Pro DSLR vs. Non-Pro

[stickman.walks]

Lost in a sea of thought.

The person 'makes' the photo, not the camera. The particular camera may have a certain feature set which makes it more/less easier to get the photo you want, but am curious how anyone deciphers which camera is right and which is overkill.

There are average Joe`s who have the money to buy an $8000 DLSR body and professionals who uses $500 DSLR cameras or slow, cheap lenses, etc. And every extreme from one end to the other.

I know there is an element of what you desire/want vs. what you can actually afford, and it`s easy to pick the most expensive toy you can manage. But in making an informed decision - say picking a DSLR body - how is one to ever decide what to buy when you can simply say that an unknown photographer such as myself could by a Nikon D3 and take crappy photos and a top known pro can use a Canon G3 and take beautiful photos.

Where can you draw the line and actually make a smart decision? I would like to have a Nikon D700, for example. But what is the point if I can take the same pictures with the D7000? Or with an even cheaper model? And same with the lenses, fast vs. slower...

My main shooting style is more of wandering around a town, city, location and discovering things that catch my eye. I imagine myself more doing exhibition work with my photos than anything else. Though who`s to say that down the road I don`t fall in love with fashion photography. But the point being, people usually make do with what they have or can afford. And with Pro`s using expensive gear but also 'cheap' gear, too - there really seems to be no rule to follow.

So how to decide?

 

[analog.universe]

My take is..

If you're taking photos for enjoyment, then buy the camera that you can afford that you will most enjoy using. That's the one that best serves your goal, having fun.

If you're taking photos professionally and getting paid, then you buy the camera that lets you get the most done and is least likely to fail on you. It doesn't even have to be the highest quality for professional work if the work doesn't demand it. You don't need a 1Ds to shoot .5mpix product photos for the web, no matter how much you're getting paid.

You're right, I don't think there are rules to follow. Every piece of gear was designed with certain considerations in mind, and each will be more or less suited to different people.

 

[Josh66]

I would like to have a Nikon D700, for example. But what is the point if I can take the same pictures with the D7000? Or with an even cheaper model? And same with the lenses, fast vs. slower...

"Pro" bodies are usually easier to work with. Yes, for the most part you can do anything on a entry level body that you can do on a pro body, but the task will be much easier with the more advanced body.


Some of the added features you may find on a 'pro' body:

Higher frame rate
Multiple memory card slots
Separate wheels for aperture and shutter speed
Grip with a whole other set of controls
More and better AF points
Larger, brighter viewfinder
Faster x-sync speed
Somewhere to plug a sync cord in
Better build quality
Weather sealing

I could go on...

If any of those things are 'must-have' features for you, that is why you might buy the pro body instead of the cheaper one.

For lenses, again - it's more than just the extra 2/3 of a stop or whatever it might be.

...Better build quality, more and rounder aperture blades (=better bokeh), metal mount instead of plastic, larger wide open aperture - making your viewfinder brighter, better lens coatings, etc...

 

[Dao]

Once you find limitations of your current camera, a pro grade body maybe the answer. Until then, they are about the same.

 

[Derrel]

It's hard to describe how easy the instant response of a pro-level Nikon body makes almost everything easier. The viewfinders are larger, and sharper, and clearer, and they have greater eye relief, so eyeglass wearers can usually see ALL the way to the corners of the image with the BIG and ROUND (both are critical) viewfinder eyepiece lenses; not those little POS squared-off finder eyepieces in so many amateur cameras, but a big, pro-grade eyepiece that lets you see, not estimate, not guesstimate, what the camera is framing.

The incredibly fast shutter release, the fast mirror blackout time, and the incredibly fast mirror return times of the pro-level Nikon bodies mean that it's easier to see a picture, and react to it without the need for a long "anticipation" time; a slow, cheap body camera like a Canon 5D (cheap sub-systems, sluggish mirror, long shutter delay and a camera I own and shoot a lot!) or a Nikon D70 mean that, for example, in college football, when an extra point is kicked, you need to press the shutter release right as the kicker's leg is going BACKWARD....and then the mirror slops upward, and then the shutter decides to start moving across the film plane. That is absolutely NOT the way a 1-digit Canon or Nikon pro body fires...you do not need to anticipate the action by nearly as much time...you can actually WATCH what is happening and then trigger the shot very,very close to the time you think you need to. If you turn the image review OFF on a Nikon D2x, you can shave another 10-12 or so milliseconds off of the shutter lag time, which is weird, making the cameras basically the quickest-responding d-slr on the market. The D2x shutter lag time is around 27 milliseconds with the image review turned off,and around 37 milliseconds with it left on. A D200 is around 50 milliseconds. A Rebel XTi is around a 100 millisecond lag time. (see CameraCompatibility6)

One has to also add the MIRROR's blackout time, to arrive at what one calls the "latency time", or the time between shooting a shot, and being able to resume viewing and have the AF system resume focus; the AF systems in 99% of d-slrs can only autofocus when the mirror is in the down, or viewing position. We're not talking about frames per second here, but how fast the camera "responds" both to making a photo, and in getting ready to take the next picture. I shot both the Nikon FE-2 and Nikon F3-HP for around 15 years straight...LOVED the camera...but always shot better with the NIkon F3...I now realize that the FE-2's shutter lag time was pathetically slow, at 128 milliseconds, while the old Nikon F3's was 55 milliseconds. I always knew that I shot better with the F3HP, with its special High Eyepoint viewfinder, than I did with the FE-2 and its squinty, smaller, "amateur" viewfinder. I wear glasses. Have for years. Being able to see through the camera better, and having a faster-responding camera are the two biggest advantages the "pro" cameras have over the lower cost bodies.

 

[Josh66]

The D2x shutter lag time is around 27 milliseconds with the image review turned off,and around 37 milliseconds with it left on. A D200 is around 50 milliseconds. A Rebel XTi is around a 100 millisecond lag time. (see CameraCompatibility6)

WooHoo! My main camera is right at the top of that chart. 1N RS - 6 millisecond shutter lag in RS mode (the only real downside to RS mode is that you can't use AI Servo AF - One Shot only...), and zero mirror blackout.

I think I might actually get one of those triggers...

 

[Camera Man]

First and foremost you need to decide what you are going to be using the camera for. Is it for just everyday activity shooting or an all out sunset landscape. Once you decide on the type of shots you may be looking for then you will need to figure out the frequency you wish to shoot at, an occasional portrait shot or landscape or even a fast pace sports shot. These are the first two things you need to take into consideration. From there you can begin to look at the beginner to intermediate cameras such as the Nikon D5000, D300s or Canon 60D, or the Canon Rebel series these cameras take exceptional photos for those users just getting started looking for something to learn with. If your looking for a heavy duty pro grade then you will want to check out the main differences between the D7000 and D700 which you can find on a review page such as Best Camera for Photography - Best Camera for photography both of these cameras are amazing I also like the Pentax K-5 and the Canon 1D mark IV.
To really figure it out first what will you be shooting then how often then your style/ preference and last is your price don't waste money if you don't have to.

 

[AUG19]

I think you need to explore your own motivations. In truth, are you wanting the more sophisticated, 'cooler' looking camera to look the part according to the attitudes of (real or imaginary) others/feel the part in your own mind. What counts is the pictures. What counts (non-commercially) is how you feel about your own pictures - or commercially if virtually every client voices frank concerns about the technical quality of your product. Professional camera systems really are more capable, higher spec and using their capabilities to the fullest will result in better results c/w a pocket compact. If you need or benefit from those differences, then get or aspire to get that tool.

Where can you draw the line and actually make a smart decision? I would like to have a Nikon D700, for example. But what is the point if I can take the same pictures with the D7000? Or with an even cheaper model? And same with the lenses, fast vs. slower...

My main shooting style is more of wandering around a town, city, location and discovering things that catch my eye. I imagine myself more doing exhibition work with my photos than anything else. Though who`s to say that down the road I don`t fall in love with fashion photography. But the point being, people usually make do with what they have or can afford. And with Pro`s using expensive gear but also 'cheap' gear, too - there really seems to be no rule to follow.

So how to decide?

Edit: IMO, don't confuse 'pro' with 'new'. A pro spec tool can be old and still conform to a base-line capability and level of quality (and exceed it!). It just won't be cutting-edge which, at any moment in time, is only a minority group within 'pro'..not necesarilly at the top, in terms of quality either.