For anyone like me that frets about how much kit to carry and what it weighs, I have just seen the solution on a BBC4 documentary about Albert Watson. He drives around Skye scouting shots whilst in a van behind are three (yes three!) assistants with all his kit. As he strides off they porter everything including a stepladder and set up his tripod, hold an umbrella, monitor the shot on a laptop and report back, and generally do what ever is needed short of pressing the button. Maybe I am more fulfilled suffering for my art!

The Pentax 15-30mm in made by Tamron using the same design but to Pentax’s specifications, coatings, no SR and weather sealing. (As related to me by a Ricoh rep at last year’s Photography Show). There is a noticeable difference in tests between the image quality of the two as a result.

Curiously the same guy elsewhere compared the Pentax K1/70-200mm combination with a Nikon 810/Tamron 70-200mm, and the Pentax performed dismally (in his test) so impartial, yes, but believable? Not sure. Sorry no link but it’s on uTube.

Ditto, and if someone glibly repeats the falsehood that the Pentax 15-30mm lens is just a rebadged Tamron then they have no credibility.

Epson have a large tank photoprinter and also Permajet sell a system of large refillable bottles for attaching to Epson photoprinters called Eco-Flo CIS. Really aimed at those requiring larger numbers of prints; costly at the outset but economical use of ink.

If you look at specialist publications like architecture magazines the shots are all by pro photographers, paid for by the practice responsible, and useable on their website to give the best possible representation of their work. Same with high end hotels for their websites. And these are pros who specialise in that field. Last year I went on a day course with one of the best, and it soon became clear why; the scenes were painstakingly tidied up, furniture and blinds aligned and straightened, lights all made to work, a focal point of interest introduced, and people grouped to best advantage. In other words once the camera was set up the scene was dressed like a film shoot which all took time. And then of course a shift lens to eliminate distortion. Placing the camera and pressing the button took moments but each shot could take half an hour or longer and that is why they get paid what they do.

Sorry to disagree, but look at any outstanding photo including those that win national or international competitions and the equipment is almost irrelevant; the effort involved in research, patience and determination are what count. Blowing several grand on equipment won’t guarantee anything. If photography isn’t your main source of income then you have the opportunity to develop, but those that have succeeded and made some money as a result have done so because of their interest or even obsession in a particular field or subject, not because they expected to cash in at the outset. Same applies to painting or any other creative field.

Even if you aren’t turning pro take a look at some of the events at The Photography Show for those wishing to turn pro as that would give some ideas for your enterprise no matter how modest. Keep receipts and records of all purchases and expenses including travel to events as these could be tax deductible to offset anything you make. Many pros are turning to training courses but it helps to make a name first, also blogs on utube if this is your thing. For mainstream work find a genre you are happy to specialise in, like pet portraits for example. Maybe consider getting an RPS after your name, it all helps credibility.

The day after I turned 70 I did my usual morning excercises and my knee joints started clicking like a Mexican band! What, already? Anyhow, joined a gym and decided to revive my very modest running; one morning recently I saw the first red kite around here so hoping for some good shots if I catch it again.

Sounds very encouraging!

Contrast with Leica’s response to similar problem:
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=126076&d=1491290969