Overated primes II

[clengman]

I knew NOTHING when I took these.

And it sounds like you're pretty intent on keeping it that way.

You can be as willfully ignorant as you'd like. I enjoy learning about my hobbies

 

[bbbinohio]

I knew NOTHING when I took these.

And it sounds like you're pretty intent on keeping it that way.

You can be as willfully ignorant as you'd like. I enjoy learning about my hobbies

You're absolutely right. I don't intend to waste a lot of time studying things that won't do squat to enrich my life, help anyone else or improve my photography.

You are obviously free to spend your time here on earth any way you see fit.

You guys got me. You're just way too intent on finding ways to belittle and criticize people, so I'm done here.

I wish you all the best. Bye.

 

[tedolf]

I never lie about anything.

Oh boy.

Yes, I shot the cat with a D700. But I sold that camera with just a few hundred clicks on the shutter.

So you admitt that you shot the cat less than two years ago (less than one year actually) with a D700, not apoint n shoot that you did own (but only for a few months).

Let's see, do I have that right?

It was more than two years since I had shot a camera when I shot the D700 (which yes I played with for a few months) and I have not shot since, which is close to a year.

Sorry, you have EXIF data showing photo's in 2010. You took the cat photo (and others) in 2011.

My point is.. If all you want to do is to take "good" pictures (and I don't think my work is "great" by any stretch of the imagination), you don't need all kinds of study or expensive equipment. "Good" photography should be mostly instinctual, like mine is.

My point is everthing that you told us about yourself that we can verify is false.

Why should we believe anything you say?

A few of those duck photos were taken within the first few minutes that I ever held a camera in my hands. In fact, here are two of them.

Of course, we believe you!

I knew NOTHING when I took these. I had just put the batteries in the camera, set the camera on "auto" and drove to a duck pond. I HAD NEVER SHOT A CAMERA BEFORE IN MY LIFE, and these were the first few clicks... of a $350 point and shoot.

Except for the D700.

Now, I am no great photographer, but this stuff isn't rocket science.

Well, you never lie!

 

[tedolf]

I knew NOTHING when I took these.

And it sounds like you're pretty intent on keeping it that way.

You can be as willfully ignorant as you'd like. I enjoy learning about my hobbies

You're absolutely right. I don't intend to waste a lot of time studying things that won't do squat to enrich my life, help anyone else or improve my photography.

You are obviously free to spend your time here on earth any way you see fit.

You guys got me. You're just way too intent on finding ways to belittle and criticize people, so I'm done here.

I wish you all the best. Bye.

the guy had some talent.

Tedolph

 

[mh2000]

Go out and watch actual people shooting their cameras. You will see this all the time.

Even I will do this more than I like to admit (when I shoot a zoom).

The only zoom I currently own for m43 is the Oly 40-150.

If that's the case - and I doubt it's a provable point - then using a prime would save time by cutting the irrelevant zooming out of the process, right?

No, most people zoom in and out quite a bit before they make their shot! This, even if they end up at one end or the other.

I'm saying I can see the shot and put the right camera to my eye faster than I can get the correct zoom while I'm trying to frame the shot. Alternatively, I suppose I could accomplish the same thing by getting to know very well the two extremes of a zoom, so I could quickly, without having to look, zoom to the widest and to the longest ends while I'm bringing my camera to my eye to capture the shot.

most people actually do.

Take a look at your EXIF data for any zoom lens you use.

Most shots will be at the widest end, the second most will be at at the longest end.

In reality, most people use there zoom like a Leica Varifocal lens, just two focal lenghts.

Which of course shows that Jere's entire contention is non-sense.

TEdolplh

--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

 

[forpetessake]

Now, I am no great photographer, but this stuff isn't rocket science.

And that's the truth! Some people have the innate feeling for the beautiful and some don't. And often times getting a nice picture is a pure luck.

 

[phototransformations]

That's why I used the word "or". Some people want to learn the craft of photography from the bottom up. Some people want to get out and shoot pictures and will learn the craft only when they get frustrated with what can be done on Auto. Both can take wonderful or terrible pictures, and everything in between.

phototransformations wrote:

[snip]

I think most people getting into "serious" photography should probably either:

• start with a superzoom, so they can get a taste of just about every focal length out there, then add a larger-sensor camera and the equipment that most matches what they most like to shoot -- and what they want to shoot, but can't, with the superzoom

or

• start with a larger-sensor body, a kit zoom, and one prime (for low light and to get the sense of shooting with one focal length) and then add equipment as their needs and curiosity dictate.

are completley irreconsilable!

How can you say one or the other?

Most educational modalities (my partner's wife is a school administrator) start with the simplest environment and then build from there.

I would start with a good art course on composition, maybe some perspective drawing, and then shooting in B&W with just one focal lenght, building from there.

Add a second focal lenght, then color, etc.

Sensor size wouldn't matter as long as you could control DOF.

TEdoolph

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Yes. You can't take it if you don't have a camera and you are not there, and if you don't have an eye for attractive things you won't take attractive photos.

If you are there, have an eye, and a camera, you really don't need much else.

Now, I am no great photographer, but this stuff isn't rocket science.

And that's the truth! Some people have the innate feeling for the beautiful and some don't. And often times getting a nice picture is a pure luck.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[453C]

What's provable is that most people you see do that. I'm not saying that's true or not, but some opinions are getting pretty deep around here. Just trying to keep on track.

What about my question?

Based on your observations, would using a prime would save time by cutting the irrelevant zooming out of the process? Btw, this is more a playful jab at the Zoomers, not an important point.

Go out and watch actual people shooting their cameras. You will see this all the time.

Even I will do this more than I like to admit (when I shoot a zoom).

The only zoom I currently own for m43 is the Oly 40-150.

If that's the case - and I doubt it's a provable point - then using a prime would save time by cutting the irrelevant zooming out of the process, right?

No, most people zoom in and out quite a bit before they make their shot! This, even if they end up at one end or the other.

I'm saying I can see the shot and put the right camera to my eye faster than I can get the correct zoom while I'm trying to frame the shot. Alternatively, I suppose I could accomplish the same thing by getting to know very well the two extremes of a zoom, so I could quickly, without having to look, zoom to the widest and to the longest ends while I'm bringing my camera to my eye to capture the shot.

most people actually do.

Take a look at your EXIF data for any zoom lens you use.

Most shots will be at the widest end, the second most will be at at the longest end.

In reality, most people use there zoom like a Leica Varifocal lens, just two focal lenghts.

Which of course shows that Jere's entire contention is non-sense.

TEdolplh

--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

 

[phototransformations]

I think you're right, mh2000. I think it's primarily people like me, who learned on primes, who tend to rack the zoom to one extreme or the other, at least when they are shooting quickly, and that most people (including me, when I have the time) zoom in and out to get the framing and/or composition they want.

Go out and watch actual people shooting their cameras. You will see this all the time.

Even I will do this more than I like to admit (when I shoot a zoom).

The only zoom I currently own for m43 is the Oly 40-150.

If that's the case - and I doubt it's a provable point - then using a prime would save time by cutting the irrelevant zooming out of the process, right?

No, most people zoom in and out quite a bit before they make their shot! This, even if they end up at one end or the other.