[Lainey]

What an interesting thread this is. I've recently started to wonder whether me and my gear would be good enough to do stock photography, so was drawn to this thread straight away, so thanks to those who shared their views, I am quite encouraged by them (as long as I don't try Getty images...)

I'm a member of my local camera club, where the Chairman and I are the only people shooting with Pentax/Samsung. Almost everyone else shoots Can*n, and boy do we get a ribbing for being the only non-Canikons present! I look at it differently though; If our gear really was *rubbish* they wouldn't do it, because it wouldn't be funny. The Chairman and I put up with it all, we accept its good humoured, and just have a wry smile when competition after competition both of our images are always in the top ten...

[marcdsgn]

Here is the Getty camera requirements: ... If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Canon EOS: 1D(Mk1,2&3), 1DS(Mk1,2,2n&3) 5D, 30D and 40D; Nikon: D2X, D2Xs, D3, D200, D300 and the Leica M8. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.

The question is, is this actually enforced? Often the "official" written standards are ignored by the real people involved in an organisation, either out of ignorance of their existence, or due to commonsense overriding silly policies that they had no say in endorsing. Most likely, that choice of body-type was shortlisted as the models they knew could provide quality shots, as opposed to being a shortlist of all models out there.

[Kguru]

There was (is?) a pro here by the signame Pentaxshooter (with his own photography service website). At one stage he sold out of Pentax to go to a diff brand, but interestingly then came back to Pentax coz he missed shooting with Pentax primes.

[res3567]

Are you being sarcastic?

Of course not! We Pentax users are just people who pretend to be pros! Our equipment aint up to par with them other two bohemeth companies. We may even be a step or two behind the one that starts with an S that replaced a company that invented autofocus. Even the 5/3rds or 2/3rds or whatever that other "format" company my be ahead of us slightly! Ha! What is a "Pro"? A person whose earns 51 percent of his or her income from photograpy? Or a person who has a passion for creating beutifull images based on what is envisioned in the mind?
Our equipment may not be what you see on TMZ! Or on the sidelines of the superbowl. So these "Pros" will use tools that enable them to make money. I'm sure our equipment finds it's way in the hands of other photograghers who make money at their craft. I help shoot weddings with my rig and have more lined up. I am not a "Pro", but I deliver professional quality. I make a little money to add to my equipment and to me, that is all that matters!

[fliegenfischer]

Jeez, folks, can we just put this, in my opinion, frankly silly thread to rest, once and for all?

In 35 years of shooting professionally near exclusively with Pentax equipment (except for film panoramics with Fuji pano cameras) only once have I ever met an art director or photo editor at any magazine, ad agency, design studio, corporate publications, advertising or marketing office, or newspaper photo department who gave a rat’s ass what model of camera I shot with. All they wanted to see was my portfolio, tearsheets and client list. I have shot assignments for and sold stock photos to an extensive list of major national/international magazines, newspapers, ad agencies and corporations and I never got one assignment or made one sale based on what camera system I used.

The only time I was ever asked was by a photo editor at a major publishing company based in Washington, D.C. whose magazine has a yellow cover. Then the only thing they said was, "Ah. Pentax. Good glass." When I didn't have all the “bigma” lenses to do the job, they loaned me a couple motorized Nikon bodies and a couple super long Nikkor lenses to shoot alongside my Pentax system. They made no editing decisions based on whether the shot was done with Pentax or Nikon glass, just what the content and quality of the image was. The legendary in-house mantra of the folks who shoot for this company is "f/8 and be there," not "f/8 and be there with Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus (or any another brand of camera.)" However, having said that, I do remember a conversation I had with the legendary Director of Photography there, Bob Gilka, who said that while Pentax was perfectly acceptable to the magazine, Olympus was not. Glass not good enough.

I shot for over a decade as an American stringer for the international news and features syndicate Sipa Press of Paris, France. They sold my images and photo stories all over the world. Not once did they ask what system I shot with. Nor did the Black Star Agency in New York. None of the various professional industry organizations I have belonged to over the years, including ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers), NPPA (National Press Photographers Association), PPA (Professional Photographers of America), ASPP (American Society of Picture Professionals), NANPA (North American Nature Photographers Association), SAA (Stock Artists Alliance), and OWAA (Outdoor Writers Association of America) have ever asked me what camera system I shot with, nor was it a requirement to become a member.

My point here is simple - it ain't what you shoot with, it’s how well you shoot it. Great photos are made by great photographers, not popular or hyped equipment. Good tools are important, but only so far as they allow you to do what you do well. If you do not have a good eye and a good brain armed with knowledge and honed by experience, all the most expensive gear in the world will not make you a professional level photographer.

Trust me, Pentax glass and Pentax cameras, within their parameters, are equal to and in some ways better than the best other "professional" equipment out there. Pentax lenses have always had that reputation. And now, especially with the K20D, the digital bodies also have the ability to compete professionally at the highest levels in digital capture. The only caveat I would make is that if you need extreme rapid fire recycling, as in high action sports shooting, maybe you would do better with Canon or Nikon. Maybe. I have shot high speed motor sports, rodeo action, active wildlife and birds in flight with Pentax quite successfully by concentrating on careful positioning and peaks of action (the “decisive moment”) without the need for "machine gunning," which, frankly, can produce pretty mediocre results if you don't know well the subject you are shooting. No fancy or expensive equipment can substitute for subject knowledge and experience when shooting action (or anything else for that matter).

Finally, over the years I have benefited greatly from the general uninformed public perception that only people sporting Nikon or Canon gear are "professionals," and thus worthy of attention. Pentax shooters can frequently "fly under the radar" and be overlooked by overly officious authorities intent on limiting coverage by the "pros." I know for a fact that I have gotten shots I otherwise could not have gotten, or could have gotten only with great hassle, by appearing to be just another innocuous tourist or amateur taking snapshots with my lowly Pentax gear. Where it was absolutely necessary to get a press pass with professional credentials, I simply produced mine and got one. Nobody ever refused me one just because I used Pentax.

That's my take and I'm stickin' to it.

[er1kksen]

However, having said that, I do remember a conversation I had with the legendary Director of Photography there, Bob Gilka, who said that while Pentax was perfectly acceptable to the magazine, Olympus was not. Glass not good enough.

I find your post to be quite insightful, but that one part sticks in my craw. They'll take Canon (with a large selection of undeniably mediocre glass on the short end), but Olympus glass is "not good enough?" Back in the film days and now into digital alike, Olympus has had a reputation for making some of the best glass available. I mean, their other mainstay is medical optics. You don't make money there with mediocre optics. I haven't met an Olympus lens yet that wasn't quite comparable to other brands' selections at a similar price point, and some of Oly's best lenses (for example the 50mm f2 macro, 150mm f2, and 14-35mm f2) have been reviewed by multi-brand reviewing houses as "among the best they've ever tested." This is one of the reasons that, if for some reason I couldn't shoot pentax (which also has some great glass) my next choice would be Olympus. As opposed to buying a 5D and then mounting old Olympus OM wideangles on it as many 5D owners do.

I mean, did this guy give any particular reasons for this? And he would look at the fact that it was shot with Olympus lenses rather than the photos themselves in order to judge their quality? Having studied the photos in hundreds of national geographics, I can tell you now that most of them would have been just as sharp with Olympus glass as any other brand, and many of the published photos are of a *technical* quality level far below what you could easily accomplish with an Olympus (or any other brand of serious camera). The content was what got them in.

I'm just having a hard time reconciling that quote with what I've observed in real life, and it makes me wonder if perhaps Mr. Gilka had some sort of less rational aversion to Olympus? I mean, grudges do happen.

[fliegenfischer]

Well, it surprised me too, at the time (late 70's or early 80's, I don't remember the exact date). He said that in their extensive lab testing some, not all, of the Olympus lenses, at that time, were unacceptably soft. And yes, he was looking at the film results, in lab tests, to make that judgement. We're talking National Geographic here, so I think we can trust their lab tests. I have no doubt that in the something like thirty years since that time Olympus has improved their glass, though I wouldn't personally know, as I have only ever shot Pentax (with the exception of the NGS Nikons and Fuji pano cameras mentioned in my posts, and some Hasselblad for studio work). Judging by your experience and citings, I guess that would be the case.

[cabstar]

Getty have now added K20d to its list of accepted bodies

gettyimages.com/contributors - Digital Camera Reviews

[The_Lion]

What about K10D? It has 10 MP like the D200.

[res3567]

What about K10D? It has 10 MP like the D200.

This is from the Getty website.

"but there may be other professional-quality digital SLRs using RAW format that may also produce acceptable files. "

I think the K10D fits here.

[soccerjoe5]

Do any Pros use Pentax DSLR as there main Camera? Or do they stick with Nikon and Canon?

Thanks

I use Pentax for work/a living: Diego Jose Photography- powered by SmugMug

[Pentaxtic]

I use Pentax for work/a living: Diego Jose Photography- powered by SmugMug

Great stuff there! Your pics remind me of other professional pictures I see on the internet! Like the Dark sports shots with the swimmer and soccer player.

[Ian Tokeo]

I use my K20d (and K100d before that) professionally as editor/reporter/photographer for a small town weekly newspaper. Granted I'm not a "professional photographer" in the sense that my livelihood comes from the sale of photos, but I do use the camera as a significant part of my profession on a nearly daily basis. The photos I take cover the journalistic spectrum: high school sports, "grin and grip" check passing shots, head and shoulder shots of people in the news, traffic accidents, fires, wildlife, and all sorts of things that could be generically described as "people doing things." For my needs, Pentax does quite well. I shoot a lot of photos in low light and make heavy use of the stabilization system and high ISO. I don't find the lack of frames per second a handicap when shooting sports as I've never shot that way - I learned to shoot sports (and everything else) with manual-wind 35mm film cameras. All my equipment was paid for out of my own pocket, so Pentax's value for the money is also important to me. If I ever find myself "pixel peeping" or obsessing over fine details of image quality (although Pentax is certainly not lacking there) I remind myself that I'm printing on newsprint ...

[soccerjoe5]

Great stuff there! Your pics remind me of other professional pictures I see on the internet! Like the Dark sports shots with the swimmer and soccer player.

Thank you!