Musty wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Sheldon wrote:


camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
photography

That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.




I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full pro
camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is not a
professional race car.

Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm (where
these 70D's and Canon 20D's evolve from) is not high end. It has its high end
in cameras like the EOS-1v, F5 and Maxxum 9, but the 20D, D70 and Max 7D do not
in any way measure up to the capabilities of the film 'kings'. And those film
kings in 35mm are certainly not 'high end' in photography in any sense.


It may be just terminology, but I consider digital cameras into the
following categories

P&S compact - eg Canon SD300
P&S prosumer - eg Olympus C-8080
SLR consumer/high-end - Canon 300D
SLR high end - Canon 20D, Nikon D70 (borderline)
SLR professional - Canon 1Dx, Nikon D2X

The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's high
end. (And there are scanning backs that go much higher).



D70 and 10D are less high end than 20D because they are older and are not as
fast. But 20D is a VERY fast camera and with a rich set of features to the
point that I have seen pros use them. I have seen pros shoot with 10D.

You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.


With anything you have to distinguish high-end from professional. If
spending over $2000 on a body and lens is not high-end, then what is?

$2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned. Pros, or
their companies, are buying $4000 - $8000 full frame DSLR's. The top of this
range, the 1Ds Mk II is encroaching on MF. That is definitely high end where
"35mm" ish DSLR's are concerned. The D70 is a relative toy.

It depends on the profession.

With the 1Ds Mk II or even the recent Nikon 12 Mpix, one has the tools one would
expect to satisfy many, but not all pros.

Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a MF camera
(film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here in this ng are the
6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and finally K-M are
targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower end' professionals who do not
need large enlargements. Surely the number of pixels will increase over time,
but so it will for 'high end' cameras. There will always be a gap, as there is
in most domains.

It is no different really from the fact that professionals in the pre-digital
era used mainly MF and LF cameras for serious commercial work in advertising,
modeling, weddings, architecture, landscape, etc. 35mm was not enough for many
applications then, and it isn't any more applicable now. For sports it is
highly applicable, but most pro photogs have been shooting the high end Canons
and Nikons, not the consumer cameras.

I don't mean to put down the consumer oriented cameras, I hope to get a Maxxum
7D soon myslef. But despite my esoteric collection of glass, it will not be any
more 'high end' than my pro Maxxum 9 35mm body is with the same collection of
glass. Same goes for the 70D+any collection of glass or the Canon 10D/20D and
any collection of glass. Fine enough, but not 'high end'.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.