So what's a Pro Camera vs. an entry Level.

Yes .. I do know that difference in terms of technical ability of each system .. but really, are we saying that for £2000 plus - you can suddenly take better shots .. can't a pro take an award winning shot with a 110D or K10D as opposed to a K7 etc. Is this all marketing hype? .. in other words, appeal to the ego of the potential camera buyer .. that is .. if he thinks he is buying a advanced/semi-pro or pro model .. he is suddenly a better photographer?

And where is the line drawn between (1) entry level (2) enthusiast (3) advanced use and then Pro/ Again .. is this all marketing hype? Its like saying that an artist can paint a better picture by using brushes costing £47 each as opposed to costing a tenner ... so then ... surely I am a better photographer using a basic system as opposed to a system costing 3 x as much with all the bells and whistles? Does it then make me a better shooter?

The K1000 still has a huge amount of hype, despite always being the basic entry-level model (and nothing like as pleasant to use as an ME Super or MX). Surely this suggests that the person behind the camera is more important than the hardware itself?

Generally the difference seems to be about £600 in my experience...

The sentiment that it's the photographer that counts is a sound one, because without that talent there is nothing.

However, there is some need for the concept of a "pro" camera in that it will be more robust, might have a higher fps rate for the sports photographers, might have weather resistance for the rigours of the conditions it is used in and so on. It might be a Pentax K7.

On the other hand, in pure terms of the ability to make an image the camera is probably the least important part of the chain, but we do assume a certain basic standard of quality. All Pentax DSLRs meet this standard.

I can think of a few points, which are probably as valid for photography as for most things in general;

Can it be used day in day out - will a professional camera operate in all conditions, and accept the knocks, where a cheaper model will not.

Does it perform well in all the conditions I wish to use it in - I want to take significant shots in low light, do I want to spend the next few weeks in photoshop, removing noise and tweaking the picture.

I do agree to a certain extent, an artists eyes cost them nothing, but there is a significant amount of technology and engineering between the artists eye, and the printed picture. If there wasn't, why would any of us bother with digital cameras?
The artists £47 brush might not produce a better picture, but it'll probably last a lot longer, and be more consistent, than a 47 pence brush from Woolworths.

Isnt it something to do with shutter life?.

"Entry levels" have no guaranteed shutter cycle, "semi-pro" is around 100,000 and "pro" 150,000+

Probably wrong though

In most hobbies or professions the more experienced or skilled people tend to aspire to more expensive kit. Newcomers often think they can buy the expertise, by having expensive kit. No doubt this is partly caused by marketing hype. This is true in musical instruments or golf playing or archery or skiing etc etc. However I am sure that if you gave Tiger Woods a set of £99 golf clubs, he would still beat all the top golfers, from most golf clubs. In other words it is the person with the skill that delivers the goods.
The above is also true with cameras, but an expensive lens can make a difference.

It's a debate that rages on photography forums frequently...I'd agree that the "balance of power" lies with the photographer but as already mentioned some features of pro equipment are essential for certain requirements so there's no real definitive answer

Simon

An entry level model is designed so a newbie can obtain decent images by pressing the shutter and also learn a little by experimenting with other more advanced modes.
The Pro model on the other hand allows an experienced photographer to quickly adjust settings to the situation in hand, and this makes me wonder how users of other makes manage without two command dials:
Its not really anything to do with who can produce what with a given camera, its all down to how you work and how quickly you need to access certain features, plus as John has already pointed out robustness and lifespan.

I am by no means an experienced photographer but I don't know how people manage without two command dials (or the status lcd on the top).

I'm half joking really but I guess it depends what you are used to.

I've noticed quite a few of us are just used to an aperture ring, a shutter speed dial and one button

I think those talking about longevity might be on to something. Some of the tales I've heard of the way pros treat their gear make me wince!

Oddly, I'd rather buy an LX than a K7 at the moment. DSLRs will always go from being state of the art to last year's model, the LX is pretty much the ultimate film SLR.

I am going to respond to this, since I do use my equipment in my work on a regular basis. Lines are blurred between what is "professional" versus what is "entry-level". I know many a photographer (I am reluctant to use the term professional, since in a way it is a put down of ones skills) start with is deemed entry level cameras and produce photographs that are used in publications, etc. What one has to keep in mind, does the camera meet your needs and give you room to grow and work for a while to come? If it does not, then it is a camera that is below your skills and needs. If the camera is not an extension of your skills then it is a piece of equipment that may not be right for you.

I have several cameras in my use. I had to begin what was within my budget and met my requirements, especially making the transition from film to digital. As I honed my skills with the equipment and produced the desired product, then I considered upgrading.

Remember what is considered "pro" level now, will be outdated and looked down upon in only a short time. So be wise, and remember that like all, what is the greatest today will soon be considered out-dated in only a short time.

The Photomonk

mmmmmmmmm

been reading this with interest and it has brought another thought to the front of my mind - for another thread , as a kind of spin off from this one

OPPORTUNITY

by: Edward Rowland Sill (1841-1887)

THIS I beheld, or dreamed it in a dream:--
There spread a cloud of dust along a plain;
And underneath the cloud, or in it, raged
A furious battle, and men yelled, and swords
Shocked upon swords and shields. A prince's banner
Wavered, then staggered backward, hemmed by foes.
A craven hung along the battle's edge,
And thought, "Had I a sword of keener steel--
That blue blade that the king's son bears, -- but this
Blunt thing--!" he snapped and flung it from his hand,
And lowering crept away and left the field.
Then came the king's son, wounded, sore bestead,
And weaponless, and saw the broken sword,
Hilt-buried in the dry and trodden sand,
And ran and snatched it, and with battle shout
Lifted afresh he hewed his enemy down,
And saved a great cause that heroic day.