The brain behind the viewfinder.

Mostly depends on who's holding it.

Usually it's an emphasis on reliability and durability. In some cases
also flexibility.

Some manufacturers seem to feel that stamping 'professional' on the side
of  their products imparts some sort of enhanced value. It always makes
me laugh; especially on a consumer item such as a television. Normally
seems to indicate the opposite.

I suppose whether an item - in this case a camera - could be regarded as
professional grade or as a professional tool really comes down to the
requirements of professionals.

Is the equipment capable of continuous daily use? Is it robust enough to
put up with the rigours of professional use without failure? Will
support, spares and service for it still be available for a sufficient
period for the initial investment to be repaid? Is it good enough?

To that end I know of several photographers that used Zenit cameras in
extreme locations because of their robustness, reliability, ability to
work in extreme conditions, and cheapness. They can afford to pack three
or four bodies for the price of one advanced camera, meaning that if one
gets lost or broken they can continue shooting. The M42 mount means they
can use Zeiss lenses also.

To that I can add that, typically, consumer grade products are built
down to a price, often adding features to compare favourably with other
items on the market at the same price. Professional grade equipment, on
the other hand, tends to be built UP to the price; it is made as good as
it can be without becoming prohibitively expensive. Then features can
often be bolted on if required rather than just adding to a long feature
list.

This is true for almost anything that constitutes a tool, used by
somebody for a living.

Amateurs often do not need such ruggedness and reliability - they are
not using it all day every day and their livelihood does not depend on
it - so can often choose more wisely than just buying the professional's
choice "cos it's the best."

What program was it, by the way?

The quality that almost all pro's want in a camera is reliability. Other
features/qualities depend on an individuals requirements and personal
preferences
--
Simon
http://www.simonstanmore.com

My Mamiya C220 medium-format camera says "Professional" right on the front :-)

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:44:57 -0800, helensilverburg wrote:

Rugged, reliable, controlable.  Availability of rentals (lenses, other
accessories).

But most here are amateurs, not pros.  So we want more than what a lot
of pros would be satisfied with.

Thanks guys for your opinion!  It's very much appreciated!
Regards,
Helen

Any camera used by photographers to earn a living.

This is one of those questions without a straightforward answer.  The strict
answer must be "any camera that a professional photographer uses in the
course of their business".  But that answer isn't really very helpful: I use
a wide variety of cameras for different purposes, and some of them are
decidedly 'amateur' in terms of the market that their original designers
targeted.  This is especially true when, for example, I am travelling very
light, when I need a backup body but don't want/need the backup to be as
heavy/bulky as the main camera, when I need to be unobtrusive, or when
working in such conditions that the camera stands a good chance of getting
wrecked.

Some camera makers make bodies that are intended for this sort of role -
second string cameras for professionals - but which also make first rate
cameras in their own right for other users.  Nikon's F100 might be seen as
an example of this, where a lot of people used it as a backup to an F5.
Galen Rowell used to use some of the really lightweight cameras from the
very bottom of the Nikon range, as well as his F5s and F100s, simply because
sometimes the weight was the most important factor.  The Pentax MZ-3 is
another interesting example of this: it is basically a camera identical to
the MZ-5n, which is a good body but with an amateur target market: the MZ-3
differs only in its shutter, a model with a higher flash synch. speed and -
the critical point - rated for a much longer life cycle.  Most people
wouldn't need that and would be very happy with the MZ-5n, but the MZ-3
makes a very nice lightweight/backup body for someone who's main body is,
say, an MZ-S.

So, are these lightweight professional cameras, or more than usually
rugged/capable amateur cameras?  Does it matter?!

I think there are just a few key things that all bodies need before they
could be called 'professional', and then rather more other characteristics
that are usual but maybe not essential:

Essential:

~  serious durability and (even more so) reliability;

~  good parts availability and service backup;

~  the ability to take good quality lenses.

Usual:

~  provision of key 'controls' over exposure etc. in an easy to access form,
coupled with an absence of all the gimmicks and 'shooting modes' that sell
cameras in the amateur market but that professionals generally don't need
(and don't want);

~  lack of 'glitzy' styling;

~  a range of 'accessories' (especially in the 35mm SLR area) to add
versatility - interchangeable finders, screens, motor drives/boosters, power
packs, etc.;

~  in SLRs, a good viewfinder with near to 100% coverage;

~  good handling/ergonomics;

~  ready availability of replacement bodies and less frequently used
lenses/accessories in the hire market.

Sometimes a camera might be called professional because it is so specialised
(a Silvestri wide-angle camera, for example) or because it is so 'pared
down' to the essentials (Fuji's meter-less 6x7 rangefinders, for example)
that few amateurs would be attracted to it.

In the end though, I suppose it is about what market the camera designer was
targeting when they spec.ed and priced the design, because lots of cameras
that were designed for amateurs fulfil particular roles for professionals,
and lots of serious amateurs are very happy users of cameras that were
targeted at a professional market.  And the camera companies know this, and
exploit it, to improve sales in both directions.

Peter

Hey Helen,
You can read about Canon SLRs, film and digital, at link below.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111

Cody,

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that
whosoever believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks

It seems to me that for Canon, professional = photojournalist

The 1 series professional cameras are robust, weather-sealed, reliable
and simple.

(a) No internal flash because professionals are supposed to own
external flashes.
(b) No internal flash means viewfinder can be made bigger.
(c) Weather sealed because photojournalists may need to shoot in rain.
(d) Metal alloy bodies because photojournalist may need to cover
rallies, disasters and wars and should have camera that will not break
if photographer trips or needs to jump into sewer.
(e) Simple because it has none of the picture modes like portrait,
night, etc. Pro's are supposed to know what they need.
(f) High speed frame rate because photojournalist may need to take
picture of missile hitting a building.
(g) etc., etc., etc.

I once covered a religious parade at noon where I soaked my
consumer-level camera in sweat, almost tore away my external flash
(imagine someone elbowing your external flash while it is connected to
the hotshoe) and scuffed my camera as I angled for a better view. It
made me appreciate why some people would really want a "professional"
camera body.

Quite simply a camera that generates profits. That can also imply many
aspects, such as reliability, ergonomics, flexibilty, etc.

Other than that, some manufacturers have a marketing push to define
certain models as professional. Usually, with Nikon and Canon, that only
applies to their highest priced cameras.

Many professionals use gear somewhat below the top level. It has been
stated, and observed, by many people that some enthusiasts have better
(or newer) gear than many professionals. Another thing to consider is
that it would be the rare professional who only took one camera body and
one lens to a shoot; that back-up gear is essential to generating
income, because no matter how reliable one might think their gear to be,
sh*t happens.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>