[RonHendriks1966]

Funny is that I just got in a set of images in print and that system is made for the instagram generation. Small prints of not to high quality bringing photo experience in square format. I got the small 5,75x5,75cm serie, but they also have 10,2x10,2cm.



Put it in the K-01 section because I made the images with my yellow fellow.

It's fun to see, you can directly upload them for print from facebook (how about IQ) or Instagram. I think it is kind of 150-200 dpi print on a rough paper, but so FUN!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess that with 800 pixels you'r good to go.

[Winder]

I print a photobook every year of my best work. I only started a few years ago, but I find I'm more likely to pull the book off the shelf at look thought it than search my computer.

[rburgoss]

It seems the crowd is getting my drift...

What's the point in having the top creme de la creme photo gear, if you have to settle for keeping those magnificent images in memory cards or hard drives? Do you think its fair that a picture from your brand new K3 w DA 60/250 looks very similar in quality as anything shot with a decent quality smartphone (Instagram)?

I know, back in the chemistry days, unless we ordered 4x6 inch prints, just a very small qty of prints were made. At least in my case, I would say I printed with good results (b&W) one nice picture out of every 12 to 18 rolls of film, but in order to get to that final print, I went through hundreds of hours shooting, darkroom, contact printing, enlarging, testing papers, chemicals and sometimes, even enlarger light sources... and yet still, I was happy with my hobby.

Today, I say it makes no sense in having the ultimate photo capturing gadget, unless you have a way to "show the difference". For example, scrapbook printing is now available wereas 10 years ago, if available, it was extremely expensive. Today, digital displays (big flat screens) are more less expensive, but prices are dropping like bricks... I bet 10 years ahead, we would be able to buy a nice 60 to 75 inch super high res. flatscreen display, with enough memory to run a couple thousand photos slideshow. Our walls would be covered with such displays and probably, one or two will serve as TV and computer monitor "on demand".

Browsing though old photo albums is nice, nostalgic and gives me a "back to earth" feeling. Not only remembering whatever shows in those old pictures, but also remembering how those pictures got there (If I shot them)... but that will eventually disappear.

Not too long ago while moving (changing home), my son (then age 12) discovered a box filled with LP records... and he asked me: "Dad, what's this?" He did the same question about some cassettes and a few open reel tapes with some of my old music. Could you imaging how difficult was to explain him that such strange items, was how music was purchased, played and stored just one generation ago?

Now, going back to what concerns us: full frame cameras (24 x 36 mm sensors), I dare to throw a rather rhetoric question: "Do I need one?" I will have to answer: "No, unless I can show the difference in IQ from my actual gear..." And by showing difference, I do not mean to see it at a microscopic level going to pixel level enlargements on high res monitors, just to show some 2 pixel wide purple fringing. When I mean difference, is actual visible IQ difference at a normal "viewing distance". -Have you ever seen someone with a loupe examining each brush stroke some painting at an art exhibition? Probably someone would, but not for the pleasure of appreciating the painting. It would be for some scientific, forensic, or validation purpose.

[jsherman999]

What's the point in having the top creme de la creme photo gear, if you have to settle for keeping those magnificent images in memory cards or hard drives? Do you think its fair that a picture from your brand new K3 w DA 60/250 looks very similar in quality as anything shot with a decent quality smartphone (Instagram)?

I can't speak for everyone, but here's my reason: I want to future-proof the images I'm taking now in a way that will allow me maximum enjoyment in the years or decades to come, whatever hi-def output device or media I might be using.

I want to have a retirement portfolio that includes not just money but memories, digitally saved, at the highest quality I can reasonably afford.

When I look at a 36mp DSLR-taken image of one of my boys it looks so crisp, so breathtakingly real-to-life that I remember them and that moment so very much more clearly than a small, noisy, out of focus image would allow me. I see the textures of their skin, the small amounts of cookie on their clothes or face, the small dimples they might lose... I save them as close to real-life as I can with the equipment available to me.

That's my reason.

[Poit]

It seems the crowd is getting my drift...

What's the point in having the top creme de la creme photo gear, if you have to settle for keeping those magnificent images in memory cards or hard drives? Do you think its fair that a picture from your brand new K3 w DA 60/250 looks very similar in quality as anything shot with a decent quality smartphone (Instagram)?

I know, back in the chemistry days, unless we ordered 4x6 inch prints, just a very small qty of prints were made. At least in my case, I would say I printed with good results (b&W) one nice picture out of every 12 to 18 rolls of film, but in order to get to that final print, I went through hundreds of hours shooting, darkroom, contact printing, enlarging, testing papers, chemicals and sometimes, even enlarger light sources... and yet still, I was happy with my hobby.

Today, I say it makes no sense in having the ultimate photo capturing gadget, unless you have a way to "show the difference". For example, scrapbook printing is now available wereas 10 years ago, if available, it was extremely expensive. Today, digital displays (big flat screens) are more less expensive, but prices are dropping like bricks... I bet 10 years ahead, we would be able to buy a nice 60 to 75 inch super high res. flatscreen display, with enough memory to run a couple thousand photos slideshow. Our walls would be covered with such displays and probably, one or two will serve as TV and computer monitor "on demand".

Browsing though old photo albums is nice, nostalgic and gives me a "back to earth" feeling. Not only remembering whatever shows in those old pictures, but also remembering how those pictures got there (If I shot them)... but that will eventually disappear.

Not too long ago while moving (changing home), my son (then age 12) discovered a box filled with LP records... and he asked me: "Dad, what's this?" He did the same question about some cassettes and a few open reel tapes with some of my old music. Could you imaging how difficult was to explain him that such strange items, was how music was purchased, played and stored just one generation ago?

Now, going back to what concerns us: full frame cameras (24 x 36 mm sensors), I dare to throw a rather rhetoric question: "Do I need one?" I will have to answer: "No, unless I can show the difference in IQ from my actual gear..." And by showing difference, I do not mean to see it at a microscopic level going to pixel level enlargements on high res monitors, just to show some 2 pixel wide purple fringing. When I mean difference, is actual visible IQ difference at a normal "viewing distance". -Have you ever seen someone with a loupe examining each brush stroke some painting at an art exhibition? Probably someone would, but not for the pleasure of appreciating the painting. It would be for some scientific, forensic, or validation purpose.

Here's a question or two for you:

Have you ever been paid for your photography?

Have you ever had a young couple pay you $1000's of their hard earned money to shoot their wedding, and had the pressure of knowing you'd better do a good job?

Have you ever had to look at what your competitors are doing, and realised your equipment isn't capable of producing the same results?

Your points are valid from an enthusiast's perspective, but they are certainly not from a professional one. If you have ever been in a position that you are making money from your equipment, you will know what I'm talking about. Your comments suggest you have not.

To professionals, small differences in performance make a big difference in the final product they can produce. They need every ounce of performance they can get, and will pay as much as they can afford to get it, in order to compete in the marketplace. For some (myself included) the 645z is beyond what is affordable.

That is why Pentax needs a FF. Because there are countless wedding and other professional photographers out there who have passed the brand over because APS-C is not good enough, and just as many who may buy into the brand if/when the FF comes along.

Professional photography, my friend, is the real 'big picture' consideration in all the FF debate...

[rburgoss]

Here's a question or two for you:

Have you ever been paid for your photography?

Have you ever had a young couple pay you $1000's of their hard earned money to shoot their wedding, and had the pressure of knowing you'd better do a good job?

Have you ever had to look at what your competitors are doing, and realised your equipment isn't capable of producing the same results?

Your points are valid from an enthusiast's perspective, but they are certainly not from a professional one. If you have ever been in a position that you are making money from your equipment, you will know what I'm talking about. Your comments suggest you have not.

To professionals, small differences in performance make a big difference in the final product they can produce. They need every ounce of performance they can get, and will pay as much as they can afford to get it, in order to compete in the marketplace. For some (myself included) the 645z is beyond what is affordable.

That is why Pentax needs a FF. Because there are countless wedding and other professional photographers out there who have passed the brand over because APS-C is not good enough, and just as many who may buy into the brand if/when the FF comes along.

Professional photography, my friend, is the real 'big picture' consideration in all the FF debate...

You are completely right sir. I have not been paid for photography itself but my pictures have been used in several publications around the world, for which I have never charged a penny (Environment issues).

I totally agree that a paid professional should be able to squeeze every bit of quality from their hardware and stay up to par with the competition on what they are doing and the product they are providing. That is why I clearly said that there may be a very small percentage of true Pentax professionals that could really benefit from a FF camera. Agree also that the 645z may be top notch but not as "portable" as a standard DSLR, besides, there is not much glass options for it around.

It is true, I am a hardcore enthusiast and as loyal to the Pentax brand as anyone could be. I do know my hardware limitations and what to expect form it. Should I change systems? (brand) I really don't see a point because for my needs, it will probably make no difference and besides, I do have a pretty good Pentax glass arsenal that replacing. it would mean literally thousands of $$$. Which make me think this may be a good reason some pro photographers are still using Pentax and craving for the ff body... they are too deep in hardware that could be used with a new Pentax K mount ff digital body, while changing systems will mean starting from scratch and dumping their beloved Pentax hardware into the used market... for peanuts compared for what it was paid for when new.

I am not saying or stating that such thing may be rule of thumb and all pro photographers out there still using Pentax gear are in the same situation. I just say that such situation may be a good reason for staying with Pentax besides brand loyalty, which by the way, is going to be "tested" to its full extent in the next two-three years, as the Pentax brand is slowly disappearing and being replaced by Ricoh. I'll give you three examples: 1) The WG-4 point and shoot no longer carries the Pentax brand name, it is sold under Ricoh brand. 2) The MX-1 compact camera, has no PENTAX logo anywhere except molded into the lens cap. 3) The top notch K3 's rear LCD bears the Ricoh name at the lower edge, not the Pentax name.

I am almost sure Pentax will go travel the same road that Minolta (then Konica-Minolta) went through.... just to end up under the Sony name.

Would you like your Lexus rebranded as Toyota, just because Toyota owns the Lexus brand?

Would you like your Chrysler 300 rebranded as Fiat, just because Fiat owns the Chrysler brand?

Would you like your Rolls Royce rebranded as Volkswagen... your Chevrolet Cruze as a Daewoo... and such and such?

[Poit]

Which make me think this may be a good reason some pro photographers are still using Pentax and craving for the ff body... they are too deep in hardware that could be used with a new Pentax K mount ff digital body, while changing systems will mean starting from scratch and dumping their beloved Pentax hardware into the used market... for peanuts compared for what it was paid for when new.

You have just summarised my own predicament precisely!

So yes, I have selfish reasons for saying I need a Pentax FF, but I also believe there are many others who would consider the brand if it had a more complete professional lineup, which could only be good for Pentax' future (and all of us who love Pentax). I'd love to see the ranks of 'Pentax Professionals' grow.

On the 'branding' issue, I don't really mind what label is on the cameras. However, Ricoh stated in the past 12 months that the 'Pentax' brand will be used on the high-end DSLR range, and Ricoh on the smaller stuff (which accounts for your observations of recent products).

Take care, and happy shooting

[MD Optofonik]

I know some of my favorite pictures have absolutely no artistic value at all; they are out of focus, have poor color, are tilted etc, but it shows scenes of my grandparents, aunts and uncles sitting around a table, drinking, eating, having a good time.

I think such photography may actually be more important today than the "artsy" stuff due to the increasing rarity of physical visual documentation of the "digital era". All those pictures on Instagram and FB are actually documenting so much of the "life and times" of a generation that it is going to be a tragedy when all those documented moments are lost to to the digital ether. FB and Instagram will not last as long as a photographic negative, slide, or print; even an inkjet print.

I've said this before but I think it's worth reiterating. What would Ken Burns have had to work with if there were no physical visual artifacts (photos) of the Civil War? What will the Kens Burns' of the future have to work with in 150 years? A shiny disk with a spiral of microscopic pit's that represent ones and zeros which subsequently represent data that could be anything from jpg, avi. txt, or any number of data types?

[johnmflores]

Here's a question or two for you:

Have you ever been paid for your photography?

Have you ever had a young couple pay you $1000's of their hard earned money to shoot their wedding, and had the pressure of knowing you'd better do a good job?

Have you ever had to look at what your competitors are doing, and realised your equipment isn't capable of producing the same results?

Your points are valid from an enthusiast's perspective, but they are certainly not from a professional one. If you have ever been in a position that you are making money from your equipment, you will know what I'm talking about. Your comments suggest you have not.

To professionals, small differences in performance make a big difference in the final product they can produce. They need every ounce of performance they can get, and will pay as much as they can afford to get it, in order to compete in the marketplace. For some (myself included) the 645z is beyond what is affordable.

That is why Pentax needs a FF. Because there are countless wedding and other professional photographers out there who have passed the brand over because APS-C is not good enough, and just as many who may buy into the brand if/when the FF comes along.

Professional photography, my friend, is the real 'big picture' consideration in all the FF debate...

I have been paid for my photography, and I've used APS-C, Micro 4/3, CX, and even 1/2.7 (Q) for paid work. Sure, image quality is important, but vision and creativity are even more so. This idea that Full Frame is needed for paying work does little but perpetuate the idea that it's the camera that takes good pictures, not the photographer.

[micromacro]

You know what bugs me? When people show their pics on cellphone I barely can see, and I politely say "oh, how cute..." or something like that. When someone shows pics on their computer, and I stand behind in a crowd and annoyed of staying in the crowd.
I'm not sure that printer dies soon, or gives up easy. Especially with a such a great things like photo books. Traditional albums may die of course. But printing? I doubt.

[Poit]

I have been paid for my photography, and I've used APS-C, Micro 4/3, CX, and even 1/2.7 (Q) for paid work. Sure, image quality is important, but vision and creativity are even more so. This idea that Full Frame is needed for paying work does little but perpetuate the idea that it's the camera that takes good pictures, not the photographer.

Ever shot a wedding?

I'm not saying professionals can't or don't use APS-C. I use a K-3 and will continue to use it, in certain situations, even when a FF body comes along. What I'm saying is that I also need the advantages a FF bring in certain situations, and I'm sure there are many other pros who are the same (which is why they give pentax a miss). Think of dark churches or reception venues, when you would prefer natural / ambient lighting over flash...or wide angle group shots without distortion....or portraits of the bride with as much creative DoF as possible....

[monochrome]

So many have cropped minds...

You're on this whole 'cropped' meme this week. You know something?*



* Got my new SpeedBoosters today. Tri-Focals. Holy Moly - I never knew!!!!

[monochrome]

Maybe Leica are coming closest to this with their galleries and emphasis on the image.

I think the Ricoh Iamging CEO is going this direction - taking the company to the Image rather than the gear - if the DCWatch interview is any indication (and if Google translate is even 20% suggestive of the truth).

[monochrome]

Ever shot a wedding?

I'm not saying professionals can't or don't use APS-C. I use a K-3 and will continue to use it, in certain situations, even when a FF body comes along. What I'm saying is that I also need the advantages a FF bring in certain situations, and I'm sure there are many other pros who are the same (which is why they give pentax a miss). Think of dark churches or reception venues, when you would prefer natural / ambient lighting over flash...or wide angle group shots without distortion....or portraits of the bride with as much creative DoF as possible....

I'm with you. MOST of us want - pros actually need.

My wedding was shot on a 6x7. Wooden handle with flash and a cord. He used a little hand-held bounce flash now and then for the outdoor wedding party shots (did he have three hands?). The neg envelopes feel like a stack of 3x5 Index Cards.

No flash was permitted in the church - and it is a dark and medieval church - so the guy set the bride in shafts of light, white dress and low key or back lit side profile was the best he could do (pros hate our church). Stuff is really art - not documentary work. (She's really pretty and the dress was hand-embroidered, with seed pearls and appliques - her mother made it - he captured her and the dress . . . . ).

I really don't think he could have done it with 35mm. None of my friends who were married there have that kind of wedding photos. My son and daughter-in-law have the typical 5DMkII formula album.

Soon.

[dadipentak]

I think the op raises an interesting point. I hardly ever have prints made of my photos: there's just not much room in my life--or house--for hard copy.