended you. That's certainly not my intention. I will admit that I get frustrated with people throwing around the term "professional" so much. I was simply trying to make it clear that there is a difference between professional and consumer cameras.
As far as being able to tell a 20x24 wall portrait produced from a 12mp camera vs a 6mp camera...I most certainly can. I print wall portraits all the time and there IS a difference. I guess not everyone has the same standard of "quality".
With that said, I would also admit that non-pro's probably won't be printing wall portraits so you'll never notice the difference. In which case, buy the best camera you can and you'll probably be happy.
I am curious...at what point do you think image quality topped out for digital? You really don't think the image quality is better on a current top end model than on a 10D?

Meh, you still should get off your high horse.

There are plenty of genuine pros out their shooting with D70s's and 40D's. You, as a pro, should be able to get the same image out of any SLR your given, no?

 

[Abstract]

There is no such thing as a great camera. Today's great camera will be mediocre in 5 years. The camera didn't get worse --- our standards get higher with advances in digital technology.

 

[jtblueberry]

Meh, you still should get off your high horse.

There are plenty of genuine pros out their shooting with D70s's and 40D's. You, as a pro, should be able to get the same image out of any SLR your given, no?

I've said it several times now. I agree that a pro can shoot with even a rebel and sell their work to happy customers. Even a lesser camera can do the job.
But to answer your question, NO. No matter how good you are you can't make a $500 camera produce the same image as a $5000 camera. Whether or not you or or client notice or care about that difference is another question.
I'll admit that there are other photographers, with better gear, that can produce cleaner, higher quality images than I can. Do I care? No. Everyone has different ideas of what is good enough.
Don't be such a hater.

 

[jtblueberry]

There is no such thing as a great camera. Today's great camera will be mediocre in 5 years. The camera didn't get worse --- our standards get higher with advances in digital technology.

And as my standards get higher I'll probably upgrade to have the next great camera. Probably in 5 years.

Just because my computer will be mediocre at best in 5 years, doesn't mean it's not great right now.

 

[-hh]

I've said it several times now. I agree that a pro can shoot with even a rebel and sell their work to happy customers. Maybe a lesser camera.
But to answer your question, NO. No matter how good you are you can't make a $500 camera produce the same image as a $5000 camera. Whether or not you or or client notice or care about that difference is another question.

Well said.

To a certain degree, there can be an element of "Better is the enemy of Good Enough", but this is recognized in the pragmatism element expressed above: there will be differences, but likely ones that aren't significant enough to be the basis of differentiation for some segment of users / customers.

The irony here is that we have a strong consumer contingent who is chasing after the "Megapixel' train in the mistaken belief that megapixels are the only metric of significance for digital image quality, all the while ignoring factors such as the sensor size and its quantum efficiency.

I'll admit that there are other photographers, with better gear, that can produce cleaner, higher quality images than I can. Do I care? No. Everyone has different ideas of what is good enough.
Don't be such a hater.

Too many people get confused between what a 'Pro' is (profession) and what that then entails in terms of the products that may be delivered. For example, sometimes the desired output is high optical quality...but at other times, the key dattribute isn't image quality, but timeliness of delivery. Its a classical example of the hazards of making assumptions.


-hh

 

[-hh]

There is no such thing as a great camera. Today's great camera will be mediocre in 5 years. The camera didn't get worse --- our standards get higher with advances in digital technology.

Context is always a necessary dimension.


For example, I've been procrastinating my move from film to digital for my Undewater camera system. Part of the reason is cost:


Body
- either 'free' (existing Canon 20D dSLR),
... or $2K to upgrade today to a Canon 5D
... or $3K to upgrade in 6 months to a Canon 5D "Mk2"

Lens
- either $600-$1000 for a EF-S mount for my existing 20D
... or maybe 'free' if I buy one of the above 5D's? Or maybe not.

Housing
- going cheap: $1600 for the Ikelite

Housing Port
- IIRC, another $300 each. Will get just one to start

Strobes
- 2 * $500 each = $1000 to upgrade my existing SS-200's to DS-200's
... or $1300 to buy two DS-125's instead; hopefully sell the SS-200s

Strobe Arms
- $200 for basic
... or $500 if I go up to Ultra-lite

... as the above roughly sums to $4K - $6k. Part of the reason why I've been procrastinating is because I'm waiting for the 5D "Mk2".


Of course, I could alternatively take a digital point&shoot for $200, buy the OEM's housing for another $150 and go play.

... and I've already done this. Here's a not-uncommon result:

(note that it was slightly out of frame due to shutter lag, and lack of a wide angle lens. Its color balance has also been heavily abused in Photoshop post-processing, to compensate for inadequate strobe)

Now one might be satisfied with this level of performance...

...perhaps until you see what I've been getting with film. For comparison, here's a flatbed digital scan of one of my 35mm slides from the same dive trip:

YMMV, but I can see a huuuuuuuge difference. And FYI, I believe that this was literally the same Hawksbill turtle in both photos.


-hh

 

[Xfujinon]

For under 500, you can't go wrong with the Canon S series Powershots.

I have an S2 IS and I have made some excellent shots with it; they gave me a job over another guy at my school who had a D80, some lenses, flashes, etc etc.

The zoom range on the S5 IS (newest model) is excellent, SD storage is cheap as hell, it has the option for extender lenses (I've never needed them), and takes AA batteries, which are dirt cheap to buy. net price on a brand new S5 IS is around 380 bucks, leaving you PLENTY for an SD card, batteries, and a bag.

I have moved to a 40D as my main toy now, but the S2 remains a competent and functional backup for my wife. I've shot more than 50,000 frames on it, and it still chugs along.

Carry it everywhere, experiment and practice.

 

[yeroen]

Strictly speaking, if you want a "professional" camera for under $500, then you should also consider a used Medium Format film camera. Even a beater can give you an image quality far surpassing that of 35mm (or smaller) digital.

 

[glennyboiwpg]

Sorry if I offended you. That's certainly not my intention. I will admit that I get frustrated with people throwing around the term "professional" so much. I was simply trying to make it clear that there is a difference between professional and consumer cameras.
As far as being able to tell a 20x24 wall portrait produced from a 12mp camera vs a 6mp camera...I most certainly can. I print wall portraits all the time and there IS a difference. I guess not everyone has the same standard of "quality".
With that said, I would also admit that non-pro's probably won't be printing wall portraits so you'll never notice the difference. In which case, buy the best camera you can and you'll probably be happy.
I am curious...at what point do you think image quality topped out for digital? You really don't think the image quality is better on a current top end model than on a 10D?

I am in the same boat as thread starter.

I am someone who loves photography and am now thinking of getting into the DSLR market. I'm also looking at the Canon Rebel series. ( a new version XSi is comming out soon)

My thought is this: right now I am learning so i'll get a lower end DSLR. During the time I use this camera I can get lens for it. IF at some point in time I feel my creativity is being limited by the quaulity of the camera, then I can simply get a new dlsr and at that time my lens should be compatible?

So why wouldn't someone in the thread starter's postion get a rebel camera? 5 years down the road if he feels that his skills have outgrown the camera, he can then spring for a new camera at that time, and at that time he will continue to grow accordingly.


What is wrong with that?

 

[jtblueberry]

I am in the same boat as thread starter.

I am someone who loves photography and am now thinking of getting into the DSLR market. I'm also looking at the Canon Rebel series. ( a new version XSi is comming out soon)

My thought is this: right now I am learning so i'll get a lower end DSLR. During the time I use this camera I can get lens for it. IF at some point in time I feel my creativity is being limited by the quaulity of the camera, then I can simply get a new dlsr and at that time my lens should be compatible?

So why wouldn't someone in the thread starter's postion get a rebel camera? 5 years down the road if he feels that his skills have outgrown the camera, he can then spring for a new camera at that time, and at that time he will continue to grow accordingly.


What is wrong with that?

Nothing at all. I agree with everything you said.

This is a quote of mine from earlier in this thread: "...get the best camera you can afford, which sounds like a rebel xti or similar nikon. Make your decision based on what future lenses you want."

 

[termina3]

Strictly speaking, if you want a "professional" camera for under $500, then you should also consider a used Medium Format film camera. Even a beater can give you an image quality far surpassing that of 35mm (or smaller) digital.

...I'm always interested to see that so few people suggest MF and LF cameras. They're expensive (cumbersome? wouldn't know--I'm inexperienced), but even when the sky's the limit people are stuck with Nikon and Canon... what happened to Leica? Hasselblad?

 

[compuwar]

...I'm always interested to see that so few people suggest MF and LF cameras. They're expensive (cumbersome? wouldn't know--I'm inexperienced), but even when the sky's the limit people are stuck with Nikon and Canon... what happened to Leica? Hasselblad?

Leica's not really a good suggestion outside of its niche. Most people here don't have the discipline to haul a good-sized tripod around (read all the tripod threads) which is mandatory with most LF and a really good idea for many MF systems. At the moment, MF digital is great for studio work, but only so-so for field work. LF is pretty-much stuck to landscapes and architecture if you're using a scanning back. In either case, you'll be pretty-much stuck to 100-200 ISO, not much of a deal for those of us who stuck to 2 or 3 film stocks in LF land, but few these days seem ready to trade much convenience for craft (look at all the IS/VR handheld threads both here and on DPR.)

MF, and especially LF carry a higher level of commitment outside the studio, where you're hauling lots of gear, waiting for the right light...

The newer digital blads are nice, but let's face it, in bang for buck terms, they're only good if you're consistently printing 50"+ prints.

 

[Whorehay]

Maybe it's this camera.

People seem to the like the Nikon D3 a lot.

 

[-hh]

... people here don't have the discipline to haul a good-sized tripod around (read all the tripod threads) which is mandatory with most LF and a really good idea for many MF systems. ..

MF, and especially LF carry a higher level of commitment outside the studio, where you're hauling lots of gear, waiting for the right light...

The newer digital blads are nice, but let's face it, in bang for buck terms, they're only good if you're consistently printing 50"+ prints.

I had experimented with MF by renting a Mamiya 645 for a couple of 'big' trips several years ago (pre-digital). In general, I found the images to be great, but with only 12 images per roll of 120 film, the cost per shot is much higher than 35mm film, so you did need to be more purposeful in the composition of your shots (unless you're made out of money), which brings us back around to the issue of 'commitment' to the craft.

In going the next step to LF ... and I've thought about it ... its degree of commitment is probably best revealed by watching others. I can recall watching this on a visit to 'Artist's Point' in Yellowstone Canyon -- some of the guys who were set up there with their LF rigs and just standing around talking. None of them took a single photograph in over an hour, because the lighting wasn't right yet...so they were simply waiting for the light. I can't really recall what time of day this was, but I want to say it was mid- to late- afternoon. In hindsight (from years later) my thoughts today are that by the time we left, they probably still had at least a half hour until they were likely to start to see decent "late afternoon slanting sun angles" illuminating the canyon, which would probably be for an hour (if they appeared at all) before the classical "Golden Hour" that brackets sunset.


-hh

 

[frood02]

I think digital crop cameras are preferable to medium and large format film cameras for most people. The convenience outweighs the quality.

Also, aren't the lenses much more expensive because they have to project larger images? I thought hasselblad lenses cost around 3K apiece.

Leica rangefinders are legendary, though I've heard mixed reviews of the digtial M8.
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/02/leica-m8-customer-service-mis-steps.html