<sigh> I just love it when this thread comes around again. I get to find out about all the deficiencies in cameras that I always thought of as good enough, and learn what dismal failures others may be, and on and on. It's fun hearing all the different opinions. However, I think that a pro photographer will use what's appropriate for his or her needs.
In a wonderful little book the Bob W mentions frequently, On Being a Photographer, David Hurn, a very fine and well known pro, noted that for quite a while his mainstay 35mm SLR was a bottom of the line (read "amateur") Canon. Why? Because it offered a quiet shutter and all the features he wanted or needed except for weather sealing. He used a different camera in the rain. And, after deciding that he needed a 6x6 for a major project, he decided on an old Rolleiflex TLR and had a Hasselblad prism adapted to it. Of course, no pro worth his salt would even consider a 40yo TLR .... And while the Canons and Nikons rule, just the other day i was watching BBC news report and it was obvious that the photographer shown in the frame was using a Leica M, cans flash, for his reporting work under that circumstance. Perhaps in another situation he would use a Canon with all the bells and whistles, or perhaps a Holga. A "pro" camera, in the context of what a pro chooses to use, doesn't exist as such, IMO. There are cameras that are speced by the manufacturer as Pro cameras, but that doesn't mean that a pro will use them, or that a pro won't use something else. And, how many pros out there are using high end gear as their main body, but lots of "amateur" gear for their second and backup bodies. Some even like the pop up flash, some like older, simpler cameras, some like the lightweight plastic bodies, and some have to have some or all of the high-zoot features a designated Pro camera has. I think the idea of a pro camera has been the result of marketing as much as anything else. Look at newsreel footage from a couple of decades or so past and you'll see all sorts of cameras used by professional photogs. Then, like magic, the marketing mavens and technology entered the scene, and now in order to be competitive some professional photogs, in some fields, need certain features that are only found on the more expensive cameras. So be it. A real pro uses what's appropriate to get the job done and that which compliments his or her style of shooting. A pro camera is one the camera companies use as much to establish image as to fill a need. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/20/2004 2:08:17 PM > Subject: Re: New Guy > > > William Robb wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > >>> Pentax hasn't made a 35mm pro camera since the LX. .... > > >> > > >> > > >> PZ-1, PZ-1p. > > >> > > > > > > Not according to the definitions of the pros that I hang out with. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > and John Francis said: "Not bad, but not pro. Needs far better sealing, for > a start." > > and Margus M�nnik said: > > one of our pros outlisted Z-1p because " a pro camera NEVER has built-in > > flash"... Actually, since we're talking about Pentax equipment, it's > > "pro"' enough compared to some other cameras called as such. > > > To comment on the "built-in flash" thing: Everybody seems to have his own > checklist. I recall, on another list, there was someone insisting the PZ-1 > couldn't be a pro camera because it didn't have an interchangeable prism. I > don't think *that* definition could still be sticking ... Frankly I believe > that if either Canon or Nikon marketed a camera with a built-in flash and > promoted it as a pro camera, we wouldn't hear that it was disqualified. We > might hear instead that it's a "first". (Has it happened yet? I don't keep up > with their various models any more.) > > We've established many times, including quite recently, that we cannot reach > a consensus on what makes a "pro" camera. I happen to think that if the > maker markets it as a pro camera, and some pros in fact use it on the job > and find it durable and reliable and effective, then it's a pro camera. > Having specs comparable to those of other brands of "pro" camera from the > same era would also help to make the case. This is why I consider the PZ-1 > and PZ-1p to be pro cameras. > > I'm curious about the "far better sealing" comment by Mr Francis. I was not > aware of a deficiency in the sealing on the PZ-1. > > ERN
