Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,839
Like?
Re: Advice for the thread starter
In reply to danijel973, Apr 6, 2013

danijel973 wrote:

Richard wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

I looked at your gallery. There's not a single image in there that couldn't have been captured with a cellphone, and in better quality. You don't need a superior camera system. You need to read books on photography and practice, because you lack basic skills.

Says the man who has 4 cameras one of the FF the other medium format and fast f2.8 glass or better and has a gallery full of narrow DOF images.

Half of which were made with a entry-level m43 camera and a Minolta lens from the '80s, and which the OP could've made easily with his Nikon, as far as hardware is concerned.

No, you must admit, he needed fast glass to do what you are doing.

The OP has an old entry level nikon camera with a kit lens.

For the last two years I've been using Olympus E-PL1 almost exclusively, just to prove the point.

And I would agree with the point that camera phones-point and shoots-4/3rds-mirrorless are "good enough" for a lot of things.

You already know the advantages of FF and fast glass and you can get pictures that the OP could never get with his system whether he read books or not

This is simply not true. He could make absolutely brilliant images with his Nikon and its kit lens.

This was not the topic of the post. I would say there are pro photographers that could take just about any camera and do better than someone without skills or traingin.

As an addition to the kit lens he could buy a set of Kenko macro extenders and a 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor for a very modest amount of money and create DoF thin enough to make his eyeballs bleed.

Still not versatile which is the topic of the post. You are limited by distance to subject AF and other things. I agree that you can be created and do a lot of things but that is not the point of the post, it is versatility. The FF systems from Nikon and Canon are unsurpassed in this regard

I actually used such setup with my friend's camera and it is similar in all respects to the one I use on Canon and Olympus. It's neither about money nor about full frame. I used 43, APS and 35mm cameras and the differences in actual photographic abilities are minor; definitely nothing to lose sleep over.

One thing I know is that if he had your 50 1.7 or 85 1.8 he would be able to make shallow dof flowers shots like in gallery all day without reading a book.

Have in mind that the 50mm f/1.7 is mounted on E-PL1, with m43 sensor, and cost me around $30.

If you would explain this to him perhaps you could convince him an E PL1 and a 50 1.7 is enough even though that is not what the topic it about. Most pros do not buy mirrorless because they need the most versatile and the best tool.

So if he knew what to buy and what to do with it he could easily do something similar, but he'd have to read those books, because there's some basic theory behind all that. He seems to think that for versatility he needs a 35mm camera, and the fact is, he needs knowledge on how to adapt and use his current camera to obtain certain results.

I agree with you, that he may be ignorant to the options, and you should explain that but that is not what the topic was about and you demeaned him instead.

Maybe if you explained how fast glass can help you overcome limitations in mirrorless of noise, narrow DOF, better AF in low light, that he might find his entry level or a mirrorless camera good enough or versatile enough that you may not need a FF depending on what you shoot.

I could do that, but I would still recommend that he reads books on basic photography, because equipment is not his problem.

No you would rather demean him and his images and tell him to go read books. I said if I gave him your systems whatever they may be and the 1.7 or 1.4 lenses, he would be able to get the narrow dof just like your images without having to buy extension tubes.

But that still does not nullify his argument that FF is more versatile in almost every way.

No, it's not. Versatility in that sense doesn't have anything to do with sensor format. It's a function of the entire system, not camera alone.

This is somewhat true, that it is a function of the entire system but he said in his argument that FF generally carried the higher price tag which allows for the better functions. So it is absolutely true FF is the most versatile. Sure you can work around some of the limitation of mirrorless  but then you are admitting it has more limitations which is why it is less versatile.

But since you are proclaiming to be the expert on these things and why we don't need FF, perhaps you can help me. I have been wanting a FF but I would be fine if I could make my system work.

There are two types of photography that I do where I am thinking I want a FF camera (realize all my lenses were made for FF and I use them on a crop sensor.

1, I take sports. It is in a stadium where I need to run ISO3200 need very fast focus and I have to use 2.8 or better with iso3200 to minimize motion blurr and increase the number of keepers. I want to isolate my subject with background blurr. Problem is I cannot get close with my crop sensor camera because if I do, I crop out the motorcycle. So to get the motorcycle in the frame I have to move back which then increases the DOF. Of course I need AF because it is a moving target.

The below photos are what I am talking about, the shallowness of the DOF is just OK, would be better with more so the background was blurred more. But when I shoot a the ground the objects are much closer and are much more distracting

The other situation is when using a 400 2.8 I am able to isolate the background well but I cannot get the whole subject in the picture, I cannot step back because I am at the back of the theater, The 200mm at 2.8 does not isolate much.

For some reason DPR is doing some strange vertical shift and image size adjustment. You can view the pics here http://www.mxphotos.net/woz/  or you can click on original size to see the images correctly. I don't know why DPR is doing this strangeness.

Now if you can tell me I can get a narrow DOF in low light high ISO with AF, without cropping my subject or spend big money for new lenses (I already have a 400 2.8 70-200 2.8 135 2.0 85 1.2), I would appreciate you telling me. Or you could insult me like you did the OP and tell me to read a book (in that case I will assume you don't know)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow