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: John McWilliams on 21 Jun 2010 21:19 Rich wrote: > John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in >> 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. > It's hard to believe that this old set of shibboleths is being trotted out and vetted again. -- john mcwilliams
From: Robert Coe on 21 Jun 2010 22:55 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:44:21 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: : On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in : <ccd9a097-d27c-4940-8488-d3124e49cd48(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, : RichA <rander3127(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? John, John, John. If you have to ask, you probably don't know. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 21 Jun 2010 22:58 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:23:44 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: : On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in : <87351056-2e43-4c5c-b33d-c1d2a42d014c(a)d4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, : RichA <rander3127(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. How dare you, sir? I spent more than $600 on my wide-angle lens. If that doesn't count for something, there's no justice in the world! Bob
From: Robert Coe on 21 Jun 2010 23:03 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(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. Damn me, Rich, I thought the actual purpose of a wide-angle lens was to allow me to photograph an entire large building from the roof af a building across the street. If that's not true, I have to wonder whether I'm nothing but a rank amateur! :^| Bob
From: Jeff Jones on 22 Jun 2010 01:02
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:58:16 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:23:44 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >: On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in >: <87351056-2e43-4c5c-b33d-c1d2a42d014c(a)d4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, >: RichA <rander3127(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. > >How dare you, sir? I spent more than $600 on my wide-angle lens. If that >doesn't count for something, there's no justice in the world! > >Bob It only counts in your bank-balance and the bank-balance of the company you bought it from. Well, the CEO's bean-counters count it too. I guess that's some kind of "justice". |