Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 10, 2005, 4:48 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Default

I have worked with Pentax slrs on and off for a long time. I've decided I want to take a shot at making a living during photography. I was checking out LiquidLibrary and concluded my Coolpix 995 wouldn't cut the mustard. So I've been researching Canon 20D and Nikon D70 which some site rate as prosumer and some as pro. I can't drop 5 grand on a body at this time so....what makes a camera professional.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

DennisA is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 10, 2005, 5:02 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Normally higher burst rates, larger buffers, faster write times, weatherproofing & build quality. Some also include other features like the ability to transfer images wirelessly.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 5:13 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I believe the wireless is built into the nikon d2h. It is a 2k$ option for the Canon 1d-mkII and 20D. Great if you can actually use it.

I agree that the pro models are built more like tanks, able to withstand hard knocks and bad weather without failing.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 9:17 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Default

Thanks for the quick replies!!! Much appreciated. I kinda thought a big issue was ruggedness. Clearly wireless is a bit of a wizbang feature.
DennisA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 10:58 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Actually, I believe wireless is an option to the D2h as well.

Actually, there are other features that make something a "Pro" camera (the 20D and the D70 are not "Pro" cameras.)

Everything that Kalypso said and:

better AF (Faster, works in lower light, high precision sensors which stay high-precision cross-type at F4 (not f2.8) and AF that continues to work at f8, not f5.6.) Also more AF sensors and more cross-type sensors.

A shutter that is rated to work for many more actuations than a non-Pro camera. (over 200,000 vs. around 100,000-150,000.)

Better, fastering metering system (although I think the non-pro cameras are similar/close now.)

More customizable. Just look at all the custom and user functions on the 1D MkII. Way more than the 20D.

Higher resolution LCD on the back.

Probably more that I'm not thinking of.

Making a living with photography is not easy, but is very rewarding. You might want to look at this thread:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...017&forum_id=2

for some of my comments about selling photos.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 11:31 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

i shoot for here in NJ freelance in 2 different counties for the localpapers. its more an act of love because it sure ain't the money. in fact while talking to my lead he even asked to make sure i was doing for just that. if you have reasonable employement and you have the nights and weekends contact your local papers and offer your services. they pay by the image not by the hour. if you get some gigs it will help you in a few ways

1- it will sharpen your skills. especially if you want to be paid

2- it will test your tolerance to abuse. if you are good they will use you and then you might have to figure how to be in 2 places at once at both ends of the county. try it its fun.

3- you learn geography, social studies, and social graces (something i definately need). you will be sent to locations you never thought existed and deal with the entire gamut of society. it can be quite entertaining.

i still have my day job

a few of us use canon and a few use nikon ranging from the nikon D100 to the 1Dm2. i use the 1Dm2.

just a view from the other side.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 1:16 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

I won't go into this in detail again, but I think that differences between "pro" and "consumer" cameras is mostly about the cost. There's little in a "pro" camera that an astute amateur wouldn't want -- price is certainly at the top of that list. The pro can justify much larger expenditure on cameras, and also has greater usage to justify the build quality etc. But does the amateur not benefit from build quality? Would the amateur really not want a full frame 16 MP sensor if it was affordable?

There are in fact plenty of pros who use consumer cameras such as the D70, 10D and even the 300D.

Pro's sometimes think very little of their equipment -- that's why the "pro" bodies are often in such bad shape, whereas the ones owned by amateurs are likely to be good shape.

Don't get me wrong -- the equipment, and moreover knowing how to use it does matter. However, at that point, you'll be able to figure out for yourself whether or not the differences between a 300D (II?), 10D, 20D, 1D II, etc., etc., matter to your work enough to pay for them, and I think that nobody should get hung up on the "pro" and "consumer" labels -- in my opinion, that's mostly about cost.

Here are a couple of links to forums where pro's abound:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php

http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=2021

Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 6:34 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Default

Once again, thanks so much for the thoughtful replies. Eric, I did read the 'selling photos' thread which I found very useful. I still need to dig into some of the references. Once again thanks to everyone who has replied!
DennisA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 10:28 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Default

I'm replying to myself here. But I has dawned on me that no one has said that you need a pro camera to take professional pictures. I mentioned Liquid Library earlier. They have particular specs for submissions: 50 meg TIFF capable of 300 dpi printing. So I'd hate to buy a Nikon D70 for example only to find it's not quite good enough and I should have gone for a Canon D20. Am I crazy? And let's stipulate that I can produce 'good' images.
DennisA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 10:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

yes you can put out good images with a D70 but it won't make the 50MB .tifbaseline i think my 1Dm2 with RAW output develops up to only at 47MB .tif. my 1ds2 will easily make that hurdle. it looks like they're looking forlarge format digital images only.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:40 PM.