Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

What cameras do professional photographers use?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

thewilliam
17 Nov 2012 - 11:37 AM


Quote: Professionals have to justify their equipment investment in cost/benefit terms. They have to be reasonably sure that the acquisition of a particular camera (or other piece of equipment) will earn its keep by contributing to the bottom line of their annual accounts.

When you are doing well as a pro you are better able to indulge oneself. For example to purchase a new camera or an item of photographic equipment, proves to be of litttle expense and makes justification much easier. You can immediately reduce the purchase price by 20% as you get your VAT paid refunded, then against your accounts to be submitted you save a further 40% because the item is tax deductable. Nice little reduction which the amateur is unable to avail him/herself of.

Many professional regard cameras as tools and buy what's needed to do the job. An indulgence would be a powerful motorbike or a yacht!

From what I can gather from the professional associations, there are a lot of working professionals struggle to make a living. The majority of high-earning photographers are business-people rather than artists. There are very few stars making millions.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
17 Nov 2012 - 11:37 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

theorderingone
18 Nov 2012 - 2:57 PM

Basically, what thewilliam said sounds about right, from my point of view at least.

In answer to the OPs question, I use 2x Nikon D700s with a D300 as backup. Although they may not be the latest models, they're plenty adequate enough for my work.

User_Removed
18 Nov 2012 - 3:37 PM


Quote: Professionals have to justify their equipment investment in cost/benefit terms.

Many professional regard cameras as tools and buy what's needed to do the job. An indulgence would be a powerful motorbike or a yacht!

From what I can gather from the professional associations, there are a lot of working professionals struggle to make a living. The majority of high-earning photographers are business-people rather than artists. There are very few stars making millions.

That sounds right to me too.

.

lshen
lshen  1
22 Nov 2012 - 11:45 PM

Hi guys, sorry I was on a trip so hadn't checked the forum for quite a long time.
Thank you so much for your replies. They are most helpful. Thank you all.

press_works
23 Nov 2012 - 12:24 PM

On canon, my findings.
They lost the plot on press cameras at the 1dmkii.
The 1dmkiii was beset with focus issues, once sorted it was ok but a long way adrift of the Nikon d3. It currently has a enormous second hand value for such an outdated camera, often selling for within 200 of a mkiv
The 1dmk iv outputs terrible j-pegs, soft and noisy above iso 400 but the noise does not get much worse, so below iso 400 it is ok.
The canon 1dx have priced themselves right out of he market with an over complicated video camera with a dslr bolted on, again soft j-pegs.
At present canon do not have an affordable working press camera that can match the now ancient Nikon D3, let alone its upgrades .
As a company they have failed to "listen" and ended up camped right outside what people need.
The vast majority of canon press cameras are bought by hobbiests.
On what to use, the 60d can take better j-peg output than anything else they have for sale, it's like a 7d on steroids for j-peg.
It is not robust, but it can output working j-peg.
Then that leads us to why are you using J-pegs, because that is what picture desks want, and it is first come first served dog eat dog world and when your competitors shoot Nikon, they already have the product required ready to wire straight from the card.
Whilst you are sat converting Raw files, your competitors pictures are in print.
In short, an old mkii 1d or the over priced mkiii, but they are over priced for a reason, it does deliver if you get a working one.

My question, why dont Sony, world leaders in TV imaging, get a grip on this market ? And produce a press camera.

mikehit
mikehit  56532 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
23 Nov 2012 - 1:38 PM

I presum then that Canon have sold no cameras to press photographers since the 1Dii?

Steppenwolf
23 Nov 2012 - 4:55 PM


Quote: On canon, my findings.
My question, why dont Sony, world leaders in TV imaging, get a grip on this market ? And produce a press camera.

Two reasons. First there isn't much money in this market. Second the market has a "high barrier to entry". It's not sufficient to have, arguably, the best technology. Sony would also need a range of professional FF DSLR cameras (and they are not going to make any more DSLRs). They would also need to improve their range of accessories (lenses etc) and their customer support. Sony are struggling with the consumer market at the moment so it's not going to happen. Canikon are safe.

GlamourAcademyUK

Like canon_tog I use Canon too. BUT there are plenty of Nikon owners who swear that is best, including a camera shop owner mate of 30 years who reckons Nokon glas is sharper. In the end its what will produce adequate quality for you !
Think on this, though..... when you see all those huge tele lenses on the TV at the Olympics or soccer, how many are light grey coloured i.e. Canon ?
Here's one of my fave cameras...... avintage beauty bought in Prague while i was shooting Czech glamour girls some years ago.copy--9--of-3705n-2-dm-old-camera.jpg

My other fave of the moment is a panasonic fz200.... 25-600mm equivalent at f2.8 and not bad quality too. best lens quality I've ever had aprat from spending 4 figures on Canon L glass was on my panasonic DMC-LX5 (which unfortunately went swimming with me on hols).

Pays your money takes your choice !

thewilliam
23 Nov 2012 - 5:57 PM


Quote:

My question, why dont Sony, world leaders in TV imaging, get a grip on this market ? And produce a press camera.

Nikon probably makes 1000 consumer cameras for every top-end model and punters buy them because of Nikon's historical reputation as the top professional camera. The press pack used to be called the Nikon Chorus back in the days when motor-driven cameras were a lot noisier.

I'm convinced that press cameras, unlike consumer toys, couldn't be sold in sufficient numbers to justify the high tooling costs for a newcomer.

press_works
25 Nov 2012 - 12:02 PM

Indeed they may make a loss on press cameras, however the public watch televisions, on this photographers see the press packs and take good notice of what they use, they then perceive that to be the best camera.
A few have bought Canon, but the "press" cameras they now make are like camels in a race horse world.
Canon's only chance to get back in the market is to sack it's entire staff in development of the 1d series and employ people with two ears and one brain.
Nikon have listened, gone away and come back with exactly what has been asked for, a press camera that out puts clean very sharp j-peg images.
Many dont understand the importance of output j-peg, it is king maker in this industry.
An example scenario, online news sources are desperate to be first.
A high profile person arrives, say at a court, the Nikon guy can snap, eyefi card uploads to his mobile, which captions and re-sizes his picture, one button press ftp,s the picture to picture desks.
The card is still in the camera, the tog is still on the job.
The canon guy would be looking for a internet cafe to turn his laptop on, convert a raw file to a j-peg, and start sending it round.
The j-pegs really are that bad, or he can take a chance and send the camera output j-peg file which will be seriously sub-standard to the nikon users file in terms of sharpness and detail.
This is not aunty sally's wedding,where you have two weeks to convert raw files it is a dog eat dog first come first served world, you are second, you dont eat and pay your rent that month !.
Nikon make press cameras that work, canon make bizzare over complicated cameras that need raw file conversion.
It really is a one horse race now.
The situation is quite sad, Canon had the head start in the mkii days by a long way over the d2x, but they lost it chasing megapixles and trying to make video movie cameras on what should be a stills camera only.
The knock on effect is they have had to raise prices of top end glass, as they now sell so few pro lenses.
All they would have to do, is bring out a 12-16 mp 10fps body, with focus on iso performance and out put j-peg quality, drag it kicking and screaming in to the 21st century by putting a simple interface on to pre iptc caption images and re-size in the camera and a wi-fi protocol that works, not the silly one they invented themselves, no video and focus on cost price base by leaving out what is not asked for, make the camera affordable.
They could get back in the game with one camera , back in the pack and back selling cameras.

adrian_w
adrian_w e2 Member 73355 forum postsadrian_w vcard Scotland4 Constructive Critique Points
25 Nov 2012 - 12:38 PM


Quote: A few have bought Canon, but the "press" cameras they now make are like camels in a race horse world.



Quote: Think on this, though..... when you see all those huge tele lenses on the TV at the Olympics or soccer, how many are light grey coloured i.e. Canon ?


2 opposite views.
I go to the Rabo Direct 12 rugby matches on Friday nights & sit near the players entrance from the changing rooms. This is where the pro togs congregate before the matches. Almost every one of them uses Canon & the results they get, as seen in the newspapers the following morning, are good.
(of course they may go to the internet cafes after the matches to process the images before sending on to the papers)!

Last Modified By adrian_w at 25 Nov 2012 - 12:39 PM
lemmy
lemmy  71896 forum posts United Kingdom
25 Nov 2012 - 3:32 PM


Quote: The press pack used to be called the Nikon Chorus back in the days when motor-driven cameras were a lot noisier.

Nikons became standard press use because they were the first strongly built SLR and had a useful range of lenses. That investment in lenses meant that you were unlikely to change camera systems without very good reason.

Much later on Canon came into the market in a big way and had enough technical advances to make it worthwhile to change systems in some cases. It was amazing in the 80s how many people's Nikon systems were stolen from their cars and who replaced them with Canon....

At one point we used to put black tape over the Nikon logo on the front of the cameras because we were annoyed that Nikon were using the press guys as marketing tools yet giving nothing back. After that, Nikon started their (excellent) professional service.

In spite of what many amateurs believe, professionals on the editorial side of things (the only side I know, never having done weddings or high street portraiture etc) don't routinely discuss equipment. The level of interest is the same as a delivery driver in his van, it is a tool and must function reliably and up to the required standard. Quite often that standard would not need to match up to what an advanced amateur would require.

A typical equipment conversation would go "is that the new 300 2.8?". "Yes". "What's it like, any good?" "Not bad, heavy though". "Oh, right, I might have a look at one of those."

If you work for someone like AP or AFP, covering everything from wars to politician shaking hands, you are looking for reliability and good handling primarily. An ultra-sharp lens is not the first priority by any means. The question is, will desert sand jam it up? Water get in?

Ploughman
Ploughman  128 forum posts United Kingdom3 Constructive Critique Points
7 Dec 2012 - 11:09 PM

I have been,and still am very happy with Pentax.

EsaT
EsaT  1 Finland
18 Dec 2012 - 5:43 PM


Quote: In spite of what many amateurs believe, professionals on the editorial side of things (the only side I know, never having done weddings or high street portraiture etc) don't routinely discuss equipment. The level of interest is the same as a delivery driver in his van, it is a tool and must function reliably and up to the required standard. Quite often that standard would not need to match up to what an advanced amateur would require.

And maybe we should just call that amateur's/consumer's requirement as imaginary standard created by marketing.

Best shown by this frenzy of consumers for always more MarketingPixels regardless that for most uses any body from last five years gives enough of them... and quality of pixels being as important as their number:
Few month's ago one photographer told me he knows another who still uses old 8MP DSLR to take photos for use in magazine covers.



Quote: Indeed they may make a loss on press cameras, however the public watch televisions, on this photographers see the press packs and take good notice of what they use, they then perceive that to be the best camera.

Cameras used by visible enthusiast amateurs and professional photographers are indeed behind lots of general public's image of some product.
That's also the problem mirrorless systems are facing if they ever want to get as big market share as Canon or Nikon DSLRs: They need to get out real fully featured high end body for enthusiast and professionals. (Panasonic GH3 is sure step to right direction)

User_Removed
19 Dec 2012 - 10:12 PM

Consider...

8878-10151287602309435-1508334488-n.jpg

Then...

769-10151286763719435-944916398-n.jpg

I use...

Olympus E-PM2 + VF-3...

... and all my Nikkors.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 19 Dec 2012 - 10:12 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.