[clackers]

That must be why pros always use really cheap equipment.

Not sure you understand the aphorism.


The pros already have the gear and the career change, so their concern is ongoing financial viability - keeping the bookings diary full.


The masters, like a Magnum photographer, have the gear, the money and security, so they can do the art for art's sake thing when it suits them.

[Nicolas06]

That must be why pros always use really cheap equipment.

Overal camera gear is cheap (think the investment you make as a plumber, taxi driver or to open a restaurant) if you make decent money with your job you could easily have very nice equipment. We could expect D5 for action/sport and MF bodies + lenses for studio/landscape use.

This isn't the case. But honestly I think this is the same for many jobs. Here at work as a software company, we have nice laptop... But they are good, not overly good or expensive. Far less expensive that what a gamer would take and not the latest mac book pro neither. We know this doesn't change anything for us at long at it is good enough. And this is my employer. My sister also work in computer science and her employer provide its employee with literally rubbish/old computer that most people would think too slow/basic for most uses.

This is just gear, this is just a tool. The more you spend on it, the more you have to justify it. At long as it works well enough that's ok.

[civiletti]

Not sure you understand the aphorism.


The pros already have the gear and the career change, so their concern is ongoing financial viability - keeping the bookings diary full.


The masters, like a Magnum photographer, have the gear, the money and security, so they can do the art for art's sake thing when it suits them.

So then the aphorism does not suggest that equipment - such as sharp lenses - is unimportant, but that it is so important that advanced photographers always have the good stuff.

[Nicolas06]

So then the aphorism does not suggest that equipment - such as sharp lenses - is unimportant, but that it is so important that advanced photographers always have the good stuff.

The have good but not overly great stuff most of the time. I am not sure they see the difference actually between the D4 and D5, 5DMarkIII and 5DS, D800 vs D810 or even D610 vs D750.

For lenses, as long as the old version still work, does the pro feel the need for 70-200 VR II instead of the first version? Or even if he has the sigma, does he feel the need for the Nikon version ?

Does they all want an MF body, at least 645Z and they like to be able to justify a phase one MF in full frame format rather than crop ? Not sure for the majority.

[clackers]

So then the aphorism does not suggest that equipment - such as sharp lenses - is unimportant, but that it is so important that advanced photographers always have the good stuff.

Correct.


I've always interpreted it as a quote about the psychologies of the three groups - their obsessions.


Note that a master will produce great photos whatever you give them - including the worst lenses, a phone, or a toy camera. Ansel Adams and Benjamin Von Wong, gearheads, Cartier-Bresson and Martin Parr, not.


If you haven't already, check out the 'Cheap Camera Challenge' series of Digital Rev videos on YouTube. Very entertaining.

[normhead]

Without knowing what lenses they tested such comparisons are meaningless. Or did they test all 600 or whatever it is?

Why ask which lens is the sharpest, something of secondary interest, when they could have asked which lens produces the images favoured by the most viewers.

The only thing worth knowing, from which lens are the images more appealing tp the viewer. The rest is just fluff.

[Nicolas06]

Without knowing what lenses they tested such comparisons are meaningless. Or did they test all 600 or whatever it is?

Why ask which lens is the sharpest, something of secondary interest, when they could have asked which lens produces the images favoured by the most viewers.

The only thing worth knowing, from which lens are the images more appealing tp the viewer. The rest is just fluff.

Go on DxO mark web site take all the lenses tested with K3 and order by sharpness: you get the results in order.

And you also see all the lenses tested: not that many.

[rgknief60]

Who knows if the Pentax lenses DXO uses for test are the best examples.
There can be a difference in copies. That's why I place a greater value on
the opinion of the many users in the Forum. They collectively give a nice
picture of a len's performance and value. We have a rare jewel here in
Pentax Forums! I really appreciate all the help and advice fellow members
have given me over the years. You all are a great community.

[Digitalis]

Excessive sharpness of the new "digital" lenses are counterproductive as they create sterile images.

I have a Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 adapted to K mount - you won't see me using it for personal work for that very reason. As Voltaire put it: "the enemy of the good is the better"

[Kerrowdown]

"the things you see when you don't have your camera!"

The moral of that tale is... always have at least one camera with you at all times, but always make sure you've got room to turn over in bed.

[Kerrowdown]

you can always blur things in photoshop

And these days sharpen too.

[Kerrowdown]

I have clients that can spot the difference between Leica and Zeiss lenses

Sorry I've found this thread somewhat late... I'm not sure if your Leica/Zeiss scenario is a mixed blessing or not.

I'm pleased to say that most of my top end clients, can't even spot within reason a difference in focal lengths, let alone a lens or camera brand. That is of course with the one proviso, that I do produce the required image, otherwise dictation levels then seem to escalate.

[Digitalis]

I work with a fixed white balance*, so the neutral/warm rendition of Leica lenses is more apparent..Zeiss lenses typically produce cooler colours and are more clinical in their rendering.

*all my cameras are set to a manual white balance of 5000K. I rarely change it.

[Kerrowdown]

the neutral/warm rendition of Leica lenses is more apparent..Zeiss lenses typically produce cooler colours and are more clinical

Thanks for that, that explains a lot and gives me a little more faith that my clients aren't all numpties.

[RGlasel]

always have at least one camera with you at all times, but always make sure you've got room to turn over in bed.

Funny, even when my bed companions and I were much younger and much more attractive subjects for photography, sharing the bed with a camera always produced negative results.

can't even spot within reason a difference in focal lengths, let alone a lens or camera brand.

Ah, but they see differences if you give them a side by side comparison. They don't know Art, but they do know what they like. Another analogy is if you give a person a bag to hold and ask them how much it weighs, most answers will be very numpty. On the other hand, if you put a bag in each hand with a difference in weight of only a few ounces, they will be able to pick the heaviest bag with surprising accuracy.

One final proviso, clients are people (they really are!) and people's likes may have only a small correlation to the skill, inspiration and perspiration applied by the artist. I'm sure you have had potential clients turn away from some of your best work because the colour or composition clashed with their numpty biases.