[Dan Rentea]

I sold my K-5 for $100. If I'd kept it I'd have two back up bodies. I just didn't want it taking up cupboard space. It wouldn't be as difficult as you might think.

Normhead, pro photographers don't like to use 3 different cameras for several reasons:
- they need the same image quality and there would be a big difference in image quality between a K5 and a K1
- they need the same placement of the buttons in order to operate the cameras fast, especially if they are shooting with primes
- a 15-30mm lens for example will give you a different field of view on a K5 than on a K1
- the af performance between a K5 and a K1 is quite big and when you have to shoot a wedding you don't have the time to adjust your shooting style

Even in Pentax land, shooting a wedding with K3 and K1 will give you different quality in the files, especially for the indoor low lights images (K3 is not as great when comes to high ISO, the mettering is different on K3 than the one from K1 and it will take some time to match the files in Lightroom or in other programs, etc.).

We all have different needs, a different approach when comes to gear and how to develop our business, but personally when comes to shoot for clients I don't like to use unsuited gear. I rather rent a second body like the one I use until I make enough money to buy one as a second camera instead of going with 3 different cameras and slow/cheap/old lenses. For pleasure I shoot with f4 zooms or with f1.8 primes. For paid shootings I shoot with f1.2/f1.4 primes. Clients won't see the difference between a f1.8 prime and a f1.4 prime after the images are edited, but as long as I have a lot better overall performance using the f1.4 lenses and the editing time is reduced big time, it's worth the money and the investment.

Saving money by buying unsuited gear may be an option to maximize profit, but there are lots of trades off also, even if only few will recognise it.

[normhead]

Normhead, pro photographers don't like to use 3 different cameras for several reasons:
- they need the same image quality and there would be a big difference in image quality between a K5 and a K1
- they need the same placement of the buttons in order to operate the cameras fast, especially if they are shooting with primes
- a 15-30mm lens for example will give you a different field of view on a K5 than on a K1
- the af performance between a K5 and a K1 is quite big and when you have to shoot a wedding you don't have the time to adjust your shooting style

Even in Pentax land, shooting a wedding with K3 and K1 will give you different quality in the files, especially for the indoor low lights images (K3 is not as great when comes to high ISO, the mettering is different on K3 than the one from K1 and it will take some time to match the files in Lightroom or in other programs, etc.).

We all have different needs, a different approach when comes to gear and how to develop our business, but personally when comes to shoot for clients I don't like to use unsuited gear. I rather rent a second body like the one I use until I make enough money to buy one as a second camera instead of going with 3 different cameras and slow/cheap/old lenses. For pleasure I shoot with f4 zooms or with f1.8 primes. For paid shootings I shoot with f1.2/f1.4 primes. Clients won't see the difference between a f1.8 prime and a f1.4 prime after the images are edited, but as long as I have a lot better overall performance using the f1.4 lenses and the editing time is reduced big time, it's worth the money and the investment.

Saving money by buying unsuited gear may be an option to maximize profit, but there are lots of trades off also, even if only few will recognise it.

You have lots of platitudes and precious little useful info in there.
I'm not sure how repeating the obvious helps you make your case.
People can be faced with the same situations as yours and take a completely different course. You're not smarter than them. You don't realize things they don't. They just see those things in a different context.

What works for you as a professional doing whatever it is you do, is only relevant to you.

[Dan Rentea]

People can be faced with the same situations as yours and take a completely different course. You're not smarter than them. You don't realize things they don't. They just see those things in a different context.

Yes, that's why everyone's opinion is important and we extract from each comment what we think is relevant to us.

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 08:23 PM ----------

What works for you as a professional doing whatever it is you do, is only relevant to you.

Not necessary... this forum is great because it provide free information and each comment filtered by our own standards can become valuable information at some point.

[normhead]

Yes, that's why everyone's opinion is important and we extract from each comment what we think is relevant to us.

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 08:23 PM ----------



Not necessary... this forum is great because it provide free information and each comment filtered by our own standards can become valuable information at some point.

I certainly agree with the info in the bank waiting to be used concept. Most of us do try and keep up.

I recently bought a Canon with some lenses to go with it. (And I really love it, by the way, a very pleasant surprise.) But my reason had nothing to do with technology or even photography, but business practices. I've put Pentax on my list of "I'm never buying anything from them ever again." (Along with Sony, by the way.) I really like the Pentax stuff I've got (now that it's cost me an arm and a leg to get the factory-installed defects repaired), so I hope it holds up for a long time.

[BigMackCam]

I recently bought a Canon with some lenses to go with it. (And I really love it, by the way, a very pleasant surprise.) But my reason had nothing to do with technology or even photography, but business practices. I've put Pentax on my list of "I'm never buying anything from them ever again." (Along with Sony, by the way.) I really like the Pentax stuff I've got (now that it's cost me an arm and a leg to get the factory-installed defects repaired), so I hope it holds up for a long time.

In answer to the OP's original post, then, in your case the draw for other cameras is that you've been unlucky with some of your Pentax gear?

I always find it interesting when a member - especially a long-established one - takes a dig at Pentax in this way, right here in PentaxForums, because they've been unfortunate with quality issues. I'm sure you know that unintentional manufacturing defects can happen with any brand, just as you know the defects weren't "factory-installed" in your Pentax gear but the result of typical modern-day manufacturing and quality control processes. That's one of the reasons why we pay $2,000 instead of $5,000 for a camera body, or $1,000 instead of $3,000 for a lens (though even those more expensive products can still make it past QC with faults - remember the Leica M9 sensor fiasco? ). NASA spends billions of dollars testing every component of its space-craft, and still problems occur right after launch or some time into the mission...

Still, I'm glad you were luckier in your Canon purchase (so far)... and, looking on the bright side, you have an easier decision with two fewer brands to choose from if and when you make another camera purchase in future!

[labidas]

I made the jump to Sony A7III. It feels like a shrunk K3 in my hand. Very happy with the ergonomics. I guess I have small hands or simply prefer a smaller body where my pinky goes underneath the body.

I tried a D7500 for a day once. That thing felt like a brick.

[SpecialK]

I migrated away after frustrating experience with the K5/Sigma 150-500 which would tediously focus (or not) at airshows. Started with a used Canon 40D and new Tamron 150-600 (lens not available in K mount). Big improvement in AF. Continued migration with a used full-frame 5D and new and used lenses including a new 17mm TS (which would benefit from focus peaking). Both bodies got sold, replaced with new 70D and 6D. No regrets.

[jeallen01]

I migrated away after frustrating experience with the K5/Sigma 150-500 which would tediously focus (or not) at airshows. Started with a used Canon 40D and new Tamron 150-600 (lens not available in K mount). Big improvement in AF. Continued migration with a used full-frame 5D and new and used lenses including a new 17mm TS (which would benefit from focus peaking). Both bodies got sold, replaced with new 70D and 6D. No regrets.

TBH, whilst the Canon/Tamron combo is almost certainly "better" for what you need for airshows, the real problem with the K-5/Sigma 150-500 combo was the lens - anyone (and that certainly includes myself!) knows, or will soon find out, that because it is a real "slow coach" to focus (and that's why mine is now in Russia!).

In answer to the OP's original post, then, in your case the draw for other cameras is that you've been unlucky with some of your Pentax gear?

I always find it interesting when a member - especially a long-established one - takes a dig at Pentax in this way, right here in PentaxForums, because they've been unfortunate with quality issues. I'm sure you know that unintentional manufacturing defects can happen with any brand, just as you know the defects weren't "factory-installed" in your Pentax gear but the result of typical modern-day manufacturing and quality control processes. That's one of the reasons why we pay $2,000 instead of $5,000 for a camera body, or $1,000 instead of $3,000 for a lens (though even those more expensive products can still make it past QC with faults - remember the Leica M9 sensor fiasco? ). NASA spends billions of dollars testing every component of its space-craft, and still problems occur right after launch or some time into the mission...

Still, I'm glad you were luckier in your Canon purchase (so far)... and, looking on the bright side, you have an easier decision with two fewer brands to choose from if and when you make another camera purchase in future!

It's not a quality control issue, that could have been taken care of if the warranty had been honored. This is a basic honesty issue for me. When a manufacturer undertakes to warrant a product and promises as part of the sale to take action to make it right should there be a quality control issue, and then refuses to honor its obligations, that's fraud. Same problem I had with Sony. I only come to this conclusion after more than one such problem, by the way; the first one, I can chalk up to error. When it happens repeatedly, I assume it's a business practice. I don't do business with people who don't do what they say they're going to do. Reliability and honesty are probably more important to me than anything else when dealing with people with whom I will consider entering into any kind of contract.

I assume that problems should be discussed openly and honestly. Denying that the problem exists is the best way to ensure that it never gets resolved. No company can improve its business performance if it can't face its problems head-on, and no amount of apologetics or rhetoric (such as by shifting the issue to something other than the real objection - the "paper tiger" strategy) will help the company improve.

(By the way, I don't hold Ricoh morally responsible, it's just business, and I assume the discontinuity between promise and performance is due to a difference in perspective due to cultural differences. My set of expectations about what they ought to do is different from what they think they're obligated to do. As an attorney, I've represented Japanese clients on occasion, and the one thing I've observed is that they tend to think that a "written contract" is merely a symbolic gesture, and not a "promise given in exchange for a promise" to be taken seriously.)

I'm old enough to remember when "made in Japan" was synonymous with "junk". The Japanese businesses that wanted to do business in the U.S. realized that was a problem. So a guy named Deming went over there and taught them what "quality" means and how to restructure their business models to be able to produce quality products. Again, cultural differences. I see this as a symptom of the same problem. The idea of a "contract" is a Seventeenth Century British invention that caught on in the West, but not so much elsewhere, and now represents an aspect of Western culture, some axioms built into how people see their world and themselves in it. But to do business, people have to be on the same page as to what their expectations are, and that has a large cultural component. If they can't do that, then they're going to be frustrated.

[normhead]

I assume that problems should be discussed openly and honestly. Denying that the problem exists is the best way to ensure that it never gets resolved. No company can improve its business performance if it can't face its problems head-on, and no amount of apologetics or rhetoric (such as by shifting the issue to something other than the real objection - the "paper tiger" strategy) will help the company improve.

You assume other companies are different? Why?
I didn't book mark it but a year or two ago I read rant on another forum from a canon shooting pro-who'd sold all her Canon gear and switched to Nikon for quality control issues. The endless cycle circle of brand selection goes on. Some come some go. According to lens rental.com, Canon is no better than Pentax.

The difference between you and others being, apparently you got Pentax lemons and not Canon lemons , lucky you, even though according to lens rentals, the odds are slightly against that.

So the only value of you post is, it can happen.
Your error is, you can't dodge the issue by switching from Pentax.
You're complaining about the state of the industry, but you're singling out Pentax.

But that being said, for airshows, weddings and a pile of other professional uses Pentax might not be the best option, although the DA 55-300 has produced some startling results and the new 70-120 looks awesome. Pentax sucks at what the A7s and 1DX's do. But A7s and 1DXs suck at what Pentax does.You pays our money and you takes your pick. You always have to buy the right tool for the job.

Winder told me when he switched from a K-1 to go to an A7 with eye focus, he went form 45% keepers to above 95% keepers for weddings. I shot a wedding with my K-1 and guess what.. 45% keeper, but I shot three times as many images as I needed, burst with focus priority is a wonderful thing. SO even though I had the same keeper rate, I still had a keeper from everyone of my sets. Not ideal but, I shoot a wedding every 25 years and this one wasn't even paid. Sucked into it by family. I'm inviesting in new gear for that.

SO I'm happy with those numbers, I'm still not buying an A7 in case I'm asked to do another wedding. It's all matter of need.

[BigMackCam]

It's not a quality control issue, that could have been taken care of if the warranty had been honored. This is a basic honesty issue for me. When a manufacturer undertakes to warrant a product and promises as part of the sale to take action to make it right should there be a quality control issue, and then refuses to honor its obligations, that's fraud. Same problem I had with Sony. I only come to this conclusion after more than one such problem, by the way; the first one, I can chalk up to error. When it happens repeatedly, I assume it's a business practice. I don't do business with people who don't do what they say they're going to do. Reliability and honesty are probably more important to me than anything else when dealing with people with whom I will consider entering into any kind of contract.

I assume that problems should be discussed openly and honestly. Denying that the problem exists is the best way to ensure that it never gets resolved. No company can improve its business performance if it can't face its problems head-on, and no amount of apologetics or rhetoric (such as by shifting the issue to something other than the real objection - the "paper tiger" strategy) will help the company improve.

(By the way, I don't hold Ricoh morally responsible, it's just business, and I assume the discontinuity between promise and performance is due to a difference in perspective due to cultural differences. My set of expectations about what they ought to do is different from what they think they're obligated to do. As an attorney, I've represented Japanese clients on occasion, and the one thing I've observed is that they tend to think that a "written contract" is merely a symbolic gesture, and not a "promise given in exchange for a promise" to be taken seriously.)

Thanks for the context. I don't know the specific warranty issues you're talking of, though I know you've discussed warranty and contractual obligations at length in other threads.

As always, we have to make our choices based on our own opinions and findings - which is exactly what you've done. I wish you better luck with your Canon gear

[totsmuyco]

It's not a quality control issue, that could have been taken care of if the warranty had been honored. This is a basic honesty issue for me. When a manufacturer undertakes to warrant a product and promises as part of the sale to take action to make it right should there be a quality control issue, and then refuses to honor its obligations, that's fraud. Same problem I had with Sony. I only come to this conclusion after more than one such problem, by the way; the first one, I can chalk up to error. When it happens repeatedly, I assume it's a business practice. I don't do business with people who don't do what they say they're going to do. Reliability and honesty are probably more important to me than anything else when dealing with people with whom I will consider entering into any kind of contract.

I assume that problems should be discussed openly and honestly. Denying that the problem exists is the best way to ensure that it never gets resolved. No company can improve its business performance if it can't face its problems head-on, and no amount of apologetics or rhetoric (such as by shifting the issue to something other than the real objection - the "paper tiger" strategy) will help the company improve.

(By the way, I don't hold Ricoh morally responsible, it's just business, and I assume the discontinuity between promise and performance is due to a difference in perspective due to cultural differences. My set of expectations about what they ought to do is different from what they think they're obligated to do. As an attorney, I've represented Japanese clients on occasion, and the one thing I've observed is that they tend to think that a "written contract" is merely a symbolic gesture, and not a "promise given in exchange for a promise" to be taken seriously.)

I'm old enough to remember when "made in Japan" was synonymous with "junk". The Japanese businesses that wanted to do business in the U.S. realized that was a problem. So a guy named Deming went over there and taught them what "quality" means and how to restructure their business models to be able to produce quality products. Again, cultural differences. I see this as a symptom of the same problem. The idea of a "contract" is a Seventeenth Century British invention that caught on in the West, but not so much elsewhere, and now represents an aspect of Western culture, some axioms built into how people see their world and themselves in it. But to do business, people have to be on the same page as to what their expectations are, and that has a large cultural component. If they can't do that, then they're going to be frustrated.

I agree with you and I hope you all the best with your new gears. I'm a little sad when I see things like this happened. As most of us have experienced, we sometimes get frustrated with the services we get despite our loyalty. Sometimes it's the people in the company the breaks or misinterprets the policy. And sometimes it's really the policy that's defective.