inane prattle

Started Apr 8, 2013 | Discussions
Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Sorry I hurt your feelings

Sorry, I proved your comment about, if you don't have an F/2.8 zoom indoors you have to go home, wrong. Clearly there are ways to work around various hurdles.

Sadly, many here (maybe not you), rely on fast zooms and shallow Dof as crutches, rather than learning other ways to overcome issues such as lower light or subject isolation.

btw, most posters in this thread should look up the meanings of the words "want" and "need".  To claim you "need" a giant fast expensive lens to take pictures is...well...inane prattle! 

69chevy Senior Member • Posts: 1,617
It's OK...
3

Just Having Fun wrote:

Sorry, I proved your comment about, if you don't have an F/2.8 zoom indoors you have to go home, wrong. Clearly there are ways to work around various hurdles.

Yes you proved you could stay (and take bad pictures).

What are the clear ways around this? Stop down and blur the shot?

You really need to learn to read more carefully as well. Where did I mention a zoom?

Sadly, many here (maybe not you), rely on fast zooms and shallow Dof as crutches, rather than learning other ways to overcome issues such as lower light or subject isolation.

Learning other ways to overcome lower light and subject isolation?

Do you summon more light from the heavens?

Blur out the fans in PP?

What are you even talking about?

Shooting sports with shallow DOF as a crutch? Have you ever shot a sport in your life?

If so, you would understand the skill required to even get a close shot in focus at f2.8.

ISO 5000-6400 looks bad enough without missing focus.

btw, most posters in this thread should look up the meanings of the words "want" and "need".  To claim you "need" a giant fast expensive lens to take pictures is...well...inane prattle! 

To clarify (a perfectly clear post), I eluded to the fact that some gyms require f2.8 (or faster) at ISO 6400 to get decent shots (ones where motion is not causing blur).

And.. again, you are wrong. I never said "giant" or "expensive".

I have seen excellent basketball shots from both the 50mm 1.8, 1.4, and the 85mm 1.8.

None of these are expensive. Both 1.4 lenses are around $400-500 and the 50mm 1.8 is $100.

None are "giant" either.

And BTW, my feelings aren't hurt.

 69chevy's gear list:69chevy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Wow, I really hit a nerve! Sorry about that.
2

69chevy wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Sorry, I proved your comment about, if you don't have an F/2.8 zoom indoors you have to go home, wrong. Clearly there are ways to work around various hurdles.

Yes you proved you could stay (and take bad pictures)....

Not sure why you posted a thread with lots of personal attacks.  I guess I really hit a nerve.  Clearly I was not posting great pictures, but only proving your statement wrong with the the first pic I could find.  Again, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Please understand the difference between "need" and "want".  Just because you don't have the lens YOU "want" is not a reason to, as you say, "go home".  A good photographer will use what he has available (see DPR story about Nick Laham as an example).  Also, do a search and learn there are numerous ways to isolate a subject besides using shallow DoF, as this will be very beneficial.

Good luck though 

69chevy Senior Member • Posts: 1,617
Re: Wow, I really hit a nerve! Sorry about that.
4

Just Having Fun wrote:

69chevy wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Sorry, I proved your comment about, if you don't have an F/2.8 zoom indoors you have to go home, wrong. Clearly there are ways to work around various hurdles.

Yes you proved you could stay (and take bad pictures)....

Not sure why you posted a thread with lots of personal attacks.

"lots" being one?

I guess I really hit a nerve.  Clearly I was not posting great pictures,

Personal attack? You agree.

but only proving your statement wrong with the the first pic I could find.

What did you prove?

Again, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I'll be ok.

Please understand the difference between "need" and "want".

I do. If you "want" a good picture, you "need" proper gear.

Just because you don't have the lens YOU "want"

I do have the lens I want.

is not a reason to, as you say, "go home".

I asked if you would "go home". You still haven't answered. Your "example" was in better light than I mentioned, and proved nothing.

A good photographer will use what he has available

A good photographer has nothing to do with this. We are talking about the ability to shoot action in low light. A good photographer brings a fast lens for this.

(see DPR story about Nick Laham as an example).  Also, do a search and learn there are numerous ways to isolate a subject besides using shallow DoF, as this will be very beneficial.

Numerous ways to isolate a sprinting athlete? Name one?

 69chevy's gear list:69chevy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
cameron2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,042
Re: a fast lens and a drunken stagger

James Pilcher wrote:

[..] fast lenses are for snobs anddrunks. 

I guess I'll have to buy some then. But I'm not a snob.

 cameron2's gear list:cameron2's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Hasselblad X1D
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,061
Re: Wow, I really hit a nerve! Sorry about that.

Just Having Fun wrote:

69chevy wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Sorry, I proved your comment about, if you don't have an F/2.8 zoom indoors you have to go home, wrong. Clearly there are ways to work around various hurdles.

Yes you proved you could stay (and take bad pictures)....

Not sure why you posted a thread with lots of personal attacks.

Your photo was really that bad.

BTW how is your 400$ blur inducing point and shoot lens?

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads