[victormeldrew]

I think there is very much a case for there being a sense that, if you are or intend to be very serious about photography, Pentax is an unusual choice.

If you study photography academically, your college/university will be set up with one of a handful of (other) brands in mind. Your tutor almost certainly will not use Pentax, the loan/school kit will not be Pentax either. Your artistic idols will not use Pentax. When you graduate, Pentax will not be in your mind.

If you go into professional photography, the ecosystem and support around those other brands is such that it would be foolhardy to commit to Pentax with its limited (if not limiting) array of third party support, along with things like availability of rental, pro-level support etc. If you assist or second-shoot for a pro, he will be very unlikely to be using Pentax. When you go it alone, Pentax will not be in your mind.

If you aspire to be either of the above but are really just a keen amateur, the media (be it internet, magazines, or TV) will be full of the wonders of these 'pro' brands, with CaNiSon being the affordable options and Leica being the aspiration. Pentax is a side-note at best and won't be in your mind.

If you're a casual amateur with a good sense of value ratio and perhaps a quirky love for the slightly different or the underdog, Pentax might just be in your mind. These people, no offence, might not be at the cutting edge of ability or artistic merit and probably won't be earning a living with their camera. They will more likely be happy shooting sunsets and butterflies and simply enjoying their hobby, smug in the knowledge that they are technically capable of doing just the same as if they owned one of those other more expensive brands. But they will be less likely to be creating outstanding images, because they aren't one of those people above.

[ronniemac]

I've had a look by typing Pentax K-1, and I do agree - there are heaps of photos that have nothing to recommend them. When I viewed, I noticed most were uploaded by just one person.

Maybe some people just use Flickr to store images as a form of backup or perhaps just to share with f & f. I do this, but I restrict access to specific individuals.

Looking at photos in Pentax groups always shows up some nice work - as suggested above.

[Rondec]

I don't know. I guess my impression is that what you are seeing is generally more attributable to the skill of the photographer more than the specific camera body they used. If you gave me an A7r III and some G Master lenses, I would probably get about the same images I am getting with my K-1. Probably more of them because the frame rate is higher, but otherwise I don't know that there would be a big difference.

If you look at images from the 645z, you find some very impressive work, but I suppose that is because most people with money enough to drop on a medium format DSLR have figured out that this is the tool they need to get the images they want and have the skill to use it.

Finally, it helps to be able to travel a bit. I can have the nicest gear in the world, but most of my images are going to come from rural Virginia with an occasional one captured on a family trip. All of that doesn't change the fact that the K-1 is a very nice camera and capable of some awesome shots.

[boriscleto]

The problem with typing something into the Flickr search box is that it only searches for tags. If a person doesn't tag their photos they don't show up...

[hadi]

also, the gear used, and images uploaded, are all limited by the imagination of the photographer.
Joe Edelman, for example, has taken some BRILLIANT images on a camera that had like 3 or 4 megapixels. but he was also able to create brilliant images on 36 megapixel full frame, and also on 20 megapixel micro4/3 camera.

different lenses will allow for different creativity. a medium format will allow for more environmental portraits, thus use that creatively. so if an environmental portrait on apsc, will allow for more on full frame, and allow more on medium format.

[stevebrot]

Are we worse in PP than Sony users?

They don't need no stink'en PP...

Are Sony users better photographers in general?

They may well be more dedicated as in willing to spend more money. The A7RIII does not come cheap. As for better photogs...that is hard to say. The A7 (series) users I know are definitely serious about their craft. On thing is for sure, the active A7RII users yesterday outnumbered the K-1 users 3:1. Both groups were doing good work based on the comparative "interestingness" samples. My take was that the K-1 bunch might lay off on the pet stuff, though.

Do you think that it’s just because more talented Sony photographers use Flickr?

More A7(series) users overall on Flickr and perhaps a somewhat different demographic and posting philosophy than the K-1 bunch...'nuff said going down that hole.


Steve

[robgski]

If a person has no "eye" for composition, the best DSLR camera and lens in the world will not make their pictures more attractive than the pictures taken by a skilled photographer using an inexpensive point and shoot. Everywhere you go you see people toting DSLR and mirrorless cameras, snapping away in "P" mode, and their pictures are likely not remarkable either.
On Flickr, check out the Single In challenge for pentax users, you will see some good examples of what a K-1 can produce

[SpecialK]

I am only guessing, but I think all the variables - gear, post-processing, talent, social media habits - makes little difference in the big gene pool of photos. Quality x Quantity = Constant.

Perhaps the guys with an 8x12 view camera might be more inclined to set up and control things, but I bet they shoot duds, too.

[racingsnake]

Thanks for the input guys! A lot of your answers match my thoughts exactly. I guess we all have to consider that tastes differ and one photograph could well appeal to one and do nothing for another.


Отправлено с моего iPhone используя Tapatalk

[honey bo bo]

Photographers make the Photograph ! Photographic Equipment is what they use to capture it. If a Viewer is attracted to a Photograph it could be captured by a Pin Hole, a Pentax , an 8 X 10 , a Nikon, a Canon, a Sony, a Bronica..................................................................................
People worry too much about equipment and not enough about creative composition of images.
Images that attract a Sole Viewer to Millions of Viewers ; from family Candids to Magazine Submissions.

[automorphism]

Photographic quality, however you define it, has some distribution. There are more people with the Sony than with the K1. Even if you assume that photographic skill is identically distributed amongst both groups, you will still get better photos in absolute numbers with the Sony.

[Alex645]

Maybe there are just a lot of more those images from other systems, which will also translate into more good ones?

Yes, I agree this is part of the reason and perception.

If I'm at a workshop with Canon, Nikon and Sony owners, our shots end up looking the same

When shooting RAW, I totally agree the differences are minimal. A bigger factor will be the PP skills of the photographer. However, with jpeg shooters, there is a certain look to Canon and Pentax that I can spot after seeing them for many years. Canon jpegs tend to over-sharpen and Pentax jpeg color vibrance is higher than what I typically see from Canon (or Nikon).

the price for the sony A7rII/III/A9/A99 etc. because its a premium price tag, it will attract people who are very serious about photography. the K1 on the other hand is a very budget friendly camera. as such, it attracts the casual shooters or amatures more.

I think this is a big part of it; more the demographic of the user and not the actual gear.
On the other end of the skills spectrum, right now in my photo classes, mirrorless Sonys are the hot trend, in large part because of the smaller and lighter system. Itʻs also a gen that sees the mirrorless as the next step up from cell phones, with no experience with an OVF. Being smaller there are less buttons and controls, so there is a higher percentage of jpeg shooters. When shooting RAW, the final image ultimately reveals not only your shooting ability, but also your PP skills which for the average shooter may be surpassed by in-camera jpegs.

Also Sony optics is excellent and using their own sensors, they can optimize their entire system from lenses to in-camera processing etc. Their relationship with Zeiss over the years has only helped their tech and probably internal competition.

The final factor may be that Sony has always had a leg up on video, even over Canon and Panasonic, and I know videographers that due to name recognition, use Sony for their still images as well. So this also equates to more professionals using Sony in their personal diversions.

If I could think of one last reason why Sony mirrorless may have a higher percentage of high calibre images, is that more K1 owners may be using older glass that is compatible but not truly showing the best of what the sensor is capable of.

Itʻs sort of why do more red cars get speeding tickets? Itʻs complicated, but itʻs not because the paint makes the car go faster.

[08amczb]

Give me a Sony A7r III and I promise to post loads of crappy images on flickr shot with that.

More seriously, I think the price of the A7r III filters out many amateur photographers and the amount of the images makes the filtering and sorting easier for flickr.

[Sandy Hancock]

You're probably finding all my Single In Challenge images

[AyeYo]

for what its worth, i recently went to a photogroup for jason lanier. there were about 20-25 photographers there.
19 of them used sony a7/a7R/a7II/a7RII or other variations
1 used a nikon
1 used a canon
1 used a pentax.

does that say sony is the most popular camera? not really. canon and nikon are still far more out there. just that focus group was sony obsessed.

Sony's FF Alpha line has become a fad. Nothing more than that. If you don't own one, you're a DSLR dinosaur that's behind the times. I see people that aren't even mediocre photographers dropping big money on them... because bro it's full frame and mirrorless. They're the cameras to have for people that know nothing about cameras. That's not to say that they're not good bodies or that the Sony lens system isn't good, it's just that "well researched" doesn't go into the buying decision. They've become the Apple of the camera world.