New to photography - how I'm always looking for help in this forum :P

[CarrierPigeon]

OK, so let me start off by saying that I'm a complete newbie to professional photography. Yes I have experience taking pictures - everyone does, well, almost everyone, but that's with either phone cameras or digital compact ones. Now I'm start thinking seriously about professional photography, meaning, I'm taking lessons and intending to get some good gears.

Since I'm new, and I don't really want to be fooled around (nobody does, seriously), and there are simply WAY TOO MANY reviews out there, each saying different things. So I would like to get some help and clarifications from Hexus forum.

Number one thing: I've seen a lot of people talking about dSLR cameras and pro photography. While I'm not exactly sure the difference between dSLR and compact (an explanation will be greatly appreciated), I do realized that for a professional photographer a good dSLR is a must. Now, since dSLR is single lens, and really the picture effect will be mostly dictated by the types of lens you use, does the body of dSLR really matter? If so, what are some brands/models that you recommend? Personally I'm a fan of Cannon and Nikon but if there are any others please recommend. Specific models along with their reviews or your personal experience will be much appreciated. In addition, finance also plays a role I'm fine with anything under £1,000. I think that's a good place to start?

Now come lenses. Let me repeat that I'm fairly new to professional photography and I haven't had many experience with lenses. Since I'm a fan of landscape, architectural, and occasionally close up shots and portrait shooting, I wonder what lenses would be best for each category. If there is a universal super lens that will be great for all of them that would be great but I highly doubt it. So, I would like to know what are some of the BEST lenses for each of this category be. Brands wouldn't be a problem, only the quality. I would prefer the price to be somewhat below £350. At most it shouldn't exceed £500. So what are some products that you would recommend, either from reviews or personal use?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: one thing that every photographer has to master is image editing skills. Now, the one thing I know about photo editing is Photoshop. That's about the only photo editing software I know of (Oops ) While I'm sure Photoshop is great, it's a bit pricey. So I was wondering if there are any other alternatives out there.

Besides a good dSLR camera, lenses, editing softwares, anything else for must-have?

I thank you all in advance.

[CarrierPigeon]

Also, what's this business with flash on dSLR?

[kalniel]

You're speaking in contradictions, so it's a bit confusing at times

Anyway, lets start at the start. The photos you want to take.

Landscape and architecture require wide-ish lens with low distortion. The sensor needs to have good dynamic range and as weak an AA filter as possible. And most importantly of all you need a good tripod.

A good tripod and head will probably cost near to £1000, but you don't mention what your budget for the tripod is. You could do worse than to copy our resident landscape expert (kushtibari) and go for a Gitzo GT3541LS with a Kirk BH-1.

Lens.. probably aim for something around the 28mm range in 35mm equivalent, so if you're on a 1.6x crop factor sensor there are good 12-24mm wide angles (nikkor 12-24 f/4 G, pentax SMC 12-24 f/4, tokina 11-16), or 9-18 if on 2.0 crop (olympus 9-18).

Body - do you need weather sealing? If so Pentax are great value for what you get, and the K30 looks sweet. They're pretty good landscape cameras anyway, but you wouldn't go wrong with any high resolution camera from Nikon, Sony or Canon either.

Portrait shooting, on the other hand, almost requires the opposite. If you're doing this pro then you're going to need a couple of cameras anyway, so I'd suggest building a different system for the portraits - if it happens to be the same brand then cool, but don't worry if not. A tripod still comes in handy for a portrait so the Gitzo won't go to waste, but the most important thing is lighting so getting a good strobe setup is handy (multiple flashguns, reflectors etc.). Again you don't set a budget for this kind of stuff, but it'll be several hundred. I know less about that kind of stuff so go nag our resident portrait expert (bob).

Lens-wise for portrait you need something fast and usually somewhere around 85-100mm (35mm equivalent). Primes are often a good idea because they're usually faster than zooms and can be optimised optically more easily. Others will have to chime in about specific lenses as I only know about ones for my system which you can't really buy anymore.

Sensor wise resolution and dynamic range is far less of an issue for portraits, but you want good colour accuracy and to avoid moire.. which often means you want a sensor *with* a fairly strong AA filter or that is otherwise not subject to the failings of the bayer sensor. If you can go full frame then you get the most benefit for portraiture IMHO.

Close-ups can sort of be handled by either of the above - again tripod is very handy, light is also important, but here you might want to start looking at low noise/high ISO capability, so go for a camera with a large sensor and/or fewer megapixels as a very rough rule.

I've not really focused on makes, because it's largely irrelevant - as long as the system has the lenses/accessories that meet your needs. They all do, so go for whichever body fits your hands/operation most comfortably.

Software wise, lightroom is a great tool for less money than photoshop. If you're going pro though I expect you'll find some business budget for the full photoshop experience.

I am not a pro, but I have similar scene requirements to you so I went with an Olympus E-620 for it's dynamic range and features (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620) an oly zuiko 9-18 for landscape (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...9-18_4-5p6_o20) and oly zuiko 50 f/2 for portraits/close ups (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_50_2_o20). And I use a Giottos MTL 8350B with MH1311-652 head. As you can see from the reviews, at the time they were all very good for the budget, but Oly have stopped focusing on DSLRs now and I'm aiming significantly below pro!

TL;DR: Pro level stuff is expensive, but you're a business, it's a business expense. A good tripod is probably the most important bit of equipment for your uses so budget for that accordingly.

PPPPPPPPPPS: If none of that makes sense, go read a few books/take a course before trying to go pro.

[CarrierPigeon]

You're speaking in contradictions, so it's a bit confusing at times

Anyway, lets start at the start. The photos you want to take.

Landscape and architecture require wide-ish lens with low distortion. The sensor needs to have good dynamic range and as weak an AA filter as possible. And most importantly of all you need a good tripod.

A good tripod and head will probably cost near to £1000, but you don't mention what your budget for the tripod is. You could do worse than to copy our resident landscape expert (kushtibari) and go for a Gitzo GT3541LS with a Kirk BH-1.

Lens.. probably aim for something around the 28mm range in 35mm equivalent, so if you're on a 1.6x crop factor sensor there are good 12-24mm wide angles (nikkor 12-24 f/4 G, pentax SMC 12-24 f/4, tokina 11-16), or 9-18 if on 2.0 crop (olympus 9-18).

Body - do you need weather sealing? If so Pentax are great value for what you get, and the K30 looks sweet. They're pretty good landscape cameras anyway, but you wouldn't go wrong with any high resolution camera from Nikon, Sony or Canon either.

Portrait shooting, on the other hand, almost requires the opposite. If you're doing this pro then you're going to need a couple of cameras anyway, so I'd suggest building a different system for the portraits - if it happens to be the same brand then cool, but don't worry if not. A tripod still comes in handy for a portrait so the Gitzo won't go to waste, but the most important thing is lighting so getting a good strobe setup is handy (multiple flashguns, reflectors etc.). Again you don't set a budget for this kind of stuff, but it'll be several hundred. I know less about that kind of stuff so go nag our resident portrait expert (bob).

Lens-wise for portrait you need something fast and usually somewhere around 85-100mm (35mm equivalent). Primes are often a good idea because they're usually faster than zooms and can be optimised optically more easily. Others will have to chime in about specific lenses as I only know about ones for my system which you can't really buy anymore.

Sensor wise resolution and dynamic range is far less of an issue for portraits, but you want good colour accuracy and to avoid moire.. which often means you want a sensor *with* a fairly strong AA filter or that is otherwise not subject to the failings of the bayer sensor. If you can go full frame then you get the most benefit for portraiture IMHO.

Close-ups can sort of be handled by either of the above - again tripod is very handy, light is also important, but here you might want to start looking at low noise/high ISO capability, so go for a camera with a large sensor and/or fewer megapixels as a very rough rule.

I've not really focused on makes, because it's largely irrelevant - as long as the system has the lenses/accessories that meet your needs. They all do, so go for whichever body fits your hands/operation most comfortably.

Software wise, lightroom is a great tool for less money than photoshop. If you're going pro though I expect you'll find some business budget for the full photoshop experience.

TL;DR: Pro level stuff is expensive, but you're a business, it's a business expense. A good tripod is probably the most important bit of equipment for your uses so budget for that accordingly.

Ai, if you are talking about the contradictions of "I'm new" "yet I have some experience" I will clarify by saying that I have some experience in the amateur level but a complete newbie at professional level. I hope that clears up. Sorry about the confusion.

You sort of scare me about the price of tripod. Honestly speaking I haven't done any research in that category yet so I'm a bit shocked by its price. Then again I'm sure I will need it since I'm serious about going pro with photography.

A water-sealing camera sounds great. God knows what's going to happen with a clumsy person like me. I wouldn't want to risk a piece of equipment worth thousands because I accidentally trip a water bottle on my camera (yes similar situations have happened before with my other electronic gadgets)

Thanks for the info on lenses. I've being looking up for some of them but apparently a lot of stuff just isn't detailed enough or they are too detailed and they confused the hell out of me.

I was thinking about Photoshop cs6. It has a 3D version and enhanced/advanced (something like that) and regular. I guess I will pick between the latter two. Which one would you recommend?

[kalniel]

A water-sealing camera sounds great. God knows what's going to happen with a clumsy person like me. I wouldn't want to risk a piece of equipment worth thousands because I accidentally trip a water bottle on my camera (yes similar situations have happened before with my other electronic gadgets)

You will be insuring your equipment I hope?!!

I was thinking about Photoshop cs6. It has a 3D version and enhanced/advanced (something like that) and regular. I guess I will pick between the latter two. Which one would you recommend?

I haven't the foggiest, sorry. I doubt it would make any significant difference.

[Saracen]

CarrierPigeon, can I clarify what you mean by your use of the word "professional"?

Really, "professional" means you're doing it as a profession. That covers a multitude of options, from press photographer, to a wedding photographer, to someone specialising in advertising, fine art, portrait, sports, and so on, but the essence of all those, effectively, it's that it's a large part, perhaps the entirety, of how they make their living.

You will then often see a variety of photo gear labelled as "pro" standard, but it's something of a misnomer. It isn't strictly necessary for a pro to use "pro" gear. It depends is exactly what type of photography you are talking about.

Conversely, a lot of amateurs, taking pictures strictly as a hobby, also use "pro" gear, and are limited only by what their affluence, or lack there-of, allows them to use.


You say you want to go "pro" and are prepared to take lessons, and buy pro gear. I don't want to sound patronising, but I think you've got that backwards. Take the lessons, by all means, or join a camera club and put in the hours necessary to learn the trade, and art, but I'd strongly suggest you get a lot more photographic experience under your belt before worrying about buying gear suitable for a "pro".

For a start, there's one absolutely critical part of going "pro" that having absolutely nothing to do with either the gear you own or, at least directly, the photographic skills you have, and that is that in order to be a pro, to make your living from photography, you either need to have someone prepared to employ you (like a wedding pro's assistant), or you need to be able to convince clients to hire you directly .... like getting people prepared to pay you to take their wedding pictures.

In the first case, how will you be able to convince someone to employ you? Owning pro gear isn't going to do it.


In the second case, getting a regular schedule of bookings for weddings, or for any sort of commercial photography is both a LOT of hard work, and one hell of a competitive field. One question anyone prepared to pay more than peanuts for your services is likely to ask is either to see your portfolio, or a list of references from satisfied clients, or both.

In other words, in the absence of somepne prepared to offer you a job, you need to learn to run a business, handle customer relations, learn marketing skills, and so on.

Let's say you want to set up and do weddings. It's not as easy as putting an ad in the paper (though that may be part of it) and waiting for clients to roll in, as they won't. It's also about accounts, what insurances you need, probably building a website, and a good one if you want to impress potential clients, and then you need to learn the craft. What pictures to take and how to get decent ones is, in many ways, the easy bit. You've also got to be able to handle people, from one or two at a time, to entire crowds. To work fast, but accurately and reliably, to know what type of picture you want, to predict the effect ambient light and to either position people, or supplement ambient light with flash, or reflectors .... or to do both ... and to do it all smoothly, and seamlessly, in a way that gets the happy couple the pictures they want without it all being about you moving people around. You've kinda got to blend in, and to control things without seeming to do so, if you want people at their ease ... and you do.

The same sorts of problems exist for non-wedding work. Say you want to do press photography. A lot of that is going to be about building contacts, and you are likely to have few, or none. And then, you've got to be right place, right time, to get the shot. And you've got to get a better shot than anyone else, and get to the editors before someone else does, because if they've already paid me for a shot, they aren't going to buy one from you even if yours is better.

In other words, I'd seriously suggest that you get more experience under your belt, judging by the questions you're asking, before either trying to go pro or spending a lot of money on gear.

One thing, and believe me it's true ..... having the best "pro" gear on the planet is not going to make you a good photographer. What it will do is enable you, and expand options, once you are a good photographer. It'll be more versatile, better built, and yes, produce better results, but it certainly will not, in and of itself, make you produce great pics because that is almost entirely down to what's going on between the ears.

So, take the lessons, and take loads of pictures. The best teaching method is experience, though you can speed it up a lot with, for example, evening classes, but (IMHO of course) nothing but nothing is as effective a teaching method as doing it, as taking loads of pictures, and seeing what happens when you do this or that. Try changing aperture over a set of pictures and note the effect, Do the same with shutter speed. And take notes, so that you know what you did and and compare with what happens.

To do all that, you really only need very basic kit. Even if you want a dSLR, I'd suggest a fairly basic one, maybe even second hand. And a good basic lens, like a standard 50mm f1.8. That type of lens is cheap, typically under £100 or so brand new, and you will find that they are optically very good indeed, and will produce pin-sharp pictures.

Only then would I suggest even thinking about going for "pro" standard bodies or lenses, because you'll be lucky to find much in the way of "pro" bodies under £1000 (new) and most are over £2000, some a lot of that. And there are almost no "pro" lenses under about £500, and most are again, over £1000, with a fair few many thousands.

Before spending anything like that kind of money, I'd really suggest you need a greater idea of what it is you're going to do, because the "pro" lens a press or wildlife photographer may need is likely to be very different from the one(s) a wedding pro will need.

[Bobster]

got examples of the photographs you've taken?

[sleepyhead]

Just from experience with two photographers I know:

One is hobbyist and amateur, but he knows cameras and used to work on film sets as a focus puller (I think that was the term). He takes portraits on a "compact" film camera. The photos are amazing and he has great skills that has been honed through time, effort and through work. How is this guy related to your original post? He has yet to buy any high end equipment and is STILL, after a year and half, searching. He's played with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and each has it's merit and are fantastic in their own right, but none fit both his technical requirements and feel. A lot of it is down to how it feels taking the photos. One other thing I should mention is he prefers fully manual lenses. He always has his portfolio with him and amassed a fair number and variety of photos.

Another guy I know is also serious about photography and has done paid work before. He even had one of his videos ripped off and put onto youtube (which has now been removed). He started on a simple Canon S95. It's not a dSLR, and it's not high end, however he built up knowledge and skill in using his equipment. He even made a time lapse video (of a boring train journey) as a proof of concept. All of this built up contacts and he knows some professional photographers now as well as a list of possible clientele (albeit, small right now). He's moved on from the S95 (actually, he lost it on a train) to a Sony a77. He has a small range of lenses, almost all of which are F2.8, ranging from 11-16mm Tokina, to a 70-200mm and some in between. He also invested in a tripod, which set him back ￥120,000 (around 1000 pounds). He has filmed ballet performances as well as cars on circuits (as well as a multitude of photos). Why is this relevant? He built up a base first before venturing into paid work.

TL;DR
Choose what you want to achieve with the camera. If you are doing this for a living, you'll have to take photos that will please the customer and not you. Experiment and play with simpler, cheaper equipment, as Saracen suggested. A manual camera will teach you a lot (guy number 1). Make contacts and get people interested (guy number 2), before putting in thousands of pounds into equipment. People skill is very important, as Saracen said.

Good luck with it all.

[CarrierPigeon]

Thanks for all the helpful replies here. I really appreciate it.
@kaniel: insurance doesn't cover equipment forever; I will be happy to find one of those.
@saracen: so starting with a compact should be fine right? O___O Thanks for the tips on finding contacts and building connections. Well, I'm kind of terrible at that (this is bad for business) as often times I do not know where to start. Do you have any tips on finding a good place to start on building relationships and connections with potential clients?
@Bobster: actually starting a portfolio to put some pictures of mine together. Any tips on that? And (since it says photographer in both your signature and your bio I assume you are a pro) would you recommend a digital one or a traditional one?
@sleepyhead: thanks for the wishes; I think I may try to take some shots and build up connections first :\

[Bobster]

@Bobster: actually starting a portfolio to put some pictures of mine together. Any tips on that? And (since it says photographer in both your signature and your bio I assume you are a pro) would you recommend a digital one or a traditional one?

you have nothing to show right now?

tbh, i'm not suggesting anything until you have some photographs to show..

[Saracen]

....

@saracen: so starting with a compact should be fine right? O___O Thanks for the tips on finding contacts and building connections. Well, I'm kind of terrible at that (this is bad for business) as often times I do not know where to start. Do you have any tips on finding a good place to start on building relationships and connections with potential clients?....

Well, there are compacts, and compacts. You could pay £60, or £600 .... or a lot more than that.

Though there is an element of brand-snobbery influencing price, certainly at the very high end, it is also true that with compacts, you tend to get what you pay for. As you go up in price, so you'll get more features but also, generally, better lenses.

And if you pick a compact with manual modes, yes, you can learn a lot from it.

But buying a compact wasn't quite what I meant.

I, and I repeat IF, you are serious are wanting to go a long with with this, then it's perhaps no bad idea to buy in a way that is expandable, without wasting too much of the early investment.

So, perhaps start with a basic dSLR, or an older model that someone is upgrading. At this point, things like resolution don't really matter, so a model that's 5 years, maybe more, old should still do the job just fine provided you make sure it works properly.

Then, add a basic lens like that 50mm f1.8 I mentioned, if it doesn't come with something usable. But again, frankly, lens quality doesn't really matter much at this point.

The suggestion is to get basic, relatively inexpensive gear and to use it. Use it a lot. Take lots of pictures. And a lot will probably be crap. Work out why they're crap. Teach yourself about the basics, exposure, shutter speed, perspective, depth of field and most emphatically .... light.

Perhaps look at pictures online, find some that are really good, and that you like, and try to duplicate it with available materials and locations. The more you do, the more you'll understand the equipment, and the effect, for example, of taking a portrait with a 20mm lens compared to taking one with a 200mm lens.

Bear in mind that the most important piece of photographic equipment you have is the thing you'll find directly between your ears. And you have to train it a bit, give it experience, give it data to work on.

Because while true photography undoubtedly has an element of science about it, the difference between a decent picture and a great photo is nearly always the imagination and skill of the photographer.

If you don't "see" the picture before you take it, it's going to be very hard to be a really good photographer. Sometimes, for instance, you find that moving a few feet to the left, or climbing up a foot or two (maybe standing on a wall for a landscape), or getting down low (kneeling, or even laying flat on your face) is what is needed to get that really great shot, as opposed to a ho-hum picture that, while competent, is a snap, rather than "art".

Put it this way. Over the decades, a lot of photographers have done fantastic work on equipment that, by today's standards, was basic or even downright crude. Yet, they understood the process, and had the "eye" for the image they wanted.

High-end or "pro" gear is great, and will enable a good photographer to use the capabilities of the gear, but you can teach yourself a vast amount of what you need to know, including whether you have the eye for a shot or not, with pretty basic gear.

So, either an entry-level dSLR, and a basic lens, or at a push, yes, a decent compact, will give you a good start. But if you go the basic dSLR route, and a 50mm 1.8 lens, you might then find you want another lens. Or a flash. And if you buy carefully, you can upgrade the basic body for a better one and still get use out of the 50mm 1.8 and the flash. Upgrade the bits that need it, and add other bits, but keep the bits that are up to standard.

What won't help you much is going out now and spending five grand on a pro body, and another fifteen grand on two or three pro lenses, if you don't know how to use them.

When you got (or get) your first driving licence, buying a new Ferrari wasn't going to make you a great driver. Only training, experience and hard work will do that. And so it is with photography.

IMHO, of course.

[CarrierPigeon]

What won't help you much is going out now and spending five grand on a pro body, and another fifteen grand on two or three pro lenses, if you don't know how to use them.

When you got (or get) your first driving licence, buying a new Ferrari wasn't going to make you a great driver. Only training, experience and hard work will do that. And so it is with photography.

IMHO, of course.

Too expensive, can't afford that much cost Can you be a bit more specific about decent compact? I think I will go with a basic dSLR like you suggested, but I also want to experiment with compact a bit more. Doesn't hurt to try around before I settle down on what fits me (most likely I will "abandon" compact after a while but it's good for practical skills right?)

[Saracen]

....

Can you be a bit more specific about decent compact? I think I will go with a basic dSLR like you suggested, but I also want to experiment with compact a bit more. Doesn't hurt to try around before I settle down on what fits me (most likely I will "abandon" compact after a while but it's good for practical skills right?)

A bit, yeah, but I'm not necessarily the right person to advise.

I bought a Panasonic TZ-20 a little while back, and it's a great camera ... but probably not for what you need. The reason I say that is that one thing it doesn't do is one thing you will probably want it to do, even if you may not realise it. And that is to allow image capture in "RAW".

Most compacts save their pictures in JPEG format, including that model of Panasonic, and that means the camera has already done a lot of processing on the image. If you're taking a snapshot, it may not matter, but if actual photography, where you're aiming at image quality, is paramount, it does. You want something that supports "RAW" formats, as well as pre-processed ones like JPEG. But I wasn't worried about that, for that camera.

So, what you're really looking for is compact wit the following characteristics :-

- a GOOD lens
- supports RAW file formats
- allows manual, and probably semi-manual control.

Most major brands will do a model that does that, and they're aimed at serious amateurs who want a small, light and versatile camera with a good lens, for those times when they either don't want to or cannot carry an SLR around with them.

For Canon, that probably means the G-series, like the current G-12, or for Panasonic, the LX-7 or LX-5. In both cases, you can achieve anything you need to with earlier models of these cameras, by picking up a far cheaper used model. Just make sure it works properly. It'll save quite a lot of money over the UK£350-£450 these are likely to be, and if it's a teaching aid that may get minimal use after you've learned the necessary, saving money is a good idea.

Personally, though, I'd still recommend a basic d-SLR and a "standard" lens like the 50mm f1.8, and again, probably used.

And I'm sure other people will have other suggestions for models of compacts. As long as it matches those basic criteria, it doesn't really matter much, as the object of the exercise is to get plenty of practice and experience in photographic basics.

[CarrierPigeon]

A bit, yeah, but I'm not necessarily the right person to advise.

I bought a Panasonic TZ-20 a little while back, and it's a great camera ... but probably not for what you need. The reason I say that is that one thing it doesn't do is one thing you will probably want it to do, even if you may not realise it. And that is to allow image capture in "RAW".

Most compacts save their pictures in JPEG format, including that model of Panasonic, and that means the camera has already done a lot of processing on the image. If you're taking a snapshot, it may not matter, but if actual photography, where you're aiming at image quality, is paramount, it does. You want something that supports "RAW" formats, as well as pre-processed ones like JPEG. But I wasn't worried about that, for that camera.

So, what you're really looking for is compact wit the following characteristics :-

- a GOOD lens
- supports RAW file formats
- allows manual, and probably semi-manual control.

Most major brands will do a model that does that, and they're aimed at serious amateurs who want a small, light and versatile camera with a good lens, for those times when they either don't want to or cannot carry an SLR around with them.

For Canon, that probably means the G-series, like the current G-12, or for Panasonic, the LX-7 or LX-5. In both cases, you can achieve anything you need to with earlier models of these cameras, by picking up a far cheaper used model. Just make sure it works properly. It'll save quite a lot of money over the UK£350-£450 these are likely to be, and if it's a teaching aid that may get minimal use after you've learned the necessary, saving money is a good idea.

Personally, though, I'd still recommend a basic d-SLR and a "standard" lens like the 50mm f1.8, and again, probably used.

And I'm sure other people will have other suggestions for models of compacts. As long as it matches those basic criteria, it doesn't really matter much, as the object of the exercise is to get plenty of practice and experience in photographic basics.

Ai thanks this can save a lot of money off of my budget plan

[ntrik]

I've just started getting into photography and decided that to go for a Sony RX100. It is a digital compact which produces fantastic image quality for it's size, shoots raw, and is quick. You will see all reviews have been quite positive but it is quite pricey (up to £500.00)

While I looked at DSLRs, they seemed too big and bulky to carry around with me everywhere. But I hear they are great to learn on and are looking to take it up seriously.

[Wildcard[UK]]

The thing about a camera like the RX100 is that it gives you nowehere else to go once your needs outgrow what it is capable of. Don't get me wrong, it seems to be a lovely little camera and great when you need something pocketable but if this chap is looking to go pro then he really needs to think about investing in a system rather than a camera. As has been suggested above a second hand cheap DSLR body and a couple of decent value minded lenses will be fine to start gaining experience with and the modular nature of a system means he can upgrade as and when he needs to be it the L glass, the body of the lighting arrangement etc.

As above, build an amateur portfolio first! You'll get nowhere without some evidence that you can actually take a decent picture.