Well Mike, by your defination I am not and never have been a
pro. But I think people who use your difinition have a vested
interest in keeping people out of the business (ASMP), or a
desire to only support those who are going to give their product
high visibility (Nikon, Canon). Personally, I feel anyone who
doesn't do photography for anyone but themselves for free is a
pro (of course only if they do do photography for others).
Actually, based on durability, I don't think the Canon makes the
grade. The F5 is arguably the only 35mm camera available today
that is designed primarily for brut durability. Interestingly,
counter to your comments, it is hardly state of the art in
features. Historically, pro cameras have had far less automation
than high end amateur cameras.
Just my two bits worth, with it and a dollar you can get a cup
of coffee if you stay out of the YUPPIE joints (Just to mix up
the threads a bit <g>).
--Tom
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> The words "professional" and "amateur" make a big difference to some
> companies and very little difference to others. Some companies apply them
> strictly and others indiscriminately. Kodak, for instance, has separate
> professional and amateur divisions. The two have separate advertising
> budgets, even.
>
> Among photographers, there are many ways of defining "pro" status. Everybody
> has their own way of doing it. At _Photo Techniques_ I defined "pro" as
> somebody who has made at least 80% of a viable, sustainable personal or
> family income for a minimum of three years from shooting and selling
> photographs on assignment or commission, excluding art photographers. A pro
> is definitely _not_ somebody who just occasionally makes a little money from
> photography.
>
> "Professional" in a 35mm SLR means that:
>
> --It offers whatever the current state-of-the-art in terms of features and
> technology is believed to be;
> --It's made for a large number of shutter cycles (typically 150k, vs. 5-10k
> for an entry-level SLR and 2-5k for a p/s) and high reliability and
> toughness;
> --It is part of a comprehensive system that makes available every accessory
> and lens that a wide variety of pros might need, especially a comprehensive
> line of flash equipment and top-quality fast zooms;
> --The company has a Professional Services division that actively courts high
> level pros and services all pros' needs. This ranges from loaner equipment
> and fast turnaround on service to on-site support at major events such as
> the Olympics. It costs maybe $8-10 million to launch a PS division, and many
> camera makers simply can't or won't make that investment. To even be
> eligible for PS membership, a photographer needs to satisfy a list of
> criteria that includes multiple tearsheets--published advertising or
> editorial photographs that they've been paid for (i.e., not just contest
> winners or vanity publications).
> --High visibility. This includes name recognition among clients and a
> presence at places where photographers congregate, meaning lots of
> photographers using the eqiupment at places like sporting events, government
> press conferences, runway fashion shows, etc.
> --Good used and rental availability, and good repair service availability
> both official and independent.
>
> There are really only two "professional" 35mm film cameras at the moment--
> the Nikon F5 and the Canon EOS-1v. Other cameras might be _called_
> "professional" but that's largely an advertising buzzword meant to appeal to
> consumers. And some real pros may shoot other marques but their numbers are
> dwarfed by those shooting Nikon or Canon. The only other company that's
> making a stab at a pro camera is Minolta with the Maxxum/Dynax 9.
> Empirically, you might also claim that the Leica M6 is still a valid pro
> camera because a statistically significant minority of photojournalists use
> it.
>
> Strictly speaking, Pentax doesn't have a professional camera in its lineup
> right now, and Pentax is not a mainline professional company because of the
> lack of Professional Services support, limitations in the system lineup, and
> scarce rental availability.
>
> The MZ-S, excellent product though it may be, is not by any stretch of the
> imagination a professional camera, however astute and appropriate its niche
> placement is. Its viewfinder is not adequate and its frame rate is not high
> enough, among other things. I'm quite sure the MZ-S exists because it's
> going to be the platform for the upcoming 6 megapixel digital camera from
> Pentax that will be aimed at both pros and consumers. (This is also the
> reason the Contax N1 exists, IMO.)
>
> --Mike
>
> P.S. Whoever said that some professionals shoot Spotmatics or K1000's is
> dreaming. Not one in 500 pros shoots either of those cameras as their main
> 35mm! I'd be surprised if the number is even that high.
>
> P.P.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "non-pro" cameras. If
> anything, far too many amateurs and rich snapshooter lug around big, beastly
> Canons and Nikons under the misguided impression that they're the "best"
> because "pros use them," when in fact a variety of other cameras would
> actually suit their needs better based on a whole range of criteria.
>
--
Tom "Graywolf" Rittenhouse
Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA
------------------------------------------
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
