good glass
Feb 10, 2014 18:04:19 #
amehta wrote:
I think the photographer, camera, and lens should be of comparable quality for the most efficient results. If on is much weaker than the others, it needs to be upgraded to match the others. If one is much stronger than the others, it will generally be wasted.
The best photographer will not create masterpieces with poor equipment. And Tiger Woods will not win the Masters with average clubs. :-)
The best photographer will not create masterpieces with poor equipment. And Tiger Woods will not win the Masters with average clubs. :-)
You alway have the best answers. Thanks.
Feb 10, 2014 18:09:37 #
The Fonz
Loc: Queensland, mate!
Well, I better suggest to Dave Burnett that he stop using his Holga then, LOL.
Feb 10, 2014 18:10:02 #
As others have mentioned there are many important factors such as photographers skill, light etc. But, the classic definition of good glass is either a fixed focal length lens like 35, 50, 85 or a zoom that has a fixed aperture like 70-210 F2.8. Canon has there "L" series of lenses and Nikon there ED line with fixed apertures. Having said that I'm not willing to put up with the weight and cost of these lenses. Optical engineering tells us that virtually any lens is great from around F5.6 to F11, so if you stay within those limits with whatever lens you have you'll do fine. Some requirements dictate a fast lens. If you shoot fast action indoors you need a fast lens. But, for most of us shooting outdoors or in good light with maybe a flash, we don't need the big glass.
Feb 10, 2014 18:12:15 #
Feb 10, 2014 18:20:01 #
Those fast apertures let in more light making it easier for AF systems to be able to acquire focus faster. Not all shooting situations allow for one to either adjust the ISO or shutter speed in order to use the aperture we would like. Or , not all situations allow us to use a speedlight.... These different lenses, with their differing apertures, optical quality & focal lengths are all nothing but tools for us to use.
ddonlewis wrote:
As others have mentioned there are many important ... (show quote)
Feb 10, 2014 18:23:02 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
I guess I am not "most of us" then.
I do like staying near the lens sweet spot.
Problem is, that doesn't always align with the cameras sweet spot, or with the effect I want to get, or the comparitively low light levels I often shoot in, I only use natural light, never flash, most of my outdoors is in beautiful gloomy light.
I do like staying near the lens sweet spot.
Problem is, that doesn't always align with the cameras sweet spot, or with the effect I want to get, or the comparitively low light levels I often shoot in, I only use natural light, never flash, most of my outdoors is in beautiful gloomy light.
ddonlewis wrote:
.......... But, for most of us shooting outdoors or in good light with maybe a flash, we don't need the big glass.
Feb 10, 2014 18:29:15 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I offend EVERYBODY, so I'll take the blame, the rest of you can just relax, and keep on talking about drinking while playing golf!! :lol:
SS
SS
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 10, 2014 18:32:23 #
boberic wrote:
As in golf or photoography or any thing else, the brain behind the tool determines the quality. A pro golfer will play better golf with a croquet mallet than a poor golfer with the most expensive clubs.
But a pro golfer with great clubs will trounce a pro golfer with a mallet. Which proves .... what exactly?
amehta wrote:
As in golf or photography or anything else, this type of analogy needs to be put to rest, because you are changing two variables significantly and simply cannot reach a reasonable conclusion.
Amehta, you are right. This analogy needs to be put to rest.
Feb 10, 2014 19:39:30 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
roy4711 wrote:
when we talk about good glass can we say zeiss is the best.
"We" would probably be correct if we had comparable data to support the statement. lol
Feb 10, 2014 19:49:35 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Thank you!I offend EVERYBODY, so I'll take the blame, the rest of you can just relax, and keep on talking about drinking while playing golf!!
LFingar wrote:
I second the motion. I am now guilt free!That could be the Hog motto. BIOSS: Blame IT ON SharpShooter!
Feb 10, 2014 20:08:49 #
banjonut wrote:
The answer to both of your questions is a "yes" in some cases. I had a foam rubber hammer once. Poor results.
I had a garden trowel with a soft metal shaft. Kept bending. Couldn't dig a rose hole for nothing.
The morel is, yes skill plays a big part, but still, you rarely see the "skilled" photographer shooting with a Kodak disk camera.
I had a garden trowel with a soft metal shaft. Kept bending. Couldn't dig a rose hole for nothing.
The morel is, yes skill plays a big part, but still, you rarely see the "skilled" photographer shooting with a Kodak disk camera.
:thumbup: :thumbup: Equipment isn't everything, but it matters.
Feb 10, 2014 21:00:04 #
Feb 10, 2014 23:18:35 #
After wrangling for years with different brands and never being totally satisfied I watched a lady at a wedding taking pictures with a top of the line Nikon and some kind of flash I have never been able to find, like a little light bulb on top of the camera. It lit up a large dim room, and also did good closeups of objects on a table, and of course people, she did nothing but point and shoot basically and every picture looked perfectly sharp and with perfect exposure, she said she used TTL. I really did not see her making technical decisions on the fly like I have to do, making adjustments and miissing shots; it was like a magic camera. Of course it cost x (like more than 2 or 3) thousands of dollars. I do believe no matter how good you are you can't utilize your talents to the fullest extent without spending a zillion dollars, because in photography the technical aspect is SO important. I am tired of people who equate photography to art where all you need is brushes and some paint and canvas and the rest is up to your artist genius.
travlnman46 wrote:
Good answer Nikonian72... I'd add the person on th... (show quote)
Feb 11, 2014 02:36:04 #
Feb 11, 2014 03:00:00 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
georgevedwards wrote:
After wrangling for years with different brands an... (show quote)
A big part of that is knowing what you're going to do ahead of time, and what your equipment is capable of. If she changed her aperture, you wouldn't know because she just moved the back dial a notch or two. Nikon's TTL flash works amazingly well, even with a diffuser. I expect she could have done this with anything from the D7000 to the D3/D4, and the results you saw would have been comparable. If there was an order for a large print of the couple, the D800 would have done best. This was about the photographer knowing how to best use her excellent equipment. Could she have done all that with a P&S? I doubt it. Even the D3200 with the kit lens would have missed more shots than she did, because her equipment simply operated faster.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.