What makes a DSLR considered a Professional model?

[Sgreenman]

I am doing a report on which medium is better for my needs.  I am comparing pro 35mm Vs Pro Digital for taking pictures in a scenic setting for the end result being high quality enlargements at the 20'' X 30'' size. My problem is what is the standard for what is considered a PRO Digital S.L.R now days?  I figure sensor size has to be part of it.  But what about megapixs or any other considerations?
I own a D100 and A D70. But don't think of either them as pro level camera.  Nikon does not make a full sensor Digital, but has the D2X as there top dog. Canon has 2 full frame sensor cameras and Kodak has one. The full frame sensor seems like a bigger deal to me then the Pixs. I'm not looking to start a war on what is a better medium or manufacture. I just want to see what others think makes a DSLR a Pro model.

[Tim Gray]

If quality at 20"x30" is the goal then the Canon 1DSMKII  is probably the minimal starting point.  I think the Nikon D2X might be close though but have no experience with Nikon.  I don't think 35mm film is competitive at that size.  The 1DS/MKII has been favourably compared to MF film, and clearly surpasses 35mm.

Depending on budget, Medium Format (Phase One, Leaf etc) is probably the market segment you want to be considering for that size.  

So to answer your question - all the MF would be considered Pro.    In the Canon Line, pro is defined as the 1 line, currently 1DMKII for PJ/sports etc and 1DSMKII for fine art, product, fashion etc, but for 20x30 the Pro 1DMKII isn't what you want.  The 5D would be considered semi-pro - and 30x30 would be pushing it.  

Sensor size isn't the primary driver of a pro classification (the 1DMKII is 1.3)  - but for a given resolution, the smaller the sensor the more noise becomes an issue.  Resolution and build quality (and FPS for PJ and sports) are probably the primary determinants of a "pro" model.

I'm not sure of how the issue of a "pro" designation relates to your issue - at this time, any camera that can deliver a quality 20x30 print would be considered "pro".

[Slough]

I am doing a report on which medium is better for my needs.  I am comparing pro 35mm Vs Pro Digital for taking pictures in a scenic setting for the end result being high quality enlargements at the 20'' X 30'' size. My problem is what is the standard for what is considered a PRO Digital S.L.R now days?  I figure sensor size has to be part of it.  But what about megapixs or any other considerations?
I own a D100 and A D70. But don't think of either them as pro level camera.  Nikon does not make a full sensor Digital, but has the D2X as there top dog. Canon has 2 full frame sensor cameras and Kodak has one. The full frame sensor seems like a bigger deal to me then the Pixs. I'm not looking to start a war on what is a better medium or manufacture. I just want to see what others think makes a DSLR a Pro model.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might want to look at [a href=\"http://www.nikonlinks.com/]http://www.nikonlinks.com/[/url] for reviews of the D2x. There are several comparative reviews of the Canon 1Ds M2 and Nikon D2x. Bjorn Rorslett did one such review, but he is a Nikon shooter, so there might be subconscious bias.

The Kodak FF camera is considered weak in many respects, though some like it. I am sure there are reviews on the net.

The full frame issue is a big of a red herring, though at very high ISO that red herring will have less noise when shot with a FF sensor. However, edge softness can be an issue with a FF sensor (due to lens weaknesses, of course). DPREVIEW reviews seem as objective as possible.

Leif

[kbolin]

The Kodak FF is discontinued.

[Ben Rubinstein]

pro cameras are not necessarily defined by the amount of megapixels or ability to resolve. Cameras that pro's choose as opposed to non pro cameras, are those which will stand up to a beating, are weatherproof, etc. Basically a camera that won't fail on you when you need to get the job done whatever happens. The D2H and 1D mkII are cases in point. They have lower resolution, would not make a 20X30" print with the same quality as the 1Ds mkII, however they are certainly considered pro cameras.

To do a  fair comparison based on resolution alone, you are not looking at pro spec at all, just at the megapixels/resolution. It would therefore be unfair to compare a 5D to a 1V and equally possible to compare a EOS rebel to the 1Ds mkII.

Compare like for like in a fair manner. If you are looking for a pro package that can produce a great 30X20" then you have to compare the Canon 1V to the 1Ds mkII. If you want to compare based on megapixels alone then know that 35mm can probably not give a good quality 30X20" print compared to the 5D/D2X/D200/1Ds even. The digital prints at that size will be far cleaner, and probably hold together better for the small detail than anything but the tightest grain B&W film drum scanned at $300 a frame and the 1Ds mkII should even beat that.

Professional = build, nothing else
Resolution = well, it's not even just the megapixels, it's certainly not file sizes compared with scanned film. In real terms it's how much fine detail is present in the picture and nothing else.

There are several interesting articles on this site on this very subject, Michael's test of the 1Ds against medium format, his rebuttal of the claim that 35mm B&W film can outresolve digital by default, etc, etc. Worth reading if you aren't going to do the tests yourself.

[Khurram]

The D2H and 1D mkII are cases in point. They have lower resolution, would not make a 20X30" print with the same quality as the 1Ds mkII, however they are certainly considered pro cameras.

Compare like for like in a fair manner. If you are looking for a pro package that can produce a great 30X20" then you have to compare the Canon 1V to the 1Ds mkII. If you want to compare based on megapixels alone then know that 35mm can probably not give a good quality 30X20" print compared to the 5D/D2X/D200/1Ds even.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What would be the maximum size of a high quality print possbible with the 1d mkIIN (as compared to the 5D)?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Khurram, that is such a difficult question! I've made beautiful 18X12" prints, and once a spectacular 20X30" from the 6MP 10D.

It comes down to technique, to make larger pictures from lower megapixel cameras the better the technique, the sharper the lenses, the more intelligent the sharpening for print, the better.

It also comes down to how much resolution a picture needs. Necessarily a landscape photo will need as much resolution as it can get, a head and shoulders portrait, once the camera has sucessfully resolved individual hairs in a natural manner, hell, you don't want to resolve every pore and imperfection anyway. You would want to soften those even in post processing. A group photo however does need the extra resolution to resolve the finer facial features on an enlargement.
Some photos need more resolution, some less, how much is enough for you is probably a choice only you can make.

I personally didn't find that my 10D gave me the same resolution as I was used to from pro neg 35mm film such as NPS for 18X12" prints. I hadn't tried the 20D but from what I'd seen it wasn't enough of a jump. It was only when I got the 1Ds that I was satisfied that I had enough resolution for larger prints compared to film. That is not to say that the film was resolving the same as a 1Ds, it's just for print the film print looked better until I got a 1Ds (something to do with the grain hiding imperfections? digital is so clean that a lack of resolution is easier to see!). This however is a personal opinion based on the type of stuff I shoot and the type of prints I was looking at. Your perception may be totally different.

Lastly it also depends on what the photo is being used for. If the large print will be seen close up then you may need far more resolution than if it is to be viewed from a normal viewing distance. If you rarely print over 14X11" then it could be unlikely that you would notice the difference even for close up viewing.

It's easy to fob of your question with a 'it depends' type of answer, unfortunately in this case it's probably the only honest answer. With film some people would not be happy with anything under a 4X5 view camera for 18X12 prints, some may refuse to try anything under 645 for the same size print. Some may be perfectly happy with 35mm printed to that size. It's no different with digital.

[Khurram]

Khurram, that is such a difficult question! I've made beautiful 18X12" prints, and once a spectacular 20X30" from the 6MP 10D.

It comes down to technique, to make larger pictures from lower megapixel cameras the better the technique, the sharper the lenses, the more intelligent the sharpening for print, the better.

It also comes down to how much resolution a picture needs. Necessarily a landscape photo will need as much resolution as it can get, a head and shoulders portrait, once the camera has sucessfully resolved individual hairs in a natural manner, hell, you don't want to resolve every pore and imperfection anyway. You would want to soften those even in post processing. A group photo however does need the extra resolution to resolve the finer facial features on an enlargement.
Some photos need more resolution, some less, how much is enough for you is probably a choice only you can make.

I personally didn't find that my 10D gave me the same resolution as I was used to from pro neg 35mm film such as NPS for 18X12" prints. I hadn't tried the 20D but from what I'd seen it wasn't enough of a jump. It was only when I got the 1Ds that I was satisfied that I had enough resolution for larger prints compared to film. That is not to say that the film was resolving the same as a 1Ds, it's just for print the film print looked better until I got a 1Ds (something to do with the grain hiding imperfections? digital is so clean that a lack of resolution is easier to see!). This however is a personal opinion based on the type of stuff I shoot and the type of prints I was looking at. Your perception may be totally different.

Lastly it also depends on what the photo is being used for. If the large print will be seen close up then you may need far more resolution than if it is to be viewed from a normal viewing distance. If you rarely print over 14X11" then it could be unlikely that you would notice the difference even for close up viewing.

It's easy to fob of your question with a 'it depends' type of answer, unfortunately in this case it's probably the only honest answer. With film some people would not be happy with anything under a 4X5 view camera for 18X12 prints, some may refuse to try anything under 645 for the same size print. Some may be perfectly happy with 35mm printed to that size. It's no different with digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pom,
Is it possible to get to at least 16x20 or 18x12 with the resolution offered with the 1dmk11N (without interopolation)?

[Tim Gray]

Pom,
Is it possible to get to at least 16x20 or 18x12 with the resolution offered with the 1dmk11N (without interopolation)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, but reasonable amounts up uprezzing using the standard tools (eg PC2 Bicubic Smoother) aren't going to detract from the quality of the image at that size, certainly not at 18x12.  I regularly print 17x25 from a 1DMKII without issues.  (at that size, it gets a little dicey if I have to crop).

Assuming you have some kind on photo printer (8x10 is fine) test it yourself.  Lots of sample images on the web, download one, resize to the final size you want and crop back to what you printer can handle and have a look.

[gmitchel]

I am please to see this thread has not degenerated. It typically does when this sort of question comes along on other forums.

I have never been comfortable with the idea of "a" professional camera. There are different subfields in photography, with pros in each needing different features.

A photojournalist needs a durable camera that can zip through a large burst of images with near instantaneous AF and excellent AE so they can snap off a series of shots and expect at least one to be usable. An event photographer might not need as much durability, but would definitely want the fast burst rate, fast & accurate AF/AE.

A portrait photographer would benefit from a high burst rate, but they better be RAW images, where a photojournalist might be satisfied with JPEGs.

A landscape photographer, on the other hand, is not going to care much about being able to capture a big burst of images (unless they also do nature photography). But spot metering is important. So is bracketing at something like +/- 3 stops rather tan +/- 2 stops.

To my mind, a pro camera has a feature set that makes it suitable for a wide range of professional photography. Most of us tend to work in one or two subfields but we might also occasionally use the camera for other types of photography.

I have never dropped my 1Ds MkII. But I know that it will survive better than my 20D. When I go to Death Valley in February, I am confident the better seals on the 1Ds MkII and my "L" lenses will keep dust from intruding. I am much less confident about the 20D and will leave it behind.

Less anxiety is something worth paying for, IMHO. (If you have ever been out in the field with something like a 20D and have a heavy rain come along, you'll quickly learn about anxiety when you tuck the camera under your jacket and pray water does not intrude!)

Canon uses the "Pro" designation for bodies based on the Eos 1v body. But there's a lot more to the 1Ds MkII than that body. The AF is faster and better. The AE is faster and better. The anti-alias filter softens the image less. You have a wider bracket (+/- 3 stops). True spot metering (with the ability to average exposure using multiple spots). Etc. All features valuable to a pro. But, a photojournalist or sports photographer might prefer the faster burst rate of the 1D MkII in spite of the smaller sensor and less resolution. Both pro cameras IMHO, but aimed at different pros.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Khurram]

No, but reasonable amounts up uprezzing using the standard tools (eg PC2 Bicubic Smoother) aren't going to detract from the quality of the image at that size, certainly not at 18x12.  I regularly print 17x25 from a 1DMKII without issues.  (at that size, it gets a little dicey if I have to crop).

Assuming you have some kind on photo printer (8x10 is fine) test it yourself.  Lots of sample images on the web, download one, resize to the final size you want and crop back to what you printer can handle and have a look.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tim,
what about with the EOS 5D and D2X?  What is the max print size without interpolation with these two 12meg+ cameras?

I hate to give up the ergonomics of the 1Dmk11N and can't afford the 1dsII. (i like the exposure information that is available with the 1 series vs. the 5D, and the dedicated FEL control)

But my only option may be the EOS 5D or the D2x. with the D2X probably a much more expensive switch bcoz of my investment in canon.  

i'm kind of hooped with canon - if i want the controls i'm used to with my 1v - (greate viewfidner exposrue information, dedicated FEL, able to use CF 4 for focusing - without losing FEL, and weather sealing), the 5D does not meet my needs, however, it appears that for landscape, the 1DmkIIN is not going to have the resolution i'm looking for.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Being hung up on interpolation isn't helping you any, stop thinking that interpolation = loss of quality, it's certainly not true.

I can prove it in that the following cameras give an unrezzed print size of:

20D, 11.7X7.8"
1Ds, 13.5X9"
5D,  14.5X9.7"
D2X, 14.3X9.5"

All at 300DPI. I can't give you the figures of other cameras, these are the figures taken from files I have on my computer.

Obviously to say that the 1Ds is limited to 12X8" prints is so ludicrous at to be laughable. Many say that the D2X gives the 1Ds mkII a decent run for its money despite the megapixel disadvantage, when the D2X file is rezzed up to match the larger file!
At 250DPI which is plenty for most applications the 20D/1D mkII will give you an unrezzed print of 14X9.5" which is pretty damn good for starting off with.

Checking other peoples photos at print doesn't help either. I have an incredible 18X12" print from the 10D shot at 1/10 iso 1600 that beats Velvia 100 on a 645 for cleanliness and quality if not pure resolution (I used to shoot with a Mamiya). The reason was that I was using a sharp very wide angle lens on a crop camera at its optimum aperture using MLU and a cable release, supported on a heavy tripod and heavy head with an excellent RRS L plate. The exposure was utterly perfect to a 1/10 of a stop.

My point is that unless you are comparing resolution from photos taken under the most stringent of testing conditions, and conditions that are equal to each other, you will never know what your camera is capable of. If any of the points above had been deficient then the photo would not be the best seller that it is.

For your own sanity, do yourself a favour and go to your local store with a compact flash card and your favorite lens. Shoot the 1D mkII and 5D with the same lens using your most used iso setting and usual fstop/aperture. Take a friend to model or shoot the salesman with the kind of composition and framing you usually use for bridal portraits. Take the card home and see which one has enough resolution, in print, for the kind of photos you shoot and at the enlargements you have to deal with. Then make the decision.

I did the same thing with the 5D vs the D2X and it showed me all I needed to know about the look, resolution, noise, etc of each camera, as it is relevant to my kind of shooting. That is the only relevant answer anyone can give you, not comparisons of unrezzed file sizes.

(If anyone is interested in what I found, the 5D has very slightly more resolution, slightly better noise at iso 400 and suprisingly as accurate flash, but the D2X files were far more film like, better at facial tones, more accurate at WB, far faster at low light AF with a flash than my 1Ds even and overall a better thought out camera ergonomically, but then that's a topic for another day....)

[Khurram]

Being hung up on interpolation isn't helping you any, stop thinking that interpolation = loss of quality, it's certainly not true.

I can prove it in that the following cameras give an unrezzed print size of:

20D, 11.7X7.8"
1Ds, 13.5X9"
5D,  14.5X9.7"
D2X, 14.3X9.5"

All at 300DPI. I can't give you the figures of other cameras, these are the figures taken from files I have on my computer.

Obviously to say that the 1Ds is limited to 12X8" prints is so ludicrous at to be laughable. Many say that the D2X gives the 1Ds mkII a decent run for its money despite the megapixel disadvantage, when the D2X file is rezzed up to match the larger file!
At 250DPI which is plenty for most applications the 20D/1D mkII will give you an unrezzed print of 14X9.5" which is pretty damn good for starting off with.

Checking other peoples photos at print doesn't help either. I have an incredible 18X12" print from the 10D shot at 1/10 iso 1600 that beats Velvia 100 on a 645 for cleanliness and quality if not pure resolution (I used to shoot with a Mamiya). The reason was that I was using a sharp very wide angle lens on a crop camera at its optimum aperture using MLU and a cable release, supported on a heavy tripod and heavy head with an excellent RRS L plate. The exposure was utterly perfect to a 1/10 of a stop.

My point is that unless you are comparing resolution from photos taken under the most stringent of testing conditions, and conditions that are equal to each other, you will never know what your camera is capable of. If any of the points above had been deficient then the photo would not be the best seller that it is.

For your own sanity, do yourself a favour and go to your local store with a compact flash card and your favorite lens. Shoot the 1D mkII and 5D with the same lens using your most used iso setting and usual fstop/aperture. Take a friend to model or shoot the salesman with the kind of composition and framing you usually use for bridal portraits. Take the card home and see which one has enough resolution, in print, for the kind of photos you shoot and at the enlargements you have to deal with. Then make the decision.

I did the same thing with the 5D vs the D2X and it showed me all I needed to know about the look, resolution, noise, etc of each camera, as it is relevant to my kind of shooting. That is the only relevant answer anyone can give you, not comparisons of unrezzed file sizes.

(If anyone is interested in what I found, the 5D has very slightly more resolution, slightly better noise at iso 400 and suprisingly as accurate flash, but the D2X files were far more film like, better at facial tones, more accurate at WB, far faster at low light AF with a flash than my 1Ds even and overall a better thought out camera ergonomically, but then that's a topic for another day....)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the reply Pom.

reason i've been hung up on interpolation, is that i really don't have ANY experience with digital(with the exception of very very very bad scanning of my velvia slides with a flatbed).  

I'm trying to make my decision based on what i have read or on advice other shave given.

For my wedding work, i'm confident that 14x9 (ideally would like at least 16x20) size prints are going to be sufficient.   However for landscape, i'm trying to get into stock photos (currenlty it is just a hobby - a VERY expensive hobby), i;ve heard that most stock agencies want at least 12meg size files.  

so, while based on ergonomics, i really like the 1dmkIIN - even though i really want and need (wide angle - for landscapes), to me that seems the more logical camera.  THe hangup i have with it, is that it's a LOT of money for 8.2mega-pixals.

on the other hand the 5D is full frame (what i had been waiting for oritgnally before i wanted to go digital), but it lacks two important features (dedicated FEL control, and not enough information in the viewfinder - i love how the 1 series displays exposure - ambiant and flash in the viewfinder), and to a lesser extent, it lacks the ergonomic feel of the 1 series.

anyway, i was looking at if i do sacrafice full frame (and ultra-wide lens optoins) with the 1dmkIIN, if i can at least make landscape prints the size i want.

I think if the EOS 5D was around $500CDN cheaper, it would be an easier decision.

as it is i can buy a 1dmkIIN for $3999USD (i'd purdahse from the USA, coz in canada it is $5400CDN retail, $4800 CPS), while the EOS 5D is around $3300USD, plus another $250USD for the vertical grip - in canada it is $4300 + $350). so really, the price differnce is really around $150-$200 betwen the 1dmkIIN and the 5D

[Ben Rubinstein]

Of course if you were to buy the grip, or invest in the extra CF cards you will need with the 5D, then the price difference narrows extremely fast. You only get about 58 RAW files to a 1GB card on the 5D, I had to spend a lot on extra CF cards even coming from the 1Ds!

Or you can come to the UK where they are both the same price at retail, though still about $1000 more than in the US    

[Khurram]

Of course if you were to buy the grip, or invest in the extra CF cards you will need with the 5D, then the price difference narrows extremely fast. You only get about 58 RAW files to a 1GB card on the 5D, I had to spend a lot on extra CF cards even coming from the 1Ds!

Or you can come to the UK where they are both the same price at retail, though still about $1000 more than in the US    
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In Canada, if you are on CPS, the 5D (which is not on CPS) is only $150 cheaper then the 1dIIN.

I'd prefer buying everytning from the USA instead, since a extreme 3 2GB card from the USA is $220, in Canada it is $400

[Tim Gray]

Pom's covered most of the issues.  The difference in resolution between the 1DMKII and 5D is only going to make a very marginal difference in ultimate print quality - I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor.

[Tim Gray]

I'd prefer buying everytning from the USA instead, since a extreme 3 2GB card from the USA is $220, in Canada it is $400
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProdList&cmd=pl&id=990.437]$279[/url]  at Canadacomputers.

[Khurram]

$279  at Canadacomputers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

thanks for the link Tim!