Terrell Gates wrote: I shoot everything with my trusty little Canon Powershot A640... Cant afford the big fat Pro cameras...
I used a Powershot A620 for a long time and was happy with it until I went to my aunt's wedding and saw the pictures the official photographer took with a Nikon D70 (I think). That photographer told me that my pictures weren't bad at all, but if I was going to take my picture taking to the next level, I needed better equipment. I started shopping for an SLR that instant.
I now use a Canon Rebel. I don't know that it's a "pro" camera, but it is the nicest camera I've ever owned. It's the nicest camera in my regular circle of friends. Granted, I'm the only one attempting to be a photographer, but I know people with a lot more money than I have.
When I got this camera, I wanted the 7D but decided that I could have almost 3 of this one for one of that one. I think it's time for an upgrade. I'm going to wait to see what Canon does with the 7D before buying.
It's especially hard to define pro gear when the barriers are constantly moving. In many respects today's "cheap, consumer" DSLRs are superior to the same manufacturer's top-end pro gear from five or six years ago, only lacking in areas most people don't need (number of shots per second, weather sealing etc).
StudioCMC wrote: I shoot with 2 Xti's (Non Pro) to a 7D.. What defines "Pro"?
Wow everyone, great responses and replies!
Should have added, for this "case", pro-DSLR camera means ANY big black camera. But seeing the hugr replies coming it and thus people will start skimming not reading everything from the beginning, feel free to share your own idea of it. And basically to see how far reaching that the notion of painter to the paint is here.
I used a Powershot A620 for a long time and was happy with it until I went to my aunt's wedding and saw the pictures the official photographer took with a Nikon D70 (I think). That photographer told me that my pictures weren't bad at all, but if I was going to take my picture taking to the next level, I needed better equipment. I started shopping for an SLR that instant.
I now use a Canon Rebel. I don't know that it's a "pro" camera, but it is the nicest camera I've ever owned. It's the nicest camera in my regular circle of friends. Granted, I'm the only one attempting to be a photographer, but I know people with a lot more money than I have.
When I got this camera, I wanted the 7D but decided that I could have almost 3 of this one for one of that one. I think it's time for an upgrade. I'm going to wait to see what Canon does with the 7D before buying.
This is the sort of "non-big-black-pro-camera" user. Canon Powershot A620.
Which the Rebel Xti (450D etc) are the big-black camera category.
Should have added, for this "case", pro-DSLR camera means ANY big black camera. But seeing the hugr replies coming it and thus people will start skimming not reading everything from the beginning, feel free to share your own idea of it. And basically to see how far reaching that the notion of painter to the paint is here.
So my Rebel K2 and 2000 film SLRs wouldn't be considered "Pro" cameras then because they are silver right?
Canon PowerShot D10 12.1 MP Waterproof Digital Camera (yes i copied and pasted that) for water stuff because I was sad when my real camera took a swim.
Hmm. I'm guessing I'm the odd one out here....
I shoot mostly with a Phase One IQ180 back on an Alpa STC and occasionally use the back on a Phase One DF or Fuji GX680II.
Not even close with Two fuji S5,s and a nikon D200.Sold my two NIKON D3X cameras within two month,s of purchase,took the money and bought more lenses for my LINHOFF 4X5,and 8x10 camera,plus a nice basicly brand new drum scanner.As my studio is also situated in a stunning area,where the desert is actually my studio,no need for anything that can shoot above iso 800.
If i really want resolution,i just take out my 4x5 or 8x10.
Gues,smaller then 4x5 ,the closer i get to real pro stuff,is all my 120 film cameras.From mamiya,6x6,to rb6x7.Still use them,as i process ALL inhouse,plus printing.
SillyEddy
Posts: 2,246
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
Canon EOS 1000D - Basically the lowest of the low for new Canon cameras when I got it, but it works just fine. I've been able to take some lovely shots with it.
I suppose the only "pro"ishness that it's missing is better weather proofing and durability. I've knocked it a few times and it has been fine. Hell, I've taken it out in the rain for an afternoon and it was fine. This camera works well, but I'm finding that it doesn't stretch far enough any more.
Edit: LOL - Pro bodies are just the big black ones? Right. This is not a pro body. Not even close.
BkkDan wrote: This is the sort of "non-big-black-pro-camera" user. Canon Powershot A620.
Which the Rebel Xti (450D etc) are the big-black camera category.
My current Rebel is the T1i. I know it's not a "pro" camera (it was a step over entry level 2-3 years ago) but it does a nice job for me (though I'm sure there are people here who wouldn't be caught dead with this camera and many others who wouldn't use it if their first 100 cameras broke). I don't plan to retire with this camera, but it has served me well thus far.
It seems that the public thinks it's a pro camera, though. After I added the battery grip and speed light, anytime someone sees me taking pictures, they ask me if I'm part of the paparazzi or for what newspaper I work. I think it's funny on a lot of levels.
Lovely Day Media wrote: It seems that the public thinks it's a pro camera, though. After I added the battery grip and speed light, anytime someone sees me taking pictures, they ask me if I'm part of the paparazzi or for what newspaper I work. I think it's funny on a lot of levels.
Funny how adding something like a battery grip can change the average perception of what you are shooting with, isn't it? I got tons of "nice camera" comments when I stuck a battery grip on my old Nikon D40.
Almost all of my personal (art) work is shot on medium or large format film, with more and more of it being shot on Large Format. The majority of that being made into traditional wet prints or alternative prints in a darkroom on fiber based paper.
Not all of it is done this way, but the majority of it, at this point in time, is.
BkkDan wrote: Anyone NOT using pro DSLR camera to do their art?
Make, and model?
I'm using a Fuji X-Pro. and an X100 along with some Leicas and now. I ditched all my Nikon D2/D3 and pro glass for RF cameras. I no longer see any logical reason to have to lug around #50 of camera gear, and pull another slipped disk in my back when my clients couldn't tell the different between a shot taken from an M8 and a Summicron from a D3s and a 24-70 f/2.8
BkkDan wrote: Anyone NOT using pro DSLR camera to do their art?
There are LOADS of people out there not using a pro DSLR to 'do their art'
But the amount who are able to operate succussfully and commercially i.e. eat, pay their mortgage and bills and have a little bit left over for pleasure is a very, very small amount.
Digiography
Posts: 3,130
Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Very old, very beat up consumer D80... if it my camera ain't broke I keep shooting with it... my camera isn't the "weakest link" in my photography, the monkey behind it is.
Canon Rebel 450D, A480 and A1200 P&S. Which one depends on where, when and why. Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you which ones in my portfolios where shot with which camera. I generally have the A1200 on my belt when I go out of the house because the viewfinder is a great convenience for outdoor shooting.
Fact is, pretty much any camera, even a cell-phone camera is quite capable of taking a perfectly adequate picture if you do your job in recognizing and framing the shot.
There are LOADS of people out there not using a pro DSLR to 'do their art'
But the amount who are able to operate succussfully and commercially i.e. eat, pay their mortgage and bills and have a little bit left over for pleasure is a very, very small amount.
Unfortunately, the same is true for the most expensive professional grade cameras. In terms of earning a living, a professional grade camera doesn't help much if you don't have a professional grade market.
When I started shooting many years ago, I was told by a renowned photographer that it was all about the glass and exposure. That's what I still feel today, but then I'm just a cut above a GWC.
I shoot with a Canon XTi and use all Canon glass. But I sure wish I could find another OM-1.
Robert Mossack wrote: Funny how adding something like a battery grip can change the average perception of what you are shooting with, isn't it? I got tons of "nice camera" comments when I stuck a battery grip on my old Nikon D40.
And I'm shooting with a D90.
Indeed! When I'm shooting at a big music gig with my D90 I stick a battery grip on just to look good (£30 off Ebay), simply because - even amongst fellow professionals who should recognise the gear - I sense it earns me more "respect", compared to the "what's he doing here with that toy?" looks you sometimes get without it!
I do not own a "pro" DSLR camera. I have used mostly film cameras all my life, until late 2005 when I bought my first digital camera. It was a Panasonic Lumix point and shoot camera. If there is a copyright date of 2006 on my image, it most likely was shot with that camera. Then in 2007, I bought my first DSLR ... an Olympus Evolt 500. Then I picked up an Olympus Evolt 330 shortly after that. These bodies are not considered "Pro!" With an adaptor, I can use my Olympus glass that I've accumulated for use with my collection of Olympus film OM1's and OM2's bodies. Most of the images in my "Classics" folder were shot with the Olympus film cameras.
I've used many cameras over the years, but I've mostly had Olympus 35 MM film cameras. I've used Canon, but that brand of camera tends to break on me for some reason. I've had the shutter on Canon 35 MM film bodies jam up on me. I've had DSLR Canon bodies short out on me, and this is each time I've ever borrowed a Canon! So DO NOT put a Canon in my hands! It will break!
On the other hand, I love Nikon, and have used many of the F series bodies up to the F5 which I enjoyed. However this was when I worked for a studio that provided the cameras. I could not justify dumping all my Olympus glass and bodies that I've obtained over the past 30 years in favor of the much more expensive Nikon gear. The difference in resulting images from the Olympus vs the Nikon cameras is minimal. Both camera brands have been good to me.
Although I don't have one now, I have owned Mamiya medium format film cameras in the past. The C330, M645, and RB67 have all been cameras I've owned and used at various times. These cameras were especially good for the weddings I used to shoot back in the day.
| 
| 
| edu