I'm not sure exactly what a pro camera is. I've known a number of persons whose main income was from photography and while some used totol models from several manufacturers all used what seemed like an odd mix of anything. Most of them told me it was what felt good in their hands and what the results were and not the cost of the camera that made them make a decision as to what camera to buy. Many of them did use a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord and this was about as common a denominator as there was. It seemed to be an almost standard workhorse. The other commonalities were thay each seemed to have no limited budget for tripods and most used a version of the ETR Bronica for weddings and portraits. One used the ETRS as his sole system camera and made me realize that a single system was better than multiple investments in multiple systems and the ETRs made for both a very good MF camera and a 35mm camera.
One had an extensive range of M42 lenses so his cameras all had this mount. He used a number of Ashahi models through the Spotmatic well into the '90s. Another had a number of Leicas in the studio but almost always used the M5 and CL on shoots. I now own his CL that he used for my wedding. Another was one who standardized on the Contax/Yashica mount camera buying the Zeiss lenses but all but one body was the FX-3. He found he could not get them to break and if it did it was so inexpensive so what. One of my bodies was his daily user in and out of the studio and it still works fine.
I concluded long ago that many professionals decided not on their systems based on camera body but on lenses offered and collected over the years.
I'm talking about the F3 and those years; la Nikon F neither the F2 were discontinued. As far as I am concerned; my F's, F2AS are neither discontinued because I continue using them as well as the Nikkormats
" A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~
Look at the history. Nikon produced the best 35mm SLR they could with the technology available, there was no concept of pro or amateur until later. A professional photojournalist in the 60s or 70s might have an F or F2 in his bag plus a Nikkormat, with a 35mm and an 85 or 105 for portraits, maybe a 300 for sports and hire the rest as required. He'd be happy to use either camera and any other that kept his clients from thinking he was a cheapskate.
When I assisted back in the 70s 'professional photographer' usually meant studio photographer and 35mm was only used for cheap jobs. The only people who used 35mm exclusively were newspaper men.
To me, the FM and FE series were pro cameras. If you were around back in the mid-1970's you'd remember what a game-changer the Olympus OM-1 was. Virtually overnight, the market changed, with smaller and lighter being "in," and big and bulky "out." A lot of pros were smitten with the new Olympus and sold their Fs' and F2s' and bought an OM-1 (if I remember correctly, UPI dropped Nikons at this time for Olympus). So the FM and FE were marketed at this time to the pro who wanted to stay with Nikon but needed a smaller, lighter camera. At least that's how I recall it.
Your gear has nothing to do with you being professional. You should only ever buy 'professional gear' for the advantages listed in the specs - whatever feature suits your need.
How about refining the question next time, as in which Nikon camera is the most insultated, or shock resistant, or has the fastest motor drive because I am doing X with it, etc.
Incidently, you earlier posted a question asking if the FM3a was the best 35mm MF, or something like that, did you just buy one and are feeling buyer's remorse? You don't need any convincing that the FM3a is an excellent camera.
Last edited by tdunn81; 08-15-2011 at 08:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.