Axel
singleshooter
And they are different tools on different cameras.
Today there are a lot of ways to do "the job".
The interior of a room taken as panorama or stitch and the fast 50 as fast telephoto lens on a APS-C body are just two examples
that smash your whole "you are all wrong"-theory.
And it happens
That´s why it needs a very old school view to bear your thesis.
Nothing compares as soon as the horizon raises.
Steve M.
Veteran
"The best zoom lens is your legs.” -Ernst Haas.
Haas is the gift that just keeps giving, isn't he?
If you're wanting a close up of a tiger, you don't want to zoom with your legs. You want a looooooong zoom!
Sure, I could take a bunch of photos inside a room from different angles, all the while keeping the height at exactly the same place in each photo, then stitch them together in software and make one photo of the room (except that the proportions will not be correct, nor will be the angle of light and the shadows themselves, but I guess I could keep photoshopping and photoshopping until it looked sorta right). Or, I could put on a wide angle lens and take one shot and be done with it. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should do it.
Haas is the gift that just keeps giving, isn't he?
If you're wanting a close up of a tiger, you don't want to zoom with your legs. You want a looooooong zoom!
Sure, I could take a bunch of photos inside a room from different angles, all the while keeping the height at exactly the same place in each photo, then stitch them together in software and make one photo of the room (except that the proportions will not be correct, nor will be the angle of light and the shadows themselves, but I guess I could keep photoshopping and photoshopping until it looked sorta right). Or, I could put on a wide angle lens and take one shot and be done with it. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should do it.
Axel
singleshooter
Modern cameras or software can do all that in one task.
And you are done with it.
No need to carry or swap a lens therefore.
Right!
Steve M.
Veteran
No, sorry, there is no magic bullet software stuff that will automatically do all that and give you a realistic photo of what the room looks like. It will not get any of that right unless you program in all the essentials, and that takes time, and those parameters may not (or most likely won't) be the same for your next shot. Why not just use the right lens in the first place rather than dicker around with trying to reinvent the wheel?
I wonder why people don't understand that the original post way back in the beginning was a satire in the Ken Rockwell tradition? At least that's the way I read it. Nick doesn't have any idea what sort of gear I need to shoot nor does anyone else, he is simply telling everyone that he DOES know what I need, and so there, he's right and everyone else is wrong. No sane person could make that argument w/o their tongue firmly inserted in their cheek.
I wonder why people don't understand that the original post way back in the beginning was a satire in the Ken Rockwell tradition? At least that's the way I read it. Nick doesn't have any idea what sort of gear I need to shoot nor does anyone else, he is simply telling everyone that he DOES know what I need, and so there, he's right and everyone else is wrong. No sane person could make that argument w/o their tongue firmly inserted in their cheek.
Axel
singleshooter
Sure there is. Have a look and you find everything you need. And more.
Originally Posted by Steve M:
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should do it.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, this is beginning to sound like a religion. I keep expecting the Spanish Inquisition to burst in...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Michael Markey
Veteran
You may be expecting them David but remember their chief element is surprise.
d_c
Established
You may be expecting them David but remember their chief element is surprise.
... fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well, um, I was thinking our three main focal lengths are 50; 24; 35 and 85. I'll start again, our four main focal lengths are 50; 24; 35; 85 and a macro...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
Which is also why competent mechanics own individual ("prime"?) tools rather than a single adjustable spanner (= zoom).
In fact it goes further than this. Most highly regarded photographers tend to specialize: Eric Hosking was great on birds, but not so well known for interiors; Cartier-Bresson was hardly famed for his macro photography.
Can't quite see why you emphasize autofocus, though. I certainly don't leave my manual focus lenses at home, but I have to say that I'm not even sure where I put the 50mm autofocus I was forced to buy with my Nikon Df.
And for many kinds of reportage and photojournalism, it's hard to beat a fast 35 such as my f/1.4 Summilux.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
And an almost fanatical devotion to Leica. (Or Nikon, or Canon, or...)
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I hope you all noticed the photographic connection when the family photos were being shown and torn up until we got to the one of the Spanish Inquisition hiding behind the coal shed.
Reality intervened, as usual, for viewers in Scotland who saw a censored version on the night.
Regards, David
Reality intervened, as usual, for viewers in Scotland who saw a censored version on the night.
Regards, David
seany65
Well-known
I don't believe you! No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Sorry I hadn't noticed others had basically beaten me to it.
seany65
Well-known
NickTrop
Veteran
harpofreely
Well-known
Nick,
Just wanted to say a belated thanks for this post. I know there was a diverse reaction, but to me, most of your arguments are spot-on and after a few months of waiting for the right opportunity, I finally took the plunge.
I dusted off and traded in my M3 and DR Summicron and a big pile of other gear I wasn't using, came out with a Nikon D800 and Nikkor 50mm 1.4 G, and couldn't be happier. My only film cameras now are 6x6, so time spent developing and printing actually feels worthwhile. I did hold on to my somewhat idiosyncratic Fuji X-E2/Metabones/Takumar 50 1.4 combo, which is just a fun walkaround and not worth much in terms of trade-in dollars. Otherwise, my old Canon T2i got passed on to my wife, who will never use it, and I'm just generally reveling in leaving behind 35mm film, cameras too slow to focus on my kids, and unused gear in my way.
Thanks again,
-Paul
Just wanted to say a belated thanks for this post. I know there was a diverse reaction, but to me, most of your arguments are spot-on and after a few months of waiting for the right opportunity, I finally took the plunge.
I dusted off and traded in my M3 and DR Summicron and a big pile of other gear I wasn't using, came out with a Nikon D800 and Nikkor 50mm 1.4 G, and couldn't be happier. My only film cameras now are 6x6, so time spent developing and printing actually feels worthwhile. I did hold on to my somewhat idiosyncratic Fuji X-E2/Metabones/Takumar 50 1.4 combo, which is just a fun walkaround and not worth much in terms of trade-in dollars. Otherwise, my old Canon T2i got passed on to my wife, who will never use it, and I'm just generally reveling in leaving behind 35mm film, cameras too slow to focus on my kids, and unused gear in my way.
Thanks again,
-Paul
Archiver
Veteran
Two years later, I'm returning to this post because it provides a roadmap for a secondhand Nikon DSLR kit. Why? Because for the past couple of years, I've been shooting increasingly with my 5D Mark II for work, and running into known limitations which I feel could be dealt with by a secondhand Nikon kit.
- low exposure noise - the 5D Mark II shocked people with the banding and cross hatching that appears in the shadow areas of underexposed images. This means that if I want to push the exposure on darker images, there will be a lot of ugly digital artifacting, rendering the image useless for most professional purposes. My aps-c Canon 30D doesn't have this issue, but the 5D II was supposed to be the flagship mid-high DSLR and purportedly had the best image quality of Canon's lineup at the time, so what gives with the noise?
- crappy autofocus - another issue with the 5D Mark II is autofocus. It's bad. Annoyingly bad. And I take a lot of sports action images and candid portraits which need reliable autofocus.
I've read that the D700 solves both issues, and I like what I see from D700 images on the internet. The main issue I have with the D700 is the size and weight, so if I could find a clean D600 somewhere, that might be nice. I'm used to the heft of the 5D, so the D700 might not be so bad?
A used D700 and 50/1.4 can be had for about $1000 AUD, so maybe...
- low exposure noise - the 5D Mark II shocked people with the banding and cross hatching that appears in the shadow areas of underexposed images. This means that if I want to push the exposure on darker images, there will be a lot of ugly digital artifacting, rendering the image useless for most professional purposes. My aps-c Canon 30D doesn't have this issue, but the 5D II was supposed to be the flagship mid-high DSLR and purportedly had the best image quality of Canon's lineup at the time, so what gives with the noise?
- crappy autofocus - another issue with the 5D Mark II is autofocus. It's bad. Annoyingly bad. And I take a lot of sports action images and candid portraits which need reliable autofocus.
I've read that the D700 solves both issues, and I like what I see from D700 images on the internet. The main issue I have with the D700 is the size and weight, so if I could find a clean D600 somewhere, that might be nice. I'm used to the heft of the 5D, so the D700 might not be so bad?
A used D700 and 50/1.4 can be had for about $1000 AUD, so maybe...