John wrote:
> What we said was pro=lots of pros use 'em (for the
> reasons Mike detailed), non-pro=very few do (ditto).
> Quality, in and of itself, was not at issue.
I got that but what Mike is doing is applying a classic circular argument. By saying
Nikon and Canon are the only pro 35mm slr by applying as defining criterias those
criterias that only applies to Nikon and Canon you have bit yourself in the tail.
Taking it to the logical and downright silly conclusion; no non Nikon or Canon can
ever be a professional camera simply because what defines them applies only to Nikon
and Canon. The sillyness in such definition is illustraed that a camera cannot be
labeled professional until a significant number of professional photographers have
bought it. This means that when the F5 was at the design stage or just reached the
shop it was a strictly amateur camera because a significant numbers of pros hadn't
managed to buy it yet. Similarly with the argument of complete acessory and lens line;
when the EOS1 was released it enjoyed a much more limited lens line up than Pentax
currently offers. Still Canon labeled it professional and most didn't doubt it. The
idea that a Camera needs a certain number of pros usinmg it, and a certain number of
lenses to be labeled pro, means that the EOS1 became a pro camera not at its
introduction but somwhere in the mid 90's. Silly? you bet!
Guess what. Most of professional car transport by car is done with products from GM
and Ford. I guess you can label them professional cars - they use exactly the same
argument; you need a product you can trust, servicing, loaners when you car is at
service etc. I'm certain you can find defining criterias that only apply to GM and
Ford, who dominate this market, for defining what deserves to be called professional
transport.
Its not important to me that the MZ-S is a professional camera. What I'm saying is
that the professional moniker is marketing bullshit; the only thing that give this
name tag any meaning is whether or not it can withstand professional use and do the
job the particular professional photographer has in mind, regardless of what that job
is. He doesn't have to shoot the olympics. The MZ-S is as durable as an EOS1 but with
stiffer body.
The argument that the pro camera s should be able to deal with any situation isn't
true anylonger either. In the old days they could. With, say, an F1 or an LX you could
shoot 5fps when you wanted to. You could remove the motor drive when going lighweight
was important. In strong cold you shoot without batteries. The view finders could be
replaced to suit all kinds of shooting. You could take it on top of Everest. The F5
and EOS1, are heavy, more batteruy dependent and less modular. Almost all Nikon pros
with F5's use lighter backup camera simply because the F5 isn't idea for everything.
In the old days there were two things defining a professional camera apart from built
quality: a) Cutting the fat - no overload of technology and features; simple
operation; b) modular design and approach to features. The F5 and EOS1 violates both
these points. For whatever its worth, the MZ-S is closer to the traditional pro slr
because it adheres to point a) above: "what you need is all you get".
The whole thing boils down to that a professional camera is whatever Nikon and Canon
is currently marketing under that label. Thats a good definition as any but not one I
would subscribe to.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
