I've been tinkering with the idea lately of selling some of my photographs. Just something I always wanted to do. To follow in my Uncle's footsteps and take an early retirement and sit on the boardwalk and sell pictures.
I know it does not take a good camera to take a good picture. I am not a gear-head.
I have a Canon T1i. Not the best camera, but not the worst either. I look at cameras online like the canon 5D Mark III and see the price tag.
What is it that these cameras can do that mine cannot? Is it a full frame v. crop factor? High ISO capabilities? Uber fast shutter speeds? 10 years ago, the T1i would have been a professional grade camera (I think). I have printed my photos to 16x20 and they are tack sharp.
So I guess, what i am asking is...why pay that much money? I ask from ignorance and not arrogance. I do not understand the difference.
Please educate me and tell me why I am wrong. Because I know I am.
I shoot Nikon, I think the same applies to Canon though. Some differences I can think of:
- a higher shutter life expectancy (Rebels are 100,000 and 5D II is probably 200,000). If you use your camera constantly you can expect it to last twice as long
- the AF is usually a faster on pro bodies
- A lot of pro bodies are weather sealed and dust sealed. Basically, you should be able to shoot in a war zone and them survive harsh conditions.
- They also usually have better connections and options to connect external lighting/ or wirelessly control them.
It has nothing to do with photo quality, but more durability and usability I think. Now if you think it is worth the extra $$$ probably depends on your photography and the conditions in which you use the camera.
I haven't looked an answer up, just what came to mind.
Your points are correct except the one about image quality.
1. A larger sensor = more light. More light gathering ability is better as it is light which creates the image. There is more to it than that.
2. A larger sensor means the ability to better control Depth of Field. Which does not necessarily make any particular image better, but makes possible images otherwise not available.
3. Some professional cameras have multiple processors. See addendum to point 2.
Additional points not directly related to image quality.
Speed. Everything is faster. Response time, write to card speed.
Bigger buffers, CF cards in place of SD cards. Multiple card slots.
10 years ago the Ti would not have been a professional grade camera. Though the images it produces would be somewhat competitive with some from that time period.
All that said, can you be a professional photographer with a Ti or some such? Yes. A qualified yes, though.
There is probably no defining characteristic of a professional camera. Certainly sensor size isn't a particularly strong differentiator -- many professional photographers will intentionally use a crop-sensor camera for an effective increase in zoom, particularly for sports or wildlife photography. Equally, a lot of professionals don't use the 5D line (which has a full frame sensor) as they don't have the features they require (e.g. high frame rates, decent tracking AF).
To be honest, the most determining factor as to whether a camera is 'professional' or not is probably the build quality -- when you use a camera every day and your livelihood depends on it, you need to know it'll work, whatever the conditions. Sensor size, megapixels, autofocus system, frame rate, etc. are all only of value to some photographers, whereas reliability is key.
The T1i is a fine camera and will produce superb image quality when used correctly. However, even compared to a 10 year old top-end Canon (the 1D, launched in 2002), it's far behind on several features. 3.4fps vs. 8fps on the 1D, 1/4,000th minimum shutter speed vs. 1/16,000th, and 9 AF points vs. 45 AF points. The points where the T1i is significantly ahead is in the quality of the rear display and, of course, the megapixel count (15 on the T1i vs. just 4.1 on the 1D).
It's those kind of features, even on the 1D from 2002, that mean that you're that much more likely to get the shot when you have one chance to get it, and one chance only. And that's what matters when you're making a living from it.
If you get the image captured on the T1i, and it's technically there (in focus, correctly exposed, etc.) there's absolutely no reason why that photo couldn't be sold. You just won't manage to capture the image in some situations where the higher-end cameras will.
I have had photographs that have won awards, been exhibited in galleries, sold privately, and sold via Getty Images that I took using the Canon Rebel XT/350D, which is an 8 megapixel camera launched in 2005 as Canon's bottom-end DSLR.
"I've been tinkering with the idea lately of selling some of my photographs. Just something I always wanted to do. To follow in my Uncle's footsteps and take an early retirement and sit on the boardwalk and sell pictures."
Sounds marvellous!
I can't comment on cameras as I only have a compact P&S - but I LOVE your plan!
If the camera does what you need it to do, it is the right camera.
I agree with most of what has already been said (though there are a couple of points I would argue against, particularly in relation to crop-frame and action - but really that is just a distraction from the topic), but one must remember that is is all essentially just marketing. By that, I mean Canon (for example) will tell you that a XXXXD series is "entry-level", a XXXD series is "consumer" level, a XXD is "prosumer" level, and XD is "semi-pro" and anything with a 1D in it is "pro" level. While they market this way, the new(ish) 60D is no longer in the same league as previous XXD series bodies regarding build quality (ignoring the reduction in custom functions and other "pro" features) and yet it has been engineered with better image quality (newer sensor, better processor, better noise reduction etc). Why have they suddenly gone to a plastic chassis and a more "Rebel" feel? Because they want to push the XXD-series owners to the XD (namely 7D) series. And they keep doing it. The 5D Mark III (awesome portrait camera) is not a huge step from the 5D Mark II, so many Mark II owners are now looking instead at the 1DX, or even (like me) waiting for the next "1Ds-series" or equivalent - all according to their plan, no doubt. And yet, a 650D takes a picture about 5 times better than the $10k 1D of only a few years ago. Go figure.
So, ignore all the hype. If it will do what you need it to do, and it will survive the environments in which you plan to shoot, it is "pro" enough for your needs. If you plan to shoot 20000 images per year, you probably don't need a shutter rated to 400000 activations.
On another note, I recently attended a gallery event for a local high-profile photographer friend, and every print was taken (and processed) on his iPhone. It was the right tool for the job, and the gallery was incredible.
@john244 I am wanting to get a 5D Mark II... for full-frame, and for better sensor quality, and for higher megapixels (so I can sell larger-sized prints).
I think the camera is good if it does what you want, and it's "professional" if it does what your market wants. :D
The one comment I have to throw into the mix is that the glass plays a huge part in what the final image looks like. I was fortunate to attend a seminar given by the Top Wildlife Photographers in the World Jonathan & Angela Scott who are Canon ambassadors and during an open question session the topic of cameras came up and the one fact they "focussed" on was the importance of the lens.
@andysg I would concur with Andy, I see the biggest differentator (apart from a keen eye) as being the lenses you use. Ive always thought mid level camera but best lenses you can afford.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
- a higher shutter life expectancy (Rebels are 100,000 and 5D II is probably 200,000). If you use your camera constantly you can expect it to last twice as long
- the AF is usually a faster on pro bodies
- A lot of pro bodies are weather sealed and dust sealed. Basically, you should be able to shoot in a war zone and them survive harsh conditions.
- They also usually have better connections and options to connect external lighting/ or wirelessly control them.
It has nothing to do with photo quality, but more durability and usability I think. Now if you think it is worth the extra $$$ probably depends on your photography and the conditions in which you use the camera.
I haven't looked an answer up, just what came to mind.
Your points are correct except the one about image quality.
1. A larger sensor = more light. More light gathering ability is better as it is light which creates the image. There is more to it than that.
2. A larger sensor means the ability to better control Depth of Field. Which does not necessarily make any particular image better, but makes possible images otherwise not available.
3. Some professional cameras have multiple processors. See addendum to point 2.
Additional points not directly related to image quality.
Speed. Everything is faster. Response time, write to card speed.
Bigger buffers, CF cards in place of SD cards. Multiple card slots.
10 years ago the Ti would not have been a professional grade camera. Though the images it produces would be somewhat competitive with some from that time period.
All that said, can you be a professional photographer with a Ti or some such? Yes. A qualified yes, though.
To be honest, the most determining factor as to whether a camera is 'professional' or not is probably the build quality -- when you use a camera every day and your livelihood depends on it, you need to know it'll work, whatever the conditions. Sensor size, megapixels, autofocus system, frame rate, etc. are all only of value to some photographers, whereas reliability is key.
The T1i is a fine camera and will produce superb image quality when used correctly. However, even compared to a 10 year old top-end Canon (the 1D, launched in 2002), it's far behind on several features. 3.4fps vs. 8fps on the 1D, 1/4,000th minimum shutter speed vs. 1/16,000th, and 9 AF points vs. 45 AF points. The points where the T1i is significantly ahead is in the quality of the rear display and, of course, the megapixel count (15 on the T1i vs. just 4.1 on the 1D).
It's those kind of features, even on the 1D from 2002, that mean that you're that much more likely to get the shot when you have one chance to get it, and one chance only. And that's what matters when you're making a living from it.
If you get the image captured on the T1i, and it's technically there (in focus, correctly exposed, etc.) there's absolutely no reason why that photo couldn't be sold. You just won't manage to capture the image in some situations where the higher-end cameras will.
I have had photographs that have won awards, been exhibited in galleries, sold privately, and sold via Getty Images that I took using the Canon Rebel XT/350D, which is an 8 megapixel camera launched in 2005 as Canon's bottom-end DSLR.
Sounds marvellous!
I can't comment on cameras as I only have a compact P&S - but I LOVE your plan!
I agree with most of what has already been said (though there are a couple of points I would argue against, particularly in relation to crop-frame and action - but really that is just a distraction from the topic), but one must remember that is is all essentially just marketing. By that, I mean Canon (for example) will tell you that a XXXXD series is "entry-level", a XXXD series is "consumer" level, a XXD is "prosumer" level, and XD is "semi-pro" and anything with a 1D in it is "pro" level. While they market this way, the new(ish) 60D is no longer in the same league as previous XXD series bodies regarding build quality (ignoring the reduction in custom functions and other "pro" features) and yet it has been engineered with better image quality (newer sensor, better processor, better noise reduction etc). Why have they suddenly gone to a plastic chassis and a more "Rebel" feel? Because they want to push the XXD-series owners to the XD (namely 7D) series. And they keep doing it. The 5D Mark III (awesome portrait camera) is not a huge step from the 5D Mark II, so many Mark II owners are now looking instead at the 1DX, or even (like me) waiting for the next "1Ds-series" or equivalent - all according to their plan, no doubt. And yet, a 650D takes a picture about 5 times better than the $10k 1D of only a few years ago. Go figure.
So, ignore all the hype. If it will do what you need it to do, and it will survive the environments in which you plan to shoot, it is "pro" enough for your needs. If you plan to shoot 20000 images per year, you probably don't need a shutter rated to 400000 activations.
On another note, I recently attended a gallery event for a local high-profile photographer friend, and every print was taken (and processed) on his iPhone. It was the right tool for the job, and the gallery was incredible.
I think the camera is good if it does what you want, and it's "professional" if it does what your market wants. :D
p.s. i am responding only to the title.