Why are kit lens' pictures like P&S?

Started Dec 3, 2012 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,616
Re: Kim, there have been demonstrations of pros demonstrating what P&S cameras can do.

Bart Hickman wrote:

KimChu wrote:

the buyers from P&S background that thinks that his entry l;evel dslr with the kit lens can instantly give him those fantastic kinds of shots will soon feel a let down when he takes his new dslr on a photo walk.

And I think everybody's point here is a buyer from a P&S background going on a photo walk will be disappointed with any camera/lens combo you give them because their problem isn't the camera. They sure as heck aren't going to get Sports Illustrated material on a photo walk.

But in reality, most entry-level DSLR owners are happy with the kit lens and don't realize that they're supposed to be disappointed.

And, yeah, what does "SI material" have to do with a typical photo walk?  People are either going to get better results or they are not.

in my opinion, the kit lens is a do it all kind of lens. it tries to do all types of shots - macro,sports,low light etc. in the process of trying to be all it comes out mediocre for all.

If a lens is mediocre in image quality, it's only because of other design constraints -- maybe to be cheap, poorly designed, whatever.  As a kit lens, the Nex kit lens is pretty decent, and is good for a general-purpose lens.  If it tries to do it all, it's because it's a zoom covering the best range; this is actually a good thing.  If the best results are desired, it might be good to step the aperture down a bit, though.  If the best sharpness is desired, particularly in the corners, another lens may be needed.  But go back and compare to your old P&S; I did, and found soft corners, excessive PF, etc.

I disagree. A kit lens is in the sweet spot for most portraits, still lifes, abstracts, and landscapes which is what most photos in the world are. It's not targeted at those three you specifically mentioned (macro, sports, low light). It's also obviously not trying to shoot wildlife.

I agree -- most people aren't going to get hung-up on the most narrow uses.  Things like low-light performance can be improved with a more expensive lens, but anyone coming from a P&S background should still see an improvement with the kit lens.

camera manufacturers should have a disclaimer with the kit lens - "

"You will not be able to takes pictures similar to what you see in Sports Illustrated or National Geographic magazines. If you want those shots then buy our xxmm f1.4 lens that costs $500-$1000"

..."and several hundred hours of practice and reading books on technique, design, and composition"...

FWIW, Sport Illustrated photogs probably don't mess around with measly $1000 lenses. National Geographic is a different story--there are tons of shots in National Geographic that could have easily been shot with a kit lens.

Should Chevy have to put a warning on all Corvettes: "You will not be able to go 200 mph similar to what you see on TV. If you want to do that, you need to buy a formula racer and pit crew."

When people find it easier to take pics of their kids playing sports, or whatever they're doing for action, it will either be better than a P&S or not.  I don't think most average people look at their photos, sigh, and wish the photos came out like National Geographic photos.  A lot of people probably think their results DO look like they're out of National Geographic!    No, seriously, I think most people know that they're not pro photographers and won't get the best results most of the time, but are tired of dark photos, blurry photos, etc., and things that perhaps could be resolved with a better camera.

that way people know what they are getting into. as of now, you see people wanting to constantly upgrade their camera to nex 5, nex 6, nex 7, rx1. in the hope that the new models will bring them closer to their dream shots.

These people only have themselves to blame.

I wonder how many people really upgrade every year though? I've got 2.5 years on my Nex-5.  My DSLR still works as well as it did when I bought it several years ago.  I wouldn't mind upgrading sometime.  The new cameras might AF better, which could bring me closer to my "dream shots" in cases where my current camera missed focus.  But in cases where the camera is in focus, I can't say that I have much to complain about.   The addition of WiFi and improved controls also seems like good improvements.  Would I upgrade based upon WiFi expecting instant "dream shots"?   Compared to my phone camera, which I currently need in order to post images while on-the-go, perhaps so.  


-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow