Justify A Pro Body

cowasaki said:
Because I wanted one! There justified :)
Click to expand...

I would say that was justified.

The only point I was making is that you are committing yourself to the more expensive long term option, unless you are willing to 'down grade' in the future. :)
 
Well ive just purchased a d2hs from here which is an older generation pro body for £350, hey you didnt say it had to be a new one :D
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
Well ive just purchased a d2hs from here which is an older generation pro body for £350, hey you didnt say it had to be a new one :D
Click to expand...

Yup you can pick up 1D MKIIs for £700, and will compete with the latest semi pro cameras! The 1D MKIII can be had for £1500.. which is less than the 7D release price!
 
CaptainPenguin said:
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
Click to expand...

The KX is a great camera, if your thinking of getting it, you should!

I have been reading many reviews about them!
 
CT said:
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
Click to expand...

If only it were that simple.............;)
 
Oli R C said:
They're definitely semi pro
Click to expand...

Pro :) Check here

I think Nikon pitches its DXXX range above Canon's XXD range slightly; Canon's XXD are aimed more at pro-sumers, hence the inclusion of shooting modes and not just Av, P, Tv (S), AUTO.

I'm subscribing the what Purpleclouds says about 'pro' technology lasting a bit longer... well, at least it backs up my mad theory that a D2X was a good purchase off ebay last night when I pressed the button!!!! :D
 
I use my D200 quite a lot, even though I have newer bodies. Built like a tank and does what it is meant to do,just be aware of its limitations on the high ISO front. Other than that, a perfectly good camera.
 
fracster said:
I use my D200 quite a lot, even though I have newer bodies. Built like a tank and does what it is meant to do,just be aware of its limitations on the high ISO front. Other than that, a perfectly good camera.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Build-wise it's a rung above something like the 30D/40D
 
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...

I totally disagree with this statement. I have a pro body Canon 1d mk11n and mk111, I can get the same results on a 20d and 40d (apart from the 1.3 crop of the 1D). As these have the same processors. I use the pro bodies because as the quote below, I need a well built camera that will take the knocks of hard use and stand being rained on. You could drive over a 1D body and it would be ok, scared, but OK. try that with a 400D and it will break into pieces. If you know how to use your camera, you can get the results. The main difference at the moment is newer bodies have better high ISO handling, that's the same for pro and non-pro bodies.

If you look at the nikon D700 and semi pro and D3 as the pro body, you can get the same results on the D700, the only difference is the body, size and grip (and shooting speed if you like to blitz everything).

Frenzied Dwarf said:
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
Click to expand...
 
natjag said:
If you look at the nikon D700 and semi pro and D3 as the pro body, you can get the same results on the D700, the only difference is the body, size and grip (and shooting speed if you like to blitz everything).
Click to expand...

Both the D700 and D3 appear in Nikon's line-up of professional bodies and the D700 has its fair share of weatherproofing. Is there some other measure of 'pro' you're using to distinguish these two bodies?
 
natjag said:
I totally disagree with this statement. I have a pro body Canon 1d mk11n and mk111, I can get the same results on a 20d and 40d (apart from the 1.3 crop of the 1D). As these have the same processors. I use the pro bodies because as the quote below, I need a well built camera that will take the knocks of hard use and stand being rained on. You could drive over a 1D body and it would be ok, scared, but OK. try that with a 400D and it will break into pieces. If you know how to use your camera, you can get the results. The main difference at the moment is newer bodies have better high ISO handling, that's the same for pro and non-pro bodies.

If you look at the nikon D700 and semi pro and D3 as the pro body, you can get the same results on the D700, the only difference is the body, size and grip (and shooting speed if you like to blitz everything).
Click to expand...

Without knowing what you shoot it's hard to say, but the AF abilities of the 1D bodies should make themselves apparent when you're really up against it.

Compare, say, a 5D and D700 and it's game over when the lights go out.
 
Pro bodies are given higher grade engineering throughout.
Forget the electrics, although I would expect that the circuit boards are probably more robust, able to withstand greater variations in temperature and shock.
The mirror assembly and shutter are built to withstand harder use too. My D2Xs had cycled over 200,000 times and were still working perfectly. One was almost brand new, the other had done a great deal of work. I would expect my D3 bodies to give me everything I require of them (fo rany client) for many years to come in stills requirements. They are producing such good images that the publishing world will not require anything more, ever and as most ads are destined for print of some sort, that is the same - web use wouldn't trouble any sensor built today.

SO, why would an amatuer invest in a pro spec body? I suppose it depends how important your photography is to you. There is also a degree of pleasure in working with tools that are quick, precise, easy to use because the ergonomics are carefully designed for these aspects and to have something that will last. A bit like watches I suppose - the new all bling family of watches are going back to engineering technology that was around in the 50s and 60s and 70s...then quartz was discovered. Now watches worth having are going back to automatic, kinetic movements - forget the solar powered quartz rubbish billed as ecodrives. Bling for the fashion conscious that's all they are.

Go and feel and have a look inside a 1970 Omega Constellation Chronometer, or an International Watch Company InGenieur or something of similar quality (not a Rolex please, they have never made a watch in their lives - they always bought their movements in from Eterna, thye just package them....)

I use the watch analogy because a battery, LCD watch from the garage for £5 will tell you the time very accurately for a year, maybe as long as two years, but it will not give you the same pleasure, nor will it become an heirloom.

There was someone on here with a collection of old cameras - beautifuly engineered examples from the cream of their era - they still held sway in today's climate and even new photographers were drooling over them. Timeless, classless and built to last - the top of everthing is. That is what sets it apart.

Now, why would anyone want a piece of that?
 
natjag said:
I totally disagree with this statement. I have a pro body Canon 1d mk11n and mk111, I can get the same results on a 20d and 40d (apart from the 1.3 crop of the 1D).
Click to expand...

Try shooting ISO 4000, 1/200 second on a 70-200 2.8 at 2.8.

Oh wait, the 20D can't cut it because can't do ISO4000, which means you'll have to lower the shutter speed (you can't open up aperture any further).

So instead of getting a shot like this, you've missed it, as the actor have moved, since they don't exactly pose for photos in a musical.

image5925.jpg


I never mention anything about build quality, when i talk about limit, i am refering to focusing, ISO performance (low light, and I mean LOW light, sometimes ISO 6400 at 2.8 and only getting 1/50th).

Your camera can either hack it, or not.
 
D700, 70mm, f/2.8, 1/100s, ISO 12800.



Low-light capability isn't cheap, but the D700 (considered a pro body by Nikon) has it in stacks.
 
Justify? There is no justification unless you are talking about using it for a regular income.

Just do like nearly everyone does it - you want it, its lovely and you have the money :D
 
Cameras are like cars... you can get basic ones or expensive ones, some are fit for certain purposes better than others. But at the end of the day they all do the same thing. Many people have gas guzzling 4x4's when all they need is a normal salon; but they feel more important driving it and they act as a status symbol. Other people may have a Range Rover and have to go off road to tend to their horses etc... they probably need it.
 
I don't like the shape of gripped bodies so I don't use pro bodies will upgrade to 5d second body at some point but unlikely to use a 1d or 1ds because they feel odd
 
Gordon Scott said:
Cameras are like cars... you can get basic ones or exepensive ones, some are fit for certain purposes better than others. But at the end of the day they all do the same thing. Many people have gas guzzing 4x4's when all they need is a normal salon; but they feel more important driving it and they act as a status symbol. Other people may have a Range Rover and have to go off road to tend to their horses etc... they probably need it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was going to say.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Try shooting ISO 4000, 1/200 second on a 70-200 2.8 at 2.8.

Oh wait, the 20D can't cut it because can't do ISO4000, which means you'll have to lower the shutter speed (you can't open up aperture any further).

So instead of getting a shot like this, you've missed it, as the actor have moved, since they don't exactly pose for photos in a musical.

I never mention anything about build quality, when i talk about limit, i am refering to focusing, ISO performance (low light, and I mean LOW light, sometimes ISO 6400 at 2.8 and only getting 1/50th).

Your camera can either hack it, or not.
Click to expand...

Nor can the 1D mk11n. High ISO handling as I mentioned in my post is a development of newer bodies, not just pro bodied camera. You don't have to get a pro body for high ISO handling. Compare the 20D to the 1dmk11/n or 40 to the mk111 for the equivalent processors. I'm trying to compare todays pro models with todays non-pro models, or yesterdays pro with yesterday non-pro. I also do photography, where you don't get a second chance.
As a footnote, any canon 1D mk11 or 111 user will know that although the camera high ISO feature gives it the ability to go to 3200 and 6400 respectively, its only in camera processing. The shot is at the lower ISO (1600 or 3200) the exposure increase 1 stop in camera, which you can do in software.

DigitalRelish said:
Both the D700 and D3 appear in Nikon's line-up of professional bodies and the D700 has its fair share of weatherproofing. Is there some other measure of 'pro' you're using to distinguish these two bodies?
Click to expand...

Fair point, Nikon claim it a pro body, a few pros I know don't, because it doesn't have vertical grip, extra card and a few other things.


Radiohead said:
Without knowing what you shoot it's hard to say, but the AF abilities of the 1D bodies should make themselves apparent when you're really up against it.

Compare, say, a 5D and D700 and it's game over when the lights go out.
Click to expand...
Your trying a new Nikon vs older canon debate there.

As I see it, with the exception of some sports, its not the camera, its the how it's used. I think a few other posts have suggested that.
 
I haven't read the whole thread but the reason I bought the 5dm2 was twofold. One, because I had the money for that, or a 70-200 F2.8 IS to replace my 70-200F4, I choose the camera with its high ISO- which would help me no matter what lens I bought. I also want to do wedding photography professionally at some point, and this camera was a good start :)
 
natjag said:
Your trying a new Nikon vs older canon debate there.

As I see it, with the exception of some sports, its not the camera, its the how it's used. I think a few other posts have suggested that.
Click to expand...

Then change the 5D for a 5D II - the point stands.

To suggest that sports alone require a pro body is, frankly, nonsense. Take a 50D along to a wedding alongside a 1D III and you'll see what I mean.
 
I dont consider myself an expert in any form as to the whole discussion regarding the technical comparisons of pro vs semi-pro vs amatuer bodies, but I'm advised that the Canon 1D series allow two memory cards to be in the camera at the same time, where the image can be written to both cards simultaneously. For any situation where capturing it first time being the only time is key, such as at a wedding, having this level of redundancy could save the day should a card go tips up (rare though I agree).

If/when I get the chance to make tography my main and hopefully only source of income I would strive to have a Canon 1D alone for this very reason.

From a financial point of view by comparison, one of my buddies is a general builder type chap and recently invested money in a new van. I know vehicles are getting cheaper nowadays but this is a tool of his trade which in the same way a camera is to a togger, and I'm sure the van is a lot more expensive than even a top pro DSLR.

I say if your work and income justifies it, get the best you can afford, which in my eyes being a Canon fan boy is a Canon 1D Mark whatever it is now.



Also as an afterthought, and I think this has been mentioned before, I strongly believe there is a lot of camera snobbery that goes on. You need to be seen to have the right kit which for some seems to be a measure of your potential. It's hard not to get caught up in it.
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I dont consider myself an expert in any form as to the whole discussion regarding the technical comparisons of pro vs semi-pro vs amatuer bodies, but I'm advised that the Canon 1D series allow two memory cards to be in the camera at the same time, where the image can be written to both cards simultaneously. For any situation where capturing it first time being the only time is key, such as at a wedding, having this level of redundancy could save the day should a card go tips up (rare though I agree).

If/when I get the chance to make tography my main and hopefully only source of income I would strive to have a Canon 1D alone for this very reason.

From a financial point of view by comparison, one of my buddies is a general builder type chap and recently invested money in a new van. I know vehicles are getting cheaper nowadays but this is a tool of his trade which in the same way a camera is to a togger, and I'm sure the van is a lot more expensive than even a top pro DSLR.

I say if your work and income justifies it, get the best you can afford, which in my eyes being a Canon fan boy is a Canon 1D Mark whatever it is now.



Also as an afterthought, and I think this has been mentioned before, I strongly believe there is a lot of camera snobbery that goes on. You need to be seen to have the right kit which for some seems to be a measure of your potential. It's hard not to get caught up in it.
Click to expand...

:clap:

Good to see someone come along with a sensible answer to the whole debate and a VERY good reason to go for a pro body.
 
I can perfectly justify having a so called Pro-level body on the basis of quality of results...
My 1D is the only camera i've ever used that's just about reliable for taking bird-in-flight shots with busy backgrounds. Especially shots with the bird flying right at me.
Sure i can manage it on the xxD cameras i've owned, but my 1D is the only one that often absolutely nails the AF on erratic bird movement along a whole sequence of shots.

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...
 
Werecow said:
I can perfectly justify having a so called Pro-level body on the basis of quality of results...
My 1D is the only camera i've ever used that's just about reliable for taking bird-in-flight shots with busy backgrounds. Especially shots with the bird flying right at me.
Sure i can manage it on the xxD cameras i've owned, but my 1D is the only one that often absolutely nails the AF on erratic bird movement along a whole sequence of shots.
Click to expand...

Which is the point I made in post #16...
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...


Says it all really :thumbs:

And my tuppence worth................

Many amateurs are of pro standard so demand the same results and know just as much regardless of the fact they're not (or choose not) to make a living from photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top