 BetterPhoto Member |
is pro spec worth the extra outlay Is it worth spending the extra cash on a pro spec digital camera,such as the nikon D2x.when the almost equally good camera,the D200 is less than half the price?I cannot see where the benifits are and why it should cost all that extra.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
If the differences between a pro-level camera and a mid-range or low-level camera are worth the extra cost TO YOU, then it's worth it. If not, then it's not. Every photographer has different needs & different priorities, and may place different values on having certain features. I don't know details on Nikon models (I shoot Canon), but in general, some of the features that you will likely find on some pro-level cameras that you likely won't find on many mid-range or low-level cameras could include: -larger image sensors (more space between pixel receptors results in less noise) -more rugged build quality (more metal and less plastic) -shutters rated for more cycles -wider range of ISO settings -wider range of shutter speeds -faster frame-rates (shoot more pictures per second) -larger internal buffer (shoot longer bursts of shots) Some of these features are important to some photographers, and worth spending the extra money. Look at the detailed specs of each of the cameras that you are comparing, and find the features that are different. Go straight to the details, not the marketing info. After all, no manufacturer is going to say, "This is our mid-range model and it's not as tough as our pro-level model." Compare the thorough reviews of the cameras at a site like dpreview.com, instead of just comparing user reviews. After all, many people have a tendency to rate a product highly if they've just spent a bundle of money on it. Look at the differences you find and judge whether these differences should have an impact on your decision. Think about the photography that you do today, as well as what you reasonable hope to do in the near future. Suppose you've always wanted to shoot more sports photography - then a camera that can shoot 8 frames per second might be more valuable to you than one that can only shoot 3fps. But if someone only shoots still lifes and landscapes, high frame rates wouldn't be worth much. Keep in mind that spending more on a camera doesn't automatically mean that you will take better pictures, BUT, if certain features will likely make your job easier or will be better suited to your particular photographic application, then these features may be worth paying more for. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
pro bodies are weather sealed. they usually can handle more shutter actuations. I don't know much about nikon, but the canon 20D can do around 30-50k shutter actuations, I think (canon doesn't publish the number, but that seems to be about the number where the camera goes in for a new shutter). the 1d series can easily do 100k. the 1d series can do more rapid fire and processes the images faster. the 1d series are more rugged and built for pro use, dropping them and such doesn't really phase them. where the 20d would probably suffer some damage from dropping. there's lots of little difference betwix the two. for real live pro use, we like pro cameras because they are our tools, and they have to last. when you're out there day after day shooting, stuff happens. and it's nice to know that the weakest link is NOT your camera. however, depending on what you are doing, I actually know pros who shoot the D200. it's cheap enough and produces great images, and their logic is that if (that's a big if) they drop one, they can buy another and they are still ahead of the game. you know, it's really not about the camera body, but about the work. it sounds like since you are questioning it, it may not really matter much to you. on the canon side, I own rebels, 20d's, and 1d series cameras, and I use them all for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
The Things That Sway Me Toward The D2X Is The High Speed Cropped Mode, It Takes A 12Mp Camera Turns It Into A 6mp Camera At 8fps And Lets My 300mm 2.8 Tele Reach Out And Touch You At 600mm With No Converters And No Loss Of F Stops:-) (Something To Think About) And I Like A Heavy Camera That Fits My Hands. If You Don't Need These Things Than The D200 Is Your Camera, There Is A Few More Minor Differences Which Are Neither Here Nor Their Jeff. It Costs More Because It Is a Pro Camera Built Like A Tank And It Is Nikon's Flagship...
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||