On 16/11/04, Larry Cook, discombobulated, unleashed: >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????
I was working outside a court this morning, filming for TV news (former high ranking police officer charged with scores of indecent images of children on his computer). There were 2 stills photographers there, both had Canon 10Ds with battery grips, flashes and 70-200 zooms, one a Sigma, one a Canon. They were getting paid for their pics, both by national daily newspapers. The cameras are both middle spec gear, not what I would call 'pro-spec'. At the weekend I shoot pics that I do not get paid for and I use a 1D, which is considered a pro spec camera. Go figure. A camera is 'pro' if it makes money for its user. To what extent the manufacturer of that camera supports its users will help determine if said users get paid for taking their pictures, or not. .02, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
