AP back page Pro Cameras

[dee]

I was amused by your comments on the General Public's assumption that Professional Photographers have to have the most expensive and recent gear .

As a design student way back when , I was impressed by the battered Nikons and seemingly well worn Rolleiflexes of a visit to a Pro Studio specialising in Interior photography . Not to mention battered lighting equipment and less than perfect umbrellas etc .

You can tell a old Pro Designer / Visualiser by the almost worn scale / set square held together with Sellotape . Just 4 at most specialist Rapidigraph pens , maybe 3 0.5 pencils of the same type with different leads etc etc .
It's the new kids on the block [ and students ] with all the pristine gear .

My daughter , as a book designer , has abandoned the older big screen / tower Mac in the study for an older generation MacBook Pro . Many would question how she manages , but it's right for her . The tower still provides storage , and big screen checking , but the laptop is the prime mover .

In other words the barest minimum of well used , well worn , familiar instruments which fit that particular sector and that specific Designer .

I cannot see why others cannot apply this simple criteria to all Pro creativity .

[Roger Hicks]

If I recall the article correctly (I've not yet had the AP in question), that was only one of the two popular perceptions I postulated, and my final conclusion was that professionals are motivated as much by personal preference as anyone else, and relatively little by either 'Latest and Best' or by what I called the 'accountancy' theory.

Cheers,

R.

[kram]

An old friend of mine use to run for his country at national and small international event (cross country 3-12 miles event I believe). He usd to run twice a day, normally 6 miles, some times 10-14 miles before a race. He would buy Rebok trainers ~£30 because they fitted him. He would get through a pair in ~ 3 months. All runners like him (i.e not quite pro ) use to run in cheap shorts and tops - because they would take a hammering. He told me that the only people who worn expensive kit, were either just started to run or were sponsered by the manufacturers. I think you can apply this statement to most kit.

[250swb]

An amusing thread currently on RFF is about a rumoured M9-P, the presiding theories being that 'P' stands for Professional and it will be a camera with even fewer functions than the current M9, at a higher price, and only with cosmetic upgrades. I have yet to meet a true professional photographer (and I speak as an 'ex') who would run to the camera shop on that basis.

It is laughable that professionals upgrade equipment without good cause rather than feed their families and have a life. A wake up call for amateurs would be to actually use their own cameras in a professional environment for a week. They may realise the abuse a camera can take to get the shot on time and without fuss for the client, or how little their efforts are valued commercially, or how hard it is to pick up the camera bag again the following day for the next 14 hour job. Then they may think twice about the thrill of a new camera and hope they stay in business long enough to wear out the current one.

Steve

[Brian Sweeney]

The F3P was substantially more cost than the F3HP. It had less features. The camera was better sealed and made to operate over more harsh environments than the standard F3HP. The F3HP is no slouch, and saw a lot of Pro use.

No point speculating on an M9P until it is announced and we see what features is has.

[sevo]

The F3P was substantially more cost than the F3HP.

Was it? I remember it being cheaper through official channels, but I got one in about 87, when Nikons were already beginning to be viewed as a bit long in the tooth compared to the Minolta 9000, so that they may have bridged the gap until the F4 with discounts to maintain their prestige-laden position in the press pit.