What is a 'professional' camera...

[acetone]

100% correct for Europe though. Canon EU/UK and Canon US are two totally separate companies and you've conveniently forgotten to mention that CPS in the Americas is a pay to use service, unlike here where it's complimentary.

Didn't know it was a pay for service in the USA.

UK minimum Camera is a 40D, but I see it's a struggle to get away with no L lenses, but it can be done, just.

EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF15mm f/2.8 Fish Eye
EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
EF-S10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

There are a couple of DOs and Tilt/shift in there too, but they are as expensive if not more than lots of Ls,

 

[goldenlight]

Well, you're not going to get anywhere in stadium crowds with a 35mm equivalent; they're usually more worried about the 300mm+ equivalent lenses especially on cameras that can handle the low light.

So the answer is to literally weld a 300mm to your camera - it's then got a fixed lens and so must be amateur! If security question this, challenge them to remove the lens!

 

[fidsey79]

I had some professional family photographers taken on Saturday, the photographer used a Nikon D200. I am really impressed with the quality of the photographs! For me, I didn't care whether it wasn't the newest camera on the block. Surely, a 'professional' camera only matters to people who know what a 'professional' camera should be, and whether it is an essential for their line of work. Three years ago I would not have had a clue about what constitutes a professional camera, just whether the images looked good or not, as most Joe Bloggs would I imagine. As an aside, I went on a photography day course with my Lumix G1, you should have seen the looks and comments from others, especially one with a Canon 1D something. Where my pictures any worse than his ... well mine got displayed in an exhibition at a local museum - his didn't.

 

[strumstrum]

Surely a professional camera is the camera that was used to capture the image that the photographer then sold to put food on his table.

that sounds more like the definition of a professional photographer..

some of it has to do with clients expectations no matter how narrow minded they may seem, I remember PhotoPlus having a 40d vs 1d mk3 shootout and there was very little in the result and IIRC on some tones the 40d came out better... but they did point out that some clients would not even consider you unless you are wielding a 1d, D3 etc...

 

[Icee]

I'd say a professional camera is one that is used by a professional.

If we're talking about camera specs and comparing then obviously a professional will generally want the best image quality they can afford, so will go for the camera that gives that.

Each unique feature adds to the usability and image quality of cameras: weather sealing, full frame, micro adjust, burst rate, buffer, auto focus.

The more features a camera has the more likely you are to get a shot that may not be achievable on a lower spec camera.

The professional is behind the camera though, not the camera itself.

+1

 

[Russ77]

From a slightly different perspective, is it not possible that a professional photographer *could* use a camera so heavily that by the time the next top of the range model comes out they have to replace the old model?

If you are using something as a tool to put food on the table it's only natural that you're going to want to give yourself as much as an advantage as possible.

My brother's a plumber so needs a variety of powertools, let's take his drill..... he could buy one for around £20 from most DIY stores but would it be suitable for purpose? Well considering the £200-£300 Bosch/Dewalt drills he buys need repairing/replacing every year or so I doubt the £20 one would fair too well.

Both items will drill holes granted but their reliability/longevity will vary greatly.

I have a 7D, I'm not a professional photographer but I am a very keen amatuer, the 8fps, AF system and greater ISO range was the reason I upgraded from a 400D as I struggled to get pictures at rugby matches (something I enjoy doing) when the light got bad. The 7D might not make my pictures any better, although I can see a marked difference between the images from my 400D/Sigma 170-500 and my 7D/100-400L but the increased functionality allowed me to get images where my old equipment wouldn't let me.

If I was a pro-sports photographer I would want the equipment that would give me the best chance of capturing images in the most situations possible that are as good or better than the competition.

It's all about the right tools for the job

 

[onona]

Surely a professional camera is the camera that was used to capture the image that the photographer then sold to put food on his table.

Bam! I'm inclined to agree with this too. People get far too hung up on irrelevant fluff like the meaning of the word professional.