[Tesla]

Such a marketing strategy might keep Pentax going, but it can't keep me going with Pentax. I'm a middle-class, middle-income American who likes to take sharp, colorful photographs on weekends. I live in a famously beautiful city with famously damp weather, so outdoorsy gear appeals to me. I can pay $1000 for a camera, but I can't pay $2000. I can pay $500 for a lens, but I can't pay $1500. (Sometimes, the used market provides what I want, but Ricoh benefits only in a roundabout way from a healthy 2nd-hand market.)

Ricoh execs are charged with keeping the brand profitable, not necessarily with keeping me happy, of course. And I'm charged with keeping myself happy, not with propping up a $100M division of a $16B printing company. But there remains—for now—an overlapping area where the goals of Ricoh execs and the goals of Yours Truly overlap, and it ain't in the region of "sizzling hi-fi gear, but for photographers."

I do hope they update the K-70. That would fit your budget. I hope they name it K-5 III and not K-80.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Such a marketing strategy might keep Pentax going, but it can't keep me going with Pentax. I'm a middle-class, middle-income American who likes to take sharp, colorful photographs on weekends. I live in a famously beautiful city with famously damp weather, so outdoorsy gear appeals to me. I can pay $1000 for a camera, but I can't pay $2000. I can pay $500 for a lens, but I can't pay $1500. (Sometimes, the used market provides what I want, but Ricoh benefits only in a roundabout way from a healthy 2nd-hand market.)

Ricoh execs are charged with keeping the brand profitable, not necessarily with keeping me happy, of course. And I'm charged with keeping myself happy, not with propping up a $100M division of a $16B printing company. But there remains—for now—an overlapping area where the goals of Ricoh execs and the goals of Yours Truly overlap, and it ain't in the region of "sizzling hi-fi gear, but for photographers."

Abandoning "mid-fi" customers like you in order to go exclusively after the "hi-fi" market would be the cruel reality of carving out a niche as a prestige brand, and in an ever shrinking market for specialist interchangeable lens cameras it might be the only survival strategy possible. There might still be an upper mid-range product or two to act as gateway drugs to tempt you up to the really exclusive high end stuff, but yes, it would mean letting most of those who choose gear purely on the basis of price and specifications drift away to brands better suited to them.

As for me, I'm very much at the lo-fi end of the camera market so I think that Ricoh quite rightly wouldn't give two hoots about hanging on to a low net worth customer like me.

[reh321]

I do hope they update the K-70. That would fit your budget. I hope they name it K-5 III and not K-80.

Abandoning "mid-fi" customers like you in order to go exclusively after the "hi-fi" market would be the cruel reality of carving out a niche as a prestige brand, and in an ever shrinking market for specialist interchangeable lens cameras it might be the only survival strategy possible. There might still be an upper mid-range product or two to act as gateway drugs to tempt you up to the really exclusive high end stuff, but yes, it would mean letting most of those who choose gear purely on the basis of price and specifications drift away to brands better suited to them.

As for me, I'm very much at the lo-fi end of the camera market so I think that Ricoh quite rightly wouldn't give two hoots about hanging on to a low net worth customer like me.

I keep expecting them to keep a $1000 K-70 follow up giving a ‘taste’ of the K-3iii; perhaps they could do that by giving the K-3iii’s focusing, while keeping the prism and general build of the K-70 {I figure special prism, metal chassis, and stepper-motor aperture control must be half the cost ….. but we will know for certain in a couple of years}. I don’t have financing to purchase a K-3iii, and no reason to replace my KP with anything less, so only time will tell. I believe anything less would be a waste of effort - they might as well just continue selling the K-70 {which is also a possibility}.

[Rondec]

How can people decide to stay with Pentax without knowing what the future products will be? Staying or leaving based on unknown future is a dumb way of making a decision IMO.

---------- Post added 21-10-21 at 18:14 ----------


I think, if you'd be a Nikonian, you'd defend Nikon. I don't defend Pentax, I defend the money I've put into Pentax gear because with what I've spend in Pentax products I could have bought a brand new car. And since I'm not a brand ambassador or a journalist, no one else paid for my camera gear.

I'm really not too worried about Pentax, for a couple of reasons. (1) Of all the companies out there, they have made a commitment to stay their course with their current mount. It seems clear that Nikon and Canon are going to phase out their SLR mounts over the next five to ten years. Of course you can continue to use your lenses with an adapter, but I imagine that as time goes by they both will make certain that functionality with F/EOS mount lenses isn't quite as good as the performance you get with a Z/RF mount lens. I'm pretty sure that if Pentax is still around in five years (and I think they will be) they will be making solid SLR cameras. (2) Even if Pentax went away, the odds are solid that I can continue using my K mount cameras on an MILC with an adapter. My k mount cameras won't suddenly die, but at the point at which they gave up the ghost, I can take what lenses I have and buy a Sony or whatever MILC and find an adapter that works and carry on. I wouldn't like it because I don't like EVFs, but maybe they will have come along far enough that I can tolerate them at that point.

To the whole pricing thing, Ricoh is smart. They get the early money when they release a camera or lens and then they gradually lower the prices some until units move equal the number that they want/need to move. That may be a little more expensive than we would like, but the reality is that even for Nikon and Canon, the number of units they are moving is far less than it was five years ago. Prices have to go up to maintain R and D budgets for the next items to be released. Older products won't be affected as much because their R and D is paid for.

[clackers]

Such a marketing strategy might keep Pentax going, but it can't keep me going with Pentax. I'm a middle-class, middle-income American who likes to take sharp, colorful photographs on weekends. I live in a famously beautiful city with famously damp weather, so outdoorsy gear appeals to me. I can pay $1000 for a camera, but I can't pay $2000. I can pay $500 for a lens, but I can't pay $1500. (Sometimes, the used market provides what I want, but Ricoh benefits only in a roundabout way from a healthy 2nd-hand market.)

Ricoh execs are charged with keeping the brand profitable, not necessarily with keeping me happy, of course. And I'm charged with keeping myself happy, not with propping up a $100M division of a $16B printing company. But there remains—for now—an overlapping area where the goals of Ricoh execs and the goals of Yours Truly overlap, and it ain't in the region of "sizzling hi-fi gear, but for photographers."

Yes, I think everything you say is right, PocketPixels.

But none of those camera companies can survive on a diet of customers not willing to pay $1000 for a camera or $1500 for a lens.

It's just economics. Olympus failed that test, all of them have, the remainder are frantically getting out of the non-prosumer end of the market. They're all doing the same moves Ricoh did years ago.

Hurting a lot of people along the way. What if you spent big and bought a 5D Mk IV or D850 last year? None of Canon and Nikon's new lenses will work on them. The EF and Z mounts are dead, no consultation.

Nor can anyone 'wait it out' for the market to restore to 2011 levels, and bargains to return. The Canon CEO has admitted that will never happen, that it will drop further as a matter of fact. Phones have killed that idea.

My advice to anyone whose budget is not up to new gear in this new paradigm, where all the companies are fighting for their survival - second hand.

Look at the wonderful pics Dartmoor Dave gets out of his K20D, I think it is, and legacy lenses!

He's in good company. As Pentaxians, we love legacy and history. We love and respect vintage equipment, even film. The new gear often refers to past, have a look at the DFA 21 Limited design. We're built differently from the Sony crowd.

[RobA_Oz]

Abandoning "mid-fi" customers like you in order to go exclusively after the "hi-fi" market would be the cruel reality of carving out a niche as a prestige brand, and in an ever shrinking market for specialist interchangeable lens cameras it might be the only survival strategy possible. There might still be an upper mid-range product or two to act as gateway drugs to tempt you up to the really exclusive high end stuff, but yes, it would mean letting most of those who choose gear purely on the basis of price and specifications drift away to brands better suited to them.

As for me, I'm very much at the lo-fi end of the camera market so I think that Ricoh quite rightly wouldn't give two hoots about hanging on to a low net worth customer like me.

Comparisons, like analogies, we know, are fraught, but even Leica doesn’t sell its highest-end cameras, alone. Aside from the rebadged/refirmwared Panasonics, they have a number of less-expensive (but still pricey) models.

I doubt that Ricoh is aiming to charge Leica-like prices for its gear, in spite of heading up-market, so there’s room for sub-premium priced models. What that means in actual prices, I have no idea, but without a strategy to entice new entrants (including people with lower disposable incomes) into their customer cohort they really will struggle.

By the way, even though it has recently had an uptick in new model pricing with the K-3iii, I don’t see the APS-C range as being automatically the only sub-premium Pentax range, although their entry-level body and some of the APS-C lens range certainly give that impression. Nonetheless, the costs associated with producing APS-C lenses will always be less than for 35FF equivalents, even though some of the latest DA* models are pretty pricey, themselves.

On the other hand, reintroducing some older and less advanced lenses (probably with new coatings and body materials) into the 35FF range could serve a similar purpose, there.

I daresay all these things have been thought through by Ricoh executives.

[jslifoaw]

Pentax has a pretty solid lens lineup for all budgets (maybe not budgets AND tastes). When I bought my first DSLR in 2005 after saving for several months, prices were higher and options were more limited (not to mention how much better today's cameras are).

It's only natural the higher end products get updated more often - they probably generate much of the profits to reinvest into more products likely to be profitable while more inexpensive products "keep the lights on" so it takes longer for an entry level product line to generate enough R&D budget to revamp the lineup (not to mention that when cost is a constraint, there isn't much to reinvent).

Pentax is unlikely to have success competing on specs alone because price becomes a key comparison. When the products are harder to compare spec-wise, it gives Pentax more latitude to control the price instead of racing to the bottom. If they can retain enough customers with that philosophy, it's arguably better than bleeding money on every unit sold until Ricoh decides to pull the plug.

Entry level prices: 18-55 and 50-200 are WR and reasonable quality for about C$200-250 each (cheaper in a kit); you also have the DA 35 and 50 which are by nearly all accounts good quality and around C$150-200 (and would do OK on FF)

Mid level prices: 16-85 (WR and C$700), 18-135 (WR and C$500), 55-300 PLM (awesome lens, WR and C$500), most of the DA Limited lenses are C$500-600, plus the HDFA35 (but the primes are generally missing WR)

The HD FA Limited lenses are right in between mid-end and high-end, with prices from C$800-1300. Adjusted for inflation, these prices are fairly comparable to those of the original SMC FA Limited lenses if I look at how much I paid 14 years ago.

High end prices: all the DA* and DFA* lenses being discussed which are generally upwards of C$1200 (though the DA*55 is about C$700 and if you monitor Amazon, you could occasionally get the 50-135, 60-250, 200, or 300 for under C$1000)



And for FF, we also have a huge legacy catalogue of $1-$10000 lenses, metal or plastic, AF or MF, zoom or prime, etc. The great part about the new high end FF lenses is that it has kept most older high end lenses relatively affordable except some of the rarer ones (like the Voigtlanders, Zeiss ZK, FA*200 macro). Look at the FA*28-70, FA*80-200, FA*24, FA*85.

So perhaps we could argue there are no "new entry/mid range products", but there's hardly a shortage of entry/mid range options. Maybe ultra-wide, but the DA14 and DA15 exist.

Body-wise, the *ist DS was C$1100 in 2005 (equivalent to more than C$1500 today). That buys a KP with room to spare (if you can find one). I think in real terms, the K3-III is about the same price or a bit cheaper than the *ist D was when it was new. So, Pentax isn't necessarily more expensive today than their former self.

[clackers]

What that means in actual prices, I have no idea, but without a strategy to entice new entrants (including people with lower disposable incomes) into their customer cohort they really will struggle.

'New entrants' as we understood them in the past aren't there, Rob. Anyone under the age of 30 is already shooting on their phones, a device that generation has with them seemingly seven days a week, 24 hours a day! They're tweeting from their bathtubs, from the queue at the supermarket register, while you're trying to have conversation with them at the dinner table.

Sony understand this.

The 3000 entry level series is gone.

The *medium* 5000 series is gone.

You have to start with the premium A6400, A6500 to even begin in APS-C.

Since Canon, Nikon and Sony cannot afford to remain 'affordable', how can Fuji, Pentax and Panasonic?

The days of selling Rebels and D3200s stacked up on tables at Walmart or whatever to soccer moms are gone. When that fad died, so did Samsung and Olympus' dreams, everyone else is battling to stay alive. Nikon's latest result is the worst in the industry's history, perhaps more than anything Olympus suffered. All that expensively developed Z series technology, achieved by sacrificing the F mount and its owners? Not even Nikonians are buying it. Shocking news.

[PocketPixels]

It's possible, but certainly not easy, to move upscale. When I was growing up in the US, Audi was seen as a "nice" car brand, but nothing to rival BMW or Mercedes-Benz. It took decades, but at this point Audi can charge "BMW prices" because it is seen as a comparably high-end luxury brand.

I just don't know that Pentax can make that change. They haven't done the smaller things to make that happen: no "Pentax approved" lenses on smartphones (Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad have all done this). When Pentax does do a knurled-walnut KP or an infrared-modded K-3 ii, they only seem to sell them in Japan. The 100 years of Pentax milestone was celebrated with…a $20 T-shirt and a $40 hot shoe cover. The older brother from Stranger Things uses a Pentax K1000 in half his scenes, and I'm not sure to this day anyone at Ricoh knows about it. Meanwhile, Leica rolls out its new James Bond limited edition cameras.

Many of the F and FA lenses (FA 50mm ƒ/1.4, F 50mm ƒ/1.8, F 20–50mm ƒ/4) would be welcome additions to the full-frame line, but while an HD coating might help with flare and CA, they'd all have very noisy screw-drives, and it would take more than updated coatings to fix that.

Comparisons, like analogies, we know, are fraught, but even Leica doesn’t sell its highest-end cameras, alone. Aside from the rebadged/refirmwared Panasonics, they have a number of less-expensive (but still pricey) models.

I doubt that Ricoh is aiming to charge Leica-like prices for its gear, in spite of heading up-market, so there’s room for sub-premium priced models. What that means in actual prices, I have no idea, but without a strategy to entice new entrants (including people with lower disposable incomes) into their customer cohort they really will struggle.

By the way, even though it has recently had an uptick in new model pricing with the K-3iii, I don’t see the APS-C range as being automatically the only sub-premium Pentax range, although their entry-level body and some of the APS-C lens range certainly give that impression. Nonetheless, the costs associated with producing APS-C lenses will always be less than for 35FF equivalents, even though some of the latest DA* models are pretty pricey, themselves.

On the other hand, reintroducing some older and less advanced lenses (probably with new coatings and body materials) into the 35FF range could serve a similar purpose, there.

I daresay all these things have been thought through by Ricoh executives.

[RobA_Oz]

'New entrants' as we understood them in the past aren't there, Rob. Anyone under the age of 30 is already shooting on their phones, a device that generation has with them seemingly seven days a week, 24 hours a day! They're tweeting from their bathtubs, from the queue at the supermarket register, while you're trying to have conversation with them at the dinner table.

Sony understand this.

The 3000 entry level series is gone.

The *medium* 5000 series is gone.

You have to start with the premium A6400, A6500 to even begin in APS-C.

Since Canon, Nikon and Sony cannot afford to remain 'affordable', how can Fuji, Pentax and Panasonic?

The days of selling Rebels and D3200s stacked up on tables at Walmart or whatever to soccer moms are gone. When that fad died, so did Samsung and Olympus' dreams, everyone else is battling to stay alive. Nikon's latest result is the worst in the industry's history, perhaps more than anything Olympus suffered. All that expensively developed Z series technology, achieved by sacrificing the F mount and its owners? Not even Nikonians are buying it. Shocking news.

Yep. All understood, Ian. Let me tell you one way that Sony is attracting new entrants, and that is through schools and colleges, by getting their equipment into the media and arts departments. At that stage, they’re aspirational owners, and won’t be real owners until they’ve established themselves in a career, but Sony has planted the seed that they’re the real deal, just like AOC used to in university science labs when I was a student. Plus ca change.

[BigMackCam]

My advice to anyone whose budget is not up to new gear in this new paradigm, where all the companies are fighting for their survival - second hand.

Look at the wonderful pics Dartmoor Dave gets out of his K20D, I think it is, and legacy lenses!

He's in good company. As Pentaxians, we love legacy and history. We love and respect vintage equipment, even film. The new gear often refers to past, have a look at the DFA 21 Limited design. We're built differently from the Sony crowd.

That's pretty much where I am right now. My budget - not necessarily what I can afford, but what I can justify - just doesn't stretch to new cameras like the K-3 III and new lenses such as the DA*16-50 f/2.8 PLM, and it seems as if - for now, at least - Ricoh is focusing on the higher end of things. I understand why, and I'm not sore about it... It's just the way it is

Thankfully, I've been able to equip myself well over the last ten years with quality cameras, lenses and accessories (at considerable benefit to Ricoh, I might add), and I've looked after them. On paper, some are looking rather dated compared to the very latest models, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest; I've never cared about the highest specs, most up-to-date performance and features, best MTF charts, etc.

Actually, part of my budget "problem" is that I like most of my existing gear so much, I'm not willing to let go of it. If I sold off a bunch of my gear, I probably could "upgrade" to a K-3III, DA*11-18, DA*16-50 PLM etc. - but there's no guarantee I'd be any happier, and every possibility I might regret it.

So, for now, I'll content myself with reading about the latest gear and enjoying it vicariously through fellow forum members. If and when one of my existing cameras should fail years from now, maybe I'll look into replacing it with a used K-3III... or maybe I'll just stick to older bodies. I've said it before many times in these forums - if all I had was my Samsung GX-10 and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, I'd be quite happy

[biz-engineer]

"I can't afford a Pentax camera or lens" , is more like "I don't have time to do this or that", it's a matter of spending priorities. A $1000 camera and a $1500 lens for a 5 years duration, that's $10 per week. If I didn't have $10 to each week I'd really be in trouble, no just with cameras, but with everything in life. Some people can't afford to upgrade a camera, but beside that impossibility, their total yearly spending on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages exceed the price of buying a brand new camera each year.

For me, the problem isn't the price, the problem is what I get for the price. Digital impresses me for speed and convenience, but image resolution is underwhelming compared to century old large format. If I switch to CanikonSonyPana, what do I get? I get the SAME digital again with the same digital limitations! With digital photography, you have a lot of choice as long as it's 3:2 aspect ratio and full frame. If Ricoh would make new range of lens designs for 4x5 film cameras, with all the modern digital lens improvement, a new modern 4x5 film camera and a film supply and development service, that would be awesome. If I buy that new 1500 euros lens from Ricoh, is it going to give me those 200Mpixels images? No, that's the problem.

[BigMackCam]

"I can't afford a Pentax camera or lens" , is more like "I don't have time to do this or that", it's a matter of spending priorities. A $1000 camera and a $1500 lens for a 5 years duration, that's $10 per week. If I didn't have $10 to each week I'd really be in trouble, no just with cameras, but with everything in life. Some people can't afford to upgrade a camera, but beside that impossibility, their total yearly spending on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages exceed the price of buying a brand new camera each year. In Europe, social contributions and income tax are basically 50% of raw income, then come accommodation 30% of the remaining 50%, buying two Pentax K1 and the full Pentax FF lens lineup over 5 years represent 3% of my budget, and this while being middle-class household.

You make it sound like laziness, biz, but it's more complicated than your broad-brush judgement suggests.

Firstly, as you acknowledge, some people genuinely can't afford a new camera and/or lens, and probably more of them since pre-pandemic days, especially with the rising cost of living and the prospect of fuel, energy and food price hikes in coming months, not to mention inflation.

Some others may be able to afford $10 a week, but they don't have $2.5k+ in cash to spend right now (and if they did, they'd probably spend it on essentials, not frivolities)... so their only option would be to finance the purchase. Finance is a commitment that can lead to trouble unless the individual is quite confident of their financial future. It also ends up costing more than the $2.5k borrowed (depending on the source of finance - credit card, for example - potentially a lot more). I have nothing but respect for those that avoid finance like the plague. I know I do. Given that, if someone doesn't have the $2.5k in cash now, then they're quite right to say they can't afford it. If they save that money for five years, maybe they can afford it at some future date.

Then you have folks like me who have the $2.5k in cash, but - as you point out - prioritise their spending. Yes, I enjoy a bottle of wine now and then... once a week, as it happens. So I could cut that out and save $10 - $15 each week for five years... but a glass or two of wine on a Friday and Saturday evening is, for me, part of enjoying life. Photography is important to me, but it's a hobby - and not one I would enjoy if it were to the exclusion of all other pursuits (what a sad existence that would be ). Plus, I like to remain as liquid as possible. I believe I have enough funds set aside to deal with some (hopefully, most) unexpected eventualities in life, but not enough that I can spend freely without serious consideration. So... I can afford to buy a new camera and lens, but - based on my fairly-cautious approach to life - I don't feel I can justify it. I think that's what a lot of folks really mean when they say they can't afford something.

I'm sure there's a bunch of other reasons folks have for saying they can't afford an expensive piece of hobby equipment, and I'm sure most of those reasons are more-or-less valid. Whether they genuinely can't afford it, can't justify it, or simply don't want to spend that kind of money on a hobby, it equates to the same thing - they're not going to buy it. Buying used, or continuing to use existing equipment, are perfectly valid and sensible options in those circumstances.

Pentax used to be the value-for-money option, accessible to most hobbyists with even just a little spare cash... but with Ricoh's bullish pricing of recent product releases, its target market is narrowing to those who have a fair bit of disposable income or savings. It's a smaller market, but one that's more likely to spend freely on premium products. Hopefully it'll work out for Ricoh...

For me, the problem isn't the price, the problem is what I get for the price.

Then you're in a fortunate position, indeed

Digital impresses me for speed and convenience, but image resolution is underwhelming compared to century old large format. If I switch to CanikonSonyPana, what do I get? I get the SAME digital again with the same digital limitations! With digital photography, you have a lot of choice as long as it's 3:2 aspect ratio and full frame. If Ricoh would make new range of lens designs for 4x5 film cameras, with all the modern digital lens improvement, a new modern 4x5 film camera and a film supply and development service, that would be awesome. If I buy that new 1500 euros lens from Ricoh, is it going to give me those 200Mpixels images? No, that's the problem.

Liberate yourself, biz... Sell your digital gear, get a Linhof 4x5, a couple of nice lenses, put the rest towards film, developing and printing - and think no more about gear

[reh321]

'New entrants' as we understood them in the past aren't there, Rob. Anyone under the age of 30 is already shooting on their phones, a device that generation has with them seemingly seven days a week, 24 hours a day! They're tweeting from their bathtubs, from the queue at the supermarket register, while you're trying to have conversation with them at the dinner table.

Sony understand this.

Marketing still matters. Pentax needs to have at least one line low enough to attract the smartphone users and give them a reason to purchase a DSLR even though they already carry a camera around in their pocket. This is no different than it was 50+ years ago, when I purchased a range-finder camera even though I already had a P&S, and then purchased a SLR to replace it - in each case I gained some capability by switching. I could see the improvement - Pentax may need to tell them some of what they are missing. They may need also to keep the ‘K-70’ body ….. the articulated LED allows people to still take the “selfies” that seem to be so important to them. Several years ago, while visiting the Cathedral in Montreal, I photographed somebody taking a “selfie” with a Nikon.

[iheiramo]

Then you have folks like me who have the $2.5k in cash, but - as you point out - prioritise their spending. Yes, I enjoy a bottle of wine now and then... once a week, as it happens. So I could cut that out and save $10 - $15 each week for five years... but a glass or two of wine on a Friday and Saturday evening is, for me, part of enjoying life. Photography is important to me, but it's a hobby - and not one I would enjoy if it were to the exclusion of all other pursuits (what a sad existence that would be ). Plus, I like to remain as liquid as possible. I have enough funds set aside to deal with some (hopefully most) unexpected eventualities in life, but not enough that I can spend freely without serious consideration. So... I can afford to buy a new camera and lens, but - based on my fairly-cautious approach to life - I don't feel I can justify it. I think that's what a lot of folks really mean when they say they can't afford something.

I think it's rare people who are in position to spend $2,5K without consideration and for majority it's about saving, prioritizing and what they can justify. Instead of $500 dollar lens a year one can get one $1500 lens in three years with some patience, if that is what one is really looking for.

Personally I've been bying and shooting vintage lenses for about 5 years because of the value they offer and I prioritized spending on other hobbies. Unfortunally I reached the point where I couldn't justify getting any more vintage lenses. To make significant upgrade in IQ the only option left was moving towards the very best. So, I welcome the new DFA * and ltd lenses expensive as they may be and plan to get all of those primes in next 10 to 20 years. While waiting for their release and trying to gather funds, I'll enjoy shooting my F's, M's and Tak's. DFA*85 was my first expensive lens. I just had to get it right after I saw the first shots, thought it took me a half a year to get the funds. And as fabulous as it is, the truth is that in the end composition and light are far more important for the results.