So someone was saying there's a trend for kids in India to buy expensive DSLR's, take pictures and create websites with their names and watermarked names all over the pictures to then consider themselves professionals? I'm glad someone can afford expensive D-SLR's to start out with since I'm still working with a so called "entry level" mirrorless compact system for the moment. The last time I properly used an SLR camera was when they still used film rolls in them. But the question is, am I doing professional things with it with "professional" results? 

My opinion? Just take the pictures, if they're any good they'll please peoples eyeballs (if not your own) and people will want to look at them. Being professional only means you get paid for it. Essentially if you share your passion for others to then be or become actively interested in it too how do you have room to complain? Are you concerned that they're wasting their money on something they might quickly get bored with, or are you concerned that there's more competition based on what the equipment is now able to do? Maybe that's the problem, much of the most expensive equipment can make some of the most average photographers produce professional looking results thanks to high end automation D-SLR equipment settings and better optic properties on the more expensive lenses?

There are people who get paid to do what they do (technically "professionals" which is a definition of someone who is paid to do it) but they might produce lesser results than certain amateurs/enthusiasts in terms of particular types of photographic styles. We need to make the distinction between ability and none ability regardless of professional status. You could do it for the love of it regardless of ability which is fine, and generally if you're reasonably well off and/or are already making an earning from what you do this won't present too much of an issue in the long run. But there are times when I've come across certain images that look very professional and I've not been able to credit who produced it, so I've not been able to search out more of it by name, so they don't get the recognition, recommendations or the potential step into maybe making that professional status off the back of their actual efforts and work. Everyone is a photographer these days in this digital age where photographic equipment in some form or other is everywhere. It's just a case of what you do with it, the results, and sometimes the purpose or rather how the results are used. Some people in certain work related contexts don't get directly paid for the photographic work, but they might use the professional looking results for a professional purpose/application by drawing upon their abilities to get the image they want to the best of their ability with the equipment they have. Saves them having to pay someone else to do it at the very least.

A lot of the time there will be certain types of pictures where it'll be down to the photographer to achieve particular images within certain photographic styles and hardware limitations. But generally as a rule of thumb, how light is used or treated will have a large determining factor on how the images will turn out (for regular photography outside of none standard specialist night vision applications).There will be certain types of images where equipment will have a larger determining factor on the success of "getting the picture/shot", or at least make it much easier. Meaning there will be a certain threshold where by which the equipment will start to have a larger determining factor and your ability to afford it, especially when trying to work with natural light or artificial low light and motion/movement without a flash.

Take fast low distortion optics for instance with high usable light transmission that retain detailed sharpness without necessarily having to stop down for DSLR's. They tend to be vastly more expensive with inflated prices (often on a par with the expensive cost of upper end DSLR camera bodies themselves, some lenses even more so). These types of lenses generally make pictures more vivid, crisp and sharp with lower visual noise (either with or without attractive looking depths of field blur effects depending on default physical lens properties) just by sheer virtue of the optics used. They also generally help produce lower visual noise images in low light conditions. At which point it has nothing to do with ability whatsoever but your actual ability to afford the equipment. 

I could have bought a game console instead of a camera with my limited budget. Not that I wouldn't mind a game console, but I chose to take up being a shutterbug again as one of my past times. At least with photography there is an output much in the way that there is an output for writing or painting. I reckon it beats collecting footie stickers or vegging out in front of the television, not that there's anything wrong with those things either.

I would have featured the NEX-F3 camera in the picture, but I can't actually photograph the camera with itself. So instead I've used a picture of an old film roll Canon EOS I had instead. The lens from it was actually used to take the picture using the NEX-F3 camera body.