Do you really see THAT much difference in images?

Started Jul 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 39,901
Funny that you, of all people, say that.
1

TrapperJohn wrote:

You have to take a lot of the gearhead chatter with a huge grain of salt. You're probably best off just ignoring it, especially if you can't see better photographs as part of the discussion. A lot of those discussions end up being more a debate club than genuinely meaningful ideas that result in better photos. Just because two or three individuals carry on about something you may not understand does not necessarily mean that the discussion is meaningful.

Let's compare and contrast the statement above, with what you've said before, the following being just one of a multitude of examples:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34213066

I suppose it's a matter of personal priorities.

While a 70-200 on FF gains two stops of shallow DOF, it also loses two stops of sharpness.

The 35-100 can be shot wide open and maintain sharpness. The same can't be said for FF, generally it's two stops down just to avoid an overall soft photo. The equivalence debate always seems to gloss over this. In that respect, the aforementioned 2.8's are actually F4 lenses in practical use.

For wedding or portrait, where one may not want to show off every detail of the bride's face, that might be desirable, sort of a built in gaussian blur that you can't turn off.

For everything else, the extra softness of FF isn't desirable. Then again, a lot of us were drawn to the better ZD glass for the phenomenal sharpness, and the ability to shoot wide open.

When such a hyperbolic gearhead statement is rebutted with actual photos, your response is to whip out a hypocritical troll card.

Huh.

OTOH, good glass... always improves a photograph.

I could post several examples to the contrary.

If you're standing on the edge of a canyon, dreaming of capturing that vision, an ultrawide lens will let you capture that scene in all its glory, whereas a kit zoom that begins at 14mm won't. Same goes for a long telephoto - you don't need them very often, but when you do, nothing else will get the job done.

In that case, the only debate is whether you can come up with the cash to get that lens.

Here, you're talking about focal range, not the quality of the lens.

The bottom line is that better gear allows the photographer to produce photos with higher IQ and/or capture photos that could not have been captured at all with lesser gear.

Whether or not the differences in IQ matter, or, in some cases, whether or not the photo itself even matters, is another thing all together.

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