[rangercarp]

I've always thought that a DFA* 35-135 f/2.8 would be the perfect lens for the K-1.

I would buy this lens today if it was F4. A 2.8 would probably be out of the budget, but it would be tempting.

[normhead]

To be considered a busniess and get at tax license in Ontario (the right to a refund on taxed expenses and to submit sales tax on items purchased from you) , I think, last time i checked, you had to make over $30,000 a year in income. It's probably a lot more now.

---------- Post added 03-01-18 at 10:17 AM ----------

This^^
They're not kidding when they're talking about "drastically reviewed internal standards in order to respond to future camera performance improvements". This is something that should've gradually happened under Hoya... but it didn't.

The only issue is whether or not they will ever have the capacity to have full product line at all three levels, Variable aperture zooms, fixed aperture zooms, fast primes, ƒ4 primes. At present they have spot coverage in everything but 2.8 zooms, where they've with Tamron's help done a nice job. And I'm not convinced the 24-70 is a lens of the future, so even that's a little suspect.

It's quite possible they won't have filled out a line up with the current revised spec, before the next spec change rears it's ugly head.

But for folks like myself who will continue to use the old 50 macro and FA 50 ƒ1.7 and are still quite happy with the results, it's all like news reports from another planet. They keep talking but so far, a lot of it doesn't have anything to do with what I do. At least until the UWA prime comes out.

[aurele]

Ricoh maybe? It seems that being present on the internet is not a prior challenge/concern to them. If I search something about Fuji, Sony, Nikon or Canon on Youtube, there are some ambassadors (official or unofficial) who post on regular basis different content about the gear they use (workshop feedbacks, comparasions, tips and tricks regarding settings or how to access some feature from the menu, etc.). Some of them are know photographers (Grant Atkinson, Jason Lanier, Zack Arias, etc.), some of them became known because of the Youtube videos and they do quite well in promoting a specific brand (Manny Ortiz is an example for Sony). Not to mention that the big boys have their own youtube channels were they post things that worth watching even if you're not commited to that brand (an example of a video that I've watched more than 4-5 times). Wildlife and the EOS-1D X Mark II - Canon - YouTube When I search Pentax, I see some videos from:
- Tony Northrup teaching me how to use K1 (he's making money with his videos while Ricoh can't hire a person to record the same thing. It doesn't have to be a fancy, it has to provide useful informations. Look at video tutorials about Af on Grant Atkinson channel. Nothing fancy, but man, there are a lot of good info there for wildlife shooters.
- PhotoUniverse who talk a lot and say nothing
- Te Camera Store TV (they have some decent reviews on Pentax)

So, I have to search very hard on Youtube to see something useful or interesting about Pentax. Pro photographers who are your target may or may not watch Youtube videos, but lots of photographers do. Ricoh Imaging has only 7,062 subscribers on Youtube and the last video uploaded by them was in 2017. That's quite sad.

If they ignore social media, internet and online marketing, I have a hard time to believe that they are going to attract many photographers to Pentax. Pentax forum is a very good marketing tool given the topics and the abundance of useful info, but I don't think that in 2018 it's enough, especialy when the lack of marketing presence is combined with the lack of Pentax products on the store shelves.

The Canon video is really astonishing : beautiful and far from any agressive marketing. It's purely a soft-power marketing.

Pentax is so far from any kind of marketing.

Sony do rely a lot in Europe on social media and ambassadors and influencers. There isn't a lot of advertising on "traditional media" like Canon or Nikon. But i hear about Sony everyday on Instagram, FB, and such.

Pentax has a strong community that is eager to share the brand and show good stuff, and Pentax isn't even centralizing and capitalizing this. Which is a sad !

Built a small team (10 peoples) whose job is to increase visibility in social media in various part of the world. You can do wonders with very little stuff ! Offer a contest on Instagram with the more like of a picture taken with a Pentax to get a K1 or even a K3, you'll get traction fast.
There is boatload of easy idea to create visibility, the only thing is that you need people to make it in action !

Kenspo rôle is great ! But we would need a Kenspo in every country at least !

[Kunzite]

Yes. This has to be an organized, consistent effort.
Added to the "questions" thread (as a suggestion, rather), I hope you don't mind.

[jatrax]

For 85mm lenses, it is a bit different as FA* is not available anymore, same for sigma EX so there is a stronger lack, portfolio wise. What do you think?

I think there is zero chance I would ever buy the DFA 85mm. I think there is an extremly small chance I would buy the 70-200 f/2.8. I think there is a reasonable chance I would buy the 70-200 f/4. 85mm f/1.4 is a very specialized lens, those who need it will buy it and pay a high price for it. But relatively few need it. On the other hand the 70-200 f/4 is far more versatile and appeals to a much wider group. JMHO.

[skierd]

I've always thought that a DFA* 35-135 f/2.8 would be the perfect lens for the K-1. Why doesn't it already exist? Maybe because it would make other lenses obsolete as it covers all of the most used focal lengths at once.

Umm... the DFA*70-200 f2.8 is the Full Frame equivalent to the DA*50-135 f2.8. They cover the same field of view for their respective formats and are both fast (2.8) zooms.

[jatrax]

I don’t print for show, but I could. If I matte a few landscapes and rent a booth at the local Street Art Fair am I suddenly a pro?

IRS in the states allows you to consider it a business and deduct expenses if you show a profit in 5 years. Otherwise it is a hobby, expenses can still be deducted but only up to the amount of income. No loss can be claimed on a hobby. Business license can be obtained without proving any level of income in any state I have lived in.

Many definitions state a pro derives 50% of their income from photography. I've entered juried exhibitions and shows with that statement in the rules.

But these days traditional definitions are blurring. I consider anyone who treats their work as a business and shoots with the intention of selling to be at least semi-pro. If it is your full time job and the majority of your income your are a pro.

[BrianR]

To be considered a busniess and get at tax license in Ontario (the right to a refund on taxed expenses and to submit sales tax on items purchased from you) , I think, last time i checked, you had to make over $30,000 a year in income. It's probably a lot more now.

30k revenue is when you have to register for an HST business number (there are some exceptions of course). You can still register if you are below that amount and want to claim credits for the HST you pay out as business expenses.

The definition I've seen from the CRA is that a business is "any activity that you do for profit". The wording seems to stress intent to profit rather than actual results, so this would include all those 'hobby' photographers who have delusions of quiting their day jobs and travelling the world photographing beautiful models on the edges of volcanoes with their shiny new Rebel. In practice though, spend enough on camera gear to show regular losses and the CRA won't likely come knocking.

I'm not an accountant or tax guy, so consult with someone who knows what they're doing would be best.

[monochrome]

IF you sell enough to make a difference to your life you are. The last time Tess and I exhibited, there were three other wannabe's who didn't sell enough to cover the cost of their booths. But they didn't care because they had received arts grants. There was one guy there who I would consider a working pro in that shooting and working the art fairs is his full time gig and he makes good money at it. But personally, I wouldn't consider myself a pro unless I was making enough money that I'd miss the income if I wasn't doing it. I don't think we've ever netted more than $3000 in a single year from our photography. (But then we also never spent more that 2 weekend in year doing craft shows.) It is nice when we inadvertently fall into a couple hundred bucks from a print. Dinner and a few groceries.

How about this. "You are a pro if you've netted at least 5x more from your photography than your gear cost you."
The only way that works for me is if I get to count my income as a photography teacher.

Though the question was 95% fascetious the answer is perfect. In essence, though my non-collecting-hobby gear (the modern stuff outside the film-era lenses and cameras) is all professional grade, I’m a rich enthusiast - and that’s OK.

I’d venture to bet the right f/4 zooms would be pro quality and Pro priced, which frankly would be lower priced than the f/2.8 zooms.

[aslyfox]

IRS in the states allows you to consider it a business and deduct expenses if you show a profit in 5 years. Otherwise it is a hobby, expenses can still be deducted but only up to the amount of income. No loss can be claimed on a hobby. Business license can be obtained without proving any level of income in any state I have lived in.

Many definitions state a pro derives 50% of their income from photography. I've entered juried exhibitions and shows with that statement in the rules.

But these days traditional definitions are blurring. I consider anyone who treats their work as a business and shoots with the intention of selling to be at least semi-pro. If it is your full time job and the majority of your income your are a pro.

my sisters in law claim that I am a professional screw up

does that count

[jatrax]

my sisters in law claim that I am a professional screw up does that count

Only if it results in over 50% of your income

---------- Post added 03-01-18 at 09:09 AM ----------

But I would be more concerned with my wife's opinion than that of my sister in law.

[aslyfox]

Only if it results in over 50% of your income

---------- Post added 03-01-18 at 09:09 AM ----------

But I would be more concerned with my wife's opinion than that of my sister in law.

true, very true

when my son got married last year, I gave both him and her this advice

learn the definition of " Compromise "

and plan on doing that

[skierd]

i think the idea of being a “pro” has been warped by the internet’s. A professional photographer is (obviously) someone who makes a substantial portion of their income from photography. The echo chamber of the internet has made that to also mean “experts on all photo gear and equipment” but that is definitely not true. Heck my sister in law’s wedding was shot by a pair of professional photographers (website, marketing, business license, etc) who used a pair of Rebels with kit lenses. The work was beautiful despite the technical flaws I could see from the equipment. I wouldn’t take their advice on gear.

In a nutshell “pro” gear should provide better image quality, consistent performance, and durability for someone who regularly can wear out their camera. That’s a lot of the special sauce that’s baked in to the higher end lenses and a big part of the cost.

In the end I wanna stay “stay calm and take photographs” but as a salesman myself I understand the frustration of someone’s like Kenspo whose job it is to convert people to a new system without all the options folks are accustomed too. The rest of us? Stay calm and take pictures!

[angerdan]

85mm f/1.4 is a very specialized lens, those who need it will buy it and pay a high price for it. But relatively few need it. On the other hand the 70-200 f/4 is far more versatile and appeals to a much wider group. JMHO.

Even the newer and cheaper 28-250mm is less common than the FA* 85mm 1.4. The SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 is even less common. It's not very specialized, since every camera system offers an equivalent.

[normhead]

Even the newer and cheaper 28-250mm is less common than the FA* 85mm 1.4. The SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 is even less common. It's not very specialized, since every camera system offers an equivalent.

I don't know of a 28-250, I have an FA 28-200, that is more common in my house than any 85mm lens. But the 28-200 isn't common because it's not a very good lens. I bought one knowing it's rep and wasn't disappointed, well, I was hoping for a little better but not really expecting.