The question was more rhetorical than bewilderment, meaning I was using the question to show how the camera classifications do not fit the classifications of usage. I am surely not a pro since the income criteria is not passed, although one year back in the 80s my snap shots earned $25k in royalties, back when $25k was a pretty good chunk of pocket change. Now, i specifically turn down offers for pay and even pay for not shooting.
Back when I was a pro in another field, pro meant something in specific equipment requirements. Not based on pure specs but on the 3 Rs: repair-ability, reset-ability, and reliability. That meant equipment that was built to last long enough to amortize its costs, to be able to get a reliable stream of maintenance parts far into the future, and the sturdiness and predictability of any adjustment items to allow quick and frequent adjustments. That definition is long gone. There were consumer items that had better single measurement factors that were clearly better but would never be adapted for pro work because for a working pro the 3 Rs were much more important. The output and finished results were almost always better using more conservative gear because the talent and attention to detail of the user surpassed the hobbyists by a wide margin. I am not sure I see that so much in the photography field, way too many people casually assign themselves the title of professional solely because they seek to or have charged people for work. I was on a forum recently that had C&C activity and dropped into one discussion about lighting. A woman was showing a few images asking for a critique. She got a number of polite responses but they were all missing the point that the images were poorly composes, lit and exposed, sort of casual snap shots with cluttered backgrounds and weird shadows, and people in unflattering light and poses. I mentioned a few specifics and got an indignant reply that she was a "professional" and had been doing the work for 15 years so obviously I did not know what I was talking about. I admitted it that I was a complete novice compared to her but as a viewer, without any knowledge of cameras I would still know aesthetics and if there hadn't been a number of examples on her web site of weddings, festivals and performances that all had the same cell-phone style of poorly conceived images I would have guessed her first examples were a joke or some strange concept art. I asked if she every visited art galleries to keep a perspective on aesthetics and she wrote back that they did not have fancy city galleries in her small town. She is by the definitions post above, a pro. I somehow think the classifications are meaningless now and new, more communicative descriptions should be created. Was there a DSLR made within the last 5 years that could not be used to create images that would have as much commercial value as with some high end gear? Some of the most impressive galleries are posted by owners of very simple cameras, many of them D40's. Since this thread is about D7k's, I find nothing at all limiting in a D7k that would not fit under the minimum requirements of the current definition of "pro", a sports or news photographer from not long ago would have committed heinous crimes for its capabilities. I still have not read of a point from the "it's not pro" camp that makes sense or holds water. Stan St Petersburg Russia