How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: Bruce on 21 Jun 2010 16:17 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:51:48 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: > >BTW, I didn't realize different brand m4/3 lenses were actually >compatible for electrical connections, metering, AF, etc... That's got >to be a first in the industry, ever. > >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547 There have been incompatibilities, especially with Olympus lenses used on Panasonic bodies. However, the co-operation between the two companies to solve these problems has been particularly impressive. It's a pity that there are no third party manufacturers making a range of lenses for Four Thirds. Yes, I know about Sigma, but the lenses are adaptations of Sigma lenses for other formats, particularly APS-C, rather than being designed from scratch for Four Thirds. Given that Four Thirds is an open standard, a third party manufacturer who produced a range of high quality lenses for [Micro] Four Thirds might do very well out of it.
From: nospam on 21 Jun 2010 17:22 In article <gs7v165dcdcsosaknrhb72s06tbnn8pqup(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > The only way to tell to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a > pro, is to look at their images. Equipment is irrelevant, except to > those who mistakenly think great equipment will make them great > photographers. It won't. What matters is the photographer, not the > equipment. the photographer does matter, but equipment is not irrelevant. knowing when to use a particular camera and/or lens is a skill that seasoned amateurs and pros should have (but not all do, sadly).
From: RichA on 21 Jun 2010 17:33 On Jun 21, 2:19 pm, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote: > Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras. > At some point in the near future, pro will no longer always include bulk.
From: RichA on 21 Jun 2010 17:34 On Jun 21, 3:51 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > RichA wrote: > > The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made > > later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the > > 9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The > > Olympus is a kit lens. 14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never > > meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant > > for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not > > frigging "street shooting" lenses. We've become spoiled because these > > kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices > > until recently (the last 10 years or so). Prior to that, they were > > high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's > > bag. It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue > > as to their actual purpose. > > I don't know what you're rambling on about. People walk around with > whatever lens that pleases them. The Oly is apparently compact, which is > great for walking around with a small camera street shooting, and costs > less, which is the other point of m4/3. I love wide angle street > shooting at 12mm FF. The demo pics are not award winning high art but > nothing wrong with them either and I didn't see where they claimed to be > pro. > > BTW, I didn't realize different brand m4/3 lenses were actually > compatible for electrical connections, metering, AF, etc... That's got > to be a first in the industry, ever. > > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547 Them, and some 4/3rds lenses are.
From: RichA on 21 Jun 2010 17:36
On Jun 21, 1:23 pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in > <87351056-2e43-4c5c-b33d-c1d2a42d0...(a)d4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > > > RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in > >> <ccd9a097-d27c-4940-8488-d3124e49c...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made > >> >later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the > >> >9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The > >> >Olympus is a kit lens. 14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never > >> >meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant > >> >for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not > >> >frigging "street shooting" lenses. We've become spoiled because these > >> >kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices > >> >until recently (the last 10 years or so). Prior to that, they were > >> >high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's > >> >bag. It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue > >> >as to their actual purpose. > > >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547 > > >> This matters ... why? > > >Because it's there? Why does anything matter? > > I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation. > > The only way to tell to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a > pro, is to look at their images. Equipment is irrelevant, except to > those who mistakenly think great equipment will make them great > photographers. It won't. What matters is the photographer, not the > equipment. Go shoot an image with a cheap P&S. Use whatever compositional skills you have. It'll still suck technically and there is nothing you could do to prevent it because the equipment would fall short. |