A different view on lenses for the 10D

For many years I lugged around a Nikon F2 Photomic with 28mm, 50mm, 105mm,
and I believe something like a 100-300mm lens, just to be sure I would
have the right lens for each shot. And I did. But when travelling, it took quite
a toll on my neck and shoulders. So, when I went to Italy last year, the only
camera I took was a Nikon Coolpix 990. This was fine for about 85-90% of

the pictures I took, and my body didn't suffer. I was also able to make very fine
cropped, 8x10's, using Genuine Fractals (which came with it), and an Epson
870 Photo printer. Now I am hooked on digital photography, and am thinking
about doing even more, with a SLR like the Canon 10D (and perhaps the
Epson 2200) but do not want to end up wearing a neck brace (I am now over 60).
So, as was previously suggested, each according to his needs.

Fredrick,

I agree with what you say. I like to hike and acquired a set of lenses to be used as "hiking lenses" and then another set for shooting my prime subject (he's now 1 year old). The hiking set consists of the 28-135IS, 20-35 F2.8L, and 100-300 F5.6L. However, I have found that the 28-135IS serves me well and know I leave the big glass at home (when hiking). The 28-135 is small and light enough not to be a nuisance, the IS helps me quite a bit (especially when doing low light shots at sunset/sunrise), and the range is just about right for me. So when I'm out and about, the 28-135 is for me. However, that being said, if I'm pretty much stationary (such as the young one's 1 year birthday party), I prefer the 28-70 L and 80-200 L and will haul them out. To me, there is a clear cut difference between these L lenses and the 28-135 IS and when the shots count (weddings, birthday parties, etc.) then the bigger, heavier stuff is used. If however, I'm hiking or sight seeing, the 28-135 IS works well and the tradeoff in convenience and back strain is well worth it.

Jim

Fredrick said:

For many years I lugged around a Nikon F2 Photomic with 28mm, 50mm,
105mm,
and I believe something like a 100-300mm lens, just to be sure I would
have the right lens for each shot. And I did. But when travelling,
it took quite
a toll on my neck and shoulders. So, when I went to Italy last
year, the only
camera I took was a Nikon Coolpix 990. This was fine for about
85-90% of
the pictures I took, and my body didn't suffer. I was also able to
make very fine
cropped, 8x10's, using Genuine Fractals (which came with it), and
an Epson
870 Photo printer. Now I am hooked on digital photography, and am
thinking
about doing even more, with a SLR like the Canon 10D (and perhaps the
Epson 2200) but do not want to end up wearing a neck brace (I am
now over 60).
So, as was previously suggested, each according to his needs.

Click to expand...

jim powers wrote:
..... So when I'm out and about, the

jim powers said:

28-135 is for me. However, that being said, if I'm pretty much
stationary (such as the young one's 1 year birthday party), I
prefer the 28-70 L and 80-200 L and will haul them out. To me,
there is a clear cut difference between these L lenses and the
28-135 IS and when the shots count (weddings, birthday parties,
etc.) then the bigger, heavier stuff is used. If however, I'm
hiking or sight seeing, the 28-135 IS works well and the tradeoff
in convenience and back strain is well worth it.

Click to expand...

Jim

You make a good point in differentiating between being at a relatively
stationary location, and having to haul your equipment around for
extended periods of time as when travelling or hiking.

I went to a talk by Lynn Davis at the World Monuments Fund gallery ("WMF is the only private, nonprofit organization devoted to onsite conservation of monuments and sites worldwide"). Her photographs are inspiring. She said (and I believe her) that fashion photographers shoot more images in a single day than she shoots in five years. She spends a lot of time figuring out the perfect location and light and then patiently waits for the perfect moment...anyway, to get back to the subject at hand, she carries a single Rolleiflex, a light meter, and film. That's it. So she's even more minimalist that what's being suggested. And her photographs are amazing. The ones I saw were probably 3 feet by 3 feet. The shadows and highlights and composition all come together to make beautiful photos.

And, as a bonus, she can fix a Rolleiflex in the field if need be since "it's nothing more than a box that light passes through." An incredible woman.

Anyway, you can see thumbnails of some of her work on the URL below. If you click on any of the photos, you will be taken to a page where the photographs are not hers, so the small ones on the page are the best I can do.

Here's the URL (and while you're there, learn more about the WMF -- they're a great organization to support!):

http://www.wmf.org/html/programs/gallery.html

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • -- - - - - - - - - - - - SMoody

http://www.pbase.com/smoody
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

mvmphoto,

You have probably figured out by now that you have stepped on this groups sacred cow, that being "Life style accessories".

It's kind of like telling a group of Harley posers/riders that they don't need their,"Life style accessories", (that being tatoos, earrings, black tee shirts, big guts and a trailer for the bike), in order to enjoy motorcycling.

Well the Harley lifestyle isn't about motorcycling, and, as I was told, rather bluntly the other evening, this forum isn't about photography.

Providing that these people actually have the equiptment that they claim, they will never admit that someone can enjoy photopraphy with a DSLR, without a shi*pot full of expensive lenses. If you suggest otherwise, they will tell you trhat you arn't ready for a DSLR, that you need to stay with a Point and Shoot didicam untill your skills improve.

Just claim to have $20,000 in equiptment, agree with all of the internet experts on this forum, and you to can post, (their opinions), without any further problems.

mvmphoto said:

You miss the point. I don't compromise. I don't spend time
"choosing" what to bring. I don't try to "guess what I might need".

I carry it all...because "it all" is light and always with me.

Click to expand...

MVMphoto

mvmphoto said:

Steven Noyes said:

Steven

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses. I
bought them...had them all. Finally sold them. Why?

"f8 and be there", that's why.

The way to get great photos, the saying goes...is..."f8 and be
there". The emphasis in on BEING THERE...WITH YOUR CAMERA.

I carry my camera everywhere. AND I GET THE SHOT. Around the block
or a 15 mile hike...no problem. My camera is with me. I get the
shot.

Because my equipment is LIGHT and easy to carry. All I carry is my
10D, two lenses (sometimes a single lens), a polarizer, an extra
battery...all in a small hip pouch.

How? I have two lenses...the 28-135 IS and the Tokina 17mm. That's
it. Easy to carry. Always there. Covers every need.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT. Try a 15 mile hike with all that. Not
fun. Try putting it all on your bike. Nope.

"f8 and be there"....but you have to "be there" with your
equipment. Are you carrying it everywhere? Really? Bet not.

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

"f8 and be there"

MVMphoto

Click to expand...

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/in_the_supers
http://upload.pbase.com/snoyes/flight_to_the_canyon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mvmphoto said:

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

Click to expand...

Well, Adams shot with an 8x10 field camera. If you think carrying three L zooms is bad, carrying an 8x10 into the field is several thousand times worse -- about the furthest thing from portable you can imagine. But absolute sharpness of the lens doesn't really matter.

Your point is well made regardless -- buy only what you'll use ;-).

mvmphoto said:

"f8 and be there"

Click to expand...

For Adams, it was f/64 and be there ;-).

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/

Oks...

Can you shot real macros with 28-135? No! macro guy
Can you shot sports with 28-135? No! sport pal
Can you shot wideangles with 28-135? No! WA Man
Can you shot music/theater shows with only 135? No! showman
Can you shot whatever.... ? No! whathever boy
....

mvmphoto said:

"f8 and be there".

Click to expand...

the "be there" means be THERE (close) Kappa used to say that: if the picture isn't good, you aren't close enough. (something like that, sorry but I remember the phrase in catalan and trying to translate back).

28-135 suits your style of photography... (landscape I presume)... but not mine (or macro/sports/...)

I do agree in always carring the camera with you when not going to an scheduled meeting... so you need it to be light. fine. one body, one lens.

BUT, if you know were you are going, what will you find there, wich will be your needs, how will the people move around, your chances of going close to the action... then you bring a backpack with the tools needed...

You are hiking AND taking pictures... so you need a light equipment. But that's 'cause you are hiking... and 'cause it suits your needs.

If I'm walking by without knowing what I'll find, then I carry a light equipment, just in case something appears. That's obvious...

But your comments:

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT.

Click to expand...

So you didn't plan your sesions... just walk by... it's ok... but some people prefers preparing them.

You can't decide... well, I can.

You don't need it's quality... well, I do...

But I don laugh at your tastes (or lack of experience to decide or plan)

my two cents,
Sarbos

living ... err ... photographing on the 'limit' you really need something like f1.4 or f2.8 ... and sometimes more than 135mm ...



--
Regards, Ulli

'I don't worry if my lenses are sharp. I worry if my pictures are selling.'

Brian Kennedy said:

mvmphoto said:

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

Click to expand...

Well, Adams shot with an 8x10 field camera. If you think carrying
three L zooms is bad, carrying an 8x10 into the field is several
thousand times worse -- about the furthest thing from portable you
can imagine. But absolute sharpness of the lens doesn't really
matter.

Your point is well made regardless -- buy only what you'll use ;-).

Member said:

"f8 and be there"

Click to expand...

For Adams, it was f/64 and be there ;-).

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/

Click to expand...

--
Jamie W.
Kindness. Compassion. Understanding. Respect. Courtesy.
I try to live up to these words. Do you?
Film? What do you mean, film?

You can still be about photography and still have the equipment. There are people that are happy with taking snap shots of places they have been. They document their life, the places they have seen. They good photos in noon day sun of wonderfull places. "f-8 and be there" is this a prime example. They have no ability to control the contrast of scene, will not control DOF. There journey has photography as a side point, not THE point.

For others, an attempt to truly meld photography to the outdoors is attempted. I actually "practice" carrying the equipment from time to time. And sometimes, I carry only a G1. No DSLR. No "L" glass. No tripod.

Are these "life style accessories?" Not as you imply. They are the accessories of the life style I have chosen to live for the next several years. Each accessory has been picked for a specific reason. To improve the chance of capturing the image.

So then it becomes a question of what you want to do with photography. And for me:

Allen-W said:

Allen-W said:

Allen-W said:

Allen-W said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses. I
bought them...had them all. Finally sold them. Why?

"f8 and be there", that's why.

The way to get great photos, the saying goes...is..."f8 and be
there". The emphasis in on BEING THERE...WITH YOUR CAMERA.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Is how to great great snap shots and is why I still carry a G1 from time to time.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/in_the_supers
http://upload.pbase.com/snoyes/flight_to_the_canyon

... when I hike, be it for 30 minutes or all day. Yeah, it took a while for my body to adjust (I'm 46) but now the ONLY disadvantage is the fact that my back sweats due to the camera backpack (Lowepro Nature Trekker AW.)

I carry macro stuff, all of the lenses that you listed PLUS the 100-400L, a tiny tripod, flash, etc., along with my EOS-1D.

I've used it all at one time or another ... and being a little bit OCD, I don't want anything left behind if I MIGHT use it.
If nothing else, I've become stronger!
KP

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses. I
bought them...had them all. Finally sold them. Why?

"f8 and be there", that's why.

The way to get great photos, the saying goes...is..."f8 and be
there". The emphasis in on BEING THERE...WITH YOUR CAMERA.

I carry my camera everywhere. AND I GET THE SHOT. Around the block
or a 15 mile hike...no problem. My camera is with me. I get the
shot.

Because my equipment is LIGHT and easy to carry. All I carry is my
10D, two lenses (sometimes a single lens), a polarizer, an extra
battery...all in a small hip pouch.

How? I have two lenses...the 28-135 IS and the Tokina 17mm. That's
it. Easy to carry. Always there. Covers every need.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT. Try a 15 mile hike with all that. Not
fun. Try putting it all on your bike. Nope.

"f8 and be there"....but you have to "be there" with your
equipment. Are you carrying it everywhere? Really? Bet not.

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

"f8 and be there"

MVMphoto

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

MVMphoto,

You're dead on by repeating that famous quip. My kit of choice is the D30 and EF 28/2.8, but there's a problem: I fail to carry it 24/7 because it's STILL too heavy. The weight problem is solved by the P&S genre, but the automation and lag is unacceptable to me.

My current toy, and contender for the 24/7 crown, is a Contax film SLR. I shot a family event in the typical restaurant setting: limited light, food spills, cramped quarters, fleeting moments. Aria with 50/1.4 and 800 ASA film worked like a champ: compact, full auto or manual at the flick of a switch, big and bright VF, no shutter lag.

Aria has manual focus on ground glass, meaning no need to recompose. At f/1.4, I could dial focus and observe the focus plane sail down the table, and simply fire at will: creative control without the gymnastics. Many subjects were on the edge of frame.

Having a light camera with you at all times is a good thing, but I can also carry the heavy metal for specific missions: one philosophy doesn't exclude the other. For occasions that call for flash, a tripod, a 700 gram wide angle, the 24/7 kit must yield center stage to the specialist.

I always thought that shot, was the past tense of shoot. "We shot a picture, want to see the pics of the shoot?"
English are easy.

sarbos said:

Can you shot real macros with 28-135? No! macro guy
Can you shot sports with 28-135? No! sport pal
Can you shot wideangles with 28-135? No! WA Man
Can you shot music/theater shows with only 135? No! showman
Can you shot whatever.... ? No! whathever boy
....

sarbos said:

"f8 and be there".

Click to expand...

the "be there" means be THERE (close) Kappa used to say that: if
the picture isn't good, you aren't close enough. (something like
that, sorry but I remember the phrase in catalan and trying to
translate back).

28-135 suits your style of photography... (landscape I presume)...
but not mine (or macro/sports/...)

I do agree in always carring the camera with you when not going to
an scheduled meeting... so you need it to be light. fine. one body,
one lens.

BUT, if you know were you are going, what will you find there, wich
will be your needs, how will the people move around, your chances
of going close to the action... then you bring a backpack with the
tools needed...

You are hiking AND taking pictures... so you need a light
equipment. But that's 'cause you are hiking... and 'cause it suits
your needs.

If I'm walking by without knowing what I'll find, then I carry a
light equipment, just in case something appears. That's obvious...

But your comments:

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT.

Click to expand...

So you didn't plan your sesions... just walk by... it's ok... but
some people prefers preparing them.

You can't decide... well, I can.

You don't need it's quality... well, I do...

But I don laugh at your tastes (or lack of experience to decide or
plan)

my two cents,
Sarbos

Click to expand...

Hey Ken,
Do you have a gallery we can view. I would love to see some of your work..!
Dale

Ken Phillips said:

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses. I
bought them...had them all. Finally sold them. Why?

"f8 and be there", that's why.

The way to get great photos, the saying goes...is..."f8 and be
there". The emphasis in on BEING THERE...WITH YOUR CAMERA.

I carry my camera everywhere. AND I GET THE SHOT. Around the block
or a 15 mile hike...no problem. My camera is with me. I get the
shot.

Because my equipment is LIGHT and easy to carry. All I carry is my
10D, two lenses (sometimes a single lens), a polarizer, an extra
battery...all in a small hip pouch.

How? I have two lenses...the 28-135 IS and the Tokina 17mm. That's
it. Easy to carry. Always there. Covers every need.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT. Try a 15 mile hike with all that. Not
fun. Try putting it all on your bike. Nope.

"f8 and be there"....but you have to "be there" with your
equipment. Are you carrying it everywhere? Really? Bet not.

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

"f8 and be there"

MVMphoto

Click to expand...

--
29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A
closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a
Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an
acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm
f/5.6. Yet.

Click to expand...

... which are what I do three days a week at an animal hospital, plus a few misc. nature shots, are at the site mentioned in my profile.
KP

Dale Severson said:

Ken Phillips said:

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses. I
bought them...had them all. Finally sold them. Why?

"f8 and be there", that's why.

The way to get great photos, the saying goes...is..."f8 and be
there". The emphasis in on BEING THERE...WITH YOUR CAMERA.

I carry my camera everywhere. AND I GET THE SHOT. Around the block
or a 15 mile hike...no problem. My camera is with me. I get the
shot.

Because my equipment is LIGHT and easy to carry. All I carry is my
10D, two lenses (sometimes a single lens), a polarizer, an extra
battery...all in a small hip pouch.

How? I have two lenses...the 28-135 IS and the Tokina 17mm. That's
it. Easy to carry. Always there. Covers every need.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT. Try a 15 mile hike with all that. Not
fun. Try putting it all on your bike. Nope.

"f8 and be there"....but you have to "be there" with your
equipment. Are you carrying it everywhere? Really? Bet not.

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

"f8 and be there"

MVMphoto

Click to expand...

--
29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A
closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a
Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an
acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm
f/5.6. Yet.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

if you need to shoot with 500mm or more you are screwed.

Your message ais a nice try and will work for a lot of people that just shoot stuff but if you are into shooting specific things with specific requirements like most pro's are the 28-135 wont cut it. Not nessecarily because of quality but the reach and or speed of the lens.

But i think it is funny how some people always think just because they can live with a 28-135 lens range everybody has to be happy with it.

So yes you are compromising. You are just severly limiting your ability to take pictures but of course if that is what you want that is fine.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo

I suppose it is time to do a little bit of a reveal.

I was a VP at Corbis...and I helped negotiate the purchase of the Bettman Archive (16 million images) and also the Ansel Adams Collection.

As the story goes, a novice photographer once asked, "How do you take such great photos?" The older, wiser, and professional photographer said, "f8 and be there."

After selling hundreds of thousands of images from the world's best photograhers, after emplying the world's best photo editors to evaluate, judge, and present the world's best images...I can only say that it is very clear. Equipment is the LEAST important thing.

It's the eye behind the lens that counts. And "f8 and be there" means your camera is nothing...being there is everything.

I mentioned Ansel Adams because I have personally seen his original negatives. Mostly ordinary. Some are terrible. His color photos were nothing to write home about. Ansel's magic was worked in the darkroom...the printed result barely resembling his negative.

I mentioned Catier-Bresson because I have personally seen that work too. Bresson's camera would not come close to the optical quality and standards of today's $500 SLR. That's a fact. What is also a fact is that Bresson never stepped into a darkroom...he relugated the development and printing to others. He only shot.

It's amusing to see how much conversation my comments generated. But the fact remains...Some of the worlds...perhaps MOST of the world's best images were captured with camera equipment that is decidedly LESS sophisticated that a 10D and a 28-235 IS lens. I have seen it. It's a fact.
So, if you only have a 10D and a $500 lens...you are in the company of giants.

What makes a good photograph is "being there"...and the "eye behind the lens."

I think my point was made...and clear.

As for sharpness...again, this was often an important consideration for our photo editors. Sharpness beyond what the human eye can discern is meaningless. So it stands that a mid-priced SLR and a mid-priced lens meets this standard. Beyond that...is in your head. Not your eye.

Another example often presents itself. Most human beings can not discern more than 64 shades of gray. Very healthy eyes...usually very young eyes...can sometimes discern up to 256 shades...but it is rare. Yet, digital photographers and photoshop users are not satisfied...always comparing how many they can manipulate in their software. We ran into that time and again.

The same holds for colors. 8-bit color is fine for most healthy eyes. 24-bit color provides a palette beyind what the human eye can see. Yet.....

Another great photographer...Dorathea Lange...used a camera that was certainly less proficient than today's $500 SLR...yet the detail in the photos is exquisite. Look particularly at the Migrant Mother and Child photo...note the extreme detail in the eyes and wrinkles of the face.
All with a camera quality that you can buy today for nothing.

Again...I stand by my point...after viewing millions of photos...learn to "see"...and you will transcend your equipment.

..."f8 and be there"... !?!

Single F/Stop lens? Aren't you missing a lot? DOF control below or above F8?

I guess you needed to express a minimalist position in a forum pervaded by equipment nuts loaded or lusting to load to the limit. Yeah... I see your point in a way.

John

mvmphoto said:

I can't help but laugh at all the discussion of heavy L lenses. I
bought them...had them all. Finally sold them. Why?

"f8 and be there", that's why.

The way to get great photos, the saying goes...is..."f8 and be
there". The emphasis in on BEING THERE...WITH YOUR CAMERA.

I carry my camera everywhere. AND I GET THE SHOT. Around the block
or a 15 mile hike...no problem. My camera is with me. I get the
shot.

Because my equipment is LIGHT and easy to carry. All I carry is my
10D, two lenses (sometimes a single lens), a polarizer, an extra
battery...all in a small hip pouch.

How? I have two lenses...the 28-135 IS and the Tokina 17mm. That's
it. Easy to carry. Always there. Covers every need.

In the old days...I had a 16-35 L, a 28-70 L, and a 70-200 L...and
always had to decide which one to take...because taking them all
was HEAVY and INCONVENIENT. Try a 15 mile hike with all that. Not
fun. Try putting it all on your bike. Nope.

"f8 and be there"....but you have to "be there" with your
equipment. Are you carrying it everywhere? Really? Bet not.

One more thing...buy a book of photos...Ansel Adams,
Cartier-Bresson...hundreds of great photographers...their lenses
were nowhere near as sharp as a cheap $200 lens is today.

"f8 and be there"

MVMphoto

Click to expand...

With this and the previous "final statement" I actually agree with you. I doubt you will have many others in this forum with the same views. Yes, you are right. I have not seen Adams negatives, but I have seen his prints, often up close in private showings, and yes, I know what you mean about his negatives - it's all in the journey between the negative and the print. Visualization is everything.

John

mvmphoto said:

I think my point was made...and clear.

As for sharpness...again, this was often an important consideration
for our photo editors. Sharpness beyond what the human eye can
discern is meaningless. So it stands that a mid-priced SLR and a
mid-priced lens meets this standard. Beyond that...is in your head.
Not your eye.

Another example often presents itself. Most human beings can not
discern more than 64 shades of gray. Very healthy eyes...usually
very young eyes...can sometimes discern up to 256 shades...but it
is rare. Yet, digital photographers and photoshop users are not
satisfied...always comparing how many they can manipulate in their
software. We ran into that time and again.

The same holds for colors. 8-bit color is fine for most healthy
eyes. 24-bit color provides a palette beyind what the human eye can
see. Yet.....

Another great photographer...Dorathea Lange...used a camera that
was certainly less proficient than today's $500 SLR...yet the
detail in the photos is exquisite. Look particularly at the Migrant
Mother and Child photo...note the extreme detail in the eyes and
wrinkles of the face.
All with a camera quality that you can buy today for nothing.

Again...I stand by my point...after viewing millions of
photos...learn to "see"...and you will transcend your equipment.

Click to expand...