[James O'Neill]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

It's an invalid syllogism to state:

Good craftspeople use high quality tools.
Fred isn't using a high quality tool.
Therefore Fred is a bad craftsperson.

The premises don't justify the conclusion. Fred might be an excellent craftsperson using a tool that isn't high quality for some perfectly valid reason.

It's also invalid to state:

Good craftspeople use high quality tools.
Fred is using a high quality tool.
Therefore Fred is a good craftsperson.

For the same reasons. The second premise is invalidly distributed.

It is logically valid to state:

Good craftspeople use high quality tools.
Fred is a good craftsperson.
Therefore Fred uses high quality tools.

Logically valid but not necessarily true because it doesn't state that good craftspeople ALWAYS use high quality tools.

In fact, right now I can't think of any logically valid and necessarily true construction that would prove that the quality of the tools has any true relationship to the skill of the craftsperson.

On craftspeople and tools. I was taught - "A superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which would require his superior skill" which must have been framed in an age when we assumed pilots were male. I have also taught divers and told them use rented equipment to begin with, because you don't know what you from an X until you have used an X. Car, computer, camera, dive mask, it applies to all of them.

The only logically valid and true forms I can think of is (a) Quality of craftspeople and their tools are well correlated {good divers have good dive kit, but there is also the 'all the gear and no idea' diver.} (b) In the event of a bad job, the probably of the tools being blamed is inversely proportional to the quality of the worker.

Those of us familiar with Dunning Kruger will know that the inexpert will think they are better than they are and put the blame elsewhere, and where the expert will blame their lack off skill even if the tool is really to blame. The proverb is NOT really about tools, it is about the inept not taking responsibility or seeing their own ineptitude.

---------- Post added 06-04-23 at 10:31 AM ----------

The body is far less important than the quality of the lens.

(a) In the whole history of photography, no camera body (or film) ever improved the on image the lens formed. The only time 'get a cheap lens' is good advice is in the form ('get a cheap lens to figure out what you need from an expensive one' - see my previous comment about dive gear. Owning a cheap 70-210 will tell you if you want a fast zoom, an 85 prime, a 200 prime, or a macro lens).
(b) We tend to keep lenses and change bodies. Although the rate of change of bodies has slowed. However if one sees a MILC in ones future changing over and buying native lenses rather than using adapted SLR lenses on a MILC is probably the way to go.

[northcoastgreg]

If you want to compare camera and lens models and brands you should look at the results from a test chart, preferably the original of which you have in hand. Looking at "real life" images is open to being influenced by composition, taste, and the skill of the taker - compositions, tastes and skills which are probably different from your own. Whether minor differences revealed by a test chart matter for your purposes is then up to you to judge, but all the information is there - sharpness, colour cast, aberrations, and whatever.

I suppose for those that have a mania for "accuracy," this is very good advice. The problem is that it's an accuracy that's entirely useless to me. I have no idea how the information I might observe in gazing at test charts would extrapolate to real world images---say to photos of Maroon Bells or a Nicobar Pigeon. Real images are what matter to me---test charts not at all.

I'm not sure I altogether get observation that looking at images is nothing to the purpose because it might be affected by personal "taste." Aren't all aesthetic judgments a matter of taste? But if we're pursuing aesthetic goals (photography after all is an aesthetic medium), then it follows that we must make aesthetic judgments based on our personal taste. Now some will object that personal taste on the grounds that it is subjective, but I don't see where the problem is. Even if it is subjective, it not necessarily subjective in the disparaging sense of the term. Some of these subjective tastes may be shared by others, in which case they can start to have a real importance. I have found that in my professional work and in my experience showing in galleries, color matters. It usually matters a great deal more than "sharpness." I get compliments about the color of my images all the time; I rarely get compliments about the detail. So color, even minor differences in color, is important to me because it is important to the people who buy my images online and to clients of my professional work.

[BigMackCam]

I have found that in my professional work and in my experience showing in galleries, color matters. It usually matters a great deal more than "sharpness." I get compliments about the color of my images all the time; I rarely get compliments about the detail. So color, even minor differences in color, is important to me because it is important to the people who buy my images online and to clients of my professional work.

The thing with colour reproduction in different cameras is that it's mostly due to differences in software camera profiles used by raw converters such as Lightroom, RawTherapee etc. rather than any significant difference in the sensors or in-camera image capture pipeline. It's even more noticeable if shooting JPEG, as the different manufacturers tend to favour very different looks for their in-camera profiles. However, take any of today's cameras and profile them at home using the same light source and colour chart, and you'll get near-identical output from those cameras when the respective profiles are applied...

[Rondec]

The thing with colour reproduction in different cameras is that it's mostly due to differences in software camera profiles used by raw converters such as Lightroom, RawTherapee etc. rather than any significant difference in the sensors or in-camera image capture pipeline. It's even more noticeable if shooting JPEG, as the different manufacturers tend to favour very different looks for their in-camera profiles. However, take any of today's cameras and profile them at home using the same light source and colour chart, and you'll get near-identical output from those cameras when the respective profiles are applied...

I think the big differences (as gatorguy said) have to do with lenses and not with sensors. This is mostly having to do with contrast and not so much to do with resolution. The DA 15 limited's images pop off the screen because of the contrast that you get with it as compared to some older lenses.

[BigMackCam]

I think the big differences (as gatorguy said) have to do with lenses and not with sensors. This is mostly having to do with contrast and not so much to do with resolution. The DA 15 limited's images pop off the screen because of the contrast that you get with it as compared to some older lenses.

Agreed... but of course the lens aspect is part of the whole camera profile issue too, since they're created with whatever lens the supplier of said profiles used. Unless you use the same lens as they did, the colour reproduction won't be what they intended. If they used, say, an FA50/1.4 to create the profile, the DA15 is going to appear to be very high in contrast when using that profile. If they used one of the other HD DA lenses in creating the profile, the DA15 won't look much different than "normal"...

[northcoastgreg]

Personally I think some of that is the high number of Sony users who are obsessed with sharpness. This leads to posting shots that might not be worth posting “but hey, they are sharp”.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. The common view on so many of the lens review YouTube and web sites (often more implied than explicitly stated) is that image quality is determined by the amount of detail the photographer captures. My own experience shooting with various formats (m43, APS-C, and FF) and see large prints, both my own and those of other photographers, in galleries has convinced me that's not true. The most beautiful image I've ever seen was taken with large format camera. It was beautiful not because it had tons of detail. Honestly, it didn't seem to have any more detail than some of the FF digital images in the gallery. It had all the detail it needed to produce a convincing image, but what made it special was how beautifully that detail was rendered---so life-like and real that you could almost think that you could reach into the image and touch what it represented (which was a picture of small waterfall). That to me is what constitute real image quality, not all all these images I'm seeing from Sony and Nikon lenses that have this kind of hypersharpness that looks clinical and flat and unnatural.

[northcoastgreg]

I think the big differences (as gatorguy said) have to do with lenses and not with sensors.

Yes, that is mostly true. But the issue of the sensors is a bit more compiicated. If you're using a CMOS sensor with the bayer filter array, presumably we might think they would do all color pretty much the same, but that's not been my experience. I once shot some of the DA Limiteds on an Olympus m43 camera, and I was shocked how different colors were from what I would routinely get when I shot those lenses on Pentax cameras.

Agreed... but of course the lens aspect is part of the whole camera profile issue too, since they're created with whatever lens the supplier of said profiles used.

Perhaps this is true of some software, but it's not true of the standalone LR versions which I have used nor of Darktable. When I've used the lens profile, I see no changes in color, just corrections in distortion and vignetting. Now as for camera profiles, while it's true that they can have a big impact, I find that most images I see online are using default profiles. And in addition to this, from twenty years plus years of post processing, I have found that the color and contrast I can get out a lens is generally better than what I can achieve in post. Making really subtle changes in color can be near impossible. My Tamron 70-200 is a nice lens, but it can struggle with green colors (it has a "green hole"), and there's no way to fix that in post---at least not to my satisfaction.

[UncleVanya]

Yes, that is mostly true. But the issue of the sensors is a bit more compiicated. If you're using a CMOS sensor with the bayer filter array, presumably we might think they would do all color pretty much the same, but that's not been my experience. I once shot some of the DA Limiteds on an Olympus m43 camera, and I was shocked how different colors were from what I would routinely get when I shot those lenses on Pentax cameras.

Not my experience at all. I used 5 different m43 cameras across two brands and never saw a major difference in jpg or raw colors from the Pentax lenses when used on my m43 vs my k-3.

[BigMackCam]

Perhaps this is true of some software, but it's not true of the standalone LR versions which I have used nor of Darktable. When I've used the lens profile, I see no changes in color, just corrections in distortion and vignetting. Now as for camera profiles, while it's true that they can have a big impact, I find that most images I see online are using default profiles. And in addition to this, from twenty years plus years of post processing, I have found that the color and contrast I can get out a lens is generally better than what I can achieve in post. Making really subtle changes in color can be near impossible. My Tamron 70-200 is a nice lens, but it can struggle with green colors (it has a "green hole"), and there's no way to fix that in post---at least not to my satisfaction.

I think you misunderstood my point, Greg, or perhaps I didn't present it clearly...

I wasn't suggesting that lens profiles have an impact on colour (they absolutely don't - aside from luminance values in vignetting correction, of course). Rather, I was inferring that the lens itself is an unavoidable ingredient in creation of an icc or dcp camera profile ("Input profile" in RawTherapee, "Input colour profile" in Darktable, "Profile" in Lightroom 6's "Camera Calibration" section, etc.). A so-called camera profile is really a camera-plus-lens-combo input colour profile, and using it with any other lens will probably result in slightly (or even considerably) different, less-accurate colour reproduction. We tend to forget these profiles are inextricably linked to the lenses used in creating them... and we blithely apply them to all of our images regardless of the lenses we use (often, I'm as guilty as the next person), then wonder why the colours don't always look quite right (such as your Tamron 70-200).

With your experience in post-processing, I'm sure you'll know all of the following - but give me a little rope if you will, as less-experienced members than yourself may benefit...

For the sake of argument, say Adobe ships a Pentax K-3 "Adobe Standard" profile with Lightroom and they created that profile by photographing a colour chart with a Pentax K-3 and DA50/1.8 lens. When I take photos with my K-3 and DA50/1.8 lens and apply the Adobe Standard profile in Lightroom (which happens by default), I'll see precisely the colours Adobe intended from the profiling process... but if I take the same photo with the K-3 plus my Sigma 17-50/2.8 and apply that same K-3 Adobe Standard profile (which, remember, was created with the Pentax DA50/1.8 lens), I'll see somewhat different colour rendering.

If you photograph a colour chart with your camera plus Tamron 70-200, then do the same with any other lens, and use profiling software to create colour-accurate dcp profiles for each combination, then you can apply the respective profiles whenever you use those specific lenses and you'll see virtually identical colours from both combos (an essential capability in professional product photography where accurate colour reproduction with different camera / lens combos is vital). The reason your 70-200 struggles so much with greens is almost certainly that the camera profile ("input colour profile") was created using a lens with considerably different properties in that part of the visible spectrum. Create a new colour-accurate dcp profile from a colour chart photographed with your camera + Tamron 70-200 lens, apply it to photos you take with that combo, and you won't have that "green hole" problem any more.

Going back to my previous point, where I may have inadvertently caused confusion... All this is to say that the colour reproduction from a camera is less a function of the camera itself and far more a function of the software icc or dcp camera profile, the lens used when creating that profile, and the lens used by the photographer to take his / her photos to which they subsequently apply said profile (by default or selection). As such, raw photos taken with a Pentax K-whatever and Sony A7-whatever can appear wildly different or virtually indistinguishable in colour rendering, depending on the camera profiles applied and lenses used - but it's entirely possible for the user to create profiles that will more-or-less normalise the output from any two camera / lens combos to the point where you can't tell them apart, at least so far as colour reproduction is concerned.

In a fantasy "ideal world", there'd be standardised colour-accurate icc and dcp profiles for every single camera-plus-lens combo, and every raw conversion software provider would use those profiles rather than shipping their own. That way, colour reproduction would be standardised across all cameras and lenses, providing the same starting point for user processing. As it stands, we either have to create those profiles ourselves as needed, or else - as most folks will - accept the differences we see between various camera / lens combos when using the bundled "one size fits all" profiles.

[NOTE: I use RawTherapee 5.8 & 5.9, Darktable 4.2.1 and Lightroom 6 stand-alone. The above applies to all these, and any other raw conversion tools that support user-selectable input profiles in a colour-managed workflow...]

[biz-engineer]

the Sony will be void in less than 5 years due to shrinking market, pentax will have established his niche of SLR with mirror ....so you could save you effort switching.PS: no guarantees on future oriented statements....

Pentax future predictions are rather difficult. The other day I was looking in Ricoh's video channel for the video where Ricoh explains their commitment to the future of DSLR photography, but it seems the video was removed, probably replaced by new film SLR video about future new film SLR cameras. A bit like a wet soap escape your hand as you try to catch it, the future runs further into the future before it can met with the present. As you wait to get closer to the future, the future sees you getting closer and decides to leaping forward into the future again, always keeping the distance between present and future.

[EssJayEff]

Craftsperson:Tool :: Yin:Yang

[rpjallan]

I have to say that I lost interest in this topic when it was hijacked by members wanting to discuss workmen & their tools.

Anyway, I have been thinking about what updates I would make to my Pentax gear if I decided not to go with Sony. So, last night I went to the Pentax Australia website (because that's where I live) and was very disappointed to see that 3 of the 4 lenses I was considering were all out of stock. As anyone here will tell you, it's almost impossible to go to an actual shop to see any Pentax gear. Not a very good advertisement to keep me as a customer!

[BigMackCam]

I have been thinking about what updates I would make to my Pentax gear if I decided not to go with Sony. So, last night I went to the Pentax Australia website (because that's where I live) and was very disappointed to see that 3 of the 4 lenses I was considering were all out of stock. As anyone here will tell you, it's almost impossible to go to an actual shop to see any Pentax gear. Not a very good advertisement to keep me as a customer!

I've just taken a quick look at Ricoh Imaging Australia's website, and they're currently showing just 9 lenses in stock with 43 out-of-stock. I've no idea why that's the case, but if I were you I'd look at other Pentax stockists, as I'm sure most or all of those lenses will be readily available. As for bricks 'n' mortar shops, it's mostly the same here in the UK... there aren't many that keep Pentax gear in stock. It's not an issue for me as I'm happy to buy online, but I realise it bothers some...

[rpjallan]

I've no idea why that's the case, but if I were you I'd look at other Pentax stockists, as I'm sure most or all of those lenses will be readily available.

There aren't any...

[BigMackCam]

There aren't any...

C.R. Kennedy? Here's what they have in stock currently:

Shop Pentax Camera Lenses & Accessories Online in Australia | C.R. Kennedy

Plenty of items out of stock or on back-order too, but some are showing due dates.

Then there's Camerahouse (I don't know if they're any good or not):

https://www.camerahouse.com.au/lenses/forpentax/kmount

There are a reasonable number of brand new Pentax lenses for sale on eBay.au too, from Australian sellers (some who appear to be commercial entities, others are individuals I think):

https://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=pentax+lens&_sacat=0&LH_ItemCondition=1000&Brand=PENTAX&_dcat=3323&rt=nc&LH_PrefLoc=1

Otherwise, it might be worth asking other Australian PF members how they source their equipment. We have plenty, and they don't seem shy in buying new Pentax gear!