Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 30, 2005, 7:16 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Sorry LBoy, but I have to totally disagree with you. I am not trying to pick a fight but just from my photograpy experience I know you are wrong. I started shooting with Olympus 700 series cameras. Point and Shoot. Even someone who has never used a camera before can get great shots from one of these. I used to fill up a 512 mega byte card every weekend and only had to delete a select few for errors. 95% of the shots from my Olympus Camedia cameras were perfect. Sharpness, saturation and depth of feild. The only reason I switched over to DSLR was speed. Point and shoot cameras were just to slow. But after I bought my first DSLR and took a few hundred shots with it I thought I had made a bad decision. I had just went from a $500.00 camera with 95% accuracy to a $2000.00 DSLR set up with a 50% at best accuracy. Almost all my shots were coming back underexsposed, undersaturated, out of focus and horriable depth of feild. But all those LUCKY SHOTS have made me a much better photographer and has made me very happy with my DSLR. I compared the Exif data of my LUCKY SHOTS to the data of the bad shots and figured out what I was doing wrong. I now have at least 95% accuracy with my DSLR set up now. So after all this rambling all I am trying to say is all the high dollar equipment in the world is not going to make you a great photographer without skill and knowledge. And those few LUCKY SHOTS was all I needed to put me ahead. And help from the guyshere at Steves. Again, I am not trying to picking a fight, just trying to prove a point.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2005, 4:17 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

arowana,

Oh dear, :lol:

Firstly, no offense is taken and I never "fight" :blah:. Its a discussion and we all have our view point.

Sowith that also no offense to you, but I don't think you have understood what I have written. It seems you are generally in agreement with what I have said, but have not understood the bottom line.

Quote:
I am not trying to pick a fight but just from my photograpy experience I know you are wrong. I started shooting with Olympus 700 series cameras. Point and Shoot. Even someone who has never used a camera before can get great shots from one of these.
Is this not what I have said. All cameras are capable of producing fantastic shots. However I can assure you the Olympus 700 has its limitations as a tool in achieving certain goals a photographer may be looking for, over and above an SLR with arange of fast lenses. This is a fact, otherwise we wouldn't use SLR's cos they wouldn't need to exist. :-)

The second point - photographers skill. The ability to use ones imagination in composition and many other artistic/aesthetic or formalaspects has nothing to do with the equipment. However these ideas can also in a sense be limited if the equipment dictates certain limiting parameters. for example a max app of 5.6. As I have said the two go hand in hand.

You might believe that 95 percent of your shotswere perfect with this camera. :-)Maybe perfectly exposed within the limitation of the conditions you were happy to shoot in. Perfect in terms of photographic originality and interest, well thats a different thing. When I said lucky shot, I was referring to any technically good shot that also had high photographic originality and interest. This will not happen by chance very often. But will happen. In other forms of photography- photojournalism for instance there is a whole different criteria that has nothing to do with art. I have spoken about this before. Realism, emotion, speed of capture, positioning, anticipation, all of whichalso requires the correct equipment or you will simply be banging your head against a walland not getting the shot.

I spoke of high consistency over the spectrum of all photographic shooting conditions. This is achieved by photographer skill and knowledge coupled with the correct equipment to allow this knowledge to produce the shot originally conceived and desired. Not by luck or chance but by process.

Quote:
I had just went from a $500.00 camera with 95% accuracy to a $2000.00 DSLR set up with a 50% at best accuracy. Almost all my shots were coming back underexsposed, undersaturated, out of focus and horriable depth of feild. But all those LUCKY SHOTS have made me a much better photographer and has made me very happy with my DSLR
This is obviously because youwere still on the sharp end of the learning curve. Absolutely nothing to do with the equipment. Sure we have all been there, but don't be confused about this. The equipment does not have "accuracy " the photographers do.

Quote:
I am trying to say is all the high dollar equipment in the world is not going to make you a great photographer without skill and knowledge.
Again no offense but you didn't read my post well at all, as I think what you have said above was the intrinsic point I was making ..hahahaha. And vice a versa you also require the correct equipment to consistently produce photographs to todays high standards across the available shooting spectrum. (and I don't mean colour by this)

mmmmm ? I think I could be here all day and not be explaining this better, besides I think we were generally in agreement actually? Strange that you didnt think so.

Anyway no matter, take care and good shooting. Glad to hear your at least 95 percent happy, cos your way better than me....:blah:. (do you want a job ? )

LB

LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2005, 10:32 AM   #33
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMHO any good photographer can realize the limitations of his/her tool and is quite capable of overcoming them: Go back in time for example and check the great artists who have published their works - They didn't have the highest ISO capable camera nor the latest IS help back then, but they sure knew how to take beautiful pictures with the tools they felt most confortable of...

Has photography changed that much or is it still about the mastering and capturing of light? Some folks still fail to realize this fundamental principle and 'think' that the most technically advanced camera or lens can alter this balance. I've seen this too many times - assuming one can even 'control' the lighting like in the studio where many cameras are on even keel (i.e. no fast lenses and no fast cameras required) some photographers "have it" and some just don't regardless of how expensive are their tools. May be it just me, but a photographer who can produce beautiful images from the most elementary P & S deserve a higher respect in my book than another with the most exoteric equipments (Photoshop included...)

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2005, 5:21 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

My main point was the disagreement on the quality of your tools in photography. You just do not have to have the most exspensive to get the greatest shots. I was in 50% agreement with you. You do have to have skills in photography to get great shots. Especially with a DSLR. I agree that point and shoot cameras do have many limitations, including the Olympus Camedia line of 700 series cameras. Thats why I switched over to DSLR. I think I said that somewhere. Anyway, I am not a pro photographer nor do I have a job in photography. I do it because I like it and I like to preserve memories. Shadows,5500k lighting,tungsten lighting, all that is greek to me and as far as I am concerned not needed to me for great shots. Speed, sharpness and good color saturation makes me happy. Thats why 95% of my shots are keepers. The only time I run any of my images through an image editor is when they need a little sharpening or a little saturation. If they need more than that they are deleted on the spot and I try again. I want to be a great photographer straight out of the camera and not an expert at photoshop. And I have found that I do not need expensive equipment to get the shots I want. Just a little trial and error with the equipment I have. And all the photos you have posted here, which are great shots by the way, could of easily of been taken with a point and shoot in any zoo. You did not capture anyunique lighting or any animal in extreme motion. Your photos are sharp,contrasty and well saturated. Very capable of a point and shoot. At least my Olympus C-750 UZ. If my Olympus was as fast as my 20-D I would of keep it and saved myself a few thousand dollars. It was 24mm on the wide end and with the 10x optical zoom and the T-CON 17 it was 640 mm on the long end and also had micro. But it was as slow as molasses running uphill in January and made me miss a lot of great action shots. So thats why I am in the DSLR world now. Now to comment on your post. 1. I never said I had bad equipment or the equipment was at fault for my bad shooting. I clearly was explaining that even with the best equipment,untill you really know how to use it, your not going to get satisfactory photos. Skill is a must with a DSLR. 2. Who standards are you refering to? The way I was brought up and the way I am living now is this: You are here only for a short time and if you spend that time trying to please others, your just wasting your life away. I make me happy. And I do photograpy for me to enjoy. If others like my work, thats great. If not thats great to. I shoot the way I do cause thats the way I like it. I dont give a damn about anyone elses HIGH STANDARDS!!!!!!! 3. All of my shots are original and of intrest, to me. They are original because no one else is in the same spot, taking the same picture at the same time. That makes mine an original. And of course my photos are of intrest, to me, or else why would I be wasting my time on it. So there you go. Just a little more rambling for you to read.

And thanks,but no thanks for the job offer. If the word job was in any way connected to my photograpy, all the fun would be lost.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 3:42 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Arowana,

You took me seriously about the job, Oh ok then. :lol:

Look we obviously havea different understanding and view point ona lot ofaspects of photography.Thats fine and certainly understandable. End of story.

I don't particularly think my shots are anything fantastic. Anyone with a slight bit of time, skill and imagination could I'm sure repeatand do much better. However they would not be replicated with a point and shoot. For you to say this is daft as you are not even aware of the shooting conditions or the subject movement. To an extent, apart from the baby, your mistaken ifyou think any of these creatures were static.Anyway I will not explain why as I have said enough. Maybe someone else will be subjective enough as to explain to you the difference a point and shoot would have made to these shots. Or better still do a search yourself on the web regarding the differences.

I agree with you and NHL about photographers producing wonderful shots with P and S. What is it that you are not seeing in my posts. I have added that in order to obtain a consistency of photography at todays standards (and yes photography has changed hugely and still is changing, slowly every day) the pro equipment is necessary. I am not for one min saying "hey you guys you all need pro equipment or you can forget photography".Really, I think you know what I am saying, but are just both a little petulant, dogmatic and argumentative. As I have said previously, I am standing from a different perspective on this and ifyou don't agree or understandthen ok, no problem. Myself and every other photographer in every aspect of photography must have been getting it wrong for all these years. Jee if only you guys had been around earlier to help us out, we could have saved all that hard earned cash and just bought an Olympus 700. I'm off out to Dixon's on the high street to get one right now. :G

Well done hee hee, you have successfully worn me out.

Take care and above all enjoy your shooting.




LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 9:20 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

LBoy,

I know and you know the jod thingy was a joke. Thanks for the laugh.

As far as your pictures go that you posted here, they are fantastic. Just go ahead and accept the compliment. But if you believe a point and shoot can not reproduce photos as good as those then mabey you do need to go out and get one and take another trip to the zoo. It can be done.

Myself and NHL are not trying to change the course of photograpyor any photograpers style or equipment. I think we just have some of the same views on these subjects and one of them is " You do not need the best, to be the best". Neither of use have ever put Canon or any other company down for the products they produce. All we are trying to say to the people who read posts here and you also is " you do not have to spend thousands of dollars on equipment to get great photographs". If you want something to brag about or if you want that OOOHHHH feeling ever time you open your camera bag and see all those white lenses then be my guest and get Canon. But its just really funny to me to see people posting pictures that have a $1500.00 dollar set up and there pictures look just as good, if not better than those who post with thousands of dollars in there bag.

The truth is I really do not care what kind of equipment you shoot with. The reason I started following you from thread to thread is I really do not like people who like to step on the little guy. If Sigma made trashy lenses and equipment then I would understand you point of view. But some oftheir equipment is top notch compared to Canon. I know, I have some of it and I have tried Canon also. So I am not speaking blindly.I know you are going to continue shooting with nothing but Canon products. And that is great. But for you to say that you have to shoot with Pro equipment to get Pro results and to keep up with todays standards is just wrong and misleading. So as long as you keep posting info such as that and as long as you keep bashing the little guy, I will be here" to cover your nose so you do not drown when you walk around in the rain".:blah:
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 11:49 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

ok

Again well put, but again missing the point

To reiterate what I have previously written
Quote:
Every camera/lens is to an extent capable of fantastic shots in the right conditions.But a test like the above will not represent lifelike shooting environments and situations. Good equipment will mean the shooting environmentswithin whichyou are able to "get" the shot will broaden vastly. The photographers skill can do nothing to change this.On the other hand,an unskilled photographer with all the necessary equipment will occasionally get a lucky shot but in general will not become hugely better because of it.

As Ipreviouslyimplied,it isa combination of both that is required to obtain a high standard of consistency.
I don't think that I could not have got the shot with a P&S, I absolutely know this.

The combination of available light and subject movement,

The depth I field I needed which "makes" the shot

The shutter raw burst capability.

Ability to hand hold in certain situations with the aid of IS

The true optical image rendition within the view finder

The above combination of characteristics is simply not available with point and shoot cameras. We all know this. When you couple this with situations where you must get the shoot first time or you simply don't have time to sit around waiting for the right conditions for you equipment, there really no argument about the two types of equipment.

Its not really my style, but seeing as your making it your personal quest "to follow me from thread to thread" why not take a P&S camera down to you local zoo and try it yourself. Now don't cheat, only 100 shutter actuations and 2 hours fun time (thats all I got. Post 6 of your results here, and if I get the feeling from reasonable contributors on this lens forum that they are in all respects better I will send you the royalties to the above shots I have taken. It equates to a figure that would enable the purchase of the body and lens combination that took them in the first place. Or of course if you prefer at least a number of those fantastic P&S cameras of yours.

I neverfeel OOOHHHH when I look in my camera bag, but I do often feel fairly good when at the end of the day I have bagged exactly what I had set out for. One of my most used lenses is the Canon 50mm f1.4 which is not a terribly expensive lens. But it is high quality. I am always recommending this lens and theeven less expensive1.8. However it is the case that more often then not high quality means high cost. This is life, not of my making.

There is no intention of as you say "bashing the little guy" This is a canon lens forum and as I own and use canon lenses I will continue to give an opinion on them. And the higher end lenses for definite. I have never went to the P&S pages and told anyone there equipment was no good.

I must thank you for looking out for me and throwing the rubber rings, however I'm actually not a bad swimmer so think I will manage fine for myself.

Take care.

ps. Arowana, I saw your ducks and cars photographs on another thread

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

Very well taken. However if you don't mind me saying, try to add a bit more imagination toyour shots.


LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 9:56 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I do understand you take a lot of pride in your photograpy. And I understand you do take time and planning on your shots. All I was trying to say is those shots you posted were not in extreme conditions nor were the subjects to static for a point and shoot. My old point and shoot had a shutter speed of 2000. Thats more than enough to freeze any animal in action. Now granted you will only get one chance at it cause of recycle time, but it can be done. And I will take you up on your suggestion. I will borrow a Olympus 750 from my father in lae and take a trip to the zoo. I will not be able to shoot such great animals like the bear and exotic monkeys because or lame zoo doesnt offer such animals. But tigers and fish and birds will shurely be o.k. I do not plan on going back to point and shoot cameras. I have got used to my 20-D and love it dearly. The speed has ruined me for life.

And just in case you get you get swimmers cramp, I will be here to help.

And as for the pics I posted, thanks for the compliment. These paticlar pics were just test shots on the new 100-300 f/4 Sigma. They were not composed or set up for quality print outs. Was just walking around the park and getting the feel for the new equipment. I will see if I can dig up something better.

Thanks for all the replys. Belive it or not I am actually learning a few things from all this. Its great to chat with someone with so much knowledge. I am really not trying to be a pest. Just trying to make a point.:?
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 11:52 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Heres a few pics I dug up off a disk from my Olympus 750 UZ. This was back from when I really did not know anything about photography.
Attached Images
 
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 11:54 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

2
Attached Images
 
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:29 AM.