What does Ken Rockwell mean?

Hello!

Thank you very much for taking the time to help!

The question really is whether I need a dslr with which I can change lenses or will my current fixed lens camera suffice. I take photos of mostly family (wife and 3 little kids) and occasional nature.

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel. While I understand that I can crop out unwanted parts of a photo, what I don't understand is whether simply magnifying the wanted part of a photo will be clear and sharp enough. Btw, I do not have experience with photo editing software yet.

In my head, I think I need a zoom lens to get as close as possible to the desired end product that I want and process it minimally, if needed.

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Thanks again! I hope I explained it clearly.

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Maybe, It depends on how large you want to print. You could consider the 50mm conversion lens.

Gurudas said:

Hello!

Thank you very much for taking the time to help!

The question really is whether I need a dslr with which I can change lenses or will my current fixed lens camera suffice. I take photos of mostly family (wife and 3 little kids) and occasional nature.

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel. While I understand that I can crop out unwanted parts of a photo, what I don't understand is whether simply magnifying the wanted part of a photo will be clear and sharp enough. Btw, I do not have experience with photo editing software yet.

In my head, I think I need a zoom lens to get as close as possible to the desired end product that I want and process it minimally, if needed.

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Thanks again! I hope I explained it clearly.

Click to expand...

This is what I would say no matter the lens. Shoot for the crop, leave headroom. In short every time you crop you loose pixels/information. The advantage of getting a sharp images with some extra room is if you are going to make an enlargement and print it. If you shoot to tight the image gets cropped and you loose parts of the shot causing you to make a smaller print.

A zoom lens for a DLSR or Fuji X like the 55-200 you can do in camera cropping by zooming to eliminate something unwanted. For example take a photo in front of the castle at Disney Land with a 35 mm X100s type camera you have everything in the shot. You an physically walk closer to the subject matter and the castle and person stay the same size, perspective is not changed.

Now use a zoom lens and you can crop out the crowd or something unwanted and then re-crop after wards if you need to fine tune.

*Software, Photoshop Elements is easy to use with some practice, but for a beginner I'd highly suggest the Apple Mac computer. It was designed for video and still use of the bat. iPhoto and iMovie are easy to use.

I'd suggest the web site Lynda.com for online training. Just search what you want to learn it is there. It does cost maybe $25/month on the low end. I know their are other training sites, maybe Kelby as a faint guess if I recall correctly.

The more you crop the more you lose resolution and perceived sharpness. In your example their faces will likely be unusable.

You can certainly crop some but the more you crop the more you lose.
--

Gurudas said:

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Click to expand...

If you used a zoom lens and took the same minivan photo, you would lose the same detail when you later cropped the photo. The zoom makes no difference in that example.

The difference between the zoom and the prime is that if you want to take a photo of their faces without the need for cropping, you would zoom in or take a couple steps forward with the prime. The zoom (telephoto) only has an advantage when it is not possible to get closer to the subject.

Once I started ignoring Ken Rockwell, my photography instantly improved.

MrChristopher said:

The more you crop the more you lose resolution and perceived sharpness. In your example their faces will likely be unusable.

You can certainly crop some but the more you crop the more you lose.
--
http://chriscurnutt.tumblr.com/

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're right. While the lens + no-AA-X-Trans sensor can produce tack sharp results, 16 Mpixels just aren't really sufficient for cropping.

An example: I've shot over 2000 action shots with my X-E1 at the recent Wife Carrying World Championships, this July, Sonkajärvi, Finland (dedicated thread: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3734900 ). In most cases, as the contestants entered the pool parallelly, I needed to zoom out to make sure all contestant are visible for most of the time. This has resulted in zoomed-out shots like this:



(original Flickr: )

A very cool (the girl shouting) 265*445 crop from it:







As you can see, 265*445 is plain insufficient for printing / any meaningful, even at the tack sharp sweet spots of Fuji lens. Its being low-res is clearly visible on even photo montages like that of

The X100 line of cameras are, in my opinion, niche cameras. They are for people that I call "minimalist" shooters - people who take pride in being able to see & frame a shot at a single focal length, and who want very high IQ out of a very small, unobtrusive camera.

I have an X100 and I love it, but it gets much less usage than my X-Pro1 with it's interchangeable lenses.

I'd have a hard time saying that an X100 is an ideal family snap-shot cam. Anything on the market today with a basic zoom lens (18-55 on the Fuji bodies; 28-80 "equivalent) on it will probably be a better solution for your average family photog who wants to go beyond a cell phone.

Of course, an X100 with the tele/wide adapters would work, but it's much more work and cost than say an X30 or something along those lines.

First of all, it depends what you do with the pictures. Ultimately a digital camera record pixels, and cropping means a reduction of pixels in the picture.

Does it matter if you lose the pixels due to cropping? That depends what you do with the picture of course. If you make small prints (e.g 6x4 inch), there shouldn't be much problem with a 16MP camera as a 6x4 inch needs around 2MP of resolution (assuming a print density of 300 pixel per inch, which is the standard) - so there's plenty of leeway for you to crop and the print should still look good. If you're just putting the pictures up on facebook, then there wouldn't be any issue as well since thumbnails are fairly low resolution.

All in all, it depends what you do with the pictures really.

Gurudas said:

Hello!

Thank you very much for taking the time to help!

The question really is whether I need a dslr with which I can change lenses or will my current fixed lens camera suffice. I take photos of mostly family (wife and 3 little kids) and occasional nature.

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel. While I understand that I can crop out unwanted parts of a photo, what I don't understand is whether simply magnifying the wanted part of a photo will be clear and sharp enough. Btw, I do not have experience with photo editing software yet.

In my head, I think I need a zoom lens to get as close as possible to the desired end product that I want and process it minimally, if needed.

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Thanks again! I hope I explained it clearly.

Click to expand...

With every camera or camera+lens combination comes compromise and no camera is perfect. That being said, the X100 is an excellent choice for family photos and travel. As far as cameras go, there's not really much compromise with the X100. It allows you to shoot in almost any lighting condition with ease in a compact package.

So do you need a zoom? Only you can answer, but think about the shots you take and how often it's possible to walk in closer to get that tighter shot. Often times a couple steps makes all the difference. Weigh that against the additional weight and bulk of a zoom. On your mini van example, you could carry around a zoom or crop in post, but most likely you could just take a few steps and get the shot you want.

Also keep in mind how these photos will be used. When it comes down to it, 99% of your family/vacation shots are probably not going to be looked at more than a few times on screen where excessive cropping is fine. Weigh that against lugging around a big camera everywhere in order to milk every last ounce of detail from your shots. The more often you carry your camera, the more great shots you will get.

I myself prefer a fixed lens camera. I find I enjoy the experience if there's a challenge rather than a choice...but that's me. So the question becomes "what's you?" I don't believe it's a camera decision as much as a shooting preference.

Many automatically assume they need several lenses and often zooms as well. I found out long ago that extra lenses in a bag brings me continual stress and doubt about my choices. I secretly suspect this is true for many more than will admit it. Give it some thought to determine how you like to shoot.

re: megapixels and cropping...kinda like that old ad about prunes..."is one enough? Are 2 too many?" While I seldom crop my images I do crop some of them from time to time and this includes images from my X-100. So while some believe 16MP are not be enough to crop an image it seems that 12 is plenty.

If you just wanna take portraits of your kids you better be the closest as possible with a 23mm lens. Costantly cropping your shots, will make your pics looking not that much better then the ones you would be taking with... lets say a sony rx100. Smal pocketable, nice zoom, with Image Stabilization, good videos...

Even if I love the X100 concept, I think it is not the best option for a casual photographer.

Randy Benter said:

Gurudas said:

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Click to expand...

If you used a zoom lens and took the same minivan photo, you would lose the same detail when you later cropped the photo. The zoom makes no difference in that example.

The difference between the zoom and the prime is that if you want to take a photo of their faces without the need for cropping, you would zoom in or take a couple steps forward with the prime. The zoom (telephoto) only has an advantage when it is not possible to get closer to the subject.

Click to expand...

Sorry. It's a different shot when taken from a distance at 55mm than when taken closer at 23mm. What is more, with the zoom you can knock out two shots at 18mm and 55mm almost immediately in succession. The subjects don't know you've come in close for one. It's not only a different photo, but a different photographic event to take a shot and then walk in closer to your subjects for another.

Zooming with feet is a myth.

Ken Rockwell means any oh his reviews will suggest you to buy clicking on the link in his review whatever it is he's reviewing coz this is the way he earns money. He also has mighty powers enabling him to review the products he never touched. Like new glass which was not yet released. He is able to write full review of the lens based on the PR picture (Nikon 35mm 1.8G FX)

bowportes said:

Zooming with feet is a myth.

Click to expand...

I must be a mythical beast. But that is just my PERSPECTIVE.

I like my x100, but I would say it is better for environmental portraits (your kids plus minivan example) than it is for headshots. The later requires you to get very close, often within arms length for a single person headshot. And such a close distance gives a distorted perspective (makes peoples nose look bigger, etc). I have seen a lot of nice portrait pictures taken on flickr though, so it is possible to do nice portraits. Though headshots do tend to look a lot nicer with a lens over 50mm in length on apsc sensor cameras.

I bought my x100 primarily for family snapshots while out and about. It works well but you often need to get closer to the subject than you might otherwise have done with a book zoom camera.

Regards cropping, if you are regularly cropping more than half the image away then chances are it is not the right focal length for you. You can do perfectly nice photo prints at 4mp and posting to the web requires only 1mp, but zooming in so tightly requires dead on focusing, hence why I don't recommend zooming in that far.

There will always be a limit as to how far you can crop and still maintain decent quality for printing, but what you could have done is move closer when taking the picture and got what you wanted that way. That will change the perspective of course and may not be ideal. In this case I think a longer lens or a zoom would have been a better option. I can understand Ken's point of view to an extent, but you're not Ken and your needs will vary. My personal preference is a high-end compact rather than the X100 when I need a pocketable camera. If I'm using a bag or case I am happy to use interchangable lenses. That's not to say I think Ken is wrong, it's just not what I want to do.

Randy Benter said:

The zoom (telephoto) only has an advantage when it is not possible to get closer to the subject.

Click to expand...

Not true. Moving closer to your subject changes the perspective. That may not have been advisable in this case. I'd rather use a longer lens for people (rather than move closer than I want to I mean).

In other situations I use long lenses because the narrower FOV gives me less of the BG and more BG blur than a wide lens would.

Tepacca said:

Ken Rockwell means any oh his reviews will suggest you to buy clicking on the link in his review whatever it is he's reviewing coz this is the way he earns money. He also has mighty powers enabling him to review the products he never touched. Like new glass which was not yet released. He is able to write full review of the lens based on the PR picture (Nikon 35mm 1.8G FX)

Click to expand...

This

While I have eliminated my DSLRs and their interchangeable lenses, when shooting portraits with that rig I almost always preferred a 105mm lens for them. It allowed some distance between subject and the camera and eliminated any chance of a bulging effect that might be caused by use of a short lens that gets in the subject's face in order to fill the frame with the head/face.

12mp should work fine, even with cropping, except for truly large enlargements in printing. Consider your preferred way of shooting people, and how big is big for prints you may want? But it seems to me that a camera wih a decent zoom lens will work for you.

Experiment ith portraits using different focal lengths with the zoom lens. Try some with a 50mm setting, others with 85mm and 100mm. Adjust your position relative to the subject--get closer or farther away as seems appropriate for the composition with each focal length setting. For portraits you'll probably settle on one setup that seems most comfortable for that kind of shot.