"Zooming with your feet"

Member said:

I understand but in my opinion, this is a bad advice. Because the opposite is more true.

With a fixed focal length, I don't have the choice. If I want to shoot a subject, I have to be close enough to shoot it. I will not really "play" with perspective.

Click to expand...

That is a very good point, when shooting a fixed subject - such as, a person's head and shoulders.

Same for getting far enough away, to shoot it.

Of course, lacking a long enough / wide enough / fast enough / stabilised enough lens is not a matter of zoom vs prime per se; but rather, of suitability for the task at hand.

A 28-50 zoom may be just as ill suited to classic portraiture, as a fixed 50mm prime is.

OTOH if around 90mm is the most appropriate, the inability to zoom to 88mm, 91mm, 93mm AS WELL is most likely, no serious limitation.

But in my experience: the argument about limiting the means, as a spur to invention - and concentrating on complete familiarity with one or more given focal lengths - comes more to the fore, for exploring the photographic opportunities within and around a "place".

Here not only is the framing of the subject made more open to experimentation - but also, the very content of the picture.

But the above distinction is more a matter of emphasis, than anything truly inherent IMO.

jrtrent said:

Some photographers may find that they can have a satisfying, life-long photographic hobby without ever having multiple focal length choices to deal with (e.g., my grandparents never had zoom lenses or even cameras with interchangeable lenses, yet they loved photography and took great pictures for many decades).

Click to expand...

I expect that they concentrated on pictures that the camera / lens / film available, was most capable of taking - as to viewpoint, but also lighting conditions. And they would not have wasted much time or expensive film chasing after OTHER kinds of pictures, which the cameras available could not have taken satisfactorily.

That does not have to mean constraining your inventiveness of course - there is a strong argument that "economy of means", whether imposed or adopted by choice, sits in direct relationship with that.

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk

Click to expand...

It's the attitude of those folks that bugs me. First, it's often impractical if not impossible to 'zoom with your feet' unless you can walk on water or hover in the air or try to get down in the playing field where you're not permitted.

But the more annoying point is that these prime users have chosen to do something the hard way, they elevate themselves on a pedestal and snort down at us that they (like all similarly proper photographers) are NOT lazy and therefore are better than those who would use a zoom.

One person once said 'using a zoom lens is an impoverished method of composition'. Yes, I should carry a whole flipping bag of zoom lenses and spend half my time cranking them on and off, getting dust on my sensor and priding myself on my superiority - when a zoom does everything I need and want, easily.

Christof21 said:

crashpc said:

It really boils down to ones preference. I started with zoom, and now I shoot only primes. Everyone needs to find his way. While general teaching can help, it won´t be best for everyone. That´s the deal

Click to expand...

My answer was not about preferring prime or zoom.

But a zoom is better to work with perspective. I think I use my feet more with a zoom than with a prime because I have the choice between different perspectives.

Click to expand...

So do I. Keep in mind that I can get in the same place as you can, and only choose right, or closest wider lens I have. Then I crop for the framing, while you zoom in. That way I get the same framing as you do. You might argue that I get less resolution and stuff, but this is not nearly as true in real life. There are situations and ways which greatly reduce this shortcoming. Firstly, If my focal range matches yours, I have propably more resolution for the price than you have. Then If I´m slight off, I still have about the same resolution, or not so much less. Then nobody will notice. Then I might happen in the situation where I must crop a bit more, but how do you know? We are not standing right beside of each other. I chose my way with primes because I never have problem with exact framing or focal lenght (FoV). There are other factors, times more important to me, than just FoV. I might get in trouble once for time, when I don´t have the Focal lenght I want. But so I crop and that´s it. I get that shot at least. But I get in trouble for resolution and DoF everytime! And for the price zoom lens is not gonna help me. So I have chosen compromise which fits me better. I´d be pretty bad with zoom lens (or I couldn´t afford it). If you´d be pretty bad with prime lens, I understand. That´s why you rather grab zoom lens. We are very different...

it's right for the perspective/look I want. Foot zoom is just another tool in the kit.

But it's kind of tough over water and when taking pictures of clouds. ;-)

richardplondon said:

Saying so would certainly be both unfair and foolish. I am not sure who IS in fact saying this.

Click to expand...

Tbh I can't remember names, but it's something I have directed at me often when I recommend zoom lenses.

richardplondon said:

I wonder if you are making too much of the observation often made while expressing a liking for prime lenses, that with primes you physically cannot stand still and zoom. This simply means that these people find it helpful that the equipment's fixed presentation of the subject naturally encourages and reminds them, that they may need to move their viewpoint around, in denying them the option not to do so.

Click to expand...

I guess if people constantly need reminding to move then it might be beneficial.

richardplondon said:

Sometimes people talk about "directness" or "simplicity" in this regard; that is a matter of psychology and personal preference and acquired familiarity. Not of technical or artistic superiority.

Click to expand...

Undoubtably. That's one reason why I like shooting with my X100S. It fixes one more relationship that I don't have to think about, so has become my camera of choice when I'm out to socialise and don't want to think too much about photography but still want some nice pictures. I'd never claim I can achieve with it what I can achieve with a decent zoom lens though.

richardplondon said:

You seem to have latched onto only one usage of this particular cliché.

Click to expand...

I've only seen that one used.

richardplondon said:

But IMO you seem to be struggling a bit with, or at least resisting, the idea that someone might sometimes actively PREFER shooting with a fixed focal length, for reasons other than optical quality.

Click to expand...

As mentioned previously in this thread, I have multiple fixed focal length lenses and a fixed focal length camera that I enjoy using. I however realise there are photos I can get with zoom lenses that I can't get with them.

richardplondon said:

Seriously?

Zooming with your feet IS trying different perspectives...

Click to expand...

We've clearly heard very different uses of the term during out photographic lives.

mike703 said:

... Getting your feet around the zoom ring whilst holding the camera and framing the shot is just not possible for anyone of normal elasticity. It's so much easier to use a hand.

Click to expand...

Mike,

You're behind the times and haven't been updating your gears. The latest trend in zooming with your feet is to give your feet the same capability as your fingers.


Five Finger Shoes

--

John from Southern California
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/+JohnRyan2000
Canon XTi, Panasonic ZS3, Sony F707

My take is that you are "bugged" too easily. If you just do what you like, and ignore those who do something else, you will be less "bugged."

Tom Rogers said:

My take is that you are "bugged" too easily. If you just do what you like, and ignore those who do something else, you will be less "bugged."

Click to expand...

Meh. I just don't like being called lazy.

With a zoom lens, you can choose to "zoom with your feet", or you can choose to stand where you are and zoom.

With a prime lens, you only zoom with your feet. This method doesn't work most of the time when you're taking photos of wildlife such as a rattlesnake. It also doesn't work when you're on a hiking trail when you're taking photos of scenery across the canyon or river. Its also impractical on busy streets unless you want to get hit by a car.

Given all this, I carry my 50mm 1.8 lens with me because it light and give really really nice portraits. The best argument for prime is that their image qualities are outstanding, really outstanding. The zoom with your feet thing is kinda a nonsense argument for primes.

--

John from Southern California
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/+JohnRyan2000
Canon XTi, Panasonic ZS3, Sony F707

That is, without question, a philosophy espoused by people of questionable mental acuity.

Dheorl said:

Lee Jay said:

There are two ways to use a zoom lens.

1. Be lazy, never move, and don't care about perspective.
2. Be skilled, move as necessary to get the perspective you are after.

Click to expand...

Undoubtably. I just get frustrated by prime fanatics always assuming the reason you want a zoom is for the former reason.

Click to expand...

Not once over decades has anyone ever commented on my lens choices. Not a professor, an art director, an agent or a client.

Why are you interacting with some a'hole you catagorize as a fanatic?

Zooms serve a purpose for the people they serve a purpose for. End of story. Next time someone decides to dissect your artistic choice walk away.

@DenWill

I've heard this regularly here, it's quite bothersome as it's often quite mentioned in a "holier than you" manner, while discrediting itself by ignoring perspective. So I support OP mentioning it, it's well worth an uptenth version of equivalence.

Midwest said:

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk

Click to expand...

It's the attitude of those folks that bugs me. First, it's often impractical if not impossible to 'zoom with your feet' unless you can walk on water or hover in the air or try to get down in the playing field where you're not permitted.

But the more annoying point is that these prime users have chosen to do something the hard way, they elevate themselves on a pedestal and snort down at us that they (like all similarly proper photographers) are NOT lazy and therefore are better than those who would use a zoom.

One person once said 'using a zoom lens is an impoverished method of composition'. Yes, I should carry a whole flipping bag of zoom lenses and spend half my time cranking them on and off, getting dust on my sensor and priding myself on my superiority - when a zoom does everything I need and want, easily.

Click to expand...

...and I agree with what you just wrote.

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

Up to the end of 2010, if you had a pocket compact or a bridge camera, you had no choice (camcorders look aggressive more than still cameras do). You could not zoom during a video with a compact -


This was a crowded venue, and I made an --- nuisance of myself pushing through.

My current pocket P&S jobs do stills, and in the videos they zoom SILENTLY.

Henry

Yes, I completely agree that the overused slogan "zoom with your feet" is entirely the wrong way to make a point.

There is in my view nothing wrong with using a zoom lens.

There is one point of interest, and it has more to do with the pursuit of artistic excellence and the habits of people in use, than anything in principle with the use of zoom lenses. The same point might be made about cropping.

Beginning photographers are sometimes taken to stand in one spot, and zoom in and out until they "find" a picture they like, without questioning the standpoint. [Standpoint is of course something entirely different from perspective, though related.] The tacit assumption is that "the picture" is wherever they are standing, and the only variable to be considered is the angle of view.

The same assumption made in the case of cropping makes the point a little clearer: only in the rarest case is the best artistic expression a proper subset of the picture as you happened to take it.

Of course as a photographer develops and becomes more sophisticated, it is perfectly obvious that one can tame the bad habits and use a zoom lens in service of artistic excellence. Sometimes this means moving around, sometimes it doesn't, but only the artistic interests will dictate that.

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

I just get frustrated by prime fanatics always assuming the reason you want a zoom is for the former reason (laziness).

Click to expand...

The more knowledge and understanding one has, the less one becomes fanatical; fanatics are typically persons with little knowledge.

A fanatic is the the last person that should frustrate anyone.

jrtrent said:

If that's the context in which you've heard the phrase used, I can see why it bugs you. In the decades since zoom lenses have become the norm even for point and shoot film or digital cameras, I have seen the phrase "zoom with your feet" used in numerous books and articles to encourage novice photographers to not simply stand in one place and zoom the lens in and out to compose a picture.

Click to expand...

OK, you force these novice to move forward and backward so they will learn something about perspective.

But is that really what will happen?

My guess is that they will simply move forward and backward until they have the correct framing and will not even discover that the perspective changed while they moved. So what did they learn?

It seems to me that you can best learn about perspective by taking photos with the same framing but different focal length.

Midwest said:

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk

Click to expand...

It's the attitude of those folks that bugs me. First, it's often impractical if not impossible to 'zoom with your feet' unless you can walk on water or hover in the air or try to get down in the playing field where you're not permitted.

But the more annoying point is that these prime users have chosen to do something the hard way, they elevate themselves on a pedestal and snort down at us that they (like all similarly proper photographers) are NOT lazy and therefore are better than those who would use a zoom.

One person once said 'using a zoom lens is an impoverished method of composition'. Yes, I should carry a whole flipping bag of zoom lenses and spend half my time cranking them on and off, getting dust on my sensor and priding myself on my superiority - when a zoom does everything I need and want, easily.

Click to expand...

I of course meant to say 'bag of prime lenses'; my assistant editor, a three year old, was demanding chocolate milk so I was in a hurry typing.

Dheorl said:

Tom Rogers said:

My take is that you are "bugged" too easily. If you just do what you like, and ignore those who do something else, you will be less "bugged."

Click to expand...

Meh. I just don't like being called lazy.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Personally I don't much care if someone wants to use only primes and 'zoom with their feet', if that works for them. I just don't like them telling me that I'm lazy or in some way inferior to them because zoom lenses in general work better for me.

Just like I don't care if someone chooses to use mirrorless or m3/4, I just get irked when they come around insisting that there is something wrong with my choice of camera compared to theirs.