Thirty years ago..

[Juan Valdenebro]

The problem with using the internet to compare lens results is the display/presentation medium.

I agree... Sometimes, if the test has images that allow it, I download them and go to a lab and get real prints, and things look different then... But I guess internet can be helpful if you filter some opinions... All in all I prefer these internet days: after some searching, it's easy to find the two or three main ideas publicly related to a lens, and you can take a decision even against a majority... For example, I've been very pleased with the Nikon AF 85 1.8 (vs. 1.4) or with the Nikkor 50 1.4 AI (against bad bokeh comments) or with the Nikon 18-135 zoom and my three Bessas (against Ken Rockwell's funny opinions...😛)

Cheers,

Juan

 

[mike-s]

In my case I think my results have gone in inverse proportion to the cost/complexity of my gear. The temptation to shoot of 30 or 40 frames at high fps with my Canon DSLRs on the basis that there is bound to be a good shot in there somewhere is almost irresistible. Clearly this has its place, sports and event photography for example, but I feel that somewhere along the line I am loosing the ability to spot the good image when it appears before me.

This feeling has driven me back towards film and resulted in the resurrection of my IIIg, Minolta 7s and Voigtlander Bessa L and Vito cameras. I am enjoying it. Now if I could only remember where I put my Rolleiflexes....

 

[sreed2006]

Thirty years ago we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.

Perhaps the people who are trying to produce pictures with great equipment do not get on the Internet seeking approval.

The need for approval is a flaw that runs through all of human experience. Not everyone has that flaw. I suspect that there is the same percentage of people today who publicly seek approval for their decisions as there were 30, or even 300, years ago. It is just a whole lot easier to find them now, because with the Internet you can read the writings of so many more people in a day than you could in the past.

But, the Internet also brings thousands upon thousands of absolutely wonderful photographs. They aren't all accompanied by a request for approval. They are just there for your amazement.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

But I'm convinced that obsession about gear is indeed an excellent displacement activity to avoid thinking about (or practising to become) a better photographer.

Roger: I think you are seeing a confluence of factors. Certainly the one you have identified above rings true, but I think you have been too narrow. It can work as a displacement activity for avoiding any number of real-world problems, not just becoming photographically excellent technically or evolved artistically. But the other current feature is the community-building or distance-eliminating one. 30 years ago, I think many of us would have made these decisions alone. Now we get to engage in this "displacement activity" in a community of like-minded individuals. Same could be said of my father-in-law who, thirty years ago, would have simply been the person in our community of 10,000 or so who knew and cared more about classical music than any other. Now he gets to be in daily contact with the thousand or so other folks worldwide who share that interest to the same degree. Goodbye single eccentric with a strong intensity of preference, hello valued community member.

My bottom line: I do think we are engaged in something other than creating or validating a material obsession.

just food for thought.

Ben Marks

 

[pvdhaar]

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.

I think you're right about what things were like before the internet, but I don't think that was because we were somehow 'better' persons..

Thirty years ago, I sunk my entire earnings from working in the summer school holidays into a Zenit-E SLR. I had to scrape together every cent of pocket money I got the entire year after to pay for some rolls of film and processing/printing. No way could I afford to spoil a shot on a brick wall or a test chart.. and no way could I afford to buy magazines to read about MTF performance, resolution and what have you..

The only judge of the pictures I shot was I myself.. and what I remember most about that period was the fun I had in shooting and being amazed about the wonder of photography when seeing the results.

However, the moment I was exposed to the internet and photo magazines, that all changed. With them came uncertainty about whether my camera was 'good enough'.. And looking back, that wasn't the fault of the internet/photo mags, rather it was some uncertainty inside me, waiting to be unearthed.

It's taken me quite a time (and a lot of gear) to get over it, but I've now come to the point where I'll pull a digi P&S out of my pockets with confidence, while everyone around me is now waving a D700 with 24-70 around..

 

[sepiareverb]

I believe there is no substitute for looking at negatives with someone who is technically better at exposure and development that you, and no substitute for looking at prints with someone who is a better printer than you. Provided there is discussion along with it.

Practice still makes perfect.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think you're right about what things were like before the internet, but I don't think that was because we were somehow 'better' persons..
.

I'm sure you are right about that, and I know that the 'fear factor' is often used to try to sell gear. We weren't 'better people' but maybe we have neglected to reinforce our BS shields in the light of what has happened in the last few decades, as well as losing self-confidence. We look for more validation, and get less.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Thirty Years ago I was earning my salary using the Internet. Paid my way through school by writing code, connecting over the Internet.

Also bought a few Nikons with the money earned. In the early 90s, I designed optical network terminal equipment. The Internet is pretty much carried by Optical NE's.

The Internet has been Very, VERY good to me.

 

[John Lawrence]

I was always taught by the "old timers" I assisted to try out any new lens to see what results I got with it and then decide whether to keep or sell it, rather than rely on reviews or what others had produced with the same lens.

For many years I thought the theory behind this was because of variances in lenses of the same make and model, and / or small differences in camera alignments etc. On reflection though, perhaps they were teaching me properly after all!

John

 

[Roger Hicks]

I was always taught by the "old timers" I assisted to try out any new lens to see what results I got with it and then decide whether to keep or sell it, rather than rely on reviews or what others had produced with the same lens.
John

Dear John,

Absolutely! The only value of a review is to give you a idea of whether you might find it useful or not. In other words, they're quite good for ruling out what you don't want, or for getting ideas of what you might be able to do with a lens you'd not considered before; but thinking you're doing something wrong if the lens doesn't suit you is foolish in the extreme, no matter how much you admire someone else's pics taken with the same lens.

This is where it's useful to be familiar with the reviewer's prejudices, habits, etc. If they say, "I found this lens more useful [or less useful] than I expected," and you have a fair idea of what their expectations might be, it can tell you a lot more than an MTF curve.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ben Z]

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

People are still trying to persuade themselves they've bought the best lens (or camera) and trying to produce picture to prove it. It's just that 30 years ago one had to bring a bunch of slides or pictures to the camera club or local camera store on Saturday morning and could only try to browbeat a handful of others into agreeing. Today people post their pictures on the web and try to browbeat hundreds or thousands into agreeing...and if they don't, it's either "well, you just aren't discerning enough" or "well, if you disagree with me then show me your pictures [so I can denigrate them]". So the story's the same, there's just many more players today, and people can say things to each other on forums they never dared to when they were face to face.

I was a dentist when I worked, albeit for a short time, but everybody talked about the 'golden age of dentistry' (which was from about 1960 to 1975) and unfortunately they were right. And lots of great innovations occurred during and since that period, very valuable ones, but they have not in real values increased the overall quality of my old profession. In fact, at least in the USA, the quality has gone down.

I've been in the field continuously for the last 30 years, part of it in R&D, and I strongly disagree. If the quality of dentistry has gone down it's a result of financially-driven practice decisions on the part of clinicians, not the fault of technology. Implantology (materials and techniques including bone augmentation) has revolutionized restorative dentistry, allowing patients to receive fixed prostheses where they would've had to accept removables in the past. Modern composite resins have replaced unsightly and mecury-containing amalgam. Digital x-ray brings out things that went unseen on film x-ray. Prosthodontics and orthodontics have made significant progress, both in technique and results, oweing to advanced occlusal theory and a heightened awareness and appreciation of esthetics. Modern adhesive bonding and resin cements have reduced the incidence of recurrent caries under restorations. Techniques and materials for less-destructive and more esthetic restorations led to an explosion in cosmetic dentistry (sadly a bit derailed in this economy). The list goes on and on. Dentistry from 1960-1975 advanced almost nothing by comparison to the advances made between 1990 and the present.

 

[John Lawrence]

Dear John,


This is where it's useful to be familiar with the reviewer's prejudices, habits, etc.


R.

Roger,

I agree entirely with your comments. However, they did bring to mind an old quote from Oscar Wilde, which could be paraphrased for this thread thus:

"I never use the lenses I review, it might prejudice me"

John

 

[250swb]

Of course it goes further than the topic chosen for approval by the OP. We all know that 9 times out of 10 a specific query about a 50mm Summicron (a 'cron') will sooner or later be hijacked by a punter letting us know that a 50mm Summilux (a 'Lux') is what he uses, and it blows the Summicron into the weeds. The actual appropriatness of a Summilux to the OP is ignored in order to make certain that supremacy is established. If nobody can return serve and say they have a Noctilux the game is won by an f/stop. Casually mentioning you have any 'better' this or that is always a great game.

Steve

 

[kshapero]

I placed tape on my computer screen so as not to see the classifieds. Too much GAS. Now how to I keep from scrolling?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course it goes further than the topic chosen for approval by the OP. We all know that 9 times out of 10 a specific query about a 50mm Summicron (a 'cron') will sooner or later be hijacked by a punter letting us know that a 50mm Summilux (a 'Lux') is what he uses, and it blows the Summicron into the weeds. The actual appropriatness of a Summilux to the OP is ignored in order to make certain that supremacy is established. If nobody can return serve and say they have a Noctilux the game is won by an f/stop. Casually mentioning you have any 'better' this or that is always a great game.

Steve

Dear Steve,

Absolutely! So is reverse snobbery: "I had a double-page spread in National Geographic with my Zorkii and Jupiter-8."

Basically, I use what I use, and if someone else does better with what they use, the very best of luck to them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[peterm1]

In my case I think my results have gone in inverse proportion to the cost/complexity of my gear. The temptation to shoot of 30 or 40 frames at high fps with my Canon DSLRs on the basis that there is bound to be a good shot in there somewhere is almost irresistible. Clearly this has its place, sports and event photography for example, but I feel that somewhere along the line I am loosing the ability to spot the good image when it appears before me.

This feeling has driven me back towards film and resulted in the resurrection of my IIIg, Minolta 7s and Voigtlander Bessa L and Vito cameras. I am enjoying it. Now if I could only remember where I put my Rolleiflexes....

Interesting, I do not feel this compulsion in the least bit with digital. In fact if anything its slightly the reverse....I keep thinking : "Oh I must not waste frame counter clicks unnecessarily in case I want to sell my DSLR later" Weird I know. But at least it means I seldom shoot on anything other than the single shot setting.

On the other hand, balancing this, I do feel liberated from the even more pernicious constraint with film that each frame I shoot costs about $1 to buy the film, process it and print / scan it. This always held me back and I never got enough film shots to really learn - combined wiht the fact that it could be weeks between loading the roll and then finishing and processing it.

At least with digital on balance I am happy to take extra shots if I feel I need them but each shot is considered fairly carefully before pressing the button. And on balance thats not a bad way to shoot.

In short, I have never understood the spray and pray mode of shooting and have never been tempted to emulate it. So I am pretty happy shooting digital.

 

[jsrockit]

Not cynical at all. I've spent over 20 years working in professional audio, and unfortunately, it's the same in those trenches too. There seems to be a sense of entitlement with younger people coming up, that things should be handed to them because of stuff they have rather than stuff they've learned.

This sounds like old man talk to me. Your parent's generation said the same thing about the generation after them, etc, etc.

 

[oftheherd]

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.

30-35 years ago, I indeed bought some of the best lenses. I bought some Fujinons and Mamiya (press, but not the early "bad" ones 😀). I also bought some of the best I could afford, Vivitars, Yashikors, and Spiratones. I don't think I ever tried to produce pictures to prove any were the best.

I tried to produce pictures that were the best I could, to satisfy my sense of artistry, my ego, and my desire to preserve things I saw. Granted, I often tried to get validation from those around me (photographers or not). But it was the photo, not the equipment that produced it. Most of those around me wouldn't have appreciated the equipment anyway.

I have always taken pride in the Fujinons. But I produced good photos with Spiratones, Yashinons, Yashikors, and Vivtars as well. The photo was always the goal, not so much the lens that produced it. I actually won a contest with a photo with a Yashikor 28mm. One of my personal favorites from Korea was with a Spiratone 18mm.

I seldom post the few photos I take these days on line. I guess I'm weird and out of touch. Or maybe afraid of criticism? I'm not sure I could keep up with some of the good stuff I see here in RFF.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This sounds like old man talk to me. Your parent's generation said the same thing about the generation after them, etc, etc.

Of course.

We all thought we were entitled.

Then we realized how hard our parents worked for what they had.

It may have been Mark Twain who said that at 15 he was amazed at his father's ignorance, and by 20 he was amazed at how much the old man had learned in five years.

That's a paraphrase, from memory, and neither the attribution nor the ages may be precise (what do you expect? I'm an old man) but anyone over the age of about 20 should recognize the sentiment.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

30-35 years ago, I indeed bought some of the best lenses. I bought some Fujinons and Mamiya (press, but not the early "bad" ones 😀). I also bought some of the best I could afford, Vivitars, Yashikors, and Spiratones. I don't think I ever tried to produce pictures to prove any were the best.

I tried to produce pictures that were the best I could, to satisfy my sense of artistry, my ego, and my desire to preserve things I saw. Granted, I often tried to get validation from those around me (photographers or not). But it was the photo, not the equipment that produced it. Most of those around me wouldn't have appreciated the equipment anyway.

I have always taken pride in the Fujinons. But I produced good photos with Spiratones, Yashinons, Yashikors, and Vivtars as well. The photo was always the goal, not so much the lens that produced it. I actually won a contest with a photo with a Yashikor 28mm. One of my personal favorites from Korea was with a Spiratone 18mm.

I seldom post the few photos I take these days on line. I guess I'm weird and out of touch. Or maybe afraid of criticism? I'm not sure I could keep up with some of the good stuff I see here in RFF.[/QUOTE]

Highlight 1: I think that's an excellent restatement of my point. The internet is a giant pseudo-community (sometimes, like RFF, with elements of genuine community as well) from whom it is tempting to seek validation. The trouble is that most of us are more sensitive to negative criticism than to positve: one nasty, unfounded, carping post by someone who has never taken a decent picture in his life can outweigh ten posts of encouragement.

Highlight 2: The best people here are, without doubt, brilliant. I enormously admire their pictures. But turn it around. There are some who are truly awful, too. Of course we all want to compare our work with the best, and are disheartened when we do not reach the very highest standards. But equally, we can look at a broader spectrum, and suspect that we are slowly clawing our way up the quality ladder.

I take enormous encouragement from the fact that George Bernard Shaw also used to write for Amateur Photographer magazine. Merely being in the company of such a giant, even at many decades' remove, is a spur.

Cheers,

R.