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: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 21 Jun 2010 18:27 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:36:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. I guess that's why P&S cameras compared to DSLRs beat DSLRs and a keep paces with a medium format Hasselblad. <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/> Your obsessive-compulsive psychoses run deep.
From: krishnananda on 21 Jun 2010 19:13 In article <CuidnVWtiOlEX4LRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Paul Furman <paul-@-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. I was beginning to worry that there was something wrong with me ... I've been "walking around" with ultra wide-angle lenses since my first 21mm Super Angulon on a Leica M3 in 1983. I also walk around with the smallest Hasselblad -- the SuperWide 38mm non-retrofocus true wide angle. It has the added benefit of looking nothing like a camera to most people so street shooting is easy. Wen Cosina bought the Voigtlander name and came out with their first 15mm, that went on one body nearly permanently. And their 12mm also occupies a place in my camera bag. And the best part is that all these lenses work perfectly on the M8.2. I'm glad I can continue to walk around with super-wides. I'd hate to have to switch to 1,000mm mirror lenses...
From: John Navas on 21 Jun 2010 19:34 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:36:50 -0700 (PDT), in <25433a63-5ac1-470d-9dd6-6f067942179a(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 21, 1:23�pm, John Navas <jn...(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. > >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. While really "cheap" P&S do have their limitations, affordable P&S (compact digital) cameras are now easily capable of producing excellent images. When something falls short, it's the photographer, not the eequipment. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Rich on 21 Jun 2010 19:48 John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in news:mktv16t6qcrgeu0cdi5epjp2efkogvcfsi(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:36:50 -0700 (PDT), in > <25433a63-5ac1-470d-9dd6-6f067942179a(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Jun 21, 1:23�pm, John Navas <jn...(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. >> >>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. > > While really "cheap" P&S do have their limitations, affordable P&S > (compact digital) cameras are now easily capable of producing excellent > images. When something falls short, it's the photographer, not the > eequipment. > Go shoot a close-in sports even and say that. All equipment has limitations, some a lot more than others and the photographer (no matter how good) is at a disadvantage because of it.
From: Rich on 21 Jun 2010 19:49
krishnananda <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote in news:krishna-86269E.19131821062010(a)news.eternal-september.org: > In article <CuidnVWtiOlEX4LRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > Paul Furman <paul-@-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. > > I was beginning to worry that there was something wrong with me ... > I've been "walking around" with ultra wide-angle lenses since my first > 21mm Super Angulon on a Leica M3 in 1983. I also walk around with the > smallest Hasselblad -- the SuperWide 38mm non-retrofocus true wide > angle. It has the added benefit of looking nothing like a camera to > most people so street shooting is easy. Wen Cosina bought the > Voigtlander name and came out with their first 15mm, that went on one > body nearly permanently. And their 12mm also occupies a place in my > camera bag. > > And the best part is that all these lenses work perfectly on the M8.2. > > I'm glad I can continue to walk around with super-wides. I'd hate to > have to switch to 1,000mm mirror lenses... > Histrionics will get you nowhere. A 12mm on FF is not a street lens. |