On Nov 21, 2004, at 3:39 PM, William Robb wrote:
The nice thing about this subject is that it is purely opinion based. Your opinion is just as correct as anyone elses.
The LX was definitely a pro camera, at the time, it was as good as or better than anything else out there, and the company stood behind the thing.
I hope y'all don't mind if I speak up. I've been following this discussion with some interest. :-) I guess it's not a simple thing, in the 35mm photography realm, to know exactly what a "pro" camera is!
My professional experience has not been in 35mm or still photography, but rather with video cameras and equipment (some years ago now). In the video realm, there used to be a distinct difference between "pro" equipment and "consumer." There were many levels at which pro equipment was different from consumer.
For one, the build quality of pro equipment was light-years better than consumer or amateur equipment. The switches, the motors, the way the equipment handled, everything was obviously much better built, and worked more smoothly and never broke. In fact, after spending some time with pro video cameras, using a consumer-grade camera became unbearable to me. :-) So, quality of materials and construction is a definite difference between pro and amateur.
Secondly, they are differently built and equipped. Pro equipment used to be mostly devoid of automatic controls. Everything was set up manually. In fact, as part of that, far more parameters were adjustable and adjustable in more ways in pro equipment. As well, connections were also completely different (and incompatible, I might add). Consumer gear had phono jacks, and/or RCA jacks, and pro equipment had balanced XLR jacks, and BNC. So, pro equipment generally offered more control, and had different connections. Also, they were outfit with items that consumers would not need, such as color bar generation, SMPTE time code, etc...
Thirdly, purchasing and service was completely separate from the consumer realm. Generally, when we wanted to buy a new camera, the distributer sent a person to us with one model, and this person _knew_ his equipment. He could demo it, and show all its capabilities, and could answer every question we could throw at him. Service was also on a level completely different from consumer equipment. Something breaks, and can't be fixed on location? We would get a replacement for the duration of the repair. Also, pro equipment was designed for quick and easy repair or replacement. Try fixing a consumer video camera... It just wasn't possible.
Lastly, price. You pay for all those differences. Generally, pro video cameras were priced in US dollars in the 5 digit range, where as at the time, consumer cameras were in the three or low four digits.
So, pro equipment differed vastly from your average camcorder or video camera. I haven't followed this industry recently, but the same seems to hold true today. For instance, a bottom-line "pro" digital video camera, the XL2 from Canon <http://tinyurl.com/44olh> contains many of these sorts of things. In fact, if one is not familiar with pro video equipment, most of the information on the above-referenced page would be meaningless gobbledygook. :-)
Such is, or was, rather, the difference between "consumer" and "pro" equipment back in the late 80s and early 90s. And I don't think the situation has changed much today.
How does this sort of delineation play out in the small-format digital/35mm market? This is something I don't really have the answer to. However, I can share my impressions:
1. quality differences. I think that it should be a given that a camera that will be used full-time by a professional should be rugged enough to handle the stress. Well-sealed, dependable, work in all conditions. Most 35mm pro cameras were used by press and travel professionals, so this is the first essential element. At this point, the LX has it, the PZ1 doesn't. Nikon had their share, and Canon had a couple, Minolta also, at one point, had one.
2. How equipped. I suppose a "pro"--someone who used his camera daily as his income tool-- would not want to fuss with fancy "photo modes" and even automatic "helps" were not considered too important, at least when these automatic helps got in the way of taking a shot, or were fragile enough to not work when needed. Also, manual backup in case batteries failed used to be considered an essential. The LX has it in spades, as did the other "pro level" cameras. I don't think the PZ1 had it.
3. Sales and service. This is where Nikon seems to blow the competition away, and Canon follows a close second, and the rest trail far behind. Even the LX may not fair so well in this regard. I don't know, I never owned an LX, and certainly not when it was being produced. Also, in most major cities, it is possible to rent Nikon equipment, and also Canon. Does anybody even offer these services for Minolta and Pentax equipment? This is where the concept of "pro" really separates the manufacturers. "Pro" takes a commitment from the manufacturer as well. Nikon is renowned for this. I don't know if they have earned it, or still deserve it. I only know their reputation.
4. Price. hmmmm. I know the F6 has it! ;-) Also, judging by the prices for used LX bodies and PZ1 bodies, I would suggest that both of these certainly can claim the pro "price." :-) Also, I believe the PZ1 and PZ1n also offer features a person who used their camera daily for bread-winning would particularly like, and I personally consider the PZ1 to be a pro model, but in a different vein than such beasts as an LX or F3. Or Canon F1.
So, my impressions of the market, based upon the criteria that I discerned long ago for pro video equipment (and the same seems to hold true for other professional fields--musical instruments--electronic keyboards/pianos/synthesizers, for instance, or power tools for another) seem to hold, in principle, at least in 35mm, but also, it seems to fall apart somewhat, in some areas.
The real difference, at the heart of it all, is that usually "pro" equipment has to fulfill special needs, whereas consumer equipment merely has to please enough consumers to remain on the market. When it comes to 35mm photography, or more recently, digital photography, these lines are extremely blurred, so I can see the confusion that reins over this issue. However, I hope the above criteria help provide a starting point for comparison. :-)
Sorry for the long post, but the whole topic is quite interesting to me, and one I have long thought about (or is that obvious?)
--
-Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
