# Choosing a Professional Camera



## jbetz (Sep 29, 2009)

Hi everyone. I am looking for some advice about which camera to purchase for professional work. Specifically, I am wondering whether there is an established line between professional DSLRs and consumer DSLRs.

I am looking to make an investment in a new camera and would like to future-proof my purchase.

Are there minimum specifications I should look for? For example, should I definitely purchase a camera with a full-frame sensor or would an APS-C or other smaller sensor be sufficient for professional work. (I know that "professional work" is way too broad. I am interested primarily in print and web-based photojournalism, as well as art photography for galleries, nothing huge, but I don't want to limit myself).

Are there benchmarks to look for, like sensor size, megapixels, etc? I'm considering the new Canon 7D, but do others think this is a viable option for a serious professional photographer? Up to this point I have used a D90 but would like to purchase something a bit nicer (not to mention I no longer have access to this camera). What are the best options?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 29, 2009)

I know you asked about the 7D, but I don't have any experience with Canon - and since you mentioned you used the D90 I figured I'd chime in.

I'll start off by asking if you were limited in any way by the D90 for what you do.

If so, in what ways?

Some options for you if you'd like to stay with Nikon would be the D300, D300s and D700 (full frame) which are all weather sealed and magnesium alloy bodies.

Do you have any lenses already?

Full frame vs crop sensor really depends on your needs, in some cases you'll be more limited with full frame, in particular if you need that extra reach.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 29, 2009)

if you want your lenses to do what they're "supposed" to do, you'll need a camera with a full frame sensor.  it will give you the most potential as far as creating DOF effects and a higher signal to noise ratio.  start out with a 5d and then move to a 1d when funds permit.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 29, 2009)

jbetz said:


> ...would like to future-proof my purchase.



You can't...  not anymore.

These days, cameras are computers with lenses.  Like all computers, the technology changes fairly quickly.

One thing you can do, like N0YZE was suggesting, is settle on a particular line so, when you do upgrade, you can continue with the same lenses.

Good luck!

-Pete


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 29, 2009)

are you already a "professional photographer"?
or are you just planning on being one?

what's your budget? do you have lenses?


----------



## jbetz (Sep 29, 2009)

I am making the transition from professional video to photography (not that there's much of a transition to make these days). I am a recent graduate, and so to answer your question no, I am not already a professional. But I'm also not the kind of person who wants to step up from a PowerShot to a DSLR and start calling themselves a photographer. I have pursued 35mm photography for many years as a hobby, and am just now looking to purchase a professional DSLR. I have experience with two D90s, one that I borrowed from my school and one that I borrowed from a friend. It's a great camera but now that I no longer have access to these, I'd like to purchase something of my own. 

I am looking to spend around $1500-$2500 on a body, and then up to another $1000 on one or two lenses. I have access to a few lenses and am hoping to borrow or rent others, so my primary concern is a nice body.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 29, 2009)

ICA5DM2KA Canon EOS-5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera / Lens Kit with EF 24-105L Image Stabilized Lens, - with 8GB CF Memory Card, Spare Canon LP-E6 Battery, Slinger Camera Bag, Flashpoint Professional Battery Grip, Adorama Digital Remote Release


bam.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 29, 2009)

nice package rob.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 29, 2009)

I'd buy that if funds allowed


----------



## Dwig (Sep 29, 2009)

#1: Its *NEVER* the camera that professional; its the photographer.

#2: There is no line separating those cameras that are appropriate for a professional to use and those that are not.

#3: Its totally impossible to "future proof" your purchase. Nothing you buy today will be "the camera" when the future comes. Buy only what you _need_ now. Plan on upgrading the camera body every several years.

#4: Its more the system you buy into and the lenses you buy now, rather than the body, that's important.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 29, 2009)

Future proofing is impossible, but you can go a long ways by realizing that Nikon and Canon come out with new professional-level models about every four years, and there's about two years left until the next Nikon pro model comes along.

Professional photography is a vast field,encompassing dozens of specialty areas. You do not mention what type of work you want to specialize in, but if it is people photography, I would strongly suggest that the full frame bodies give better results because their sensors are 2.3 to 2.5 times larger than APS-C sensors, which gives more cropping options,and better High ISO performance, and better working distances with the many lenses already on the market.

A pro-level AF system is a bonus over a consumer-level AF system. Canon's 24-105 f/4 L-IS lens is an okay lens, but its edge performance is not very good until it's stopped down pretty well. I don't consider it a professional quality lens,and the 5D's AF system cannot focus that lens very well indoors in lower light--I know, I have the camera and the lens,and it's not a "workhorse" lens for demanding situations. it was designed as a kit lens for the 5D--capable at landscape apertures, but too slow and indecisive on autofocusing in anything but good light.

My opinion? If you want to become a "professional photographer", you will be seriously under-capitalized if all you have to spend is $3,000-$3,500. I
am not sure what the 'access to other lenses' will mean, but in today's market, $3,500 worth of gear is simply NOT enough to take on and deliver a lot of images in many professional fields...many hobbyists will be better equipped,and you will not be able to afford most of the pro standard equipment like a 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 and a decent flash at the $3.5k mark.


----------



## chakalakasp (Sep 29, 2009)

jbetz said:


> I am making the transition from professional video to photography (not that there's much of a transition to make these days). I am a recent graduate, and so to answer your question no, I am not already a professional. But I'm also not the kind of person who wants to step up from a PowerShot to a DSLR and start calling themselves a photographer. I have pursued 35mm photography for many years as a hobby, and am just now looking to purchase a professional DSLR. I have experience with two D90s, one that I borrowed from my school and one that I borrowed from a friend. It's a great camera but now that I no longer have access to these, I'd like to purchase something of my own.
> 
> I am looking to spend around $1500-$2500 on a body, and then up to another $1000 on one or two lenses. I have access to a few lenses and am hoping to borrow or rent others, so my primary concern is a nice body.



Even if you have access to a few lenses, you'd be better off flipping the equation and getting good lenses and a $1000ish body like a 50D or a 7D.  Bodies get old fast; a nice lens now will last at least 10 years before you start thinking "maybe I should get something newer...", and even then will have a decent resale value.  Used 7D bodies will cost $300 in about 4 or 5 years.


----------



## FrankLamont (Sep 29, 2009)

> (not that there's much of a transition to make these days)


Actually, video's a lot different to photography.

For instance, you have to deal with settings primarily, etc.


----------



## craig (Sep 29, 2009)

Whoa!!! Outstanding work!

Clearly you have an eye for image quality and all that jazz. Consider a full frame sensor and a very durable body. Make sure you get the camera in your hands before making your decision. Position of the controls and menus are very important.

Love & Bass


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 29, 2009)

Derrel said:


> My opinion? If you want to become a "professional photographer", you will be seriously under-capitalized if all you have to spend is $3,000-$3,500. I
> am not sure what the 'access to other lenses' will mean, but in today's market, $3,500 worth of gear is simply NOT enough to take on and deliver a lot of images in many professional fields...many hobbyists will be better equipped,and you will not be able to afford most of the pro standard equipment like a 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 and a decent flash at the $3.5k mark.



As much as I hate to say it, Derrel here has a point. The good shtuff doesn't come cheap, at all. And that gear can save your butt in many situations. Low-light is murder, and and f/2.8 lens or faster is necessary just so the AF sensor can focus well (and that's just talking about the professional AF sensors in the 5D, 1D, and 7D; other bodies have an even rougher go of it). Otherwise, you're stuck manually focusing in the dark; not fun.

Having just got my hands on two 7D's myself, I would agree that yes, they're definitely suitable for "professional" applications. Talk about jam-packed with features, and the AF system is nothing to gawk at. I still haven't had a good chance to test the new colour-sensitive metering system though. The only "downside" is that it's a crop sensor; in low-light and close shots, this is a disadvantage, but when using tele lenses and trying to get long shots, it's a definite advantage.

All that said though, it's likely to be out of your price range. :-/


----------



## camz (Sep 29, 2009)

There's also the prime lens approach. A canon (24mm 2.8) + (50 1.4) + (85mm 1.8) will cost just as much as one 27-70 2.8 but will deliver great results as far as IQ. It maybe bothersome to have to deal with lens changes(you can always have two bodies handy) however you will have more flexibility in low light and generally speaking primes focus faster then zooms. I haven't upgraded a camera body(I will soon) in over 4 years but the lens collection is a different story. My current setup is a 20D and a 5D and I shoot portraiture and weddings and I must say I still love my equipment b/c it serves my purpose.

You mentioned you will be covering photojournalism? I'm not sure what type but there are obviously no poses no setups so that's why I suggested fast prime lenses for you. You will be on the go and you need equipment that will deliver quick focused metering and low light flexibility. I'm not talking down on zooms b/c I own 5 but if budget is an issue then primes are definitely something to consider.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 30, 2009)

camz said:


> You mentioned you will be covering photojournalism? I'm not sure what type but there are obviously no poses no setups so that's why I suggested fast prime lenses for you.



Unless your paper assigns you to do a profile on someone, like an athlete, or artist. Then in come the lightstands, little speedlights, gels, and shtuff. >.<


----------



## UUilliam (Sep 30, 2009)

My suggestion: 
Buy a used Canon 20D (can get it on ebay for about $350) 
spend the other $3000 on glass
(28-70mm f2.8L = $1200)
(70-200mm f4 L = $1000)
then a macro (180mm) or a fish eye lens

Prices are rough guesstimates (converting from GBP to USD)
Uk prices are here
Camera Price Buster - Canon Lenses 
price for lens' is based on Brand new, on ebay you can probs get them about 15% cheaper

Then buy a few CompactFlash cards (unknown as to the price but I know I can get SD cards for £5 ($8) for 4gb)


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 30, 2009)

Derrel said:


> ...pro standard equipment like a 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 and a decent flash...



uh oh...  I didn't get the memo.  Looks like I'm sub-standard.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2009)

Yup...without pro equipment, you're sub-standard.

But seriously--the new "kit lens" standards of f/3.5 at the wide end and a pathetic f/5.6 at the long end of wide-to-normal zooms, and the even more-pathetic f/4.5~5.6 found in many longer tele-zooms like 55-200 or 70-300mm tele-zooms puts the crop-frame camera user firmly on what I consider soccer-mom ground; with lenses too slow to shoot most subjects indoors using available light, and with lenses with such small max. apertures that no depth of field isolation is possible.

Heck, even a college student like Musicale has two top-drawer crop-frame Canon's, and a 70-200 2.8 L-IS and Canon's current pro wide zoom, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L...and is still in college. It's a simple fact that f/2.8 constant aperture zooms in wide and tele-zoom classes have been "standard" professional equipment for about 15 years now; I see part-timers around here using both Canon and Nikon 24-70 and 28-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses with surprising frequency. Considering a 10-year lifespan on a pro-grade f/2.8 lens, $12 a month seems like a bargain to me to be able to deliver images made with professional-quality lenses.

Camz's idea of a trio of high quality prime lenses makes some sense to those on a budget, but with a crop-body-only system, I'm not sure that 24/50/85 is really the right trio of focal lengths to choose, but then camz has a FF option, where those three lengths make a TON of sense. I read not too long ago that in the next 12 to 24 months, there will be a major push toward FF cameras; time will tell I suppose. I look at lenses as a long-term cost that brings in returns over many years,even over as long as two decades,or longer, in the case of high-quality lenses built to professional standards.


----------



## Hobbes (Sep 30, 2009)

well everyone has to start as a newbie and has to use those crappy crop sensor cameras and pathetic kit lenses because not everyone can afford 5000 dollar + equipment but I am sure there are a lot of those so called college kids out there who are really talented and will probably become a better photographer than you will ever be. I am sure lots of people here have bills to pay while having neither a well paid job nor rich parents to make it possible to buy all those professional equipment


----------



## skieur (Sep 30, 2009)

Consider the full frame 24 megapixel Sony A850 body at $2,000 and then put Zeiss lenses on it.

skieur


----------



## jbylake (Sep 30, 2009)

Future Proof?  No way....I remember many years ago, telling a good friend of mine, that (at the time digital was very new, limited to about 1meg pixel), that someday, digital camera's would be the "new wave".  He laughed.  He said that "digital would never equal the quality of film".  Having grown up in a technological field, I saw many changes.  We had stuff in the military, that is just NOW showing up in the "civilian" world.  I've seen such a shift in technology in just the last 2 or 3 years, that in the past, would have taken 10 years.  Technology is measured in hours or day's now, not years.  I have no idea, and don't even want to guess what will be next, when it comes to digital photography, although, I've noticed that Hasselblad is already in the 30+ megapixle range.
I bought a state of the art laptop less than one year ago, and it's already been snuffed, as far as performance.
I think that this whole ordeal is part of the reason that my primary camera's are film.
I'm afraid to make a huge investment, only to find that something beyond my imagination, will make it "obsolete", within a few years.

In that regard, I guess that I'm glad that I'm not a professional, in as much as I don't have to "keep up", with technology, to stay competitive.

:thumbup:

j.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2009)

Well, a person who wishes to begin a "professional" photography enterprise had darned well better have a line of credit and/or some money in the bank before hanging out his or her shingle. Under-capitalization is one thing that causes many businesses to fail, and frankly, if a "professional photographer" cannot swing $5,000 in capital/startup costs, his or her chances of making a successful go of the business are pretty darned remote. Sure, a shoestring startup has a chance to make it, but most low-ballers end up failing and quitting. Buy their equipment USED!

Not everybody elects to begin with kit lenses--there are many people who are 30- and 40-something adults who have either personal savings, or credit cards, or who take out bank loans, and who begin photography businesses with ample amounts of money invested in the equipment that many of today's serious amateurs also have...Canon 5D Mark II's, Nikon D700's, and pro-grade lenses.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 30, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Not everybody elects to begin with kit lenses--there are many people who are 30- and 40-something adults who have either personal savings, or credit cards, or who take out bank loans, and who begin photography businesses with ample amounts of money invested in the equipment that many of today's serious amateurs also have...



I was 29 when I started on my own...  full time.  I bought a very low-end view camera, one minimal-level lens, and was lighting products with blue bulbs in reflectors.  I had only five film holders.  It got me by until I could afford something better.  But I never bought on credit.  Sure, I had a 30 day account at the camera store and color lab.  But I would never recommend borrowing money to buy equipment...  including charge cards.

-Pete


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 30, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Heck, even a college student like Musicale has two top-drawer crop-frame Canon's, and a 70-200 2.8 L-IS and Canon's current pro wide zoom, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L...and is still in college.



Only because I'm really, really lucky and got a lot of money out of a trust fund. It's a good thing camera lenses are a good investment...maybe even better than tuition?  



Derrel said:


> I read not too long ago that in the next 12 to 24 months, there will be a major push toward FF cameras; time will tell I suppose.



If there is a huge push to FF, we're all idiots. High pixel densities of APS-C cameras have clear advantages in some applications, like wildlife photography. They can turn that 800mm lens into a 1280mm (!), or a 400mm to 640mm. Thinking of just how tack sharp the 400/4L is on a FF camera, let alone a crop body, the advantage is clear. APS-C will also likely stick around in the lower-end consumer cameras, just for the sake of cost.

People may call me crazy, but the smaller sensors have another distinct advantage...in low-light. The increased DoF means that the AF system can afford to be a little off and still get acceptable focus on a moving target in low-light at f/2.8, and you still get the benefit of all that extra light hitting the image and AF sensors. Sure, noise is a downside, but with the advent of cameras like the 7D (which has a worse SNR than a 5Dduhbut is pretty damn close given it's photosite size), with very fast and sensitive AF systems, having that little bit of extra DoF can be a real boon. APS-C format cameras also have a definite advantage in macro photography, because you can use longer extension tubes before you get vignetting.

Obviously though, if it's smooth bokeh, and crisp much smooth images that you're after, FF is the obvious choice. FF is also obvious for wide-angle (but again is less of an issue given the advent of lenses such as the 10-22/3.5-4.5, which are still in the ultra-wide range, even with the crop factor).


----------



## jbetz (Sep 30, 2009)

Wow, I didn't expect so many responses so soon! This is an awesome forum! Since you have all made so many suggestions I won't respond to each individually, but it seems like I was definitely looking at things backwards. 

Tell me what you think, but it seems like it makes sense to get a relatively inexpensive, but still nice, body like the 7D, and to spend the bulk of my money on lenses. 

To clarify about my intentions, I am primarily a videographer and am looking to earn only part of my income through photography. I like the idea of an APS-C sensor because of the crop for wildlife work.


----------



## KmH (Sep 30, 2009)

A basic pro kit includes 3 lenses that will cover the 14-200 mm or so range, depending on camera brand. The 3 basic pro lenses for Nikon:

Prices are for new lenses:

AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR $1900

Lenses don't depreciate like camera bodies do so it's usually a good idea for a pro to buy new and get all the warranty.


----------



## camz (Sep 30, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Unless your paper assigns you to do a profile on someone, like an athlete, or artist. Then in come the lightstands, little speedlights, gels, and shtuff. >.<


 
No doubt that the op will eventually need these.  Even the majority of natural light shooters have some type of artificial lighting.

BTW I sold out to the strobist side on a full shoot over the weekend.  I was forced to test the Flex TT5's that I picked up.  Even though they're only functional at 40ft I love the TTL feature :thumbup:.  Plus I didn't want to handicap my old Plus II's useless.


----------



## stepanov photography (Oct 3, 2009)

I use the D90 more than my D700. It's lighter, I don't worry if I drop it and at sub ISO2000 it is almost identical in IQ performance! Sigma 17-55 2.8http://www.stepanovphotography.com


----------

