Pentax 645Z - oh boy!

[Shashin]

The obvious association of "pro" is "high level", but in reality it will not be difficult to find some amateurs who produce images better than some pros.

That is a modern inflection on the word "pro." It was not that long ago when the amateur (coming from the Latin to love or lover) was considered the superior position. Pros, after all, were just doing it for the money. And the recognition of commercial art as fine art is also very recent. (Depending on the period in history, both "amateur" and "professional" were used as pejoratives.)

There are two problems with the idea of finding the amateur that is "better." How do you grade "better" in a work of art? And is a particular photograph indicative of the photographer's work, or an outlier. One part of mastering an art form, and I think that is a better expression in regards to this, is that the photographer consistently does good work. Many people that derive a living from photography are consistent.

Now, the idea that pros are somehow at a pinnacle of the art is really too narrow a definition and not one that is true. The photographers that run Sears photo portrait studios are pros, but there are certainly better examples of portraits. Julia Margaret Cameron was an amateur. Many of who we think are great photographers subsidized their photography with other jobs or can simply afford it.

Personally, I think the idea of mastery is much better. It has nothing to do with personal taste, but a level of execution that is consistent and high. It also goes beyond what you like or dislike--believe it or not, quality in photography is not obvious (pictures of cute fuzzy animals and half naked beautiful people being the apparent exception), it is a lot tricker than that.

The tools are important in two ways. They do not hamper the way you work and they provide a quality and look you want. That is it. It does not matter if that is a Holga, MFD, cell phone, 8x10 monorail, or pinhole camera. Now, if we were really honest, photographers would admit the real reason they buy a particular camera is because they think it is cool, but that would be a hard sell to the significant other--justification is just the rationalization of desire.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I do buy cameras that I like as well but it is mostly driven by what I can do with it or features that help me produce better. Focus peaking for example has nothing to do with the client but it helps me be more accurate. So yes tools are a good part of what drives the boat and they do help us in many ways. On the client side it makes no difference in general what you used to do it as long as the gear can produce technically great images. Now I will say some clients do like our MF monsters to be used on there projects and it does say something about you as a working Pro that you care enough to produce images with the best gear around. It means your serious about what you do and represent yourself. Some may argue that point but it does matter just like it does matter showing up in a pair of shorts and tee shirt to a corporate event. Its all about how you represent yourself to your client. Bottom line you need to look good and one can argue this one all day long but I would not want a sloppy photographer shooting my daughters wedding come next February. I'll send the bozo home. LOL

Now shooting for clients is the same mentality you do what they ask as there writing the checks plan and simple your working for the man. Now that does not mean and a I know I do it on every shoot is interject your thoughts on how it should be done or look and or make suggestions on angle, lighting and style of a image. You are getting paid here for your art and your professional experience. So usually that input is wanted, needed and accepted. But you need also to do this in a Professional manner instead of being a *** about it and say for example I am only shooting it from this angle or something like that and ignoring the clients needs. I promise you you won't be back. I have very long term clients and reason is that I produce images that the clients need in a environment that is professional, friendly and with team work between client and photographer to accomplish what the clients needs are. You do that every time and represent yourself in a professional way than you will be back. In all of this your still putting your stamp of what you like in those images but one must remember always and this is important. Your working for pay and ultimately the client always has to win.

Now that's what a consider the definition of the word Pro. Talented artistic with a great style but handles themselves to serve there clients needs in the most respectable way about it and create long term relationships that work in a team environment to reach the end goal. And important here represent yourself in a Professional manner. I have a long list on how to do that and it involves you as a person as being a really nice guy or girl on a personal level.

Old saying here and maybe a over cooked one but the fact remains its far easier to be nice than being a *** and much more profitable.

 

[fotografz]

The distinction between pro and amateur (or enthusiasts if you prefer), is not difficult nor complex.

A pro is provided purpose and gets paid to full-fill that purpose. The amateur defines their own purpose … they can sell their results as art, but the buyer didn't provide the purpose before hand.

Personally and professionally, I don't buy gear just because it is "cool". Nothing cool about $100K in Hasselblad H gear … what would be cool is a $100K Porsche,:thumbup: … or a beach shack in Belize.:thumbs:

- Marc

 

[shlomi]

I think we can walk away from the word "cool", because that's not where it's really at.
I think we need to ask ourselves the question: what do we love more, the equipment, or taking pictures.
I think in a forum like this one, there would be many for the latter.
Not that anyone would admit it in public.
Or that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[tsjanik]

Interesting Ricoh page on the 645Z. I enjoyed the comments from the engineers and the refreshing lack of hyperbole. The text is certainly translated from the Japanese; the English version looks to have produced by the equivalent Google translate. Pentax has never had the most sophisticated advertising; kind of charming really.

Tom

PENTAX 645Z Special site | RICOH IMAGING

 

[Shashin]

Tom, that is great and classic lets-translate-the-Japanese-literally-into-English-with-someone-not-knowing-photographic-vocabulary thing.

 

[wryphotography]

The distinction between pro and amateur (or enthusiasts if you prefer), is not difficult nor complex.

A pro is provided purpose and gets paid to full-fill that purpose. The amateur defines their own purpose … they can sell their results as art, but the buyer didn't provide the purpose before hand.

Personally and professionally, I don't buy gear just because it is "cool". Nothing cool about $100K in Hasselblad H gear … what would be cool is a $100K Porsche,:thumbup: … or a beach shack in Belize.:thumbs:

- Marc

i just want to say, that this whole debate is asinine and really rates as who cares? However, your definition is narrow. As there are lots of "pro" photographers that go out and shoot wildlife and landscapes and then sell their work, full time. Your definition implies that someone has to pay a photographer to go out and shoot for them to be a pro.

 

[Shashin]

Personally and professionally, I don't buy gear just because it is "cool". Nothing cool about $100K in Hasselblad H gear … what would be cool is a $100K Porsche,:thumbup: … or a beach shack in Belize.:thumbs:

- Marc

No, not "just." And for certain type of photography there are legitimate technical considerations. But when you line up a bunch of cameras that are essentially the same, what is the final arbiter of the purchase? And if GetDPI is any indication, when a new camera comes out followed by a huge numbers of pre-orders, I think drool is a bigger motivator than hunger. Now, if someone had a great H system and it was performing all the tasks it needed to, what is the motivation, at least in part, for a Leica S?

Don't get me wrong, I think this type of superficiality is really important. I can see why you would want to buy an S. And I did qualify that it had to work well for the photographer and realize a certain quality/look in the images. But the reason Pentax is not the death of the DF nor H is not on the spec sheet, is because of the coolness factor--those intangible qualities that drive our choices.

I don't mind admitting my superficiality. I loved shooting square. I had a perfectly adequate square camera. But that did not mean my eyes did not wander. And then one day the "perfect" square camera came out. I used it as my primary camera for over a decade. Made great work. It never let me down. But if I were rationally buying a 6x6 system, I would never have bought a Mamiya 6 as there are "better" systems/cameras out there for 6x6. Now, I could come up with all kinds of reasons why 6x6, why a rangefinder, why leaf shutters--you hear these reasons all the time. But none of that actually means I could not have done the same work with a different camera, a more practical camera. The Mamiya 6 just caught my fancy, my imagination. It was and is the bee's knees and it felt so great shooting it.

Marc, you may be impervious to these intangibles, I don't know. Most of my photographer friends and the folks here at GetDPI seems to be in love, or at least like, the equipment they shoot, even if they need certain professional or technical considerations. Many will accept the limitations of their choice to work with this equipment--Alpa TC, for example. If desire/coolness is not driving the choice, then what is?

I have found the only time folks are practical is when they are buying garbage bags...

 

[Shashin]

I think we can walk away from the word "cool", because that's not where it's really at.
I think we need to ask ourselves the question: what do we love more, the equipment, or taking pictures.
I think in a forum like this one, there would be many for the latter.
Not that anyone would admit it in public.
Or that there's anything wrong with that.

You don't think photography is cool? You don't think the tools we use are cool? I guess I might be unique here. I love photography. It has been the one constant thing in my life. I also can't imagine a social forum that revolves around photograph would be populated by people that don't think anything related to it is not cool.

It is not which is more cool, the stuff or the art. They are inseparable. Some folks really like the gear, and that is great. Others lean the other way. But it is still a continuum that needs both ends. It really does not matter where you are on this scale simply because you are here for the fun of it, no matter how "seriously" you take this "fun."

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well let's face some facts we are all gear whores. At least generally speaking be it Pro or not. The difference is a Pro should justify the ROI and use of the gear. Noticed I said should, not all of us do that. Guilty to a certain degree.

The hobbyist on the other hand has no one to justify a gear purchase except maybe there spouse. So certainly a lot more freedom on purchases on wants and needs. I'm forced to buy certain gear for example. Mid range zoom for example. Hate them but I need them

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Given the luck you've had with all three brands of MFD kits, the Pentax folks should pray that you do NOT buy one of their cameras

- Marc

Careful with assumptions... only the H4D had quality control issues, the others were either insanely overpriced for what they produced or just cheap. The Pentax is certainly worthy of consideration for MFD.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think the bottom line here on the Pentax in general it opens some doors in the market that may not have been around for a lot of us. A Leica S system , phase system and Hassy system are all expensive and only certain needs and financial ability would a lot of folks look to buy them. We all know that percentage of market is small. This price point on Pentax offers a unique market split that a bigger percentage will look at. It will regardless of money and let's say you can afford the other three without blinking a eye but will still view the Pentax on a feature level more and maybe more appealing. The 35mm folks looking to jump in may see the Pentax as a very good enter point over there DSLR system and will stretch the budget some and also not lose what there 35mm can do feature wise. So this will tap different markets better than maybe anything else as it rides the borderline of running the middle of these markets and not so expensive to jump in and others to grab some features that the bigger guns don't have. Again the bigger boys need to wake up this is a threat and not sure how you cut the cheese its a much bigger threat than it was on the original Pentax.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

i just want to say, that this whole debate is asinine and really rates as who cares? However, your definition is narrow. As there are lots of "pro" photographers that go out and shoot wildlife and landscapes and then sell their work, full time. Your definition implies that someone has to pay a photographer to go out and shoot for them to be a pro.

+1!!!

Excellent Point!

 

[stephengilbert]

I don't have the patience to read all of these posts, but,

Isn't there a difference between "pro photographers" and "pro gear?" Whether or not a person can only be a pro when he or she earns a living taking pictures, it seems clear that equipment can be "pro" whoever uses it. I own a couple of things that are pro gear, but I'm far from a pro.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I don't have the patience to read all of these posts, but,

Isn't there a difference between "pro photographers" and "pro gear?" Whether or not a person can only be a pro when he or she earns a living taking pictures, it seems clear that equipment can be "pro" whoever uses it. I own a couple of things that are pro gear, but I'm far from a pro.

That's true, although conversely gear such as the $100 dollar Holga can be used by pros too and prints sold for a tidy sum. I'd put the emphasis on "only". The Pentax 645D/Z is certainly a "pro" camera that in capable hands, can compete with most any closed DB MFD camera on the market today.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess this is true unless:

• Comparison is made with a high en back having 80 or so MP
• A removable back is needed that can be used on a technical camera

Best regards
Erik

… The Pentax 645D/Z is certainly a "pro" camera that in capable hands, can compete with any MFD camera on the market today.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Same could be said for a Leica S or for that matter any DSLR on the market.

I think the best way to describe Pro gear is more about build quality, service, support and system. We really can't tag a photographer to it. I'm a Pro and I don't consider my Sonys Pro gear. Now I agree its a very lose definition and back in the day it was a OEM tag that meant built to withstand daily use by working Pros . Now hobbyists do that too so you attaching the word Pro to gear was probably a bad idea. It was really meant built for heavy use or something of that nature. At least that's the way I view it or even shutter life.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Hi,

I guess this is true unless:

• Comparison is made with a high en back having 80 or so MP
• A removable back is needed that can be used on a technical camera

Best regards
Erik

You're right Erik,

I corrected my comment...thanks!

 

[fotografz]

i just want to say, that this whole debate is asinine and really rates as who cares? However, your definition is narrow. As there are lots of "pro" photographers that go out and shoot wildlife and landscapes and then sell their work, full time. Your definition implies that someone has to pay a photographer to go out and shoot for them to be a pro.

That's true. The Art photography segment can be and is a profession.

I was confining it to the commercial pursuits being discussed, but you are right it can be more than that. I should have said a great part of pro "purpose" is to sell the work being done.

However, calling the whole discussion asinine is a bit over the top for this friendly site … :thumbdown:

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

To be fair, perhaps the comment was also a refection of how off topic this thread has become.