[Sandy Hancock]

Whether or not this thread inspired it, I have spent today thinking about rationalising my kit.

It's pretty obvious on reflection that I have way too much overlap between three different formats, and I reckon that actually does stifle my creativity.

So I am now contemplating a pretty substantial sell-off, including all of my medium format kit quite a few K-mount lenses. Getting it all up in the Marketplace is a daunting proposition, but I'll chip away in the next week or so, starting with 645 stuff.

I'm quite excited about the leaner, meaner system summarised in my revised signature below

---

Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 07-08-2018 at 05:31 AM. Reason: typo

[UncleVanya]

Whether or not this thread inspired it, I have spent today thinking about rationalising my kit.

It's pretty obvious on reflection that I have way too much overlap between three different formats, and I reckon that actually does stifle my creativity.

So I am now contemplating a pretty substantial sell-off, including all of my medium format kit quite a few K-mount lenses. Getting it all up in the Marketplace is a daunting proposition, but I'll chip away in the next week or so, starting with 645 stuff.

I'm quite excited about the leaner, meaner system summarised in my revised signature below

Willpower at work! Good luck in the sale!

[Sandy Hancock]

Willpower at work!

You can only call it willpower if I actually go through with it. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking

[UncleVanya]

You can only call it willpower if I actually go through with it. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking

Fair enough, but I've been around you enough to expect you to follow through. Again sincere wishes for a successful reduction of your gear.

[BrianR]

I've never understood that sentiment (and it's common), Savoche ... getting better doesn't cost anything but time, and as you say, it's time spent doing something we love!

Why wouldn't we try a panorama, ask a stranger in the street if we can take a picture of them, or shoot everything for a week with a square format?

Buying new stuff definitely has an increase in something quantifiable - more fps, megapixels, wider aperture, etc. This has an instant appeal. Actively spending 2-3 hours per week for the next year working on creativily photographing things should have a positive effect on your photos, but it's not one that's easily quantifiable. Are you 10% more creative now? 15%?

I think it's the guaranteed, measurable, and instant improvement of something that has appeal, even if that something does not necessarily correlate to better or more interesting photos.

[clackers]

Buying new stuff definitely has an increase in something quantifiable - more fps, megapixels, wider aperture, etc.

Obviously, the idea that someone takes the same picture of the rose in their backyard in the same way as they have since 1988 but at f1.4 instead of f1.8 horrifies me, Brian, yes!

Actively spending 2-3 hours per week for the next year working on creativily photographing things should have a positive effect on your photos, but it's not one that's easily quantifiable. Are you 10% more creative now? 15%?

I think it's the guaranteed, measurable, and instant improvement of something that has appeal, even if that something does not necessarily correlate to better or more interesting photos.

Quantifiable?

The day Cartier-Bresson set up his camera with the composition he wanted and waited for his friend to ride around the corner (repeatedly, I've heard), he got 100 percent better instead of just taking candid shots. https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/hyeres-cartier-bresson/

And I've seen your pics, so in your case, the day you hit on a combination of using flash with an ultrawide very closeup to balance the background, your pics became 100 percent better.

[clackers]

I don't say it's a sound reasoning, just that it is common. Getting better is free (other than the time and effort invested) and much more gratifying.

And really, it's not that hard. Just get out and shoot. Join a Daily or Single In month for inspiration. Improvement will come

Sure, you're one of this forum's heroes, Savoche, with all the challenges you enter.

Part of your great eye must come from shooting with self-imposed constraints … your pictures are one of the reasons I bought a GR II.

[savoche]

Sure, you're one of this forum's heroes, Savoche, with all the challenges you enter.

Part of your great eye must come from shooting with self-imposed constraints … your pictures are one of the reasons I bought a GR II.

I thank you for the kind words, but no need to make me blush I do think my images have, on average, become better over the last few years - which I interpret as having succeeded in complementing pure luck with some modest amount of skill.

It also proves that "seeing" can be learnt even if it's harder work for some of us than others. Personally I find it easier to learn with a few constraints in place. Removing options also removes distractions and thus makes it simpler to concentrate on the basics. It's not as if this is The One True Path, though

(And I still think the GR is a fantastic piece of kit, btw.)

[Rondec]

That's definitely it. If a bridge camera excites you and gets you shooting, go for it. Recently I put up an image I liked taken with my XG-1. The comment from the tech guys was "It's softer than your other bird images." But from my perspective, I found the diffraction limited images quite pleasing and a complete change of pace from my day to day images.. Saying so drew a total blank.

A K-3 produces 2700 lw/ph. A K-1 produces 3450 lw/ph. My largest prints are 16x20. To print with 1/100 distinct lines per inch resolution ( and remember, complete extinction will be quite bit higher than that) I need 20,000 distinct lines per photograph. That's a 35% oversample on a K-3. A K-1 with 3400 lw/ph is a 70% oversample. What we are discussing K-3 to K-1 is the degree of over sampling. Look for the K-1 advantage elsewhere. And please don't be one of those people who come on the forum and pretend like every image they take is going to be printed at 60 inches wide.. No one believes that, it just makes you sound like a knob. But, the K-1 does have better dynamic range for images that actually are high dynamic range. For 95% of my shooting the dynamic range of even a K-20D is over kill. and low light capability. And low light lets you shoot in the dark but images taken in low light are that end up being high IQ images are rare. . Those are functions that despite the fact some go on and on about them, rarely come into play. It's quite possible to make an intelligent decision where you just say, I'm going to ignore those functions and go for a lighter more portable camera that takes 90% of what is out there and provides a lot more flexibility in it's use.

Using a K-1 is always a gamble, there's always chance that you'll get one of the 5% type images that's better taken with it, but there's also a chance you get nothing instead of the great image you would have had using more flexible and easy to manage gear.

Whenever you get tempted to go for the "resolution is image quality" thing, just remember you're talking about an oversample, not critical resolution, in most cases.

That is a completely understandable position. Maybe it isn't for you, but if someone else chooses to go that route, well, whatever keeps you shooting and excited about your pictures is good. Far be it from me to tell someone who never prints larger than 11x14 they should be carrying around a big huge camera. I suspect a lot of people these days don't even print. But, I have window ice images on my walls right now printed at 16 x 20 and I can't tell looking at them which are the k-3 images and which are the K-1 images. So I personally i think telling folks they need a K-1 for the resolution is next to criminal.

They might need the resolution, but the odds are against it.

It just really depends on what you are shooting. A lot of the reason for me to use full frame has very little to do with resolution and everything to do with wanting to take photos of my kids in challenging light. I do find that above iso 800 I can tell a distinct difference between a K-1 and K3, even without printing very big. I know you do a lot of birding and for those sorts of images, APS-C is probably as good, depending on how long a lens you own. But I don't take photos of birds and for snap shots of my kids and landscapes it isn't hard to see a difference between the two formats.

In the end, as I said before, shoot what you enjoy. I enjoy shooting the K-1 more and enjoy post processing K-1 images more and so I will stick with it, even if it only offers an improvement for 5 percent of my images.

[Sandy Hancock]

Stop being reasonable, Rondec. That's not how it works around here

[BrianR]

Obviously, the idea that someone takes the same picture of the rose in their backyard in the same way as they have since 1988 but at f1.4 instead of f1.8 horrifies me, Brian, yes!

But, but, but being able to put "50mm/1.4 @ f8" instead of "50mm/1.8 @ f8" on an info plate doubles the artistic and monetary value of a photo!

The day Cartier-Bresson set up his camera with the composition he wanted and waited for his friend to ride around the corner (repeatedly, I've heard), he got 100 percent better instead of just taking candid shots. Hyeres, Cartier-Bresson – Iconic Photos

And I've seen your pics, so in your case, the day you hit on a combination of using flash with an ultrawide very closeup to balance the background, your pics became 100 percent better.

Thanks for the kind words. But without a fancy graph or pie chart to back it up, your values are unfortunately subjective. I figure that when I started going out with deliberate plans and ideas in the manner of your Cartier-Bresson example, my "Photo Goodness" increased by 112%. When I started working artificial lights into things, it only increased 74%.

We need an objective way to measure Photo Goodness so we can accurately measure our progress and growth as photographers instead of the typical metric how much our cameras cost. I'm thinking an aggregate of "likes" from sources such as Flickr, 500px, Twitter, Facebook, Pentax Forums, and my mom should work.

[clackers]

But, but, but being able to put "50mm/1.4 @ f8" instead of "50mm/1.8 @ f8" on an info plate doubles the artistic and monetary value of a photo!

I think you've proven the point, Brian … the client just doesn't care either way.

I've been to a couple of workshops by a pro who owns and operates his own studio, shoots fashion campaigns, magazine covers, was in the running for F-Stoppers Photographer of the Year … shoots almost everything with a previous model Canon and humble 50mm like our own venerable FA50.

Thanks for the kind words. But without a fancy graph or pie chart to back it up, your values are unfortunately subjective. I figure that when I started going out with deliberate plans and ideas in the manner of your Cartier-Bresson example, my "Photo Goodness" increased by 112%. When I started working artificial lights into things, it only increased 74%.

We need an objective way to measure Photo Goodness so we can accurately measure our progress and growth as photographers instead of the typical metric how much our cameras cost. I'm thinking an aggregate of "likes" from sources such as Flickr, 500px, Twitter, Facebook, Pentax Forums, and my mom should work.

Well, we know where popularity contests end up!

I've written elsewhere to a poster that the best way they can improve their photography is to not buy more gear but let other photographers give an honest review of their portfolio. It's to stop someone taking crap photos at f1.8 paying money then take crap photos at f1.4.

To say they don't need to change anything because their neighbours or friends say they love their pictures, or that they've sold prints at a Sunday craft market or they get fifty Likes on Facebook each time they post, is very much an argument for quantity over quality.

[savoche]

let other photographers give an honest review of their portfolio.

Oh no, I'd never dare doing that! I do it the coward's way - I post images in friendly places where you get only positive feedback. And when you get just the odd "well focused" or "nice colours" you know the image sucks

[Dartmoor Dave]

I've written elsewhere to a poster that the best way they can improve their photography is to not buy more gear but let other photographers give an honest review of their portfolio.

Yep, but make sure that the portfolio review is done by people whose opinions you respect. I know that everyone will have seen these before, but I'm going to post them here anyway:

The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet
The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet, Part II

[normhead]

But I don't take photos of birds and for snap shots of my kids and landscapes it isn't hard to see a difference between the two formats.

I use the K-1 for some snapshots and landscape as well. SO what you're saying is, "if you don't shoot what I shoot, you don't need what I need." Fair enough.

I think the new APS_c flagship will blow the K-3 away and will probably close the gap between the K-1 and K-3 at least in terms of low light performance, since the K-P is already close in some regards.

But that won't matter to you, you still won't need it.

When are you going to give us a couple of photos illustrating the difference? I've already explained what happened when I tried to do that.

I thought I could see a difference it too, before I actually shot 16 MP K-5 and 36 MP K -1on the same tripod set and zoom lens minutes apart and compared.

Kidding aside, I'm always interested in seeing why people think what they think.

The thing for me is I often shoot at the minimum focusing distance or maximum reach and can't fill the frame as I'd like so those are two circumstances the k-3is lights out better. But as you said, you don't do that. 50% of my images are like that.