Your view on optic quality vs practicality?

Forums › Digital Imaging › Your view on optic quality vs practicality?

1 | 2 | 3

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#876166 12-Aug-2013 23:11

like I said I spent maybe 1000us on glass but more on tripods first a series two gitzo then a gitzo traveler when they came out, landscape cityscape is all I do sunrise sunset twilight not so much a walkabout type or people type you get to grab the shutter to 30 sec and get the streaks or even in daylight and u get a icon blur like the Wellington bus or the yellow cab in Melbourne.like bob krist. drop in a nd filter.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#876179 12-Aug-2013 23:59

rayonline:
like I said I spent maybe 1000us on glass but more on tripods first a series two gitzo then a gitzo traveler when they came out, landscape cityscape is all I do sunrise sunset twilight not so much a walkabout type or people type you get to grab the shutter to 30 sec and get the streaks or even in daylight and u get a icon blur like the Wellington bus or the yellow cab in Melbourne.like bob krist. drop in a nd filter.

Just handhold and pan the shot. No tripod required for that.

I own a Gitzo Ocean Traveller which, in two years, has never been outside...!

I took one to India for 5 weeks and never got it out of the bag. Quite literally.

Whatever works for you, but to me they are a monumental PITA except in VERY limited cases. I have a Lee Big Stopper I use sometimes for landscape (which is a 10 stop long exposure filter) and for that a tripod is essential. An exposure that would be 2 seconds long without the Big Stopper is 32 minutes long with it!

A monopod for long glass (ie over 300 f2.8) is pretty much essential unless you have arms like Arnold Schwarzenegger however...! I sold my Nikkor 300 f2.8 though as I found it was too short for wildlife and too heavy for much else.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#881065 19-Aug-2013 15:35

I'm coming into what may be the end of this discussion, but thoughts...

Yeah, Primes offer better sharpness, no doubts. They're certainly not fashionable any more, considering every standard 35mm camera had one bolted to the front at one stage. I got a 35mm to mimic the 50mm field of view on my APS-C crop body. I love it, and for video etc, with the fashionable shallow depth of field it's awesome.

One thing though, is that the lower aperture ranges do produce a tiny depth of field, which may or may not work in the low light. I always found that a funny thing that was overlooked. Yes they can allow you to photograph in lower light, but the resulting shot may not be what you had in mind given the tiny depth of field you're then restricted too. As Timmmay mentions above, these days you may have to boost your ISO, even if that feels awkward, or use a decent flash.

All in all, there are certain tasks, situations, subjects where you'll just have to spend money to photography well. As mentioned above, 300mm is not enough for nature shots, or the moon. It will cost a lot to get a low F value zoom for weddings, or one that's a constant aperture throughout the zoom range etc. Some situations are just going to cost money.

Soo, given advances in everything, some of the clever compacts are really going to come into their own.
The RX-100 gets rave reviews and there are similar units on the horizon. It's all quite exciting really.

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/nz/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-footage-hook/

Right now, I'm on a prime roll.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881203 19-Aug-2013 20:09

Jaxson: I'm coming into what may be the end of this discussion, but thoughts...

Yeah, Primes offer better sharpness, no doubts. They're certainly not fashionable any more, considering every standard 35mm camera had one bolted to the front at one stage.

Among wedding photographers it seems fashionable to say "I shoot with primes", like you're somehow better for not needing zooms.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#881267 19-Aug-2013 21:49

timmmay:
Jaxson: I'm coming into what may be the end of this discussion, but thoughts...

Yeah, Primes offer better sharpness, no doubts. They're certainly not fashionable any more, considering every standard 35mm camera had one bolted to the front at one stage.

Among wedding photographers it seems fashionable to say "I shoot with primes", like you're somehow better for not needing zooms.

That's a bit of a laugh when you can get a zoom f2.8 that travels right through most desired zoom ranges.

I love primes, but only if you're able to move yourself. I would imagine trying to use fixed zoom prime lens at a wedding would lead to the photographer being far more intrusive than if they could zoom to frame with a quality low f zoom lens.

F1.4 sounds cool but can be soft at that aperture often and more importantly the narrow depth of field can be a pain in the as too! Horses for courses as they say. For me primes appealed as a cheaper way to use old manual focus glass to get good quality optics at a cheaper price.

alasta

6702 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#881270 19-Aug-2013 21:53

Jaxson: That's a bit of a laugh when you can get a zoom f2.8 that travels right through most desired zoom ranges.

Which is fine if you're a professional, but for a hobbiest constant aperture zooms are prohibitively expensive.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#881275 19-Aug-2013 22:00

I have yet to get my old fashion 35-70 2.8 push/pull lens. I could not stomach the cost of the 24-70 2.8 or a used 28-70. However many hobbyists from my camera club do or should I use the word amateur but hobbyist sounds a bit more accurate. Well it is like 2x fancy Smartphones so all in perspectives .... I can get a decent deal elsewhere so i don't. Should be a nice people lens, kids don't like it when you take too long, lol. I had been using a 50mm then a 85mm than a 18-35mm zoom, haha. But I like primes, I don't not believe that modern zooms are better than primes in optics but ... there is no way I am carrying 2.8 zooms on a photography travel excursion. The primes are so nice and small ... esp with a consumer size body. And with Nikon you can get manual focus lenses which are cheaper, but both with the not so new AF primes. The current primes are larger that I don't like, even a humble 50mm 1.8 nowdays comes with a 55mm thread or something ....

And I am just getting into black and white film in processing yet, not sure about wet prints yet. It more involved than digital IMO you cannot take a more laid back approach ie using that rear LCD or use non destructive RAW software. So it's more fun .... more explorative. Using mainly color slides at the moment. Would like a Hasselblad, but on 2nd thoughts, maybe instead of my D600 I shoulda got a used Hasselblad and a studio light kit.......

I find the newer dSLRs better for the color, WB, better noise for a varity of different stuff even the crop sensors over say a 10yr old camera that I had before. But for tripod work like cityscapes and landscapes I do, the color is different but could be spent in post processing more. But in terms of the grain, sharpness, for A4 or A3 prints on tripod the old camera was v good too ....

Edit - I dunno how true but on photography forums they say that hobbyists spend more on gears than pro's in general. At times gear might be issued to journalists maybe. Other times some pro's buy used gear and don't upgrade that often. There are a lot of gear heads at least on some photography forums. In a way to shoot film, maybe I could just enjoy photography without getting dragged into the latest gears et al ... everyone talks about it, on forums and in a photography club. After someone gives a presentation there is always that question someone asks "what gear did you use". Haha.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881285 19-Aug-2013 22:40

I bought my gear then stopped. Not sure what it cost, two cameras D700 three good constant aperture zooms, cheap prime and flashes, not including all the lighting and random stuff. I only buy more gear if something breaks or I need another capability. May get an 85 prime one day, 1.4. Gear isn't what limits me.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881336 20-Aug-2013 08:12

alasta:
Jaxson: That's a bit of a laugh when you can get a zoom f2.8 that travels right through most desired zoom ranges.

Which is fine if you're a professional, but for a hobbiest constant aperture zooms are prohibitively expensive.

Hmm. I know several hobbyists who use camera kits that cost over $100,000....!

Don't assume all hobbyists are poor. That may be true in NZ but in the USA and elsewhere in the world I can assure you it is not. More Leica cameras are owned by rich dentists than professional photographers for sure.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#881376 20-Aug-2013 09:20

Leica film bodies have come a lot down now ... even the digital bodies are not that expensive compared to top level Canon/Nikons but the lenses are more ... I can see how some people enjoy them, they are so much more portable, a old timer from my club has a Leica film body, his old one broke so he got a used one off eBay for a lil more than a $1000. Probably a Leica III or something without a light meter...

4yrs ago when I was in Singapore I bumped into a local and he said he wasn't a pro. He had with him 2x sets of Hasselblad H series with the digital back, he and his son were shooting night scapes and the wife came out for a walk .....

But yeah people do upgrade from prev 2.8 zooms to current line and hey many of them now - the nano Nikon zooms are already 8yrs old like the 24-70 from introduction so I guess in a few more yrs it will get an update too and again goes the cycle. The 24-70 was about 25-30% more than the former 28-70 so I expect the newer one will cost more than the 24-70. Similarly the 70-200 2.8 AFS VRII Nano was more than the first VR version (non nano) and that was more than the AFS non-VR and again was more than than the AF-D non-VR. The gear head kit is basically Nikon D800, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, 85 1.4, 24 1.4, AFS VR macro yeah its got to be that eh ... AFS and all those techno acronyms.

You pick a lens like the 70-200mm and some photography forum moderator overseas is an amateur, he works in IT AT&T or something, he's had 3x diff versions of that that lens, haha and 2x diff versions of the mid zoom, haha, some people even upgrade tripod versions from series I to series II and we're talking about the carbon ones - woah. Or from the 50AFD to 50 AFS G. Of course they read into the test reports etc ...

Comes to think of it, many pro's do use 3rd lenses to get the job done .....

I am too poor, I would just get old style AFD lenses or even AF without the D, manual focus lenses, hahah. None of my film lenses are AFS or VR. Other than my Sigma crop sensor to get the the wide 10-20 and the nifty little 35 crop sensor lens.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881380 20-Aug-2013 09:25

Lecia took the Sony RX100, slapped a different case around it, and tripled the price. That took my opinion of Leica way down.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881389 20-Aug-2013 09:38

timmmay: Lecia took the Sony RX100, slapped a different case around it, and tripled the price. That took my opinion of Leica way down.

Try shooting an S2. Your opinion will go way back up. If you have $50k or so. Or an M9.

I'm talking about REAL Leicas, not the point/shoot variety.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881394 20-Aug-2013 09:43

Geektastic:
timmmay: Lecia took the Sony RX100, slapped a different case around it, and tripled the price. That took my opinion of Leica way down.

Try shooting an S2. Your opinion will go way back up. If you have $50k or so. Or an M9.

I'm talking about REAL Leicas, not the point/shoot variety.

I can do better than that, I can shoot an S4 and it only cost $1000 ;)

For what I do D700s are more than enough. You need cameras with fast accurate AF more than super resolution, since I rarely want to go over an 18" print.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#881415 20-Aug-2013 10:10

It's true that a lot of professionals don't necessarily have the latest release camera bodies. After all, it's the lens that provides the image that the camera body captures. Yes there's auto focus etc obviously, but sooner or later what you do with it becomes the real focus. Man, that's like nearly a pun there. If you're talking time critical situations like weddings etc, then you'll need multiple bodies to prevent the downtime during lens changes.

I'm trying to think of a clever line here, but yeah:

"Cameras don't make cool photos and videos, People do"

I think by all means go all gear head when you're buying gear, but once you've got it, go out and use it. Something like cameras are tools, and just owning one isn't the end of the race, it's just the beginning. Something like that. Forums can be good for knowing a products strengths and weaknesses in advance, but turning into a gear pssing contest is a bit silly, given someone else is out there doing something cooler with 'lesser' gear.

I watched a video on 'hyper lapse' recently on Vimeo. I'll find a link later, but basically this guy took a photo and then moved his tripod 40 cm and took another one. So you end up with hundreds of shots like a normal time lapse, but where the camera appears to float slowly through the crowd etc. It was awesome, and didn't take any fancy equipment. Whilst he's out there doing that, some guys getting all bent out of shape that the latest consumer canon etc can do extended ISO to 25,600, or pointing out that a $50,000 Leica is better etc.

eg: https://vimeo.com/71501596

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#881420 20-Aug-2013 10:18

Cameras and lenses are tools to a professional. A better tool can help, sometimes, but not as much as many people would think. People skills and relationship development makes more difference, as does lighting, scouting, etc.

Also two bodies doesn't prevent downtime during lens changes, when you're changing a lens you can't use the other camera as your hands are busy. Two bodies is for when breaks or gets stolen. Three bodies is more professional.

1 | 2 | 3