PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

None of the present, so-called "professional DSLRs" will hold up to professional use like the former great film cameras like the Nikon F2, of which I had two, but now have just one, fully tricked out with MD2 motor Drive, Sports Finder, Beattie intenscreens, and so forth.

I have only shot about a million frames on that F2, but, if you take every top of the line DSLR made in the world today from every manufacturer making such a camera, you could simply start firing the F2, shot for shot, with one of the top current DSLRs, and when that DSLR breaks, pick up the next one, and continue on until all the DSLRs are dead. The F2 wll be ready to take on the next generation of "professional DSLRs," and bury them, too.

The F2 has about 1600 parts made to last, and last, and last. DSLRs, while remarkable in many ways, are built for short lifespans, mainly because the technology improves every year. Today's best cameras will be considered quaint relics in a year, two at most.

Currently, for example, Nikon is about to launch a $700 camera (the D3200) which is the equal to basically all the top current DSLRs from Nikon and Canon at 24 megapixels of resolution and powerful XPEED 3 processing giving it amazing useable low light capability.

The $3000 Nikon D800 is a bit higher spec, with over 36 megapixels of resolution, and uncompressed 24p video output, something no other DSLR has. There is no other DSLR competing at that capability, for the next month or two, when Canon will surely announce a similar resolution.

All that said, these amazing cameras are only designed for shooting a few pictures compared to the greats of the past. The only thing I ever serviced on my F2s were the light seals, which disintegrated about 20 years in. The new light seals are of a better synthetic material which will keep the camera shooting likely past the end of the manufacture of film.

Digital is the current solution, but does a 36 megapixel camera equal a film camera shooting Technical Pan processed for full tone reproduction? Granted, Technical Pan was a black and white film, but its resolution would need a DSLR pushing 80-100 megapixels to get into the resolution ballpark. That film was nothing short of amazing, particularly in its ability to be processed to various contrast and D-Max levels, creating looks that only a LOT of Photoshop mastery could begin to replicate, but likely not actually duplicate. I have been using Photoshop since the Atari TT was by far the most powerful computer running it through Mac emulation, (Spectre GCR and emulation by Dave Small, one of the great programmers ever on the planet.)

Now, after all THAT said, even though I have 35mm, 6x6cm, and 4x5 inch film cameras, and Arriflex, Eclair, and Bolex movie cameras, I actually chucked my chemical film lab (0.1 degree temperature control (pioneered, actually, by my father,) nitrogen burst agitation, type 316 stainless, etc.) about 12 years ago for the digital darkroom and 44 inch and larger giclee printers. When people ask for a 10x20 foot life size enlargement for a trade show, I still pull out the 4x5 and drum scan the chrome. No 35mm or 6x6cm DSLR will equal that resolution, where the scans are over 20 gigabytes. We still print it with ink jet technology.

Finally, were I looking at getting a "professional DSLR" I would consider the D3200 or D800 fine choices, even though they are not the lesser endowed "pro Nikon DSLRs." Not that this won't change. Obviously, it will. By every manufacturer, given a little time.

anotherview Loc: California

A pro digital camera generally has a sensor sized to 35mm, and I believe at a 3 by 2 aspect ratio. Sensor size goes up from there.

twowindsbear

Is there a 6x6 or large format sensor? I imagine they'd be quite pricey!

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

The 80 meg sensor on the Mamiya Leaf Aptus is almost 6 x 4.5cm (53.7 x 40.3 mm)

These are just digital backs listed at B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Digital-Backs/ci/2788/N/4288586702

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Thanks for reminding me about Tech Pan! That stuff was like magic! I used it for so many things when I worked at a medical school.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I said it in another topic. The late great Galen Rowell often used "amateur" cameras, including a Nikon FM-10 to avoid exposing his high end gear to possible damage.

It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Actually, imaging sensors for stills cameras pale to the sensors being produced for astrophotography, where round sensors exceeding 1 gigapixel have been produced. The quality of the new instrumentation actually equal or surpass the quality of the space telescope, even though stuck on Earth. These sensors, at least, allow science to carry on.

Oh, and I second the previous comment that the camera does not matter, only the photographer. This is true up to the point that certain equipment simply is visually inferior. As long as the camera involved can produce a good image, the photographer is all that matters. There is a famous story about, as I recall, Eisenstadt, who was asked at a showing of his work by a boy's father, "What kind of camera did you use to shoot..?" Eisenstadt replied, "A Leica, mostly." The father then turns to his boy, "Son, I'm going to get you a Leica so you can take pictures just like Mr. Eisenstadt." That, I think, says it all.

Some people are born to shoot. Some can learn to shoot but never achieve the image quality of born shooters. Still others just have fun with their cameras. All of these shooters are correct!

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Let us go off topic to be more clearly on topic?! Lets talk about Cars. The equipment. We are all in agreement that yes equipment makes a difference in the hands of a particular level of user (driver or photographer).

In Ansel's day the finest, most powerful, special suspension, etc. more costly than all but a few could afford pale compared to the echono-special car manufactured today. Like wise, photo equipment and the magic computerized darkrooms of today are beyond the imagination of photographers of Ansel's day.

Education of photographers is now common in high school's art departments and PS and web design are taught in the computer tech departments. Student can afford to have like equipment at home. When teaching (Tho against the rules) students take many photos in classrooms, yep cell phones. A small percentage of these young Anselian creatures will go on to be the photo PROs of tomorrow. AND with their training and the fantastic -even entry level - cameras and computers of today will be able to produce tomorrow's Ansel mystique portfolios. (And project it as a slide show on the side of a large building with affordable equipment!) We live in a fantastic, ever improving time for photography!

Enjoy driving, enjoy photography - focus you mind and ability and with todays equipment you can be Barney Oldfield driver and an Ansel quality photographer.
=====================================
Asto Scientist... analysis of today's over the counter cameras.. 60+ pages http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

Good Point and well said... BTW...regarding your 1st post, F2's ruled...I still have 2, keeping one selling one. just can't part with both.

mickeys Loc: Fort Wayne, IN

pro models just cost more and are more durable against rain, durt, ect. they all do the same thing

brokeweb Loc: Philadelphia

I would think that it would depend on the kind of Photographer. If they are a Photo Journalist or a portrait photographer:

Photo of the phototaker

nikon_jon Loc: Northeast Arkansas

Once, famous 'street photographer' Henri Cartier-Bresson shot a day with a common amateur box camera. His point was that even though he bought and used Leicas, it is what is between the ears that makes the distinction between an amateur and pro photographer. Professional cameras usually have features not likely used by amateurs, but pro photographers can turn out good work regardless of the piece of equipment in their hands.

Ansel Adams once said the the most important part of a camera is the 12 inches behind it.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Ansel Adams used view cameras and lenses that were top of the line. If he were doing the same type of work today he probably use the same type cameras. ILt is true he could take a good picture with a box camera. In one of his books he has a photo he took with a pin hole and it was good but by no means great. - Any of todays dslrs can be used to make pro images. The lens is more important than the box. Point and shoot are the amature cameras of today and many of them can make fine images. - Dave

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Ansel Adams said quite a few other things about photography and photographs, but not so many things about cameras and equipment.

To wit:

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I'd like to add dynamic range (we used to call it lattitude). No digital camera can hold a candle to good film. I still use both, probably will, until film isn't made any more. Sadly, I can see that happening in a few years. By then, I probably won't be able to see anyway.