I guess the market places decides if this or that camera becomes a pro camera. Nikon made it initially by making (cheap) M39 lenses for Leica bodies at first. A famous test published in the NY Times showed that the Nikon lense (50mm f1.5 AFAIR) was superior to the copied Zeiss lens. Later Nikon almost gave away cameras to photo journalists all over the world.
Anyway, when a manufacturor manages to meet the demands of professinal photgrapher, this camera becomes a pro camera. This has been done many times. Nikon F2, Nikon F4, Cannon Eos 1, Pentax 6x7, Mamiya 67, Hasselblad 500 etc. etc. The demand may vary from time to time. Today it's probably a 6-14MP (Nikon, Canon, Kodak) digital camera and some MF cameras with Imacon backs (Hasselblad , Rollei). I guess some of the qualities are: Durability, availability, fast repair service, versatility, high quality/state of the art technology (lenses and body) and reasonable price tags. Pentax *ist D is not a pro camera because of the limited amount of available, dedicated lenses and the relativly slow AF and limited image buffer (fps), no IS lenses etc. If my (economic) life depended on photography, I'd probably into Canon stuff, giving me state of the art technology, IS lenses, fast AF, brilliant image quality. But I'm not a pro, so I use Pentax. I always liked NOT to go where the majoriry went. And I like the user interface philosofy of Pentax cameras. The top models have the features of the pro cameras, but at a reasonable price and they still offers a wide range of quality lenses - even 40 years old ones. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Larry Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 01:01 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: What make a camera a pro camera? I was reading through some posts on one of the Pentax forums that I follow and ran across a remark about Pentax not making any "Pro" cameras. At the time I thought to myself, "OK, I'm not a pro, so what? I like what I have, a *istD, so what the hey?!?" Then I began thinking (always a problem when you aren't used to doing a thing...) about it and I found myself wondering, 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???? Just thought I would ask and it is a serious question, more or less. It is serious in that I am curious. It is not that serious in that nothing important hinges on the answer.... Larry Cook
