On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:04:32 -0500, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:01:09 -0500, Larry Cook > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> What makes a camera a "Pro" camera? Is it the > > construction? Particular features? The lenses? Accessories? The people > > that use them? The mythos associated with a camera? The price? The label > > the manufacturer applies? So, how does one distinguish a pro camera from > > a non-pro camera? The amount the camera charges for its services????<snip> > > Yes, all of the above...
But seriously, Larry, the answer would be "a camera used by a professional photographer to make money is a pro camera", but that only begs the question "what makes a pro photographer?" doesn't it? I missed an exhibit here in Toronto last month of Lomographs. If the persons who took them are professionals, does that make a Lomo a pro camera? If a pro who derives 100% of his income from photography, and who normally uses a Canon DSLR takes a toy camera and uses that to take photos for an exhibition, does that make the toy camera a pro camera? Perhaps I'm using absurd examples to make a point, but I think you'll find as many answers to your question as there are members of this august body we call PDML. A pro camera can be anything from 8x10 view cameras, Pentax 67's, any number of 645 SLR's, any number of top of the line DSLR's, any number of flagship 35mm SLR's, Leica M-series rangefinders and lots of cameras that I'm leaving out that professionals use. I will say, perhaps you missed one thing - service. Some companies (like Canon) provide it to pros and others (like Pentax) maybe not so much. I could go on, but I'll give someone else a chance to say a few words, and to trash everything I've said... <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
