> So they're not professional or what ?
>
> ...Wayne
>
Whatever a professional photographer uses would qualify as a professional
camera. That means that an Ikomat (see the latest Online Photographer) is a
professional camera in 2007.
I have a friend that was originally an Olympus shooter that moved to Nikon
for business reasons. He found that he didn't get jobs based on the camera
he used. After I moved to OM's, I still got out the old F's when I had a
client that I thought was sensitive to equipment choices.
What I see the term meaning is a camera that is specifically designed to be
used by large numbers of professional photographers, that can survive hard
use for many years, and have features that appeal to said pros. I'm not sure
that there are more than two or three cameras that currently meet that
definition. I do know that the OM1 really, seriously didn't. In the day that
it was first produced, things like removable prisms and titanium foil
shutters were considered essential. The ability to be used as a hammer or
withstand being used as a step stool was highly regarded, from
demonstrations by Nikon reps evidenced. Note that cameras are now a
commodity, so the definition willl change.
A professional services department with quick repair and loaner lenses on
site at important events is important as well. I think that one reason that
Canon took over from Nikon is the demise of NPS at the same time that Canon
was popularizing autofocus.
So, no, the OM's don't qualify just because one organization made a deal
with Olympus, and another encourged their use to a degree. That's not a
criticism of Olympus cameras, which in many cases could stand up against
the competition, just more in the ongoing amazement at the cluelessness of
the OM marketing. Cameras used by professionals and "professional cameras"
are two different things.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|