The future of 'professional' cameras

[Ade-oh]

The perennial argument over the future of film vs digital has led my mind off at a slight tangent to wonder about the viability of the traditional tank-like 'professional' camera. Back in the days when film was king, Nikon and Canon (and Leica and a few others) upgraded their flagship model roughly every 8-10 years. These were true system cameras, built around a mass of specialised accessories (like the various interchangeable viewfinders, databacks and so on) which were adaptable for a huge range of widely varied imaging tasks. The cameras were rugged and, provided you were reasonably careful with them, you could expect them to keep going at least until the new model came along (and probably much longer in reality).

At current rates of progress, the modern pro digital camera is likely to be more or less obsolescent after a couple of years at most and while some professionals can't avoid bashing their equipment about a fair bit, the issue of the cameras' longevity is much less important to them. At the same time, the various 'system' features of pro cameras have become either irrelevant, in the case of databacks, bulk film magazines etc, or have simply been abandoned, as with interchangeable viewfinders. Will it therefore be commercially sensible for manufacturers to continue to make the ultra-rugged pro-bodies, as opposed to a cheaper body which can mount and drive the autofocus glass, sensors, processors and memory, but which won't be expected to last for much more than a couple of years before it's replaced by the newer better models?

Any thoughts?

 

[bmattock]

The perennial argument over the future of film vs digital has led my mind off at a slight tangent to wonder about the viability of the traditional tank-like 'professional' camera. Back in the days when film was king, Nikon and Canon (and Leica and a few others) upgraded their flagship model roughly every 8-10 years. These were true system cameras, built around a mass of specialised accessories (like the various interchangeable viewfinders, databacks and so on) which were adaptable for a huge range of widely varied imaging tasks. The cameras were rugged and, provided you were reasonably careful with them, you could expect them to keep going at least until the new model came along (and probably much longer in reality).

At current rates of progress, the modern pro digital camera is likely to be more or less obsolescent after a couple of years at most and while some professionals can't avoid bashing their equipment about a fair bit, the issue of the cameras' longevity is much less important to them. At the same time, the various 'system' features of pro cameras have become either irrelevant, in the case of databacks, bulk film magazines etc, or have simply been abandoned, as with interchangeable viewfinders. Will it therefore be commercially sensible for manufacturers to continue to make the ultra-rugged pro-bodies, as opposed to a cheaper body which can mount and drive the autofocus glass, sensors, processors and memory, but which won't be expected to last for much more than a couple of years before it's replaced by the newer better models?

Any thoughts?

I think you make good points. However, I suspect that in the professional realm, it is not just 'longevity' but 'reliability' that is the base requirement.

While a studio professional's needs would be significantly different than a wildlife or sports professionals, in general I believe it would be fair to say that a camera body or lens that failed in service would be a bad thing for them, and that they would therefore pay considerably more (and it is a tax deduction in the US) for higher-quality kit that more properly served their needs, even if not for the decades frequently required and expected of professional film kit.

In addition, the need for raw speed tends to ensure that the latest, greatest, and thefore-not-amortized technology will go to the pros who can and will pay the price for it. The benefit goes to us, of course, as we inherit that technology in future generations of consumer-based cameras.

I once traveled for a living. As a result, I had to learn a lot about luggage. I soon learned the difference between an astounding warranty and luggage that does not break. I have zero interest in the warranty. Charge me more and sell me something that will not break - warranty means nothing to me in the field, broken wheels and zippers on what was my luggage does. I suspect professional photographers may look at their kit in somewhat the same way.

I would therefore guess that the major camera manufacturers will continue to produce higher-end professionally-oriented cameras and lenses, and pros will continue to buy them.

An interesting thought, though.

 

[Ade-oh]

I would therefore guess that the major camera manufacturers will continue to produce higher-end professionally-oriented cameras and lenses, and pros will continue to buy them.

I agree that this seems highly likely; really I suppose I was just wondering if 'pro' cameras will need to be quite as highly specified as they are now, or whether that is simply a hangover from the days when they did actually need to last a long time.

 

[bmattock]

I agree that this seems highly likely; really I suppose I was just wondering if 'pro' cameras will need to be quite as highly specified as they are now, or whether that is simply a hangover from the days when they did actually need to last a long time.

If nothing else, they are test-beds for the latest-greatest in terms of electronic guts and what-not.

I presume that Canon also gets some advertising benefit from the visual display of many many white Canon lenses pointing this way and that from the pro snappers at sporting events and so on. I think I've seen an advert that also shows that.

So there might be a 'but that's what the pros use' reason to keep the pros kitted up with things that one might not otherwise produce, but which they demand.

 

[Ade-oh]

Pros put their gear through in a year what the consumer might take 10 or 20 years to do. If you are running 100,000 exposures or more through the camera every year, while beating it up every day physically, it just requires this kind of ruggedness.

True, but pro cameras no longer have as many moving parts as they used to. You can mount a top-of-the-range shutter in a lighter body without necessarily compromising its reliability or protection.

 

[Thardy]

The only good thing about the short life of rugged high end dslrs is that the technology trickles down to the consumer level rather quickly.

It would be kind of interesting to know just how often a Nikon or Canon pro actually does update, and is it from cameras wearing out or obsolescence.

 

[bmattock]

You can mount a top-of-the-range shutter in a lighter body without necessarily compromising its reliability or protection.

Until you bash it on a rock.

 

[mackigator]

Aside: What luggage is it that doesn't break?

 

[Thardy]

Yep, weather sealing is a big part of what makes a "pro" camera.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I like my Leica M bodies. A couple of them are about 50 years old and were over 20 years old when I bought them. I did buy my M2-R new, but that was back around 1970. They're all still in daily use but look like crap. The same with the lenses from a 21mm Super Angulon to a 135mm Elmarit. If the day ever comes when I'm forced to go digital I'm going to have a lot of trouble on several fronts. A) Realizing that I have a piece of disposable junk designed to last about as long as the technology of its electronices, B) Wondering about the archival qualities of the digital picture files, C) getting used to learning to set controls by going through programs, D) Getting used to working with an SLR unless somebody comes out with a decent rangefinder system at an affordable price, E.) learning the "work-arounds" for getting what's probably an automatic camera, focus, exposure, etc., to do what I want it to do.

What might be kick starting film rangefinders back into the public eye is the fact that for the first time in decades we have a choice of price ranges, with the Bessa being very affordable, Zeiss and others in the middle, and Leica at the top. We also have the biggest choice in lenses that there ever was, and it's all better quality than in the past. For now I'm sticking with film.

 

[Ade-oh]

Until you bash it on a rock.

OK, maybe. But the reason for the ultra strong chassis on a Nikon F5 or a Canon EOS 1, for example, was to act as a 'platform' for the mechanics as well as to protect them.

Well, I use 5D's because they are lighter. But they aren't weather sealed, and that is significant. I watched another pro stand on the deck of a ship (while I was stuck away from the weather) for two hours with a IDs MkII, and and L lens, shooting training exercises in rough seas with sea water constantly washing over him and spray like horizontal rain. When he finally came in, he stuck the camera and lens under a shower head, rinsed it off, dried it off, and it was no worse for wear. My 5D would have been landfill. That's the advantage of the pro stuff.

Agreed, but weatherproofing is fairly easy. I used to own an Olympus Mju II which was pretty much weatherproof - to the extent that it carried on working fine after I'd dropped it in the sea on one occasion - which cost me less than £100 (and took very nice pictures!).

 

[bmattock]

Aside: What luggage is it that doesn't break?

From my experience, Hartmann and Andiamo brands.

I did a lot of research - bought a lot of bags that broke after the 20th or 30th trip (I flew more than most flight attendants for seven years), and argued quite a bit with people who thought that a '10 year warranty' or a 'lifetime warranty' was a mark of good luggage. Believe me, when your rollaboard zipper fails and you have three hours to catch your flight home, you will not be looking for a warranty return center. You will throw the bloody thing in the trash and buy a cheap bag to get you home, which will also go in the trash once you get there. Warranty means NOTHING. Bags that do not break are worth what you have to pay for them. End of rant.

 

[literiter]

To me their is something just a little discouraging about all this. At one time a camera was a bit of an heirloom, could be passed down to another generation who could use it for a while. Like my M2, or F2 still perfectly useable, and for the most part, repairable after 30 or 40 or so years of reasonable service.

It may be that the new generation of digital devices will give service for so long, but it's hard to imagine a D3 in 30 or 40 years having the same utility as the old stuff.

If I were a pro I'd look at this differently, I'm sure, but as an intent amateur I like the continuity having the same cameras year after year gives me.

But having said this, if a digital equivalent of my F2 came about..... I'd have it!

 

[PJRiley]

My Nikon D2h with its fast glass goes wherever my job takes me, no matter the weather. Including to a drug lab that blew up and was full of toxic chemicals. We were warned to watch out for a couple of vicious dogs that the suspects had running loose on the property.
Heavy pro gear is 'insurance' in more ways than one for a pj....
I know the camera will be kaput one day; I have my Contax lla and Nikon F4s to pass on...