A lot of people want the newest and shiniest penny and if you tell them yours is newer or shinier it is going to cause an argument. I think this is a good analogy.
The best thing to do is make the most of what you have and not get into the "mine is better than yours" thing. I am a bit old fashioned as most of my photography related gear is older than I am but what I have chosen serves me well.
I couldn't agree more, Wade. The worst example of this scenario is the "Canon -v- Nikon" so-called debate which assumes that (a) there are only two camera manufacturers or (b) if there are more than two, these are "the best" two and (c) one brand can be proven to be inherently better than another.
Originally Posted by Wade D
IMHO, those who spend inordinate amounts of time analysing relative bokeh performance of the f1.4 version to the f1.8 version - or whether the one made in Canada is as good / worse than / better than the German version (or other such debate) are missing a great opportunity to just get out and enjoy hobby.
My decisions on which kit to buy has more to do with whether I can afford it and how it feels in my hand than like-pairs per millimetre results.
I actually blame camera magazines for a lot of the emotional grief as they always quote the make and model of both camera body and lens as well as the exposure details. Wouldn't it be fun is they just said "35mm", "120" or some such and then gave the exposure details?
Just think, we might then be able to look at the photos properly without the baggage of wondering is another brand might have produced a better result.
Paul Jenkin (a late developer...)
Besides usually better performance from a prime, the lenses tend to be faster. When is the last time you have seen a 28-X/f2 in a zoom? Zooms are more convenient, granted but a 2.8 zoom is also heavier than a prime lens on the camera.
The entire psychology of criticizing somebody else's gear is already rather in-your-face, so that itself can be (rightly oftentimes) taken as offensive because... well, they didn't ask your opinion.
You mention that you knew the lady in question, Hamster, but you specifically use the term "acquaintance," so I assume you don't know her well. I would submit that, even if you meant well, pointing out the shortcomings of the lady's gear without being asked may have simply been crossing a social boundary not directly connected to the specific topic.
A few days ago one of my friends shown me his new cellphone. LG that has a "camera" 5MP, with tactile screen. He thought that I didn't know a heck about technology, "this phone can do more than you think". But loving good classic stuff doesn't mean that I don't know anything about cellphones... My reply left him silent.
I had the "nice idea" of saying that cellphone cameras are crap, and that those screens get dirty like heck...
..We ended arguing for a few minutes. Anyways it's the friend whom I argue more. Comparison of games, comparison of cameras, comparison of computers. Always. It's a strange friendship. He's a good guy, but this end happening somehow.
Since he bought his cellphone, when he sees his brother's phone, he points it and says to me "look, a crappy phone". But I end saying, "heck, for calls, what do you need?", "Personally, I don't need a phone that is able to tell me when I should go to pee", then he hides his smile.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'd read "The Theory of the Leisure Class".
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
I believe in finding the strengths of each. My favorite lens is my 70-300 not because it is sharp but because it provides many different perspectives than possible with shorter focal lengths. At the same time most of my color photography (35mm to 11x14) tends to fall to the use of my 50mm prime simply because my 28 to 80 zoom just didn't look sharp on my shots. The same goes for cell phone cameras. I would not trade the portability of my 2mp camera phone for an SLR. It does where others cannot or generally do not and I have taken some awesome pictures with it. I do not see the point of arguing whether or not another camera is "better." I find that that tends to be a topic concerned with photographers who still believe that cameras make pictures in disregard to their compositional elements.
God bless anyone who feels satisfied and productive with the gear they have. If you encounter such a person, just let them be. If they need a change then they will discover that on their own time.
What is the definition of quality?
If you find some lens good after testing, who am I to tell you to use a different one...
You will find out yourself when you compair your photo with one taken with a different lens.
I do not use zooms, but that is my problem.
In my opinion a lens can only be optimalized on one distance, moving away from this point will result in quality loss, but the question is, is that amount of loss visible?
this whole discussion about zooms versus primes and quality of glass kind of reminds me of a programme beloved in this part of the world called Top Gear, a car fanatics show. and a bit like lens and the cost they put a race driver into a standard family car around a circuit and he of course makes it outperform it's design. They then put mr average in a super expensive sports car and he of course hardly get's anywhere.
For me at the end of the day most bad photographs have way more to do with poor subject & composition, poor focus & exposure than anything to do with the lens. like the old adage " a good workman never blames his tools".
Criticising others people gear is just fundamentally rude as people invest a lot... Now I must confess I do this on a regular basis whenever I get in conversation on the street with someone who is arrogant and has €2000 or so worth of Digital SLR hanging off their neck. It kinda goes like this.
ME:"wow how much was all that?"
Answer: about €2000 in total,
ME: and what megapixel is it?
ME really- wow (holding up Minolta autocord TLR) This cost me €100 and has a resolution of around 50 or so megapixels give or take 20% variance. And the glass is legendary.
Answer: (none, usually a sullen silence)
I am asking for a full pardon from the APUG Moral Police as I only do this to exceptionally arrogant digital users....