[Cynog Ap Brychan]

You missed my point. You are interested in making images and the tool you use for it. For those who only are interested in an image they don't care wich camera or technic is used.

I didn't miss your point, Ron: I said you were generalising, and you were. Now you have introduced the word "only" into your argument, which makes a difference. That said, I don't know any photographers who are not interested in the tools they use to produce their images, but I know a few who could produce great images with whatever they had to hand. Did you mean people like this?

[RonHendriks1966]

I didn't miss your point, Ron: I said you were generalising, and you were. Now you have introduced the word "only" into your argument, which makes a difference. That said, I don't know any photographers who are not interested in the tools they use to produce their images, but I know a few who could produce great images with whatever they had to hand. Did you mean people like this?

People who don't make the images, but use them. Either for please or professionally.

[Parallax]

If you want more sharpness then you could look for sharper lenses that fit a certain camera and situation.

Well, that's true, but the pixel shift allows for better resolution with any lens, not just oh-God expensive ones, and at no cost.
With that in mind, the choice is x quality for Y dollars with pixel shift, or x quality for y dollars times 3 (or 4, or...) with more expensive equipment.
Do you seriously think that the ability to get the increased resolution (and less noise) and save hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment won't appeal to professional photographers?
BTW, better glass on the D810 is still going to be noisier than the Pentax glass on the K-1 with PS.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well, that's true, but the pixel shift allows for better resolution with any lens, not just oh-God expensive ones, and at no cost.
With that in mind, the choice is x quality for Y dollars with pixel shift, or x quality for y dollars times 3 (or 4, or...) with more expensive equipment.
Do you seriously think that the ability to get the increased resolution (and less noise) and save hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment won't appeal to professional photographers?
BTW, better glass on the D810 is still going to be noisier than the Pentax glass on the K-1 with PS.

It only appeals to pro photographers if their customers would demand better IQ then currently provided. I don't see that yet happening. It is about what push is going on in photography. We have lots of years where the amount of pixels is the thing to look at. Now it looks like that dynamic range messures in iso-invariance is very important. And somehow Canon, being the week party in both races is the company that sells the most.

[thibs]

I unsubscribe, another thread that fulfilled its mission and with some help from "usual suspects" was driven to a meaningless debate. Thanks God Pentax keeps going strong and keeps disappointing the "usual suspects"...

Those 2 suspects (yep, I add the 2) are ignored for long time for me. It would help though if, at last, " appropriate" mod action was taken (Parallax, please help us lol). It's really is tiring in the end.

There's "I can have an opinion" and there's "I'm always right " or simple free bashing. This should end IMHO. It is just too easy to justify trollness with "I can have my opinion". Just my 2 cents.

[Parallax]

It only appeals to pro photographers if their customers would demand better IQ then currently provided.

In a lot of services the providers try to be innovative and provide new and better service or product without the customer asking for it. It gives them an edge over the competition.
I gather from your statement that pro photographers don't do that. They don't try to give their customers the best quality they can; they only give them the minimum quality product that the customer asks for?
Hm.
I did not know that. But I'm not a professional photographer.

[IOO]

It only appeals to pro photographers if their customers would demand better IQ then currently provided. I don't see that yet happening. It is about what push is going on in photography. We have lots of years where the amount of pixels is the thing to look at. Now it looks like that dynamic range messures in iso-invariance is very important. And somehow Canon, being the week party in both races is the company that sells the most.

I have been working in a photoshop for periodes between 1978 and 1989, together about 3 yars. People came in and asked med what camera do you sell most of? I answered: Are you going to buy a camera that is perfect for you, or just what most people buy? People also buy a brand, a feeling, to be a part of something. I have heard people saying they have a semiproffesional Canon, and it's for newbeginners. But it is Canon. It is always the photographer that is making a good or bad result, but it is easier with a good camera.

---

Last edited by IOO; 05-11-2016 at 08:43 AM.

[monochrome]

The only benefit to continuing an argument once cornered is, well, two of your sides are at least protected.

[RonHendriks1966]

In a lot of services the providers try to be innovative and provide new and better service or product without the customer asking for it. It gives them an edge over the competition.
I gather from your statement that pro photographers don't do that. They don't try to give their customers the best quality they can; they only give them the minimum quality product that the customer asks for?
Hm.
I did not know that. But I'm not a professional photographer.

Maybe we overhere are in an economical downside for to many years now.

There is one sportsimages agency that recently changed to using 7D mark ii instead of full frame. Most of their sold images are for Internet and only a small part of their sales is for news paper printing. Getting their images as fast as possible in 1200pixels is the most important part of the work.

[Clinton]

I did not know that. But I'm not a professional photographer.

I hear it's the quickest way to go bankrupt.

[mee]

I hear it's the quickest way to go bankrupt.

That said, the ones that flourish do indeed seem to try to expand the boundaries.. to get an edge to make themselves stand out. Be it in gear, in technique, or in some form of service.

But I think that goes for much of the job market... the ones really thriving heavily are the ones more open to new ideas and put in the time experimenting, testing, refining, and delivering.. the really passionate ones with business sense.

Once you get the 'name', I can only imagine how difficult it is to keep that going.. lots of demand and likely a lot of tug to stick to old methods of operating.. I'm glad to be a hobbyist/enthusiast than a commercial photographer. I get the feeling it would be less fun with deadlines, financial spreadsheets, and customers..

[clackers]

Once you get the 'name', I can only imagine how difficult it is to keep that going.. lots of demand and likely a lot of tug to stick to old methods of operating.

Yes, it could work out that way, if you're successful enough you have choices.


Bill Cunningham's had the same routine ... street and high fashion photography with a film camera ... for decades with the New York Times.


Annie Liebowitz has mixed art with schedules. She does very complex portrait setups but mixes it with lower tech, more personal material, like the photos of objects that belonged to her favourite artists and photojournalism during the 1999 Balkan conflicts.

[derekkite]

If Nikon had a good implementation of pixelshift within 6 months the stock photography buyers would insist on it for non moving subjects.

[Rondec]

Maybe we overhere are in an economical downside for to many years now.

There is one sportsimages agency that recently changed to using 7D mark ii instead of full frame. Most of their sold images are for Internet and only a small part of their sales is for news paper printing. Getting their images as fast as possible in 1200pixels is the most important part of the work.

There are very different types of work. Sports images aren't going to require the same gear as landscape/architecture/product photography. A 7D MK II or D500 would probably give similar results to many full frame cameras for sports photography -- or maybe even better because they have faster frame rates and excellent auto focus with points that extend to the edge of the viewfinder.

A professional photographer has to be a sales person -- particularly in a time when everyone has a digital camera. Part of that is selling people on the quality of your images. I understand you haven't used pixel shift, but if you are already post processing an image, this doesn't add more than a couple of minutes processing time and really bumps image quality up to medium format level. I have used it a lot and I like its implementation on the K-1. It has less artifacts than on the K3 II and it is usable in real world conditions.

I don't expect to convince you of anything Ron. Just know that there are real people who are using it and like it just fine.

[Zygonyx]

Sport's imaging is an overcrowded sector in jobs... and i guess a dead end for photo companies.