[RonHendriks1966]

You were the only one with a yellow K-01 but you forgot to count yourself.

That got stolen last year in New York. Only took my Sony Smartphone with me.

[Franc]

You were the only one with a yellow K-01 but you forgot to count yourself.

that one was stolen and he doesn't own a camera anymore.

[RonHendriks1966]

that one was stolen and he doesn't own a camera anymore.

I did had some options. Taking a m4/3th Olympus or a Nikon bridge, but then again....not interested in lugging it around.

[biz-engineer]

...not interested in lugging it around.

Maybe too much photography is too much, you got bored by pictures.

[mecrox]

That is simply not true. That is such a dangerous, haphazard myth perpetrated by digital fake Avedons like that boy Kim-what's-his-name, and other boys. There is no substitute for quality, unless the client is the 3rd rate pizza shop that does not care how the images will look in flyers, or on their 3rd rate website because their audience is blind and drunk anyway.

Smartphones can be used by a client, or an art director, to tell, roughly, what they want to do. Smartphones are also useful to develop digital sketches and ideas, in a manner "snap, snap, ok this, then we do that.. snap snap … then this detail .. snap .. then we need a portrait here .. then series of scenes with senior executives, then we need to photograph the production process and major products, from this angle ..." etc.

Once details are established, you show off you gear, that is capable of things, or you are history — because the art board is approved, contract is signed off, and there is no change to the concepts! If a photographer has no suitable lenses, or equipment, or a camera, or light setup, then hasta la vista baby, because the concept does not change! Talent can extend the value of the equipment within the determined parameters, but if lenses used are 3rd rate Japanese beer glass, as most lenses today are, then a fine art director can see that. Such 'photographer' can use that stuff to take snaps of his kids, but no way I would allow that for a corporate or PR portrait.

A good art director can even make very specific demands; a phtog comes with 70-200 to do shooting, he can be dismissed asap, because the desired look cannot be made by such a setup — sorry, too much compression, and lack of details, look is all too similar to 1 million other shots seen online; I demand 75mm Cron or 90mm macro. 70-200 may be good for soccer mums and their kids, or for boys stepping up from their kit lenses into another cheap kit, but not for certain clients and purposes. Sorry.

I can see all that and more; I worked as an art director for a major national agency, and I know exactly when I see the file, I can understand everything about the photographer and his or her limits, cliches, stereotypes and capabilities. It takes some 25+ years of hard professional work, and staring at work of world's best professionals in advertising and photography, but it is possible.

So far as I can tell, a ton of stuff is taken on standard Canon L glass including under Obama all the official White House photography. Want more? Hassy, Fuji or Pentax on 645 still aren't going to break the bank for a high-end studio or photog. At the other end, the fact that the image wasn't taken on a 645 but with an iPhone or using a modest cam on a drone is the whole point of some advertising. It comes in all flavours. Yes, I can see a small number of things requiring top-end equipment but I really don't think the bulk of the market requires it. Once a certain quality bar is reached, which is probably about a 5D Mark III or IV and some L lenses even for quite high-end requirements, talent will out. Even then some folks aren't fussed and will find say Fuji or even Oly M43 adequate. A seriously overlooked factor is lighting and skill with lighting and the magic human factor of being able to put subjects at ease. Serious skills with PP tend to be overlooked too. The camera or the lens are only part of a much longer chain. The skill is in making all the links of the chain as strong as each other. That's a rare talent.

[RonHendriks1966]

Maybe too much photography is too much, you got bored by pictures.

Not at all. I still enjoy pictures a lot. I just enjoy the once taken by others. For my holiday you can go to flickr, search for Nantucket and you see a big part of my holiday.

[ffking]

So far as I can tell, a ton of stuff is taken on standard Canon L glass including under Obama all the official White House photography. Want more? Hassy, Fuji or Pentax on 645 still aren't going to break the bank for a high-end studio or photog. At the other end, the fact that the image wasn't taken on a 645 but with an iPhone or using a modest cam on a drone is the whole point of some advertising. It comes in all flavours. Yes, I can see a small number of things requiring top-end equipment but I really don't think the bulk of the market requires it. Once a certain quality bar is reached, which is probably about a 5D Mark III or IV and some L lenses even for quite high-end requirements, talent will out. Even then some folks aren't fussed and will find say Fuji or even Oly M43 adequate. A seriously overlooked factor is lighting and skill with lighting and the magic human factor of being able to put subjects at ease. Serious skills with PP tend to be overlooked too. The camera or the lens are only part of a much longer chain. The skill is in making all the links of the chain as strong as each other. That's a rare talent.

I think that's true - those of us -and I think that's most of us on the forum -who learned our photography in the film era, when tech was less of a consideration, tended to upgrade equipment only when we felt limited by what we had - and that was usually better lenses, and then the move to medium format - but it was driven by a quest for perfection, not technology - nowadays, it's more complicated, as sensors are still getting better at a moderately fast rate, and camera manufacturers are realising more what can be done with them, but I think i's still a good principle to hold to - especially, as you say, as other skills come into play also, and these can be learned too.

[RonHendriks1966]

I think that's true - those of us -and I think that's most of us on the forum -who learned our photography in the film era, when tech was less of a consideration, tended to upgrade equipment only when we felt limited by what we had - and that was usually better lenses, and then the move to medium format - but it was driven by a quest for perfection, not technology - nowadays, it's more complicated, as sensors are still getting better at a moderately fast rate, and camera manufacturers are realising more what can be done with them, but I think i's still a good principle to hold to - especially, as you say, as other skills come into play also, and these can be learned too.

well it is Apple and Orange but the progressief in sensor tech is impressive. Three sensors that are considered great and score about the same at dxo.
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Pentax K-5 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark II

That tech is now available in a 4/3th sensor while in 2008 you where looking at a fullframe sensor. The OM-D-E-M1-mark-II is better in low light then thè K-5 from 2010. In 2010 we where amazed by the results from the K-5.

[normhead]

I can see all that and more; I worked as an art director for a major national agency, and I know exactly when I see the file, I can understand everything about the photographer and his or her limits, cliches, stereotypes and capabilities. It takes some 25+ years of hard professional work, and staring at work of world's best professionals in advertising and photography, but it is possible.

Yet guys like me can just go out and sell stuff without your stamp of approval. Does that bother you?

I mean clearly those folks are just ignoramuses who don't understand that you are the absolute judge of photographic talent snd quality. I always knew art directors were like you. Thanks for confirming it. I might point out, this is why some of the best go over the heads of "art directors" and go straight to the public.

[biz-engineer]

The OM-D-E-M1-mark-II is better in low light then thè K-5 from 2010. In 2010 we where amazed by the results from the K-5.

Actually not at all. The exposure time is calculated from the actual ISO value and lens aperture. In order to get to the same noise level as a K5 or 5DII, the Olympus must expose twice as long.

---------- Post added 17-06-17 at 22:34 ----------

I mean clearly those folks are just ignoramuses who don't understand that you are the absolute judge of photographic talent snd quality. I always knew art directors were like you. Thanks for confirming it. I might point out, this is why some of the best go over the heads of "art directors" and go straight to the public.

I don't know what a art director is doing here, he probably got lost. Access to cameras is like opening anonymous banks accounts in Swizerland, it's minimum $1M cash in a wallet (crossing the border with black glasses by a rainy day). The minimum ticket for art directors is to buy a 645z and this thread is not a 645z thread, we are in a consumer camera thread here, maximum apsc size, I guess that's why we have a micro four third hanging around talking about why the mass market does need high end cameras.

---------- Post added 17-06-17 at 22:40 ----------

Not at all. I still enjoy pictures a lot. I just enjoy the once taken by others. For my holiday you can go to flickr, search for Nantucket and you see a big part of my holiday.

That's a concept by itself. After the DSLRs, we had the camera without mirrors, and now you went a step further by inventing the cameraless photography concept :-) (just kidding).

[RonHendriks1966]

That's a concept by itself. After the DSLRs, we had the camera without mirrors, and now you went a step further by inventing the cameraless photography concept :-) (just kidding).

No but really. The whole world (as long as it is nature or buildings) is on some picture during the past decade and presented in a site like flickr. We (world population) made just a little to much images of things to see and do. I went to a Red Sox game against Seattle and camera's where not very common in the stand I was sitting. I was on Martha's Vineyard and saw all sites where Jaws was filmed. ..so why a new picture? I visite Harvard and there is not a single inch that is not on some picture and only selfies with the statue of John Harvard are giving something extra (like mine).

[gatorguy]

No but really. The whole world (as long as it is nature or buildings) is on some picture during the past decade and presented in a site like flickr. We (world population) made just a little to much images of things to see and do. I went to a Red Sox game against Seattle and camera's where not very common in the stand I was sitting. I was on Martha's Vineyard and saw all sites where Jaws was filmed. ..so why a new picture? I visite Harvard and there is not a single inch that is not on some picture and only selfies with the statue of John Harvard are giving something extra (like mine).

Even if every inch of every season, plant, animal, rock and person on the planet had been recorded in a photograph, it hasn't been done from your perspective.

I say show respect for yourself. Know that your view of the world is unique, the image you capture with your camera will be too, and the way you see it all is worth saving.

I guarantee that by your age you've seen pictures that others might deem mundane but for you they have meaning. A place your father visited. A moment from your grandmothers life. A place in time that tells a story that perhaps the person shooting it didn't understand when he took it. You appreciate the photographer capturing it even if only a few others do. Imagine if that person had the same attitude of "so why a new picture?"

[RonHendriks1966]

Even if every inch of every season, plant, animal, rock and person on the planet had been recorded in a photograph, it hasn't been done from your perspective.

I say show respect for yourself. Know that your view of the world is unique, the image you capture with your camera will be too, and the way you see it all is worth saving.

I guarantee that by your age you've seen pictures that others might deem mundane but for you they have meaning. A place your father visited. A moment from your grandmothers life. A place in time that tells a story that perhaps the person shooting it didn't understand when he took it. You appreciate the photographer capturing it even if only a few others do. Imagine if that person had the same attitude of "so why a new picture?"

Oh but I do. I always know when to take the one image Im going to print and frame. This time it is with John Harvard!

[clackers]

I say show respect for yourself. Know that your view of the world is unique, the image you capture with your camera will be too, and the way you see it all is worth saving.

+1, Gatorguy.

A guy isn't besotted with a picture of his newborn daughter for its novelty or for breaking new artistic ground.

[Kunzite]

That's a concept by itself. After the DSLRs, we had the camera without mirrors, and now you went a step further by inventing the cameraless photography concept :-) (just kidding).

Should Pentax change their strategy to serve the cameraless photographers market?