With better and better entry level DSLR cameras coming out on the market, do you think this is good or bad for professionals? Such as for wedding photographers, child sports, family portraits, and among others.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
| LensPEN Lens Cleaning System |
 |
| List Price: $19.99 |
| Amazon Price: $4.99 |
| Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras |
 |
| List Price: $1,100.00 |
| Amazon Price: Too low to display |
| Cosmos ® Black Medium DSLR camera Drawstring Soft Neoprene Lens Pouch Bag Cover for Sony Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Panasonic + Cosmos Cable Tie |
 |
| List Price: $22.99 |
| Amazon Price: $7.29 |
| Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens |
 |
| List Price: $200.00 |
| Amazon Price: $108.00 |
Posted in 
Tags: 
It’s good for the next generation and competition is never a bad thing for the previous generation!
The difference will always be the photographer – good photographers can produce better results, more consistently and more creatively: more likely to stop you in your tracks than photographers who are not so good.
Exactly the same argument occurred when 35mm technology hit the market and when the SLR camera was launched… low end competition will always impact the market though – but it effects the lower end photographers first, especially if they can’t differentiate their work from the bulk of amateurs.
I think it will help–after a while. A newbie who does not care to learn about photography is not really going to be able to produce good photos with any camera,expensive or not.
A friend’s colleague bought Canon DSLR last year (30D, I think)–and the 24-105 mm IS L zoom (total was more than two grands). And just a week later, she was in charge of taking photos of a retirement party of her boss. No one else brought the camera–and it was a disaster. This person never used a camera before.
Since the introduction of the Kodak Brownie, it’s been downhill for professional photographers and, when the polaroid was introduced, it killed off professional photography the way that photography killed off painting.
The vast majority of pictures taken are personal memories and if you get the exposure right, or good enough to rekindle the memory, then you have a serviceable image. I’m not paid to take those. If any picture is good enough, I am not paid to take those either.
I don’t care what camera a person has, or what they call themselves. The only thing I care about is whether or not they are as good as, or better than I am on a consistent basis.
So far, the availability of advanced cameras that make a lot of the mundane stuff of photography faster and easier doesn’t seem to also to be a magic wand that turns inexperience into experience, ignorance into knowledge or the ability to get something in the viewfinder into an understanding of composition. When that all that is built into the camera, I’ll forget about other photographers and start worrying about cameras creating competition.
The camera can do only so much the rest is up to the Photographer.
I think it helps. Pros have to start somewhere. After all, they don’t start out as pros, and they have to learn on something.
More of help than hurt
I think it’s hurting us… there are way too many people who think they can do our jobs.
I don’t think it’s hurt the pro’s.
Professional cameras have always been available to the public.
It’s experience, instinct and having “the eye” that makes a professional — not what’s in his or her camera bag.
V