In praise of low(prices) and slow lenses

[MacRy]

....my GAS seems to be in remission since I was lucky enough to get it.

We'll see

 

[kenoh]

We'll see

Lol... yeah I know... Out in the rain tonight with my Sony, wishing I could use the M9 but it isnt weather sealed... immediate thought in my tiny brain? "oo! I need an M240!!!" instead of I should have brought a plastic bag. someone slap me please!

 

[Apple fanboy]

Lol... yeah I know... Out in the rain tonight with my Sony, wishing I could use the M9 but it isnt weather sealed... immediate thought in my tiny brain? "oo! I need an M240!!!" instead of I should have brought a plastic bag. someone slap me please!

Not an issue for us Nikon users!
Actually I got a text from a friend who picked up his Nikon 200-500mm lens this morning complaining it was heavy.
I reminded him it wasn't weather sealed and he said it was bright and sunny. He's only an hour away and the weather here was appalling.

 

[kenoh]

Not an issue for us Nikon users!
Actually I got a text from a friend who picked up his Nikon 200-500mm lens this morning complaining it was heavy.
I reminded him it wasn't weather sealed and he said it was bright and sunny. He's only an hour away and the weather here was appalling.

Ha Ha ha... It was absolutely throwing it down in Glasgow today, ALL day...

 

[QuantumLo0p]

Sure, I'll deny it.
There are mirrorless cameras that you'd be hard-pressed to prove are less versatile than a DSLR - about the only way they may be lacking is in the variety of available lenses...

I should have clarified my point and, yes, lense versatility is exactly my reason for using DSLR. Ultra wide angle, zooms, primes and specialty types galore. It is still a huge buffet that non-DSLR platforms have yet to duplicate. I imagine once the trend starts for non-DSLR cameras, it will still take a few years for them to catch up.

Back to the original topic...since photography has always been a hobby for me, rarely taking on projects for profit, my equipment has always been mostly slower lenses with a few exceptions; keeps my budget reasonable. Especially since the main budget includes other hobbies as well!

 

[Abiatha Swelter]

How does a thread called

In praise of low(prices) and slow lenses

Get onto Sony and Leica?
What next Zeiss lenses!

My most recent lens purchase was a 65mm for my Mamiya C330. Paid $70 for it. Is that low and slow enough for you?

 

[Apple fanboy]

My most recent lens purchase was a 65mm for my Mamiya C330. Paid $70 for it. Is that low and slow enough for you?

Last lens I bought was a 200-500 f5.6.
It is low (compared to a 500mm f4 prime) and slow (well compared to my 2.8 lenses).

Enjoy your lens. If it fits a need for you, then that's all that matters.

 

[Reality4711]

My new (second hand) 85 f1.8 has landed and I am extremely pleased.

As soon as I can find a break in the weather long enough to put a coat on, drive a bit, get out and set up the tripod I will post a result; of my new low and slow.
OTOH I may just take a risk on the dodgy hands and got to our local first if the wind drops below 40mph for an hour or two.

dunnetforest.org Have a look. Rubbish site but they are working on it. Great little (if possible) forest.

Regards

Sharkey

 

[kallisti]

Although happier with my kit now as it suites my limitations more accurately I do find posting my stuff on the web a bit(for want of a more grown up word) scarey.
Not going to edge, but just taking photographs I like does not seem to appeal to many (if any) other people which can be a downer.
Still spring approaches and maybe with it will come bit of time out in the sun.

For now I think I will dig out an oldy or two to post on daily picture line.

Regards and thanks for the chat.

Sharkey

Want to make a few points.

First, I appreciate your sentiments. There is certainly something to be said for taking things slow. For several years I almost exclusively shot with a Leica rangefinder. Using it forced me me to slow down and really think about what I was doing. I learned a great deal about photography as a result. While not cheap by any measure, I learned quite a bit in the process. Had the added advantage of being small and light, which meant it was with me all the time.

The birth of my son changed things, especially as he has gotten a little older and more mobile. Manual focus is less of an option now. He's often in low or less than optimal light. The background is usually distracting, to put it mildly, and shooting him is random and spontaneous enough that I don't have the option to "take it slow" and thoughtfully frame my compositions. Shooting wide open with a fast lens lets me capture some things that I couldn't @ f/8 (or @ f/5.6 or f/4, etc.) and let's me blur out the distracting backgrounds that I can't avoid. I often find myself debating whether the options provided by a zoom @ f/2.8 outweigh the added speed (and different options) I would get with a faster prime.

Cameras and lenses are tools. Your preferred subject sometimes dictates which tool will be most appropriate. Within the theoretical toolbox that is appropriate for your subject, you also have to factor in issues such as size/weight, convenience, intended output/quality, and money.

For *me*, I am using a DSLR because I already have a sizable investment in Nikon lenses, my Leica isn't optimal for my shooting needs right now, and I can deal with the "bulk" of my system for what I am now shooting. For *me* right now, "slow" doesn't fit my shooting needs much of the time. This hasn't always been true in the past and may not be true again in the future. But it *is* true for where I am at right now. Note also that having a fast lens doesn't force you to always use it wide open. You are using a fairly advanced and expensive body (D800) and also shooting fast primes based on your initial post (even if you are generally shooting stopped down).

The last point I would make is that I would encourage you to share some of your pics. I totally get how it can feel daunting/traumatic to share your work and hear crickets in response. Or worse--negative feedback. Photography can be very personal. At the end of the day, unless you are shooting for clients the only opinion that matters is your own. However, since you took the time to create this thread you clearly care to some degree about the opinions of others. This forum tends to be very friendly, helpful, and forgiving. Would love to see some of your photos

 

[Reality4711]

Thank you for a considered response 'Kallisti'.

My low and slow applies equally to speed of lens and photographer as well as price. In fact pretty much the opposites of modern goals in the genre.

Your circumstances changing point is accepted without question; it applies to many physical limitations as well as social and personal.

I think so many of the wow factor images that are generally sought to publish, exhibit etc. today rely a lot on the kit chosen at the time. There is no doubt in my mind that this trend will continue simply because the technology becomes more affordable and easier to use e.g. 200-500 mm telephoto-zoom with VR so good that hand holding brings BIF to the masses... There is no offence meant to anyone in this. In my past getting a shot acceptable for print (magazines mostly) was physically and mentally damned hard without trying to do it with low and slow kit. But you did learn fast with the low and slow or starve.
Today I see those same shots from all sorts of sources. In some ways it is dispiriting when a much prized print on my wall seems to be outshone so easily (almost offhandedly) by something in todays mags. Does that sound bitter? Oh bugger.

I am finding it difficult to put into words my total feel on this subject (modern idiom - yuk!).

I vaguely remember an article on a lady photographer who's collection of images from American streets; recently found caused an explosion of appreciation. She was named the invisible photographer because none of her subjects seemed to look at her at all but gazed fixedly into the lens. A remarkable achievement.
The explanation however was simple. The lady concerned carried her 'twin lens reflex' round her neck and took the photographs from waste level as children and sitting adults tried to see what that box the lady was carrying was. The camera was more attention grabbing than the photographer.
Today we have chimps taking selfies and pictures of the public with stolen phones. Please don't jump on me for belittling the lady photographer - it is not meant that way.

I suppose that is a simple example of technology creating without much of our input. Recording our surroundings accurately will always be a large part of what we do. I think however a bit more thought is needed as to what we record it with. The technology edits our captures (another yuk!) for us unless we put fastidious control in place from the thought onwards.

Long,slow and rambling; bit like me.

Regards

Sharkey

 

[MrAverigeUser]

I am not a Pro photographer, just an amateur.

After some decades of lustful taking pictures my very expensive DSLR (Canon 5DIII and a bunch of lenses) gear is getting more and more dust - because I am in love with the Fujifilm X system. With the exception of a less fast autofocus it fulfills every wish that I have. I will precise later on why, first about me and my thoughts about photography.


A Pro photographer (= pressure to make a living with photography) is a live completely different from being a amateur photographer (= absolutely free of pressure). Tragically, even many amateurs are making pressure on themselves.
Instead of being and Staying happy as a (hopefully good) amateur they want to run for being a "Mini-Pro".

It´s there where they are in danger to miss the "way to have pleasure by doing photography".
They are victims of the high contagious "GAS" syndrome (GAS= "Gear Acquisition Syndrome")…

As we all know, perfect gear is nice to have, but nevertheless secondary.
I like a lot the answer of Eric Clapton to a fan who asked with what type of guitars he is playing.
Clapton got a little bit upset and said:

"It´s not the guitar, it´s the player!!!"

Many amateurs should NOT invest in TOP-Gear, but read about some good books about the art of photography, then visit as much expositions of Photographers, buy or regard books in libraries with the iconic pictures of photography (and nowadays do this in the internet). They should learn basic technical knowledge (which is still the same basic knowledge in both the analogue and the digital age, but refined with specific digital knowledge).
They should then take WHATEVER camera and WHATEVER lens and shoot, shoot, shoot… Was expensive in old days, but now taking 1000 shots costs the same as 1 single… what great chance to get a faster learning curve.

"The best friend of a photographer is the garbage bin"

I don´t know what famous photographer said that, but it is nothing but the truth.
Self-criticism and HONESTLY discuss and accept criticism of others about his own pictures is not bad, it is a gift.
Others are investing time to help me with their analysis and personal opinion.
Most amateurs are not able to do so. so they are blocking themselves from getting a better photographer.

Limitation is pain in the ass - but is the best school.

I got a Instamatic camera when I was a 6 year old boy.
Worked hard as a school boy and student to buy my first (very simple Branded) SLR and loved later on my OM-2 which
I purchased second hand in the 70´s. Limitations in lenses (to precise: ONE 1,4/50 , plus later a not-so-well-at-all standard-zoom) still going on.

The era of analogue Photography was a sort of hard teacher: Expensive and no cropping cause mostly diapositive film.
If you didn´t have a clou about picture composition (= "Having an eye for it") you were lost.

Well - later I was able to purchase over the years a voluminous Leica-equipment (SLR only) and was technically in heaven. Started to go digital very late (2005) with simple Canon g5 - and appreciated it.
Then started with Canon DSLRs and the good ones of their lenses.

BUT: Don´t laugh, some of my best pictures were done with the simple Canon g5, because I had it just always with me:

The best camera is simply the one you have with you in the "decisive moment".

Getting older and wiser my photo-bag got smaller and smaller - but I had it nearly every time with me.
The chance to be able to take a good picture because you have always the camera with you is more important than have a bunch of Pro-lenses and bodies at home. We all know that very well.

So - Some years ago I bought the Fuji X-100, then Fuji X-Pro1 (later added XE1 because of its phenomenal OLED-viewfinder) and some of the damn good XR-lenses of Fujifilm.
The X100 is less loud than the Leica M system. Perfect.

My bag which I have with me is now two XE-1, and the four XR-lenses I like the most. Plus a little flash. All in a little Lowe slingshot 100. Weights nearly nothing though. The technical quality of the pictures is amazing though. Far enough for me. My SLR/DSLRs gear is taking more and more dust. They get jealous about the nice and smart young Fujifilmgirl…

Photograpy is really just taking pictures that you get aware of, that you felt coming towards you, that are speaking to you: "Take me!" . It is all about being conscious about situations, have empathy for people, communicate with them - and often enough also with "dead objects" as rusty things and broken wood. Getting (sometimes literally) in touch with the ouside world and feel it and with it. Nature, landscape, people. And the more you talk with the outside world and respect it , the more you talk with yourself and respect yourself either. Photography is just wonderful.

Sorry, If I was boring you with too much text…

As for cheap cameras and slow lenses:

I appreciate a lot this Video-series on Youtube:

Kai (the author of that YT-channel) has a rather british kind of humor and gets things right…


.

 

[kallisti]

Thank you for a considered response 'Kallisti'.

My low and slow applies equally to speed of lens and photographer as well as price. In fact pretty much the opposites of modern goals in the genre.

Your circumstances changing point is accepted without question; it applies to many physical limitations as well as social and personal.

I think so many of the wow factor images that are generally sought to publish, exhibit etc. today rely a lot on the kit chosen at the time. There is no doubt in my mind that this trend will continue simply because the technology becomes more affordable and easier to use e.g. 200-500 mm telephoto-zoom with VR so good that hand holding brings BIF to the masses... There is no offence meant to anyone in this. In my past getting a shot acceptable for print (magazines mostly) was physically and mentally damned hard without trying to do it with low and slow kit. But you did learn fast with the low and slow or starve.
Today I see those same shots from all sorts of sources. In some ways it is dispiriting when a much prized print on my wall seems to be outshone so easily (almost offhandedly) by something in todays mags. Does that sound bitter? Oh bugger.

I am finding it difficult to put into words my total feel on this subject (modern idiom - yuk!).

I vaguely remember an article on a lady photographer who's collection of images from American streets; recently found caused an explosion of appreciation. She was named the invisible photographer because none of her subjects seemed to look at her at all but gazed fixedly into the lens. A remarkable achievement.
The explanation however was simple. The lady concerned carried her 'twin lens reflex' round her neck and took the photographs from waste level as children and sitting adults tried to see what that box the lady was carrying was. The camera was more attention grabbing than the photographer.
Today we have chimps taking selfies and pictures of the public with stolen phones. Please don't jump on me for belittling the lady photographer - it is not meant that way.

I suppose that is a simple example of technology creating without much of our input. Recording our surroundings accurately will always be a large part of what we do. I think however a bit more thought is needed as to what we record it with. The technology edits our captures (another yuk!) for us unless we put fastidious control in place from the thought onwards.

Long,slow and rambling; bit like me.

Regards

Sharkey

I think you are referring to Vivian Maier. I have a book (or is it two?) of her work. Good stuff.

While technology has changed and allowed more people to explore photography, the basics of what makes a good image really haven't changed. It's still all about choice of subject, composition, light, and timing.

Yes it's easy now to hit a button on your computer to create an effect but that doesn't magically make the image good or pleasing if the basic elements aren't there.

I'm personally not a fan of overly processed images (such as many of the HDR shots I see), but it's a matter of taste. Consistently strong images have more to do with the photographer than the gear. But like all discussions of aesthetics, things are ultimately subjective to some degree. I personally feel that the image should speak for itself. The "how" of its creation may be interesting but isn't the most important thing. Having said that, I often find myself looking at a photo and going through a little mental game of "how did they do that?" This may result in me trying to duplicate the image in an effort to learn something and expand my horizons.

I think your larger point seems to be about placing value on an image based on the amount of time, effort, and planning required for a shot. This pretty much throws out the entire genre of street photography or candid photography. On this point I really don't agree with you at all. Some of my favorite photographers fall into this category (Garry Winogrand, Bresson, Maier to name but a few). But that's just my taste and my preference Good "spontaneous" shots often only work because they still follow the rules of good composition, light, and timing.

 

[Reality4711]

I think you are referring to Vivian Maier. I have a book (or is it two?) of her work. Good stuff.

I think your larger point seems to be about placing value on an image based on the amount of time, effort, and planning required for a shot. This pretty much throws out the entire genre of street photography or candid photography. On this point I really don't agree with you at all. Some of my favorite photographers fall into this category (Garry Winogrand, Bresson, Maier to name but a few). But that's just my taste and my preference Good "spontaneous" shots often only work because they still follow the rules of good composition, light, and timing.

Good God No!

If anything the opposite is true. All of the named have years of trying before getting their skills/style etc.. That counts almost more than the efforts required for say an individual shot. No No No

However as you bring them up. Look at the equipment used and time/effort needed to produce their work and it fits exactly my thinking.

If you split the greats(debatable) up into genre pretty much all start with "low&slow"but and learn fast and only get to the "Good Gear" much later. One of the interesting things,for me is then how little changes away from their skill base. This probably relates to painters and their apprentices; but not sure why.

Has been a great chat so far. Not being particularly well read in our field having 'Kallisti' put me right is excellent. Thank you.

I think you are referring to Vivian Maier. I have a book (or is it two?) of her work. Good stuff.

Picking the relative from the garbage is getting harder nowadays?

Keep it coming

Regards

Sharkey

 

[seggy]

For several years I almost exclusively shot with a Leica rangefinder. Using it forced me me to slow down and really think about what I was doing.

That's interesting: I shoot primarily with a digital M, have done so since the M8.2 and I do so because in terms of fully manual exposure it's the fastest thing I own, including to manual focus. When I want full control of the image sure there is some slowing down, but the M's make the process the fastest to achieve (despite the abysmal electronics: I bought the EVF for the M240 and was like "wtf, this in 2014?").

If we're talking snapshot, sure - almost everything else is faster, but as I see with many cameras I can still nail focus better (and much faster than trying to spot-override AF) with an M than relying on AF.

The worst system by far though are those which try to pastiche the Leicas by shoehorning in modern (but in some cases not modern enough) ILC electronics (and resulting controls) into a retro body. I've mowed my way through the X-Pro1, the X-T1, and all the X100's to date but I just don't understand them beyond their visual appeal. Even the vaunted OVF's kinda suck optically and the speed / ability to nail manual focus is just as poor as a mediocre ILC half the price.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

If we're talking snapshot, sure - almost everything else is faster, but as I see with many cameras I can still nail focus better (and much faster than trying to spot-override AF) with an M than relying on AF.

The worst system by far though are those which try to pastiche the Leicas by shoehorning in modern (but in some cases not modern enough) ILC electronics (and resulting controls) into a retro body. I've mowed my way through the X-Pro1, the X-T1, and all the X100's to date but I just don't understand them beyond their visual appeal. Even the vaunted OVF's kinda suck optically and the speed / ability to nail manual focus is just as poor as a mediocre ILC half the price.

It seems that your experience and judgement is based on the first models with the first firmware versions.

As for the X-Pro1/X-100 with the OLD firmware there were at the beginning some weak points about manual focusing.
But that changed completely in the meanwhile:
As for hardware: The new OLED VF of the XE-Series are a pleasure to work with (and I was used to SLR VF for decades!). The mechanical haptic of the lenses has been changed. It is still not Leica-like (I still have some old SLR-Bodies and a dozen of Leica primes with which I made pictures for nearly 3 decades) but it is not bad.
As for Firmware: The newest Firmware for the X-Series has again aimed for better Manual focussing and - which I find interesting also - has changed the haptic for the AF-Mode with manual refined focussing far to the better than before as Users say. I could not verify the latter because I just updated the last firmware some days ago and had not enough time to test this.
as for AF-accuracy: they made great progress in both speed and precision - particularly with the XE2 with its combination of 2 different detection technologies (One is special sensors on the chip itself).

I don´t miss anything - and I am coming from nothing-but-MF-practise with Leica gear for decades and since 2007 precise semi-Pro Canon AF.

Progress in EVF cameras is impressing. peak highlight and comfortable MF refinement after rapid AF is established in the meanwhile.

What I still don´t like is the override- still too easy in wrong position by accident. I modified the wheel with a simple trick - so it is no problem for me since.

 

[seggy]

It seems that your experience and judgement is based on the first models with the first firmware versions.

As for the X-Pro1/X-100 with the OLD firmware there were at the beginning some weak points about manual focusing.
But that changed completely in the meanwhile:

I dumped the X-T1 post-update. And as I said, I've had every X100 to date - i.e. X100, X100S, X100T. And as I also said, while the latter in particular may look as retro as anything else (and indistinguishable from a Leica to the non-expert, which is the marketing point of the entire Fuji exercise), it doesn't handle anything like a manual rangefinder.

And yes, it changed completely from 'borderline unusable when you're used to actually modern hardware' to 'Sony circa 2012'

I see interesting, completely emotional (and consequent wishful thinking) positive commentary on the handling of the Fujis, especially in a relative perspective. Very few Fuji enthusiasts complain about any lag especially when pitting it against other bodies, while people who tend to be more e.g. Sony objectivists constantly (and justifiably) complain about lag (no, we're not talking about shutter lag but across the OS as a whole). Fuji enthusiasts praise the control handling of the X-T1 when it's clearly mechanically worse than the A7II - and in many ways, even the A7.

Design, aspiration and the emotional attachment it creates (as well as the resulting effect on ego) is a subject that's very close to me - but I personally try not let it influence how I use things. For many, thee M for example is an emotional object - the X100's themselves (and the newest entry in this faux-category, the new Olympus Pen) wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't. For me it's more about the manual handling speed as mentioned above and the form factor. ButI've yet to use a Fuji that actually makes the relative handling grade from my POV. It wouldn't be a bad mark on them if they had exceptional image quality or some other standout aspect: But they don't seem to.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

I dumped the X-T1 post-update. And as I said, I've had every X100 to date - i.e. X100, X100S, X100T. And as I also said, while the latter in particular may look as retro as anything else (and indistinguishable from a Leica to the non-expert, which is the marketing point of the entire Fuji exercise), it doesn't handle anything like a manual rangefinder.

And yes, it changed completely from 'borderline unusable when you're used to actually modern hardware' to 'Sony circa 2012'

I see interesting, completely emotional (and consequent wishful thinking) positive commentary on the handling of the Fujis, especially in a relative perspective. Very few Fuji enthusiasts complain about any lag especially when pitting it against other bodies, while people who tend to be more e.g. Sony objectivists constantly (and justifiably) complain about lag (no, we're not talking about shutter lag but across the OS as a whole). Fuji enthusiasts praise the control handling of the X-T1 when it's clearly mechanically worse than the A7II - and in many ways, even the A7.

Design, aspiration and the emotional attachment it creates (as well as the resulting effect on ego) is a subject that's very close to me - but I personally try not let it influence how I use things. For many, thee M for example is an emotional object - the X100's themselves (and the newest entry in this faux-category, the new Olympus Pen) wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't. For me it's more about the manual handling speed as mentioned above and the form factor. ButI've yet to use a Fuji that actually makes the relative handling grade from my POV. It wouldn't be a bad mark on them if they had exceptional image quality or some other standout aspect: But they don't seem to.

for me , it is amusing to be classified as an ""totally emotional" judging guy…. *LOL*

As for image quality and for lenses: The Fujifilm XE and Xpro give more than enough. Especially the lenses are damn good. If you think you have a REAL advantage using Leica gear (x5 times the price, but not the value) over the Fuji lenses - stay with it. No problem for me. The handling of the Fujis is very good for my POV.

BTW: 1991 I was thinking about switching from Leica SLR system to the M system and tested the M for one day. I was a great deception.
My opinion: a legend, but not at all better than SLR. Good for Oldtimer- amateurs who want to burn money. Someone owning a Leica commenting that an other Brand´s camera would perhaps be "good for their owners ego" is extremely amusing…

When I switched digital , I only wanted to change the body and rest with my beloved Leica gear.
What happened was what happened with every Leica SLR- enthusiast who was still able to face the reality and what was announced by my Leica-Friends (some of the absolutely exceptionally good photographers), because they themselves had already experienced that:
First, I bought just a standard Zoom for "daily practise" and to profit from AF. Then I appreciated the AF which was just very comfortable. Then I began to buy one Pro-Lens after another from Canon. And I was astonished, that the top-line ones were nothing less good than the leica ones (in real life, I don´t take pictures in the laboratory, but in real life).
One day I did a test: My beloved Apo 2,8/280 with the Apo 1,4 Extender (15.000 EUR) vs the 5,6/400 Canon (on a Pro Gitzo tripod with Arca Swiss head). NO difference at all… well, not in picture quality, but in weight (Leica: about 8kg, Canon about 0,7kg) and in price (15.000 vs about 1000). Happily, Canon discontinued soon after some of their weak old Lenses and they released one perfect lens after the other… Leica ONCE was lighters ahead of its competitors… but now the competitors woke up and had damn good lenses to offer. Just the contrary for the bodies: New Tech from all competitors and just replicas of the 50´s and 70´s from Leica… Leica slept from the late 70´s up to now while the competitors woke up.

Perhaps we can agree: at the end, It´s not the camera - it´s the photographer.

 

[Reality4711]

Incredible isn't it.
I started this having gone through a career begun with the Canon A1, 50mm.f1.8, 35-50mm.f3.5 &?/300mm.5.6 tele-zoom. Retiring and selling all my kit as listed in first post. A few batterings from life later and I'm back to using (D800 excepted) pretty low and slow stuff.
In doing so I have come to regard the low&slow as my friends. Unable to focus manually (dodgey eyes & hands) I write a note here to bring praise where there is mostly dismissal and somehow it ends up as a discussion on the finer points of manual v af in high priced and high tech camera makes it so esoterically opposite to the original thought; my mind boggles.

My praise is of low cost, basic equipment and there use in creative photography in all its forms.

Thats it.

The AE1 had a cloth shutter??? My first sale from it and the ?/300mm zoom was £15 for a picture no one else had bothered to take properly (as good as a complete novice could under the circumstances)

The imaging world has gone way beyond my capabilities but my standards remain high and it is those standards that are still well satisfied by the low&slow kit I can use today.


Good Chat again (bit beyond my tech range)

Regards

Sharkey

 

[seggy]

Well let's face it, the real low cost scene is now dominated by phones - and conversely, you can't take some pictures that you can take with a phone with a 'proper' camera unless you get into serious image processing. e.g. Some of the photos that I took on the Lumia 950 in low light blew me away (daylight - not so much weirdly, you'd think a tiny sensor would be at its very best in daylight), and you end up with creative potential that'd be lost with even an entry DSLR unless you do a lot with Lightroom and know what you were trying to get in the first place.

Besides, praising low cost lenses while using a decent DSLR is a bit... well, irrelevant. Even basic lenses have been perfectly OK for a long time, especially if we're condensing down to blog-level postage stamp - and many lower-cost lenses for full-frame fit are time-proven designs.

I actually only started to get into photography with digital though I'm old enough for film. I learned photography on an OM and blundered my way through some others - including the Minolta 7000 - but I never really got into it. But I was part of the software R&D efforts for one of the earliest consumer digital cameras and that kind of got me in the 'take pictures everywhere' phase. I don't use a phone everywhere, but I do use P&S's often - now these are genuinely 'low and slow' when it comes to a comparison with a D800 + a kit-level lens.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

Incredible isn't it.
(…)
In doing so I have come to regard the low&slow as my friends. Unable to focus manually (dodgey eyes & hands) I write a note here to bring praise where there is mostly dismissal and somehow it ends up as a discussion on the finer points of manual v af in high priced and high tech camera makes it so esoterically opposite to the original thought; my mind boggles.

My praise is of low cost, basic equipment and there use in creative photography in all its forms.

Thats it.
(…)

...still well satisfied by the low&slow kit I can use today.

Regards

Sharkey

100% agree.
I cited already Eric Clapton in my 1st posting: "IT´s NOT the guitar, it´s the Player!"
[doublepost=1455397114][/doublepost]

Besides, praising low cost lenses while using a decent DSLR is a bit... well, irrelevant. Even basic lenses have been perfectly OK for a long time, especially if we're condensing down to blog-level postage stamp - and many lower-cost lenses for full-frame fit are time-proven designs.

I actually only started to get into photography with digital though I'm old enough for film. I learned photography on an OM and blundered my way through some others - including the Minolta 7000 - but I never really got into it. But I was part of the software R&D efforts for one of the earliest consumer digital cameras and that kind of got me in the 'take pictures everywhere' phase. I don't use a phone everywhere, but I do use P&S's often - now these are genuinely 'low and slow' when it comes to a comparison with a D800 + a kit-level lens.

Praising low-cost while OWNING and sometimes using a D800 is not "irrelevant", it means that he is capable to choose the tool he REALLY needs for each purpose. That´s just professional.

The best camera is the one you have with you when you run happily into a "once in a life" or at least very exceptional situation. The "big" obstructive gear is rarely with you in that situations, if not searching for a such situation.

I still use my 5DIII + gear for special purpose - but my standard equipment is the EVF-system I use now for years.

As for "post stamp-dual-quality" : I heard this long enough from Leica fanboys about other brands… and me and some friends had the pleasure to proof that they were incapable to identify Leica shots from other brands shots. Even worse:
they praised once two of my pictures as "show! THAT´S the typical Leica signature!" in fact, they were taken with a good point&shot camera… very amusing… (Double) blind tests are the best to ground fanboys...

 

[jerwin]

Normal at f8 using iso for exposure speed

I thought it was aperture at f16, exposure speed equal to ISO, assuming sunny conditions.

 

[seggy]

I thought it was aperture at f16, exposure speed equal to ISO, assuming sunny conditions.

Diffraction
[doublepost=1455398891][/doublepost]

100% agree.
I cited already Eric Clapton in my 1st posting: "IT´s NOT the guitar, it´s the Player!"
[doublepost=1455397114][/doublepost]

Praising low-cost while OWNING and sometimes using a D800 is not "irrelevant", it means that he is capable to choose the tool he REALLY needs for each purpose. That´s just professional.

The best camera is the one you have with you when you run happily into a "once in a life" or at least very exceptional situation. The "big" obstructive gear is rarely with you in that situations, if not searching for a such situation.

I still use my 5DIII + gear for special purpose - but my standard equipment is the EVF-system I use now for years.

As for "post stamp-dual-quality" : I heard this long enough from Leica fanboys about other brands… and me and some friends had the pleasure to proof that they were incapable to identify Leica shots from other brands shots. Even worse:
they praised once two of my pictures as "show! THAT´S the typical Leica signature!" in fact, they were taken with a good point&shot camera… very amusing… (Double) blind tests are the best to ground fanboys...

Heh heh heh. The green-eyed monster always comes out in the end, doesn't it.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

Heh heh heh. The green-eyed monster always comes out in the end, doesn't it.

????

 

[Reality4711]

I thought it was aperture at f16, exposure speed equal to ISO, assuming sunny conditions.

Over the years I realised(plus listening to others) that the sweet spot for most middle of the road lenses that I have used was at or around f8 i.e... good depth of field to offset any focussing problems, low CA, fast enough that in normal light a fairly fast exposure could be expected and below the point when diffraction may raise its ugly head. Leaving the iso on auto means with a max iso set and a min exposure set the iso usually comes up trumps for almost all occasions. Obviously when conditions get unpredictable or I want a little more say in the photo. creation I move away from these setting.

I cited already Eric Clapton in my 1st posting: "IT´s NOT the guitar, it´s the Player!"

I am sorry for ignoring your quote Seggy. It is that personal taste thing again. Having been to his concerts back in the day I developed a bit of negativity towards "slow hand". He and Nick Faldo kinda come to mind - small talent and lots of practice, becoming successful and finally pretty average and gathered over revered.

Dreadful having an opinion based on perception and taste.

Regards

Sharkey

PS:- D800 may not fit the "slow" but given the price I paid really fits the "low". To say it was a steal is only a little short of true

 

[MrAverigeUser]

I cited already Eric Clapton in my 1st posting: "IT´s NOT the guitar, it´s the Player!"

I am sorry for ignoring your quote Seggy. It is that personal taste thing again. Having been to his concerts back in the day I developed a bit of negativity towards "slow hand". He and Nick Faldo kinda come to mind - small talent and lots of practice, becoming successful and finally pretty average and gathered over revered.

Dreadful having an opinion based on perception and taste.

Regards

Sharkey

PS:- D800 may not fit the "slow" but given the price I paid really fits the "low". To say it was a steal is only a little short of true

Just for the record: It was not seggy, it was me who quoted 2 times Eric Clapton:

(…)
I cited already Eric Clapton in my 1st posting: "IT´s NOT the guitar, it´s the Player!"
(…)

And John Mc Laughlin in the 70´s was exactly the other extreme: Useless fast play without any emotion - just to show he´s the "fastest" …. perhaps he still didn´t know that as for emotional and sensitive things, there is no place for men trying to be "the fastest" - ask every (honest) woman you want to…

BTW:

Also Leica lenses have their max performance around f5,6 and f8,0 …




...