RX10 Reality Check: Coming back down to earth

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Biggiep
New MemberPosts: 14Gear list
Like?
Re: The cost of increasing scale...
In reply to paris1968, 10 months ago

paris1968 wrote:

Good question. One reason I feel that way is as Capa put it, if you're pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough. I know there are exceptions, like for birders, but those are special circumstances. For me, 135mm in an FX format is perfect for portraits, and I've no need for more. If I am taking a picture of something far away, where a 200mm reach is needed, I've found that air quality usually trumps the lens's native resolving power. On the lower end, I've found that all the "environment" that a short lens can bend into the shot to surround my subject is useful. This is why I'll gladly trade the 135 to 200mm range for 12-24mm on the shorter end.

Using the mantra of "getting closer to your subject" to marginalize the importance of long range zooming is something that causes recoil amongst those of use who do the kinds of photography that I'm guessing you don't. I suppose your insufficient characterization of the need for long zooms as "special circumstances" is entirely understandable if all that comes to mind is birding.

What happens when we are physically restrained from getting closer to our subject by things like geographic obstacles (ex. heights, water), permission (ex. sporting events), or safety? At this point, any issue like air quality clearly comes second to the ability to actually get closer. Do we just take wide pictures and crop a very small section of the photo to get the desired composition? Imagine if I told you that 135mm is unnecessary for portraits and you should just get closer to your subject. Surely you would bat an eye if I told you I find it sufficient to take a 35mm prime and walk right up to someone's face and because of that I'd sacrifice the reach of 135mm to get an extra 8-12mm on the wide end.

Another issue you probably are thinking of after reading the prior sentence is that obviously walking up to someone's face for portraits leads to issues with perspective. Well surprise, changes in perspective and relationship between background and foreground apply to every kind of photography. With this in mind, you are no more entitled to your 135mm as someone else is to their 200mm.

Now, I certainly respect everyone's shooting preferences including yours. If you said you'd be fine without 200mm because given the kinds of subjects you shoot you never need it, that's perfectly acceptable, but I take exception to the myopic generalization you just put out there about shooting with long zooms.

 Biggiep's gear list:Biggiep's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
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