Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete Locked

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,894Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

What I find funny is that I already live by what I say

OK like stating ones post will be ignored, and then reacting to them ?

Just curious

Jakob

jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,894Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to tt321, Aug 4, 2013

. Sure you and other soccer moms with no sense of quality in a image can "fake" blur, its just not the same.

They don't want to fake blur. They want no blur at all, preferably enough DoF so that nothing is unsharp across the frame. This is very valid of course as a personal artistic preference, but they should understand that there are others who don't always prefer this.

I dont think Amalcric knows what he wants besides instigating a argument in forums like this with a very strange cocktail  of arguments and a logic of his own.

But you are right that arguing with someone who uses his own very individual and in this case rather specific "taste" as a general argument and/or pseudo fact in a debate is meaningless.

I rest my case

Best wishes

Jakob

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,809
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to tt321, Aug 4, 2013

tt321 wrote:

jagge wrote:

And that is ONLY one usage of fast glass. The other is subject isolation which can not be "faked" at this point. Sure you and other soccer moms with no sense of quality in a image can "fake" blur, its just not the same.

They don't want to fake blur. They want no blur at all, preferably enough DoF so that nothing is unsharp across the frame. This is very valid of course as a personal artistic preference, but they should understand that there are others who don't always prefer this.

Well, you finally got it. I care about resolution and DR because they carry *information*. I don't care about what *obfuscates* it. It is a painterly style which went obsolete almost a century ago, and has been revived by commercial photography, which is *no art* at all, but just money.

So the discussion has been all the time about style and aesthetics.

Having said that I have in my small panoply two old and fast portrait lenses, one of which was called a 'bokeh king', but I simply forget to use them, so little it is part of my style.

Additionally it never crossed my mind to forbid  using fast lenses. It is the purpose some people use them for that makes me laugh.

Am.

slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,564Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 5, 2013

amalric wrote:

slimandy wrote:

MrScorpio wrote:

seilerbird666 wrote:

Quite a while ago in fact.

However there still are a few people who watch Betamax tapes, listen to records and use a land line so there will always be a few people who refuse to come into the modern world. They hang on to past technologies like it is a winning lottery ticket. They refuse to admit that new technology is better and they refuse to even try it.

High ISO cameras, advanced shooting modes, Photoshop, and image stabilization have all contributed to making fast lenses a thing of the past.

The economics are amazing. A Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens is $2500. The exact same lens in f4 costs $1000. While there might be a few people in the world that can justify spending $1500 for one more stop, the overwhelming majority would laugh at such an idea.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

I think Seilerbird is correct for what I would call "the big masses". But people here are not part of "the big masses" in terms of photography. This community is often aspiring of being more into photography than the average mobile phone shooter. Therefore the question is extremely relevant for the producers of the mass consumption market, but hopelessly irrelevant here. Just my opinion...

This is an interesting point but my brother is one of the masses rather than a keen photographer and he asked me how to get the shallow DOF he sees in some of my shots. Now he owns a fast prime lens alongside his kit zoom. Funnily enough he has never asked me how to get more resolution.

Isn't it because you have the typical midbrow taste of the suburban classes?

No, but it is typical of you to suggbest so.

One might not be quite interested in beautifying brides like marriage hacks do, so good resolution helps when you do *reality*.

That is the old Magnum tradition at least. As mentioned shallow DOF is now just a smartphone App.

Your standards must be way lower than mine (and my brtothers).

I contend that fast lenses make you lose more resolution at full aperture than a fast sensor, and that as sensors keep improving they will keep getting additional stops, while lenses won't. Even the Cosinas have v. poor resolution at 0.95, and they are massive lenses.

Have I seen my shots lacking resolution? No. Can I see shallow DOF? Yes.

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

No you can't, and that fact that a smartphone is good enough for you speaks volumes about you.


 
-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,184
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, Aug 5, 2013

seilerbird666 wrote:

Quite a while ago in fact.

However there still are a few people who watch Betamax tapes, listen to records and use a land line so there will always be a few people who refuse to come into the modern world. They hang on to past technologies like it is a winning lottery ticket. They refuse to admit that new technology is better and they refuse to even try it.

High ISO cameras, advanced shooting modes, Photoshop, and image stabilization have all contributed to making fast lenses a thing of the past.

The economics are amazing. A Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens is $2500. The exact same lens in f4 costs $1000. While there might be a few people in the world that can justify spending $1500 for one more stop, the overwhelming majority would laugh at such an idea.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

There is nothing much wrong with older sensors but the newer ones just let you use slower lenses in more circumstances.

Of course that ALSO means you can use the faster ones in more circumstances too.

The vast majoity of people in the world would think it silly to speed $600 on photography....

The vast majority ON THIS SITE would not.....it is all relative.

For live music I want the best sensor AND fast lenses....many of the better lenses are better wide open (or stopped down a bit) than some slower ones at comparable apertures.

Art_P
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,104Gear list
So you never forbid
In reply to amalric, Aug 5, 2013

anyone from using a fast lens... still you took every opportunity to insult and chastise anyone showing a preference for fast lenses, as if yours was the only opinion that mattered.

How did that work out for you Am, or should I say Red? I see you posting under your backup persona, did you get banned?

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads