Justify A Pro Body

CaptainPenguin

CaptainPenguin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,161
Name
Nigel Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
Just here to play Devil's Advocate this morning but i was reading a review of the Pentax KX this morning and it made me think that these one above entry level bodies seem to have it all so how can we justify buying a Pro or Semi Pro body.Now obviously I exclude Pro Togs from this question because they need the likes of a D3 or 1D as a work tool but for the true amateurs amongst us what technically can we get from a high end body that the mid range amateur body will not give us.
Now i admit that if finance were no object then I would be buying a top end body but I would still find it hard to justify this any way other than I can afford it so I bought it
 
If you are doing landscape, often only uses F/11 then no, a D3 won't make much a difference unless you print A1.

Mainly, a pro body can be pushed to the limit FURTHER, or put it another way, a Pro body has a bigger limit in terms of getting a shot, whether it is low level light work, or the number of shots it can pull off in a second.

When the situation arise, and you are at your limit, you either get the shot, or you don't. That's why people buy pro bodies, it increases the chances of getting the shot you want.
 
Raymond Lin said:
When the situation arise, and you are at your limit, you either get the shot, or you don't. That's why people buy pro bodies, it increases the chances of getting the shot you want.
Click to expand...

Very well put and sums it up in one sentence. :clap:
 
Just went from D60 to D300, there was a thread about D90 vs D300. Each camp vigorously defending their choice, but the simple answer is budget. I have held the D90 and feel the D300 was the right choice for me, the pro's use them and it wasn't that much more than the D90.
 
You cannot justify it on the basis of quality of results, or shooting potential. Very few photos taken by any photographer actually go anywhere near maxxing out what the camera can do. Most could have been shot on a compact TBH and be none the worse for it. If you look at the iconic pictures from the last century or so, very few of them relied on cutting edge technology, or even amazing photographic technique - it's more about being in the right place at the right time, with a great subject in front of your lens.

We buy expensive top-end kit for different reasons, if we're honest about it. Same as you don't buy a Ferrari to get places quicker, or a Mercedes to get there in more comfort. It's all about the pleasure of ownership, however that is manifests itself. That's a massively complex and very individual question, but very rarely is technical performance critical to the end result.

There is one major exception to this, and that is my own outfit. I absolutely need those L lenses and if I don't upgrade my 40D soon, which is clearly useless now the 7D is here, I'm never going to take a decent picture. Actually, I really need a 1DMk4 but becasue I'm sensible and don't like to spend money unnecessarily, I'll put up with a 7D ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
You cannot justify it on the basis of quality of results, or shooting potential. Very few photos taken by any photographer actually go anywhere near maxxing out what the camera can do. Most could have been shot on a compact TBH and be none the worse for it. If you look at the iconic pictures from the last century or so, very few of them relied on cutting edge technology, or even amazing photographic technique - it's more about being in the right place at the right time, with a great subject in front of your lens.

We buy expensive top-end kit for different reasons, if we're honest about it. Same as you don't buy a Ferrari to get places quicker, or a Mercedes to get there in more comfort. It's all about the pleasure of ownership, however that is manifests itself. That's a massively complex and very individual question, but very rarely is technical performance critical to the end result.

There is one major exception to this, and that is my own outfit. I absolutely need those L lenses and if I don't upgrade my 40D soon, which is clearly useless now the 7D is here, I'm never going to take a decent picture. Actually, I really need a 1DMk4 but becasue I'm sensible and don't like to spend money unnecessarily, I'll put up with a 7D ;)
Click to expand...

Nice reply Hoppy I think you have hit the nail on the head
 
Have used a Nikon F4s since around 1997 (that I actually bought secondhand) and used it for over a decade I've finally had to upgrade my camera and I bought a D300s, though no doubt some would prefer a D3s over that.

I was thinking of opting for a D90 but the build quality just didn't feel quite the same especially after having something that was so heavy and solid. I guess when it boils down to it you want the best you can afford no matter what anyone else thinks or says to you.
 
Those who buy them without needing them keep the price down for those of us who actually do need them :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
When the situation arise, and you are at your limit, you either get the shot, or you don't. That's why people buy pro bodies, it increases the chances of getting the shot you want.
Click to expand...

Sums it up to perfection.
 
I'm just about to start moving into paid photography work and am getting a fair bit of publicity in the next couple of months - so I've just bought a 5D MkII to replace my 500D.

The reason I went for the 5D instead of the 50D or 40D is that if I'm going to be doing this seriously then I want the best kit I can get and something that won't need changing for a very long time. :)
 
Nick T said:
I'm just about to start moving into paid photography work and am getting a fair bit of publicity in the next couple of months - so I've just bought a 5D MkII to replace my 500D.

The reason I went for the 5D instead of the 50D or 40D is that if I'm going to be doing this seriously then I want the best kit I can get and something that won't need changing for a very long time. :)
Click to expand...

Yes but you are now going to be a pro or semi pro so the question does not apply as its true amateurs buying pro or semi pro kit that I am interested if their reasoning
 
From a keen amateur point of view -

One thing to think about - If you decide to treat yourself the next time you buy a body, and you go pro, we're talking £3000-£4000. Now we like to upgrade our cameras every couple of years (maybe sooner for some). So 2 years down the line, you're gonna have to cough up another £3000-£4000, for another pro body, 'cos you're not going to want to 'downgrade', after using such a neat camera.

Sure you can sell the old one, but then that's the case for any level of camera. But we're still talking bigger numbers.

I've just bought a D300s, and I came from a D200 which did a magnificent job for me, so happy to stay at the 'semi pro' level. :D
 
hmmmm...an interesting question that.

My own ascension up the scale has purely been technology driven. I started with a compact many, many years ago. When I was about 16 I went for a Pentax ME Super as I wanted the control and aperture priority with manual over-ride was my hearts desire. I didn't upgrade from that untill I went for an EOS3, but what I did do was spend a lot of money on the best glass I could afford.

When I got the EOS3 I started out on a new trail, kitting myself out with the best glass for that. In the early days I used the high end of the Tamron, Sigma, Tokina lenses, I couldn't afford "L" glass.

When Canon bought out the D30 I was one of the first to have one, DSLR seemed the way to go. That was quickly usurped by the D60, then the 10D. I stuck with the 10D until the 30D came out, only recently upgrading to the 5D for the benefit of full fram, but that move has been largely ego driven.

My ego would love a full frame 1D but my wallet says no. For the event shooting that I do there is no benefit to it. To be honest, the 10D was good enough as I only print to 9x6. Money is better spent on software, faster printers, memory and faster processors.

A few friends keep upgrading their bodies but never the glass. None of them use filters, only one has learned photoshop beyond the basic skills. They all hanker after the quality of the images I print out but when it comes to upgrading, they prefer the more obvious, visual upgrade that body-lust brings rather than focussing on the upgrades that give a better quality finished image.

The one thing I would love to upgrade is my ability to "see" a photo before it is taken. I know how to PP, I have good printers and lenses and I know the "rules" of photography. I just don't have a photographers eye!

32 years of capturing images and I still need to develop the ability to take a photo!
 
I shoot professionally but use a D200 - it does the job, Nikon calls it a 'pro' body and it looks and feels the part when I use it so for the moment, I'm happy. I don't need a D3 variant, although I would like one - budget still plays a massive part in the equipment I use and seeing as I'm buying my own kit, I have to be able to justify what i can get out of my current kit as opposed to a body that's three or even four times as much. I get results out of my D200 that the editors I work for are happy with but it's the lenses and flashes I use that allow me to get killer shots and that's where my money goes.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I prefer larger, gripped bodies, which is why I'm on the hunt for a D2x/s but despite my ego saying go for it, there's no way on earth I'd stretch to buying a newer pro model like a D3. A D700 would probably be the limit for me, and a D300s is probably the most affordable new camera I could get that gives me what i want.... but those lattert wo still need a grip adding.

I'm not totally alongside this point of view that a pro body will get you the shot when it maters; it still comes down to the photographer knowing how to use their kit correctly – you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear after all – and on this site there are a lot of people who have pro kit but are way off having a 'pro-level' skill base. Whether they grow into their camera is up to them to make that decision, I won't be judge and jury on that one.

Hoppy is pretty much spot-on; how many of us actually push out gear to its absolute limit? The highest ISO I've shot for a job is 1000 and the results were okay, but I should have gone all the way up to HI1 (3200) to really test the camera but in reality, results would have been pooh. Lenses we push all the time - we all seem to love shooting at max aperture - but we are a bit afraid of pushing sensor tech to its limit because we know, in our heart of hearts, that the results will rarely be useable....
 
It's been pretty much answered but I'll add my view as well. I'm currently pushing my D60 to its limits to be honest. I regularly shoot at 800 - 1600 iso but the noise is just getting too much. Comparing a D300 (next on my list to buy) the results are just much cleaner and sharper.

Also, I'm relying on a lens to focus for me (D60 does not have an on body motor) and my most used range is 18-55. Quite frankly, the 18-55s focussing speed is pretty dismal.

Next on the list, 3 focus points is annoying the bejaysus out of me! I am constantly focusing then composing. With the D300s 51 focus points I can throw that on its head.

Finally, I do quite a bit of long exposures. But as soon as you creep over the 100 second mark on a D60 you get a purple vignetting on the photo due to sensor over heating.

I think some amatures do outgrow some cameras. I know that 99% of the photos people take are in adequate light, don't require anything overly special, etc, but it's the other 1% of the time that justify the upgrade.
 
specialman said:
Hoppy is pretty much spot-on; how many of us actually push out gear to its absolute limit? The highest ISO I've shot for a job is 1000 and the results were okay, but I should have gone all the way up to HI1 (3200) to really test the camera but in reality, results would have been pooh. Lenses we push all the time*–*we all seem to love shooting at max aperture - but we are a bit afraid of pushing sensor tech to its limit because we know, in our heart of hearts, that the results will rarely be useable....
Click to expand...

I don't think the fact that hardly any of us max out our kit is any reason why we shouldn't buy it, or lust after the next great useless innovation. I do it all the time and buy stuff that I like and want, rather than need. Photography is a pleasureable hobby, so I might as well enjoy it. I also have a an expensive mechanical watch that keeps rather poor time, and a car with a ridiculously big engine that goes too fast and uses far too much fuel. But it sounds fantastic :D

Professionals are different. For them, if their camera has an extra stop of low noise ISO, or their lens has more reach or lower f/number than the guy standing next to them, they will earn and he won't.

And I'd also make an excuse for the birders and other long lens shooters on here. Those guys really need the absolute best of everything and I think that it's true to say that for them, if they can get hold of a better camera or a longer, faster, sharper lens, then the result will be immediately evident in their pictures.
 
although this is my hobby therefor, what i spend on my camera is only as much as i can afford. if i could afford a D3 i would have one,lots of people buy what they can afford, but its about priorities i would like a maclaren mercedes slr :eek: but might be just out of my price range. why have i got a D300? because it,s a damn site better than the D50 i had when i first went digital better resolution, functions, etc. my lens range is currently crap but thats next on the list and will improve next year along with the sharpness of some of my shots :D

just my 2p worth
 
Not sure I'm the best person to answer this :lol:

I go through cameras faster than I do socks...

In a way I really admire those who still shoot film on their old cameras. Did people fuss as much about the gadgets in the film days?

Whilst we may have all the latest gadgets to help our photography I think this probably is just as big a negative as it is a positive.

Pickup an old pro film camera for £500 on the bay and you're done, you'll never have to upgrade again.


..
 
I decided I needed a new body when I was trying to take photos of my dogs running towards me while using my 20D,The AF and FPS just weren't quick enough and as a Result I did some crazy selling and funded a 1D MKII,Delighted with it..But(there's always a but) I really miss the 1.6 crop factor(The 1D is 1.3) as my 200mm lens just wasn't long enough and even with a 1.4 tc is still quite short!But It's just an excuse to save for a better lens :lol:
 
specialman said:
........it still comes down to the photographer knowing how to use their kit correctly – you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear after all ......
Click to expand...

sheddy said:
...........The one thing I would love to upgrade is my ability to "see" a photo before it is taken. I know how to PP, I have good printers and lenses and I know the "rules" of photography. I just don't have a photographers eye!
..............I still need to develop the ability to take a photo!
Click to expand...

I have selected (and edited) a couple of posts as they really sum up how I feel too. I can most certainly justify an upgrade to myself, and almost parted with cash very recently, but a little voice of guilty conscience held me back....am I really using my current camera to its max? Am I pushing it as hard as I could/should if I really knew what I was doing?

Sheddy has hit the nail on the head......I just don't seem to have the eye yet. If I'm being really honest my images are ok, but nothing special and a better camera won't improve things. My other half says that when I have "the eye" part sussed I could, maybe, justify an upgrade. He is of the opinion that I am being dazzled by advertisers hype and that I want one rather than need one. I suppose he is right....my 40D is a perfectly good camera for 95% of what I use it for and if I get a 5d mkll now, won't I wish, when the mklll eventually arrives as it is sure to do, that I had one of those instead?
 
I use a pro/semipro body not for the camera performance but the weathersealing and reliability, i often shoot in snow and freezing conditions so i need a camera i can pretty much chuck into the snow and pick up again and expect it to work
 
photostar_1 said:
I have selected (and edited) a couple of posts as they really sum up how I feel too. I can most certainly justify an upgrade to myself, and almost parted with cash very recently, but a little voice of guilty conscience held me back....am I really using my current camera to its max? Am I pushing it as hard as I could/should if I really knew what I was doing?

Sheddy has hit the nail on the head......I just don't seem to have the eye yet. If I'm being really honest my images are ok, but nothing special and a better camera won't improve things. My other half says that when I have "the eye" part sussed I could, maybe, justify an upgrade. He is of the opinion that I am being dazzled by advertisers hype and that I want one rather than need one. I suppose he is right....my 40D is a perfectly good camera for 95% of what I use it for and if I get a 5d mkll now, won't I wish, when the mklll eventually arrives as it is sure to do, that I had one of those instead?
Click to expand...

I don't any problem with advertisers' hype. That is just plausible lies which are useful only to convince the other half. I know the truth, and the truth is I just want a new toy.

What is wrong with that? Trying to logic everything as a justification for purchase is madness. It doesn't work. The watch I mentioned above - it's for telling the time isn't it? Well no, actually it's much more than that. Don't ask me why I like it, all sorts of reasons mainly sentimental, but I like it. My car is not just for getting around in either. As it happens I have a little hire car right now and very efficient it is too, but I don't enjoy driving it at all.

Why do women buy shoes and handbags? They cannot possibly need them. And here's a good one, women's fancy underwear! Steady on now chaps, this is a serious point. Women buy expensive underwear, that nobody ever sees (mostly :naughty:) ), that they can't even see themselves, that doesn't feel any different to non-lacey/frilly underwear except that it might be a bit uncomfortable, yet it makes them feel good about themselves, especially if it's red or black. Makes me feel pretty good about them too, so that's sorted then :D

Cameras and knickers. All the same thing :lol:
 
gingerweasel said:
Not sure I'm the best person to answer this :lol:

In a way I really admire those who still shoot film on their old cameras. Did people fuss as much about the gadgets in the film days?

..
Click to expand...

Yes - at least Amateurs did.

As a pro 'tog n those days every purchase had to be justified in terms of extra profit.

My kit was relatively simple:

Ricoh Singlex (with, I believe an f1.8 lens) for weddings, and a Mamiya C2 with the standard 105mm lens for portraits and child photography etc.

A mecablitz 502 flashgun with an extra 6v LEAD ACID battery.

Camera bag to hold it all.

Mostly used Tri-X pan film.

Of course there was also the darkroom equipment and a hot press for mounting prints.

Thank God for Digital!
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Yes but you are now going to be a pro or semi pro so the question does not apply as its true amateurs buying pro or semi pro kit that I am interested if their reasoning
Click to expand...

That's a bit unfair. I am totally amateur at the moment. I've been 'togging' for just gone 12 months now and I'm buying a 5DMKII in the hope that a gamble pays off. If it doesn't I'll still be an amateur with a semi-pro body.

You asked for justifications from amateurs, that's mine :thumbs:
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Yes but you are now going to be a pro or semi pro so the question does not apply as its true amateurs buying pro or semi pro kit that I am interested if their reasoning
Click to expand...
I can see the need for a keen amateur getting something better. The main difference to me it entry ones are very plastic where as your mid range are metal so if you into wildlife and getting out in the rough of it you want something that will take a few knocks…
 
If you want it and you can afford it why do you have to justify anything? :thinking:

If the kids are dragging to school with holes in their shoes to fund your hobby that would be a different matter.

If 'er indoors only has two pairs of knickers - one on and one in the wash, well how many pairs does she need anyway? :D
 
CT said:
If you want it and you can afford it why do you have to justify anything? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I go with that one, i use a Pro body and have some good lenses. Do i need them probably not, i actually find the pro bodys the easiest to use, i like the ruggedness and the weather proofing. And at the end of the day its my money i'll buy what i want.
 
Nick T said:
That's a bit unfair. I am totally amateur at the moment. I've been 'togging' for just gone 12 months now and I'm buying a 5DMKII in the hope that a gamble pays off. If it doesn't I'll still be an amateur with a semi-pro body.

You asked for justifications from amateurs, that's mine :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as yourself mate.Looking at buying a 5D MARK II at the moment.But will not regret the purchase one bit...;)
 
Oli R C said:
From a keen amateur point of view -

One thing to think about - If you decide to treat yourself the next time you buy a body, and you go pro, we're talking £3000-£4000. Now we like to upgrade our cameras every couple of years (maybe sooner for some). So 2 years down the line, you're gonna have to cough up another £3000-£4000, for another pro body, 'cos you're not going to want to 'downgrade', after using such a neat camera.

Sure you can sell the old one, but then that's the case for any level of camera. But we're still talking bigger numbers.

I've just bought a D300s, and I came from a D200 which did a magnificent job for me, so happy to stay at the 'semi pro' level. :D
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case. You can quite easily skip a generation of camera with the pro level, there are still pro sports photographers using the 1D Mark II (I do believe last years Olympics were mostly shot with them!) despite the Mark IV being on our doorstep.

A pro body can last 3-5 years easily!
 
purpleclouds said:
I don't think this is the case. You can quite easily skip a generation of camera with the pro level, there are still pro sports photographers using the 1D Mark II (I do believe last years Olympics were mostly shot with them!) despite the Mark IV being on our doorstep.

A pro body can last 3-5 years easily!
Click to expand...

Yeah, they can certainly last that long. And I sort of skipped a generation going from the D200 to the D300s (the plan was to always miss out the D300), but that is still only been about 2 years. The only reason I upgraded was 'cos the D200 started having AF issues, which I'd rather not have put money into getting fixed.

But I'm going from the view that people always want the newer model, and don't see through the full life of their current model.

And anyway, I thought we were talking about amateurs...
 
Oli R C said:
Yeah, they can certainly last that long. And I sort of skipped a generation going from the D200 to the D300s (the plan was to always miss out the D300), but that is still only been about 2 years. The only reason I upgraded was 'cos the D200 started having AF issues, which I'd rather not have put money into getting fixed.

But I'm going from the view that people always want the newer model, and don't see through the full life of their current model.

And anyway, I thought we were talking about amateurs...
Click to expand...

Is the D200/300 a pro body? :shrug:

We are talking about amateurs justifying a pro body!
 
specialman said:
Yes it is. Nikon's 'pro' range includes the DXXX and DX bodies :)
Click to expand...

I thought it was along the same lines as the Canon 40/50D which I believe are classed as 'semi-pro' but fair enough :)

The reason being is that they are not as substantially built as the D3/1D range and lack weatherproofing, ISO performance and so on and so forth! Although I'll admit that I'm not entirely aware of the DXXX ranges specifications and IQ!
 
purpleclouds said:
I thought it was along the same lines as the Canon 40/50D which I believe are classed as 'semi-pro' but fair enough :)

The reason being is that they are not as substantially built as the D3/1D range and lack weatherproofing, ISO performance and so on and so forth! Although I'll admit that I'm not entirely aware of the DXXX ranges specifications and IQ!
Click to expand...

They're definitely semi pro
 
Because I wanted one! There justified :)
 
Oli R C said:
I can't justify a pro body. That is my point!
Click to expand...

I know, but I was making the point that pro bodies do not need to upgraded every 2 years to keep up with the latest technology.. as they're generally a step ahead in terms of IQ, therefore have twice the life time.

To buy, for example, 2 generations of the 7D range would have set you back over £3k (at the time of release) over 4-5 years. Whereas a 1D III would have cost only a little bit more... and lasted the same time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top