"Do Pros Use Pro Gear?"
Jan 30, 2019 17:52:08 #
In today's post, Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, wrote:
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Jan 30, 2019 18:04:48 #
le boecere wrote:
Define a Pro and define what is pro equipment. In the days of Ansel Adams it was a 8 x 10 View Camera.In today's post, Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, wrote:
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Jan 30, 2019 18:11:17 #
I believe that Johnston has switched to Sony and states that he loves it and has no regrets.
Jan 30, 2019 18:31:13 #
Pro's use any equipment they want to. Pro equipment isn't defined by who uses it, it's more about how it is built. For example, what's the difference between a pro screw driver and a non pro screw driver? The non pro screw driver will not stand up to the abuse or last like a pro screw driver will. If a professional mechanic uses a cheapie screw driver, does it make it a pro screw driver?!
Oh, by the way, a pro is someone who earns their primary income performing a specific profession or function and is proficient in said profession.
Oh, by the way, a pro is someone who earns their primary income performing a specific profession or function and is proficient in said profession.
Jan 30, 2019 18:38:35 #
jaymatt wrote:
I believe that Johnston has switched to Sony and states that he loves it and has no regrets.
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera ~ and ~ Fujifilm X-H1
And, he's talked about his old X-T1, for quite some time.
I surmise this from what he wrote, yesterday:
"Personally, at this moment, I can tell you what seems reasonable to me: I balked at paying $1,649 for an X-H1 body (before the big price drop) and did in fact spend $1,213 for a Panasonic G9 body (when it reached its cheapest price during the holidays). So there's my own price sensitivity in a nutshell.
But that's just me. (And I'm still not sure I made the correct decision. I'm having opportunity-cost remorse over the X-H1, and half of me even thinks I should stick to B&W with the X-T1. I like color but I love B&W.)" _mj
Jan 30, 2019 18:48:03 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
Define a Pro and define what is pro equipment. In the days of Ansel Adams it was a 8 x 10 View Camera.
Did you read today's blog post in "The Online Photographer"?
Jan 30, 2019 18:49:22 #
le boecere wrote:
In today's post, Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, wrote:
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Should only take a couple of days as each new generation of cameras is only slightly different from the previous generation. In fact they are bought for the difference that they offer so the buyers know all about them before they even bought them.
Jan 30, 2019 19:27:19 #
90% of the time when a camera fails, doesn't capture the shot, ect.. it's user related. If your too lazy to learn your camera inside out, then shame on you. Most folks that own a camera are just spraying and praying. If your a Real photographer then even switching brands won't hold you back... To learn Every function or feature might take a few days, but please, a year???????
Jan 30, 2019 20:12:15 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Oh, by the way, a pro is someone who earns their primary income performing a specific profession or function and is proficient in said profession.
Oh, by the way, a pro is someone who earns their primary income performing a specific profession or function and is proficient in said profession.
I like the way you worded that. A person could be a Pro and be a photographer but not be a Pro photographer.
--
Jan 30, 2019 21:06:12 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
Define a Pro and define what is pro equipment. In the days of Ansel Adams it was a 8 x 10 View Camera.
That is a very narrow perspective - and not at all based in any kind of reality.
The 4x5 and 5x7 graphlex cameras were popular among sport shooters, "back in the day"
https://www.shutterbug.com/content/giant-lens-spotted-wild-using-graflex-big-bertha-shoot-lacrosse
Photojournalists used Speed Graphics and similar cameras, as well as Leica rangefinder, Rollieflex TLR, Kodak Speed Graphic, Argus 35mm, Hassleblad (which Ansel Adams also used), Horseman and other Topcon cameras, etc. and in the studio Linhof Cambo, Sinar and Deardorf, where also popular "back in the day"
And Adams used everything from 35mm to 8x10 -
https://improvephotography.com/53059/what-kind-of-camera-did-ansel-adams-use/
Jan 30, 2019 21:27:50 #
In photographic equipmet or supplies, the term"PROFESSIONAL" MIGHT be indicative of the product being intended for "heavy duty" use in that it is sturdily built, will stand up well in constant service, and is capable, in the right hands, to delver very high quality imagery for discriminating users who's work subject to critical scrutiny by expert clients OR NOT! It also MAY be marketing hype.
Not too many cameras and lenses are actually designated or branded as such. Certain makes and models may be more popular and preferred by professionals. Obviously, the are not restricted to non-professionals. If you can afford them you can buy them. They are not surgical instruments or heavy warfare armaments or explosives.
Funny- the last camera I can think of that actually had the word "professional" in it official name and emblazoned on the camera itself, was back in 1957 when Mamiya introduced its Mamiyaflex Professionl C. It was the first twin lens reflex camera with interchangeable lenses. It was competition with the Rolleiflex which had a fixed lens but automatic film advance and shutter cocking and some Rollei models had a on-board exposure meters, automatic parallax correction, a rapid film advance crank, an add on prism finder and and rangefinder accessories- all big deals at the time. The Mamiyaflex had their lens selection but, at the time, there was only a rather dark accessory mirror finder with a reversed image, no parallax correction- there was a kinda strange outboard accessory to use the camera at 7 inches from the subject- it did have built in bellows. The focus knob and the manual film advance knob (no crank) was on the wrong side of the camera (as per Rollei users) and the shutter had to be cocked manually as well. The lenses were OK but there weren't Schneider or Zeiss. Oh- and there was no double exposure prevention. Thing was, you had to be a pretty savvy pro to use the thing- it was a bit o a clunker as compared to the rather sleek and popular Rolleiflex. After a while it was improved and did became one of the industrie's workhorse cameras.
Funny again- the Speed Graphic, the all time king of the PRESS cameras was never branded as a PRESS camera. Mamiya to the rescue again! They named their medium format rangefinder camer the PRESS 23. The Linhof folks had a PRESS 70 and Schneider branded one of their lens lines as PRESS Xenotar.
I guess the words "PRESS and PROFESSIONAL" hold certain amount of prestige?
Then there were "PROFESSIONAL" films. Kodak claimed that there professional color negative films, such as Varicolor and Portra were aged in a certain way to maxamize color fidelity but had shorter shelf lives and required prompt processing after exposure- no problem for pros. They also had a retouching surface on the base. They claimed there pro black and white films had retouching surfaces where as the others did not. Funny again, Kodacolr film, which was intended for amateur use had finer grain, more neutral color, more latitude and coud be used in hazardous tropical conditions. Verichrome film, their archetype amateur product had finer grain, better tonal gradations and more latitude that any of their pro films.
Nowadays the word "DIGITAL" is bandied about. I have seen ads for "digital' filters, cases, tripods and stuff that has nothing to do with digital technology.
Not too many cameras and lenses are actually designated or branded as such. Certain makes and models may be more popular and preferred by professionals. Obviously, the are not restricted to non-professionals. If you can afford them you can buy them. They are not surgical instruments or heavy warfare armaments or explosives.
Funny- the last camera I can think of that actually had the word "professional" in it official name and emblazoned on the camera itself, was back in 1957 when Mamiya introduced its Mamiyaflex Professionl C. It was the first twin lens reflex camera with interchangeable lenses. It was competition with the Rolleiflex which had a fixed lens but automatic film advance and shutter cocking and some Rollei models had a on-board exposure meters, automatic parallax correction, a rapid film advance crank, an add on prism finder and and rangefinder accessories- all big deals at the time. The Mamiyaflex had their lens selection but, at the time, there was only a rather dark accessory mirror finder with a reversed image, no parallax correction- there was a kinda strange outboard accessory to use the camera at 7 inches from the subject- it did have built in bellows. The focus knob and the manual film advance knob (no crank) was on the wrong side of the camera (as per Rollei users) and the shutter had to be cocked manually as well. The lenses were OK but there weren't Schneider or Zeiss. Oh- and there was no double exposure prevention. Thing was, you had to be a pretty savvy pro to use the thing- it was a bit o a clunker as compared to the rather sleek and popular Rolleiflex. After a while it was improved and did became one of the industrie's workhorse cameras.
Funny again- the Speed Graphic, the all time king of the PRESS cameras was never branded as a PRESS camera. Mamiya to the rescue again! They named their medium format rangefinder camer the PRESS 23. The Linhof folks had a PRESS 70 and Schneider branded one of their lens lines as PRESS Xenotar.
I guess the words "PRESS and PROFESSIONAL" hold certain amount of prestige?
Then there were "PROFESSIONAL" films. Kodak claimed that there professional color negative films, such as Varicolor and Portra were aged in a certain way to maxamize color fidelity but had shorter shelf lives and required prompt processing after exposure- no problem for pros. They also had a retouching surface on the base. They claimed there pro black and white films had retouching surfaces where as the others did not. Funny again, Kodacolr film, which was intended for amateur use had finer grain, more neutral color, more latitude and coud be used in hazardous tropical conditions. Verichrome film, their archetype amateur product had finer grain, better tonal gradations and more latitude that any of their pro films.
Nowadays the word "DIGITAL" is bandied about. I have seen ads for "digital' filters, cases, tripods and stuff that has nothing to do with digital technology.
Jan 30, 2019 21:39:06 #
`
Not so. For most of us, in Adams' time, an 8x10 was
used for less than half of our work. More typical was
rollfilm, augmented by either 4x5 or 35, depending
depending on the nature of the agency.
A really generalized rule of thumb is that the bigger
the gear the more boring the work. GENERALIZED !
.
PixelStan77 wrote:
Define a Pro and define what is pro equipment. In the
days of Ansel Adams it was a 8 x 10 View Camera.
Define a Pro and define what is pro equipment. In the
days of Ansel Adams it was a 8 x 10 View Camera.
Not so. For most of us, in Adams' time, an 8x10 was
used for less than half of our work. More typical was
rollfilm, augmented by either 4x5 or 35, depending
depending on the nature of the agency.
A really generalized rule of thumb is that the bigger
the gear the more boring the work. GENERALIZED !
.
Jan 31, 2019 01:41:35 #
le boecere wrote:
In today's post, Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, wrote:
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Whatever they use, becomes pro gear!
Jan 31, 2019 03:58:06 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
Perhaps any 'Gear' a Pro uses, becomes 'Pro Gear', from their skill and experience. Or even the results they get.
Jan 31, 2019 06:30:13 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
le boecere wrote:
In today's post, Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, wrote:
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
Final thought: in the art-photography world I came up in, it was said by some that changing cameras would set you back a year—that is, it was a year before the new camera fully became second nature and you knew it inside out.
I don't know how long it takes to get "the feel of the wheel" with a digital camera, but I'm betting it's a year or two longer than people typically keep them. Just kidding. :-) _mj
The majority of PRO's who make 100% of their income from photography use professional equipment.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.