I've read all the comments in this discussion (up until the time I started this). I think the fixation on manual is ridiculous. If I get the picture I want, it doesn't matter how I got there; if I don't get the picture I want, it's a failure, regardless of how pure my method was.

I started with a Canon FTbn, after really getting the bug from using a Nikkormat at work. I had handled and seen cameras without meters, but I counted myself fortunate to have a match-needle camera to take up 35mm photography. I went to a bullfight in Spain--I couldn't keep up with the changing exposure as the action moved from full shade to full sun and the manual focus, too--I got a lot of good pictures, but I missed a bunch, and I botched a few (film, of course). I was delighted when the A-1 came out, and I bought one as soon as I had the chance. The auto-exposure capabilities made it a much easier camera to use to capture the picture I wanted under changing lighting; it made no difference at all in how I evaluated my settings when I was not dealing with varying light. The split focus screen with the microprism was a good focusing system in good light when speed was not critical, but left a lot to be desired in low light or with fast-moving subjects.

When I first bought a DSLR, I stuck with Canon, a 20D, and its kit lens. I happily used it for several years, adding a telephoto lens; I was given a EF 24-105mm, and pretty much moved to it. I had occasional moments of envy of friends with a 5D; I finally bought a 5D Mark III. It had, and still has, a dizzying array of options and settings to understand and use. I used it for the last five years and have been very pleased with it, and with the pictures I could capture, but disappointment with some failures. I happened to experiment with the 20D again last year--I was appalled to be reminded that I had taken pictures for seven years with a max ISO of 1600 (and a noisy max at that) and lived with the inherent limitations. I am still frustrated with autofocus sometimes, even as good as the 5D Mark III is most of the time--the manual focus clues are not nearly good enough with older eyes and bifocals.

I generally use the P mode, choosing an ISO that matches the lighting, until that mode does not give me the settings I think I need to end up with the picture I want. I switch to whichever mode makes it easy for me to set what I want fixed and adjust the setting I am willing to vary. I rely on autofocus--I am just now learning how to use all the various options in my camera to help me with the autofocus under other than average circumstances--but when it doesn't work, I have the workarounds I need to get what I want. I use exposure compensation as I think circumstances require, and add the exposure and metering lock techniques as needed to create the results I want.

It never bothered me when I was flying that I used a jet and all the technology built into the navigation systems to get where I was going; I didn't mind giving up the simple single-engine plane where I first learned to fly for the advantages of power, speed, range, and adverse weather options in the much more advanced jets. Nobody I worked for cared that the flying was not "manual," they just looked at the results. Likewise, in helicopters, I never minded that I jumped straight to the automated throttle, power controls, and hydraulics of a modern jet-engined chopper instead of having a manual throttle, unassisted physical flight controls, and no instruments for flying in the weather--all that equipment and advanced technology made achieving the goals in using the helicopters possible. Making the flying easier made mission accomplishment much more likely, compared with the capabilities of the rudimentary beginnings of flight.

I have no desire to go back to the stick-shift for driving, either, or to give up air conditioning, radio/CD/Bluetooth, cell phones, or power steering in my cars, although I was thrilled to learn on vehicles without all those amenities. I like going where I want in comfort and relative luxury.

Similarly, I will use whatever helps me get the picture I want; I know how to adapt to achieve that end, but I don't see any need to tax my attention with unnecessary manipulations just to claim I am shooting "manual." I have every intention of adding the capabilities of more advanced cameras to my toolkit, if I last long enough to want another one.

The result is the measure of a photographer, not the tools.

I was pointing out that without the ability of a lens to do down below the 3.x or 4.x range, you CAN'T use the chart that was provided.

It just happens that most "Kit" lenses don't have that capability. The quality of the glass in a "Kit" lens just doesn't compare with a lens of better quality.

The better glass you shoot with, the sharper your resulting image will be.

I know that my 2 "Kit" lenses won't be able to capture as good a quality image as an EF or an L lens will get.

I've known for over a year that it's time for me to upgrade them. That was clear as soon as I received my 100-400 L lens as a gift. I won't even mount my middle range lens the 55-250 on my camera any longer. It's a total waste of time and effort because none of the shots are worth keeping. I failed to do my research before making that impulse purchase.

Consider that most that upgrade from their iPHONE are used to point and shoot...That said, their expectations are that a DSLR will be as easy. To learn how to adjust exposure takes a knowledge of what light is. If you are going to capture what you see with your eyes you need to know how a mechanical device such as a camera works. Some new DSLR photographers, do want to take better pictures, & use fully/semi automatic modes, which is ok, and it doesn't require a learning curve. Most beginners use "P" mode to start. Todays cameras take great photos in auto modes, and for some there is no need to learn about other modes, & why they are necessary... There are those also that are curious about why a camera has other modes. It takes for some losing a great shot, to ask what did I do wrong? That is the motivator to learn more about light and how a camera captures exposure. Other than that, a newbie can be quite satisfied with their photos. I am in the camp where I have to know everything about a camera and exposure.

On page 5 of this thread the concept of 'photographic snobbery' was introduced. I consider the term kit lens to fall in the same category, it is derogatory and frequently misplaced.

My first 'serious' cameras came with kit lenses. The first was a 58mm f/2.0 lens, and it is still a nice and useful piece of glass. My next camera came with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Both are good lenses and don't meet your 'dismissive' kit lens descriptions.

Technology changes. Today's lenses are more frequently zooms than primes, which makes smaller minimum apertures more of a standard thing. It changes the optical characteristics, but optical quality can still be very high.

A 'kit' lens is merely something that is bundled with a camera body and may be other things. It has no meaning other than an aggregation of parts. It has no separate existence unless it is only available as part of a bundle. They may exist, but I'm not aware of any. In fact, the inclusion in a kit allows for higher quality as a result of volume economics.

If you look at some of the Canon 'kit' offerings, they include some lenses such as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM which is by far from a poor quality lens or one that deserves a derogatory designation.

The term 'kit lens' is absolutely derogatory and part of 'photographic snobbery'. You , Sir, are part of 'photographic snobbery'.