# First "Pro" Camera - What do you think about this setup?



## randomclem (Jan 5, 2014)

Hey there,

I've been looking to make a major upgrade to my photography setup.
For reference, my current camera is the Nikon D3100.

The two cameras I am really looking at are the Nikon D610 and the Canon 6D (as I really want to jump into the full frame game).
I really don't have any money tied up in Nikon lenses, so I am open to the idea of switching brands.

I've done some research online, as well as looked at several raw files from both cameras (as well as some other camera models from the Nikon and Canon lineup).
Upon close review (and again, I am by no means a pro), it seems like I favor the look captured with the Canon over the Nikon.

To my eye, it seems like the Nikon images don't quite capture all the dynamic range that a Canon does - anything remotely dark looks very compressed/noisy (not true with every comparison, mind you).
(And please note - the raw images I sampled were from:  Canon 60D, Canon 6D, Canon 5D MkII/III, Nikon D7000, Nikon D610, Nikon D4(?)).

Obviously the lighting, lens, subject, etc, all come into play in terms of the final images - so this was by no means a scientific comparison.
Just a quick humble opinion gathered by my eyes.


So...
With all of this said, I really like the 6D - however it has a lot of missing features, when compared to the feature line up of the D610 - so that is where my mind starts racing on which one to get...

Do any of you have experience with either of these cameras specifically?  If so, what are your thoughts?
Do you use Nikon or Canon lenses, and would be willing to give some insight as to why one platform is "better" than the other?

Any information you would be willing to lend would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 5, 2014)

welcome to the site. I have a Canon T3i with upgraded glass. From everything that I've read and understand, the Nikon seems to get better grades on dynamic range.



Scores
Specs
Measurements
Lenses tested
*Nikon D610
*
http://www.dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/D610/vignette2.jpg



*DxOMark Sensor Scores*Overall Score
[?]94Portrait 
(Color Depth)
[?]25.1 bitsLandscape 
(Dynamic Range)
[?]14.4 EvsSports 
(Low-Light ISO)
[?]2925 ISO







*Canon EOS 6D
*
http://www.dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/EOS_6D/vignette2.jpg



*DxOMark Sensor Scores*Overall Score
[?]82Portrait 
(Color Depth)
[?]23.8 bitsLandscape 
(Dynamic Range)
[?]12.1 EvsSports 
(Low-Light ISO)
[?]2340 ISO


----------



## goodguy (Jan 5, 2014)

First I would like to say these 2 cameras are full frame but are not considered pro cameras, the pro cameras are the 5DIII and D800
Overall the D610 is the better camera, has better dynamic, better AF system and has 2 SD crad slots vs the single on the 6D
6D has a slightly better low light performance but both cameras low light performance is so good that this small advantage is negligable (unless you plan on doing mostly low light photography).


----------



## randomclem (Jan 5, 2014)

Thats interesting - thanks for posting this information!

All of the images that I reviewed seemed to have lots of artifacts/noise occur in the shadows of the image - it seemed like the Canon could handle that detail a little bit better.

Anyway - does anyone else have any input on this - D610 vs 6D?


----------



## ronlane (Jan 5, 2014)

patience, there will be more people weight into canon vs nikon.


----------



## randomclem (Jan 5, 2014)

I dont particularly care that the 6D is down one SD slot from the Nikon - I would never be able to shoot enough raw files to fill up two 65gb cards in a single session   I'm not on that level.
And sorry to call these "pro" cameras - I didn't mean to offend the owners of the $5k+ cameras out there..


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 5, 2014)

D610 = Entry level Full Frame
D800 = Pro-Consumer 
D3/D3s/D4 = Professional body

Anyhow, I can't commit on Cannon and I'll avoid debating Nikon vs Canon. But what I will say is this, Always buy the best you can afford without breaking the bank.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 5, 2014)

randomclem said:


> To my eye, it seems like the Nikon images don't quite capture all the dynamic range that a Canon does - anything remotely dark looks very compressed/noisy.
> I also noticed the Nikons seem to output photos with a slight hint of blue, and the Canon does the same but with a slight hint of red..  I like the warmth of the Canon.
> (And please note - the raw images I sampled were from:  Canon 60D, Canon 6D, Canon 5D MkII/III, Nikon D7000, Nikon D610, Nikon D4(?)).



Did you actually post process raw files from each camera?  Keep in mind that you *can't* look at a "RAW image"!  Necessarily a RAW file must be interpolated to generate a TIFF or JPEG image to be viewed.  There is great significance to that for the characteristics you have mentioned!

Nikon's D610, as the posted DXOMark evaluations show, is far ahead of the Canon 6D.  Each of the above characteristics, rather than being indicative of camera quality, is actually a fairly simple function of how the RAW files were post processed.  You want a warmer image from Nikon or a cooler image from Canon, it is readily available for either in camera JPEG generation or for external post processing.  The same is true for moving the approximately 8 stops of useful dynamic range display by a JPEG image a little higher or lower or either compressing or expanding the captured image too.  (Note that Nikon has significantly more range to play with though.)



> I really like the 6D - however it has a lot of missing features, when compared to the feature line up of the D610



All of those previous image characteristics can be adjusted to be exactly the opposite of what you observed, but missing feature options are missing forever.



> Do you use Nikon or Canon lenses, and would be willing to give some insight as to why one platform is better than the other?



I use Nikon equipment, and that was not an accident.  But my needs are not your needs, so exactly why my choices were made really is not applicable to you.

The technical aspects of current low and mid-level cameras absolutely favor Nikon.  That is also true at the prosumer level.   At the very top it is much closer to equal.

But there are other qualities which are more important to some people.  The user interface is one area  that cannot simply be measured as better/worse, just different.  Some people hate what Nikon does, some hate what Canon does.  Some really don't care and can adjust to either.  Another reasonable distinction is having the same system as your friends, or not.

The lens lineup from both manufacturers has advantages according  to some.  Personally I've never seen either as significantly better than the other.  If one is better at this the other is better at that.

 The primary issue for my purposes has always been that Canon is a large company which is far more market driven than Nikon. Nikon is a smaller company and the Engineering people have more sway.  The effects can only be seen over a long period of time and many different models.  Canon is very quick to bring bleeding edge technology to market.  It may not be as well integrated, and may have a few minor bumps, they have it first.  Nikon holds back until they can fit it into their system. They aren't there first, but their system is smoother.

Make a choice based on what you expect will be imporant a few years down the road!  When you own half a dozen expensive lenses and are on your third  camera body there is no choice about the next one!   Both Canon and Nikon have reasonable long term systems that absolutely are different.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 6, 2014)

If you're anything like me and you aren't particularly impressed by the d6xx and the d8xx series, then just wait till the d4x comes out. Where i live it will only cost double the price of the d800e, i am prepared to spend that type of money.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 6, 2014)

I would not read to much into the numbers game. If the 6d looks better to you then it looks better to you. this pro/consumer-prosumer stuff is not as clear cut as it used to be. The image quality on cheaper models can often be similar to the more expensive models. Where you get pro benefits is usually in build and speed. 2 cards is generally an advantage because you can put raw on one, jpeg on the other so you have a backup should one fail where the photos are critical. Two cards can be configured other ways also, but I don't think for most it is because of filling a card in a single shoot.

As for what camera- both of these cameras you are looking at are a massive step up from nikons most entry level. In real day to day use many may not see a massive difference between them. At low ISO however the nikon should have better dynamic range, which can be handy for high contrast shots (into the light etc). I would doubt if you would be disappointed with either


----------



## jaomul (Jan 6, 2014)

hamlet said:


> If you're anything like me and you aren't particularly impressed by the d6xx and the d8xx series, then just wait till the d4x comes out. Where i live it will only cost double the price of the d800e, i am prepared to spend that type of money.



Very unhelpful to recommend buying a camera 4 times the op budget


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2014)

Well, the 6D does have a lot of missing features; it represents an attempt on Canon's part to get you to step "up" to the 5D Mark III. In terms of how you want the images to look, the best thing to do is to load up on pre-sets for Lightroom, and take the extra two and one-third EV MORE dynamic range the Nikon offers, and use that significant advantage to "push" your RAW files to look exactly the way you want them to look as finished JPEG images for end-use.

I personally think that greater dynamic range is the single biggest asset that Nikon offers over Canon. But some people prefer Canon cameras, and the way Canon feels and operates. Both companies have some wonderful lenses, and some good accessories. If you are a beginning to intermediate-level shooter, I really think that **you** will be the weakest link in the whole chain.

Your lens set is probably more important than the camera you buy. But again, until, you're at a pretty advanced level, you'd probably not notice the differences between a 6D image and a D610 image. Your ability to post-process images would be the area I'd focus the most on. You really do not have a "setup"...all you have are two camera model numbers.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Well, the 6D does have a lot of missing features; it represents an attempt on Canon's part to get you to step "up" to the 5D Mark III.



I was very close to getting a 6D, but the specs felt like the camera was built to fit nicely between the mk3 and the 7D rather than being the best it could be. I mean 11 focus points is just silly. 


At the end of the day any canon/nikon over $2k isn't going to be a slouch.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 6, 2014)

Got to admit that all of the research and rumors and talk and such that I have pretty much decided to wait and get a 5D mkIII myself. The prices are coming down to under $3K and I have the glass for it, so why settle and regret it later.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 6, 2014)

hamlet said:


> If you're anything like me and you aren't particularly impressed by the d6xx and the d8xx series, then just wait till the d4x comes out. Where i live it will only cost double the price of the d800e, i am prepared to spend that type of money.


Waiting for the Nikon D4xx to come out, well I have a feeling that when it will come out the messiah will be here too, I am going outside now to look for a white donkey.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Got to admit that all of the research and rumors and talk and such that I have pretty much decided to wait and get a 5D mkIII myself. The prices are coming down to under $3K and I have the glass for it, so why settle and regret it later.




I've found that tech specs are really just numbers on paper. It's like cars. On paper a Mustang has more HP than a Lotus, but a Lotus is way more fun to drive.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 6, 2014)

I agree. That's is my point, if you are going to be comparing to ZZZ, then why settle for YYY. You'll just continue to compare it to it which will make you "think" it is inferior, so why not just go all in for ZZZ.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> I was very close to getting a 6D, but the specs felt like the camera was built to fit nicely between the mk3 and the 7D rather than being the best it could be. I mean 11 focus points is just silly.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day any canon/nikon over $2k isn't going to be a slouch.


I really, really gotta know is this you Jeremy C ?


----------



## hamlet (Jan 6, 2014)

goodguy said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > If you're anything like me and you aren't particularly impressed by the d6xx and the d8xx series, then just wait till the d4x comes out. Where i live it will only cost double the price of the d800e, i am prepared to spend that type of money.
> ...



The x models come out a year or two after the normal model. The D4 came out in 6 January 2012, we are exactly 2 years into its release so it is not long any more.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2014)

apaflo said:
			
		

> Canon is very quick to bring bleeding edge technology to market.  It may not be as well integrated, and may have a few minor bumps,* they have it first*.



UNLESS you mean things like multi-area evaluative light metering or as Nikon called it when they invented it back in the mid-1980's, "Matrix" metering.

Or, distance-aware light metering.

Or color-aware light metering, something Nikon invented,and which Canon required about 15 years to figure out a way around Nikon's intellectual property...

Or remote, multi-flash TTL commander operation...which took Canon forever to figure out...

Or accurate TTL flash metering...wow, that one was a toughie for Canon, mainly because of the color-blind light metering problem...

Or SPOT metering in consumer and mid-level cameras...they're still working on that "cutting edge for Canon" hurdle...

Or how to make a camera in the top 20 in sensor performance...which Canon has not managed to do...yet, but mayyyybe some day...

Or how to make a consumer camera with more than 18 megapixels...

Canon is however, the world's leading photocopier manufacturer.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought Pure Photography advocates didn't care about such things?


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 6, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Got to admit that all of the research and rumors and talk and such that I have pretty much decided to wait and get a 5D mkIII myself. The prices are coming down to under $3K and I have the glass for it, so why settle and regret it later.



I have been considering the 5D mkIII also.  One of the guys I follow on Flickr uses the 5D mkIII and gets imo fantastic shots ( I believe he uses 300mm F4 & 1.4 TC).  cbjphoto if you care to look.  Either way, I think I can hold off until March (hopefully) to see what the 7D Mk II has to offer.  That doggone reach thing for birds.....


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2014)

runnah said:
			
		

> I thought Pure Photography advocates didn't care about such things?



The underlying technology of 3-D distance, and color-aware light metering, matrix metering, and superior flash metering are the basic technologies that allow beginner and intermediate level shooters to basically, buy a Nikon d-slr and slap it into one of the scene modes, and get good results. The color-aware metering allows the cameras to get better white balance too, and allows the dynamic range enhancement software to make better out-of-camera JPEGs. FOr the longest time, Canon cameras of all price ranges could NOT give very good flash exposure regulation...because until the 7D was invented, every Canon was "color-blind" in terms of metering...

I dunno...I shoot the Nikon D3x, perhaps the finest made d-slr ever on the market. I expect the best performance, and the camera is for me, a no-compromises solution. It's my fourth Nikon flagship-level camera since 2001...I'm used to having the best...For me coming up, Canon was always a joke system....today Canon's system is better than it was in the 1970's and 1980's. But I just wanted to correct apaflo's assertion that Canon integrates cutting edge technology "first", because for 20 years, they have serious lagged in a number of the real fundamentals...like light metering, and flash metering...

The 5D-Mark III is the FIRST mid-level body Canon has made that's not a joke...the 5D classic and the 5D-II both were $389 EOS ELAN bodies with digital guts and cheap focus systems from low-level APS-C bodies...priced at $3,499 at entry into the market...

Canon;s done the same thing with the 5D-III versus the D800...priced it $705 MORE-expensive than a better-made Nikon. But still, the 5D-III is the first decent, *high-performance body* FF Canon has made at under $7,999. The 6D is a calculated money-grab it seems...it is the good/better/best, designed to "PUSH" the buyers to the highest profit-level FF camera, the 5D Mark III.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 6, 2014)

ronlane said:


> I agree. That's is my point, if you are going to be comparing to ZZZ, then why settle for YYY. You'll just continue to compare it to it which will make you "think" it is inferior, so why not just go all in for ZZZ.



That would be too easy.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2014)

Derrel, I am just busting your balls on this one.  

 I see my camera as a tool to do my job and frankly out of all the cameras on the market it best met my needs. Brand wasn't a factor at all when it came down to buying.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> I thought Pure Photography advocates didn't care about such things?



Those are, generally, the things "Pure Photography advocates" do care about.  They don't make very good marketing fodder though, hence Canon may not pay much attention in terms of R&D.

 Some times that causes a roll reversal, because things like Nikon's advances with a variety of non-Nikon sensors has provided them the advantage in marketing as well as system integration.  That was my point to begin with, that Nikon is a small company with more input from their engineers than is true with Canon.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> Derrel, I am just busting your balls on this one.
> 
> I see my camera as a tool to do my job and frankly out of all the cameras on the market it best met my needs. Brand wasn't a factor at all when it came down to buying.



Well, whatever. *No worries*! For those who wonder about how a camera can actually "improve" their photography, here's an article Thom Hogan wrote, where he describes which,specific Nikon cameras actually improved his photography.

Answering My Own Question | byThom | Thom Hogan

I see the 5D-III for what it was: Canon's realization that the 5D classic and 5D-II were cheap bodies, fitted  with good sensors, and that Nikon's innovation with the D3,D3s, and the D700's runaway success represented the first real,significant challenge to the Canon status quo of selling a CHEAP, under-capable body with a GOOD sensor in it. The 5D-III is one of the best cameras available today in terms of what it does, what it offers, and where it's positioned. It HAD TO BE GREAT, because since 2007, Canon had steadily been losing customers to Nikon.

For a long time, the web was filled with the idea that Canon needed to make a "Nikon D700-class body...you know, a camera that actually handled great, and could focus at a very high-level someplace besides JUST the center AF point." And so...the 5D Mark III was born!

Yeah, the 5D Mark III is a nice camera body. I LIKE it's fit,finish, and feel. Last time I needed a new, top camera, I evaluated it, the D4 and the D3x, and went with the D3x. I could be happy with a 5D-III, but I own more Nikon glass than I own Canon glass.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Well, whatever. No worries! For those who wonder about how a camera can actually "improve" their photography,



Ooo going for the jugular.

Be a fanboy and defend your particular sacred cow with every breath, that is fine with me.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> I've found that tech specs are really just numbers on paper. It's like cars. On paper a Mustang has more HP than a Lotus, but a Lotus is way more fun to drive.



  What gives the list of specs meaning is the *priority* of each list item for different photographers.  No priority... no meaning!

Techies tend to go on and on about, for an example, lens sharpness as the be all end all of what counts for a bird photographer.  In the end it boils down to a priority by price, as the longest focal length with the sharpest images is the "best" by that yard stick.  Is it valid?

I've been having an ongoing discussion with a chap who virtually never makes large prints and only produces images for display on the web.  He swears by a number of "inferior" lenses, says he can hand hold a 500mm lens (on a cropped sensor camera) and owns not just one 10x superzoom, but three different ones!  For his intended use, his priorities are very appropriate.

I am always looking for shots that print at least 16x20 and hopefully 24x30.  I've never considered buying any 10x zoom.  I see MTF charts as a great source of information.  I like big sturdy tripods.  Basically my priorities are virtually all exactly the opposite of this other chap.

  Which of us is "right"?   Both!   We look at the same list of technical specs and place a very different weight on each item. We each are willing to invest significant money in the "right" lens, and neither of us tends to waste money on the wrong equipment.  But clearly we need different equipment, and in fact have almost no gear in common! But we both pay a huge amount of attention to spec sheets.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2014)

apaflo said:


> What gives the list of specs meaning is the priority of each list item for different photographers.  No priority... no meaning!



You are correct sir. For me I needed a dslr that was great at stills and great at video. Right now that was a canon. I spent hours looking at footage comparing to two and made my choice based on that. If nikon had been better I would have gotten one. Simple as that. 

I am not here bashing one brand over another to make me feel better about my purchase. Because at the end of the day, more megapixels and more ISO isn't going to make me better or worse.


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 6, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> D610 = Entry level Full Frame
> D800 = Pro-Consumer
> D3/D3s/D4 = Professional body
> 
> Anyhow, I can't commit on Cannon and I'll avoid debating Nikon vs Canon. But what I will say is this, Always buy the best you can afford without breaking the bank.



The D800 certainly qualifies as a professional body.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 6, 2014)

Sure it is, people who make large posters use it for their profession. But it bridges the gap between professional and consumer, so you could say it is for both.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 6, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > D610 = Entry level Full Frame
> ...



I said Pro. 

The D800 is like the D7100 of FX bodies to me. A lot of Pros love and use the D800 and I plan on buying one my self real soon. D3/D3s/D4 just screams Professional Bodies to me.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 7, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> PaulWog said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



And tailgunners. 






Gun all your targets down.


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 7, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> PaulWog said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



Pro is short for professional.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 7, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > PaulWog said:
> ...



Thanks, I was wondering what that stood for.


----------



## lanyemichelle (Jan 7, 2014)

I like pizza. Does anybody else like Pizza? 

Nobody ever argues about what makes a professional pizza...


----------



## hamlet (Jan 7, 2014)

lanyemichelle said:


> I like pizza. Does anybody else like Pizza?
> 
> Nobody ever argues about what makes a professional pizza...



I bet you there is a pizza forum right now where they are duking it out.


----------



## lanyemichelle (Jan 7, 2014)

hamlet said:


> lanyemichelle said:
> 
> 
> > I like pizza. Does anybody else like Pizza?
> ...



Possibly...

Honestly, on the topic of "pro vs consumer, etc" I think that there isn't a MONUMENTALLY HUGE difference with most of the cameras mention. The D610, D800, and D4 are all great bodies. Whether or not great images come from them depends on who is behind it. 

I've mentioned this in another thread, but one of the wedding photographers in my area with the most awards and clientele shoots with a D300. Sure, it's considered a professional body, but I've seen the images that come SOOC and they don't really hold a candle to my D600. The D600 is rated with one of the best sensors available right now, and the D4 is even lower down the rankings list (DxOmark rankings). NOTE I haven't shot with a D4, and I only test drove the D800 in the shop. I haven't even really researched the D4 that much because spending that kind of cash would be nuts for me right now.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 7, 2014)

lanyemichelle said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > lanyemichelle said:
> ...



The d4 is definitely being outclassed by the d800. So it wouldn't be wise to invest in a new d4 right now, but Nikon just announced details about the d4s and the d4x is also looming in the background. These newer versions will include the new technologies that are implemented in the recently released nikon bodies. Its all a wait and see attitude for me right now and upgrading from an entry level to the top of the line will definitely be a noticeable difference for me to say the least and i'm a fish fresh out of water. :lmao:


----------



## hardingaling (Jan 8, 2014)

So err you want to upgrade, and I was wondering which lenses you are going to buy, because you said you had not invested any money into lenses yet. Normally you would expect someone to get a couple of good quality FX lenses before buying a camera.


----------



## hardingaling (Jan 8, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Sure it is, people who make large posters use it for their profession. But it bridges the gap between professional and consumer, so you could say it is for both.



I guess it's used a lot in wedding photography as well, for an amateur, I doubt the D800 should be recommend simply because it's a special kind of camera for special situations, whereas as an amateur, I would look for a camera that does all kinds of situations, something like the D700 or newer D610, so I think I would say that the D800 is mainly pro, whereas the D6XX series is what is bridging the gap at the moment.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 8, 2014)

Sigh.  You do know that (even) a Holga is a professional camera when used by someone with both skill and talent, yes?  Put an entry-level camera in the hands of a good photographer, and a "professional" camera in the hands of a beginner, and I'm pretty sure we all know which images will be the most interesting and memorable.  Dang.  Why do people insist on looking through the wrong end of the telescope all the time???


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 8, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Sigh.  You do know that (even) a Holga is a professional camera when used by someone with both skill and talent, yes?  Put an entry-level camera in the hands of a good photographer, and a "professional" camera in the hands of a beginner, and I'm pretty sure we all know which images will be the most interesting and memorable.  Dang.  Why do people insist on looking through the wrong end of the telescope all the time???



Because it justifies their gear lust.  Why else? 

Whatever you do don't say this to photographer's wives, it will stop us from being allowed to buy new gear!


----------



## slow231 (Jan 8, 2014)

goodguy said:


> First I would like to say these 2 cameras are full frame but are not considered pro cameras, the pro cameras are the 5DIII and D800





Tailgunner said:


> D610 = Entry level Full Frame
> D800 = Pro-Consumer
> D3/D3s/D4 = Professional body
> 
> Anyhow, I can't commit on Cannon and I'll avoid debating Nikon vs Canon. But what I will say is this, Always buy the best you can afford without breaking the bank.



god this pro/pro-sumer/etc classification is so freaking annoying.  not only does it not make a lick of difference in almost any context in which it's ever brought up (it only comes up when someone wants to be extra pretentious about gear), but it's always tossed around as if it's based off of some formal classification (if there is any actual official classification by nikon it sure as hell buried down somewhere not very accessible).  In the end these "facts" just seem to be based off of individual opinions. funnier still is that more often than not the only ones who deem it necessary to clarify pro vs. non-pro gear... aren't even professionals!  what a joke.

also just FYI according to NPS (probably one of the few instances where a pro vs. non-pro classification serves an actual purpose) all of their full frame bodies seem to qualify as "pro" gear... http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf .  So in the event that you really just have to be a gear dick and categorize camera models, the d600/d610 should probably _technically_ be considered "pro".

and to the OP: if you think that dynamic range is something you can qualitatively judge by comparing already converted/processed jpgs (of different images) found on the internet, then by all means believe the 6d has better dynamic range.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Sigh.  You do know that (even) a Holga is a professional camera when used by someone with both skill and talent, yes?  Put an entry-level camera in the hands of a good photographer, and a "professional" camera in the hands of a beginner, and I'm pretty sure we all know which images will be the most interesting and memorable.  Dang.  Why do people insist on looking through the wrong end of the telescope all the time???



Is that why everything looks so gosh darn small?  Geez.  Man, that would have been helpful advice.. a week or two ago!

Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

Ok, so after reading through this thread a few thoughts.

Recently I did some senior photos for a friend of a friend.  They had originally hired a professional photographer who apparently shot fashion shoots for catalogs but had told them he had "opened his own studio" because he no longer wanted to do that kind of work.  They hired him to take senior photo's of their daughter, and apparently it was a total train wreck.  It was so bad that their daughter didn't even want to have senior photo's taken, I guess the guy went into the situation treating her like a professional model, well at least treating her like he thought a real jackass full of himself photographer would treat a professional model.  Well after that the girl didn't even want to have senior pictures taken.

The parents are friends of a friend, and about a month or so ago my friend got the story from the mom, and said she should have me do the senior pictures.   At first I refused but I owed my friend a favor so I finally relented, realizing that the girl wouldn't do another shoot with an actual professional I figured I might as well.  So we did the photoshoot - long story short (I know, too late) Parents were happy, girl was happy, senior pictures were just what she wanted, etc etc..

Well the parents insisted on paying me for the shoot, I refused over and over again, then they conspired with my friend to purchase a new camera for me as payment.  One thing led to another and since they got a little confused as to what they should buy they sent me a gift card instead.  Ok, so the professional they hired didn't get the job done and didn't get paid.  I got the job done and I did get paid, albiet reluctantly.

So, I did the shoot with my D5100 - since I was paid that would technically make me a pro, right?  And would that not also make my D5100 then a pro body?

The professional they originally hired didn't get paid, and acted very unprofessionally.  So does that make the Canon 5d Mark III an unprofessional body?

Or could it be, as Pgriz so wisely pointed out, that worrying about the "designation" of the camera body is actually rather silly, when you stop and think about it.


----------



## runnah (Jan 8, 2014)

It is silly. Some say "oh if it doesn't have a round eye piece and a built in vertical grip it's not a pro camera" I find that to be ironic because the same people say the camera doesn't make the photo good the photographer does.

So it can't be both ways. But I don't lose much sleep over it.

Ps my friend who does lots of model work got another magazine cover. I think this is his 5th or 6th cover and he has had countless spreads. He uses a d600 and tamron lenses so there you go.


----------



## Iluxa007 (Jan 8, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, so after reading through this thread a few thoughts.
> 
> Recently I did some senior photos for a friend of a friend.  They had originally hired a professional photographer who apparently shot fashion shoots for catalogs but had told them he had "opened his own studio" because he no longer wanted to do that kind of work.  They hired him to take senior photo's of their daughter, and apparently it was a total train wreck.  It was so bad that their daughter didn't even want to have senior photo's taken, I guess the guy went into the situation treating her like a professional model, well at least treating her like he thought a real jackass full of himself photographer would treat a professional model.  Well after that the girl didn't even want to have senior pictures taken.
> 
> ...



D5100 will never be pro, regardless of the situation. And 5DIII is a semi-pro.


----------



## runnah (Jan 8, 2014)

Iluxa007 said:


> D5100 will never be pro, regardless of the situation. And 5DIII is a semi-pro.



Wow you convinced me!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

Iluxa007 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so after reading through this thread a few thoughts.
> ...



So essentially, what your saying here then is that you completely missed the entire point?  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> Iluxa007 said:
> 
> 
> > D5100 will never be pro, regardless of the situation. And 5DIII is a semi-pro.
> ...



Does pretty much sum it up, doesn't it.. rotflmao


----------



## runnah (Jan 9, 2014)

This bugged me so I looked up the d800 vs. the D4 and the 5d mkii vs the 1dx.

Sure enough the only massive difference was the fps. So guess having high fps is the only difference between a pro body and a beginner one.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Well r2d2 and c3po are beginners compared to J5 on Blankman.  




I don't have much of a life right now.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 9, 2014)

Iluxa007 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so after reading through this thread a few thoughts.
> ...



Lol. Seriously. Lol.


----------

