On lens quality & getting the best image.....
May 9, 2014 09:43:15 #
Dman has a point. I have seen people that have shot for years and can hold a camera very steady. and on the other hand someone that has never held a camera and is stable as can be. One thing they did not mention is the lens size. thin has a lot to do with how stable some one can hold a camera.
May 9, 2014 09:48:12 #
That's not what he was illustrating. He was pointing out the fact that technique is more important than the gear used. The 100mm reference was a hypothetical figure & that inexperienced shooters would not be able to produce anywhere near the best results because of improper techniques. It all goes back to the premise that the best gear will not make one's images any better unless they utilize proper techniques...
boberic wrote:
I don't think that merely holding the camera motionless isthe mark of pro vs a first timer. Give some one who has never used a camera before a point and shooter and he can shoot perfectly sharp bad photos. If I remember correctly lines per MM was the way of judging both lenses and film in the old days. And that those parameters were independent of the shooter
May 9, 2014 21:25:41 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
That's not what he was illustrating. He was pointing out the fact that technique is more important than the gear used. The 100mm reference was a hypothetical figure & that inexperienced shooters would not be able to produce anywhere near the best results because of improper techniques. It all goes back to the premise that the best gear will not make one's images any better unless they utilize proper techniques...
Be careful how you use the word "fact". If you give two photographers of the same ability different equipment, say one has the latest Nikon FF and the other a Brownie StarFlash, 9 out of 10 times who is going to have the best results???
May 9, 2014 22:04:53 #
TheDman wrote:
I think that info is pure junk. You can't make blanket statements like that, and if it can only reach 80 lines/mm with perfect tripod technique, then that is it's maximum. It never was a 100 lines/mm lens to begin with.
:thumbup:
May 10, 2014 01:35:57 #
i'm getting the idea that this forum is peopled by a lot of folks , who if you said to them, "you look good today", instead of saying "thank you". they would say "what I didn't look good yesterday"?
May 10, 2014 01:49:24 #
http://www.thephylaxis.org/williams/about_wms.php
http://www.image-engineering.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=483
It's not like we all don't have the whole wide world of knowledge at our fingertips that we have to make unfounded statements... Found these two links in two minutes.
Sounds like we got a lot of shaky handed photogs in denial around here. I am NOT a steady handed, prefect techniqued shooter by any standard but at least I'm not in denial and I do wanna know the facts. Sharing the knowledge is what it's all about. I can read questionable statistics and still get the gist of what's being said. I know he isn't taking about me personally.
http://www.image-engineering.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=483
It's not like we all don't have the whole wide world of knowledge at our fingertips that we have to make unfounded statements... Found these two links in two minutes.
Sounds like we got a lot of shaky handed photogs in denial around here. I am NOT a steady handed, prefect techniqued shooter by any standard but at least I'm not in denial and I do wanna know the facts. Sharing the knowledge is what it's all about. I can read questionable statistics and still get the gist of what's being said. I know he isn't taking about me personally.
May 10, 2014 06:01:31 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
That's not what he was illustrating. He was pointing out the fact that technique is more important than the gear used. The 100mm reference was a hypothetical figure & that inexperienced shooters would not be able to produce anywhere near the best results because of improper techniques. It all goes back to the premise that the best gear will not make one's images any better unless they utilize proper techniques...
A few things. The OP is quoting a secondary source. Not nearly as good as quoting the primary source.
Second, nowhere does the quote say that technique is more important that gear.
Third, this is a controversial subject with lots of opinions. The OP presents an hypothesis which appears to measure the impact of user experience on image resolution when hand-holding a camera and says nothing about gear quality (in fact it is a controlled variable it appears), and offers a tripod mounted camera as another control. Without the details of how the results were determined it remains merely an opinion to be tested. The OP has not presented the information to support the hypothesis, therefore it is just an opinion. But it is an opinion about the impact of user experience.
My opinion (which calls for some additional research) is that holding a camera steady involves muscle training. Like any activity that requires fine motor control, there is a learning curve. I teach skiing. Almost universally, beginners are easily identified by their gross and inaccurate movements - because they have not developed the fine motor skills or the feedback circuit that allows them to move smoothly and respond quickly to changing surface conditions while sliding forward.
A beginner firing an arrow from a bow at a target will show the same behavior. Repetitive practice will improve the archer's accuracy at close distances, and ultimately his/her range.
I fail to see how shooting a camera is any different. It is completely logical to propose that an experienced photographer will have developed the eye/hand/body coordination and fine motor skill to be able to hold a camera at a slower shutter speed than a newbie and get better results as far as image acuity is concerned - with all else being equal - the operative word being ALL.
You introduce an energy drink or a couple of shots of espresso, and the whole thing goes to hell. :)
Now, any fool will recognize the impact of better gear and not try to argue that it is not an important factor. If the fool insists on arguing to the contrary, then he is arguing for argument's sake and just looking for attention.
May 10, 2014 06:17:51 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
Copied this from another forum I'm on as the info ... (show quote)
Who cares about the specifics ! The fact of the matter is....To get the best results,a "tripod" is required!....If not using a tripod, correct technique is required...end of story!
May 10, 2014 06:25:33 #
christofras wrote:
Who cares about the specifics ! The fact of the matter is....To get the best results,a "tripod" is required!....If not using a tripod, correct technique is required...end of story!
And you can always do spray and pray - surely one image in the burst will be better than the others. Tripods are not nearly the panacea that many think they are. We can start a new thread on what causes camera shake when a camera is on a tripod, and how much tripod is needed to minimize the effect. And how, even with the $1400 Gitzo Systematic Series 5 carbon and a long lens, you can get camera vibration, even with mirror lockup and wireless remote, if you don't use good long lens technique while shooting. Staying away from the danger zone of 1/60 to 1/200 sec will help minimize shutter (yes shutter and not mirror) vibration. :)
May 10, 2014 06:31:57 #
Gene51 wrote:
And you can always do spray and pray - surely one ... (show quote)
Correct technique is required in all manner of shooting! I do not understand why people get so hung up in triviality.
May 10, 2014 06:34:22 #
you can always set the camera in wet cement and wait for it to dry. . .
May 10, 2014 06:36:14 #
Gene51 wrote:
you can always set the camera in wet cement and wait for it to dry. . .
Then you have to worry about earthquakes!
May 10, 2014 06:48:08 #
boberic wrote:
I don't think that merely holding the camera motio... (show quote)
Tell me what is perfect.....there is certainly no camera that is perfect, or a human being!....Just move on you people, instead arguing about nothing!
May 10, 2014 07:48:54 #
Nothing is true unless you read it in the New York Times.
On the topic, I have high-end lenses that are spectacularly sharp sometimes and crappy other times. The only variables are the lighting and the photographer's technique. Clearly technique (and lighting) are critical. But I still spend the big bucks for the lenses because I hope that when I really nail a shot it will be the best possible.
On the topic, I have high-end lenses that are spectacularly sharp sometimes and crappy other times. The only variables are the lighting and the photographer's technique. Clearly technique (and lighting) are critical. But I still spend the big bucks for the lenses because I hope that when I really nail a shot it will be the best possible.
May 10, 2014 09:11:41 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
Copied this from another forum I'm on as the info ... (show quote)
Isn't this the same quote you used to start your thread of April 5th?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.