Top flight DSLRs in novice hands
Rich
criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure it's the same kind
of people who dine on steak and feed their kids hotdogs because "the kids
can't appreciate the steak fully."
Friend is attending photo school. Guy shows up toting a new D3...with a
$150 Sigma zoom attached. Disgusting, I know. Shows a lack of something
on that person's part. But ultimately, even a novice or a complete hack
will do somewhat better with a better camera, it's inevitable. The person
with the D300 coupled to a 300mm f2.8 is likely going to do a little better
than the guy with the old D50 and the basic, slow 70-300mm G lens, if you
were to average the results across a couple hundred shots.
So, the old question, is a $5000 camera in a novice's hands(lets assume a
novice who is clueless and won't bother learning)a complete waste? No.
Because even though they'll never exploit its full potential, they will do
slightly better with it than with a lesser machine.
whisky-dave
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnUA7rZgvXhzU...@giganews.com...
>I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than anything else)
> criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure it's the same kind
> of people who dine on steak and feed their kids hotdogs because "the kids
> can't appreciate the steak fully."
or their kids prefer hotdogs I know I did as a kid ;-)
And I still don;t like steaks I don;t like chewy food or fatty food.
> Friend is attending photo school. Guy shows up toting a new D3...with a
> $150 Sigma zoom attached. Disgusting, I know. Shows a lack of something
> on that person's part.
Might show what he's been reading and the type of advice he has been given.
> But ultimately, even a novice or a complete hack
> will do somewhat better with a better camera, it's inevitable.
Hopefully.
>The person
> with the D300 coupled to a 300mm f2.8 is likely going to do a little
> better
> than the guy with the old D50 and the basic, slow 70-300mm G lens, if you
> were to average the results across a couple hundred shots.
I guess your talking about technical results over artistic merit ;-)
> So, the old question, is a $5000 camera in a novice's hands(lets assume a
> novice who is clueless and won't bother learning)a complete waste? No.
I'd agree.
1/ because it's those clueless people that can easily afford such cameras
and the
more of them there are, the more cameras will sell bringing down the price
and having a second hand market when they decide their camera isn't as
good as the latest model, so ditch it and buy a new one.
> Because even though they'll never exploit its full potential, they will do
> slightly better with it than with a lesser machine.
Not sure I agree with that, in fact they might take worse photos than they
would with a pinhole camera at least at say f11 most shots will have
something in focus give them a DSLR whith a 50mm f1.2 set to 1/4000th
trying to do a wedding group etc....
Homer
newsgroup.
The only conclusion I can come to is some kind of Rant.
The answer to your post from my stand point is "So What"?
Why would one care what kind of photographic gear someone is using, whether
it be cheap or expensive.
It is a known fact: Give a lousy photographer high end equipment he will
still produce lousy photos. Give a good photographer low end equipment and
he will produce the same good photos he always does.
So What?
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnUA7rZgvXhzU...@giganews.com...
bugbear
> I am having a problem figuring out why you would start this thread on the
> newsgroup.
> The only conclusion I can come to is some kind of Rant.
> The answer to your post from my stand point is "So What"?
> Why would one care what kind of photographic gear someone is using, whether
> it be cheap or expensive.
> It is a known fact: Give a lousy photographer high end equipment he will
> still produce lousy photos.
Well, with most modern expensive modern cameras,
they'll be pin sharp, perfectly exposed...
... lousy photos.
BugBear
Dave Cohen
I agree with both of the above, however, let me add
1. Can Rich supply some examples of just who is generating the supposed
criticism of such overspending.
2. We must assume Rich is certainly not a novice or god forbid clueless,
although likely he judges the rest of the world guilty of such foibles.
3. As to why he made the post, to cause us all to realize what a
superior person he is and the injustice of a world in which the
undeserving acquire that which rightfully belongs only to the talented few.
Of course on another day and in another post, some bright contributor
will generate an unsolicited criticism of those who invest too little
and purchase say, a p&s rather than a dslr.
Such is the world we live in
Dave Cohen
Pat
wrote:
I humbly disagree. Go take a top of the line dSLR and go shoot a
basketball game in a small gym with hardwood floors, white walls and
one team in white and the other in royal blue. It's not that easy to
get a good exposure and any camera in fully-automatic mode will give
bad results. Under those conditions, its sometime even hard to keep
things in focus. So no, given a good camera and no clue, it won't
produce "pin sharp, perfectly exposed" photos in may circumstances.
>
> ... lousy photos.
>
> BugBear
Rich
news:glsuv8$c66$1...@news.motzarella.org:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>> I am having a problem figuring out why you would start this thread
>>> on the newsgroup.
>>> The only conclusion I can come to is some kind of Rant.
>>> The answer to your post from my stand point is "So What"?
>>> Why would one care what kind of photographic gear someone is using,
>>> whether it be cheap or expensive.
>>> It is a known fact: Give a lousy photographer high end equipment he
>>> will still produce lousy photos.
>>
>> Well, with most modern expensive modern cameras,
>> they'll be pin sharp, perfectly exposed...
>>
>> ... lousy photos.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> I agree with both of the above, however, let me add
> 1. Can Rich supply some examples of just who is generating the
> supposed criticism of such overspending.
> 2. We must assume Rich is certainly not a novice or god forbid
> clueless, although likely he judges the rest of the world guilty of
> such foibles. 3. As to why he made the post, to cause us all to
> realize what a superior person he is and the injustice of a world in
> which the undeserving acquire that which rightfully belongs only to
> the talented few.
That is exactly the opposite of what I said.
Doug Jewell
in that situation, but a clueless noob with a 50D and a
300/4, with everything set at factory auto, will have a
better chance than if he had a 1000D with a 75-300/4-5.6 and
everything set at factory auto.
Obviously if we were comparing a noob with the above 50D
setup, vs a seasoned pro with the above 1000D setup, the
seasoned pro will achieve better results. But the seasoned
pro would be better again if he had the 50D kit.
So all things being equal, same photographer with better kit
will produce better photos than he would have if he had
cheap kit - regardless of his skill level.
>
>> ... lousy photos.
>>
>> BugBear
>
GMAN
>
>"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:y9qdnUA7rZgvXhzU...@giganews.com...
>>I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than anything else)
>> criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure it's the same kind
>> of people who dine on steak and feed their kids hotdogs because "the kids
>> can't appreciate the steak fully."
>Isn't that because tehy don;t want to spend that much ion their kids
>or their kids prefer hotdogs I know I did as a kid ;-)
>And I still don;t like steaks I don;t like chewy food or fatty food.
>
>
You do know what hot dogs are made of dont you? "Lips and assholes"
Just watch the movie "The Great Outdoors" with John Candy and Dan Akroyd.
C J Campbell
Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks. If
that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
enough to me.
Something W.T. Duck had to say seems apropos today: the difference
between a snapshot and art is about $1200.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Alan Browne
> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
> sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks. If
> that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
Sailing takes less time when you simply stand in an ice cold shower and
shred $100 bills.
At the resolution of the $8K D3x one is doing pretty much the same if
they have anything less than good primes or holy-trinity zooms.
Anyway, I'm sure you don't have a $150 Sigma on _your_ D3x, at least not
for any decent work.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
Story I
A few years ago at a trade show I saw some fellow in his 50's with a
high end Canon and flash attempting to photograph his company's large
booth. He looked puzzled, confused, frustrated and borderline angry. I
could have stopped and suggested he shoot available light with a tripod,
but I doubted that he had a tripod. From his shooting posture and his
puzzled look at the controls, he was looking for the camera to fix the
problem. I walked on by...
Story II
Last summer at the Lincoln Memorial a young fellow had a high end Canon
and a wide angle zoom. He was doing a back sunlit shot of someone with
fill flash. As I walked by he appeared puzzled at what was shown in the
monitor. Without seeing his monitor I knew immediately what the problem
was, I bent down, pointed at the petal shade and said: "Remove this."
He immediately caught on and said, "Oh! of course! Thanks!"
The difference between these novices was one who really expected the
camera to do the work without thought and the other who had the correct
approach but was making one little mistake... and one he instantly
understood once pointed out.
It's not about how novice someone is, it's about their attitude and
willingness to learn despite mistakes that come up. And as usual this
has nothing to do with the equipment.
SteveB
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009013108510375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
My SIL has a D300, and all the lenses, bells, and whistles. He also has a
lot of money. He saw my Sony DSCH1, and had to have something better, and
that's what he came up with. I am in the market for a new camera, so I
asked him how he liked the D300. Fine he sez. I asked him if it had the
18-55 mm lens, and if so how he liked it. He said he didn't know what
lenses he had, but said he had several. He looked and looked but could not
identify the lens looking at it. I just wanted to see if he knew enough to
find it. Then I asked him how it worked in the different modes, and he said
he only used it on AUTO. But he does take some darn nice pictures of the
grandkids. But then, how could ANYONE take any bad pictures of my
grandkids? I bet he even reads the manual one of these days.
Steve
Steve
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
>> sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks.
>> If that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
>
> Sailing takes less time when you simply stand in an ice cold shower and
> shred $100 bills.
>
> At the resolution of the $8K D3x one is doing pretty much the same if
> they have anything less than good primes or holy-trinity zooms.
>
Uh ... this is a full-frame camera with very ordinary sized (5.9 micron) pixels.
It's not a Canon 50D with teensy pixels.
As such, the D3x is not in need of the super-best lenses to get
pixel-peeper approval. It just needs ordinary ... not bargain basement ...
lenses. Same for all the Canon full-frame cameras.
Now a full-frame with 50D-sized pixels ... now there we're talking
the very best primes at their optimal apertures. Small pixels and
using the corner of the lens coverage will be a real test. But that has
not happened yet.
Doug McDonald
Homer
LOL
In Story 1 and Story II you seem to find a lot of puzzled people taking
pictures - Oh I now understand these as just Stories, Fiction, both high end
Canon Cameras & flash and you were able to figure out their problems without
looking sounds like a lot of BS.
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:hLmdnZq-L-xMGhnU...@giganews.com...
Alan Browne
> LOL
> In Story 1 and Story II you seem to find a lot of puzzled people taking
> pictures - Oh I now understand these as just Stories, Fiction, both high end
> Canon Cameras & flash and you were able to figure out their problems without
> looking sounds like a lot of BS.
Both happen to be the absolute truth and I've written both here (or in
rpe35mm before).
Story I was at the AUSA show in Ft-Lauderdale, 2005 or 2006. Simple
fact, there is NO WAY with a single flash that you can evenly illuminate
a booth that measures 20 x 30 metres or so. Tripod and available light
is the right way to do it (or bring in a lot of strobes and time).
Story II was last summer. A petal shade with flash is a common enough
error. (Or flash with a long lens/hood). I've made this error myself
and I'll likely make it again. Happily with digital and a quick look at
the monitor we see it, realize it and correct it. [much worse when it
occurs with film]. The young fellow in DC was smart enough except
inexperienced and didn't recognize the specific reason for the flash
vignetting. And I wouldn't have noticed either except for his puzzled
examination of the monitor. (another fix would have been wireless
control of the flash and getting it off camera a little - but I left it
to him to solve from there - very sure he was able.
Don't top post.
Robert Coe
: I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than anything else)
Every year I play the trumpet ("Taps", etc.) in our town's Memorial Day
parade. In any year we have two to four people who do this. One year we had a
college kid who couldn't understand why I (an old geezer who hardly ever
practices) got a better sound than he did. After the parade we did a few
unscientific tests that pretty well exposed the truth: while he was a better
trumpet player, I had a better trumpet.
It's fairly universal that for a given skill level of its user, better
equipment produces better results.
Bob
Rich
>
> LOL
> In Story 1 and Story II you seem to find a lot of puzzled people
> taking pictures - Oh I now understand these as just Stories, Fiction,
> both high end Canon Cameras & flash and you were able to figure out
> their problems without looking sounds like a lot of BS.
You'd be wrong. Last summer I helped a guy with a 1DsMkII set-up his
camera. He was just an urbanite trying to shoot some animals in local
park. He had no clue as to how to use the camera, it was his first DSLR
and he'd bought it the day before. There are many of examples of this
happening that I've seen. No one I know that knows how to use a camera
hasn't helped or been asked by a novice how to use a complex camera.
mianileng
usually produce better results than someone less skilled. The two
are equally universal truths. It's when some people harp on just
one to the exclusion of the other that it becomes misleading. For
example, when someone makes an unqualified statement that no one
needs a DSLR because content trumps quality every time, or that a
P&S can never be good enough for someone with a half-serious
interest in photography.
---------------
a top filght camera, can only produce pathetic crap. Not conclusive proof,
but data in support of your thesis.
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnUA7rZgvXhzU...@giganews.com...
C J Campbell
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
>> sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks. If
>> that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
>
> Sailing takes less time when you simply stand in an ice cold shower and
> shred $100 bills.
>
> At the resolution of the $8K D3x one is doing pretty much the same if
> they have anything less than good primes or holy-trinity zooms.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure you don't have a $150 Sigma on _your_ D3x, at least
> not for any decent work.
Um, well. Busted. I don't even own a Sigma lens of any type.
Okay. A Lens Baby, then.
I confess. I have never used anything but the holy-trinity zooms, the
Lens Baby, and the 400 mm f/2.8 on the camera.
But I still don't want somebody else telling me what I can and cannot
put on the camera. :D
C J Campbell
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu said:
Oh, yeah. You can be sure that I have been looking at the corners. I am
not sure why you think pixel size has anything to do with it.
Vignetting and softening at the corners are lens-driven. Have been
forever. You get the same thing with many APS sensors and lenses
specifically designed for them.
Alan Browne
> On 2009-01-31 09:02:15 -0800, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
>>> sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks.
>>> If that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
>>
>> Sailing takes less time when you simply stand in an ice cold shower
>> and shred $100 bills.
>>
>> At the resolution of the $8K D3x one is doing pretty much the same if
>> they have anything less than good primes or holy-trinity zooms.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm sure you don't have a $150 Sigma on _your_ D3x, at least
>> not for any decent work.
>
> Um, well. Busted. I don't even own a Sigma lens of any type.
>
> Okay. A Lens Baby, then.
>
> I confess. I have never used anything but the holy-trinity zooms, the
> Lens Baby, and the 400 mm f/2.8 on the camera.
Confession is good for the soul. Now about the bank account in ...
> But I still don't want somebody else telling me what I can and cannot
> put on the camera. :D
Absolutely. I find putting a little pink rabbit on the flash makes
girls with blue eyes scream.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> Oh, yeah. You can be sure that I have been looking at the corners. I am
> not sure why you think pixel size has anything to do with it. Vignetting
> and softening at the corners are lens-driven.
Because with bigger pixels you can use a crappier lens and not know
about softening. Vignetting, yes, pixel size does not matter.
Doug McDonald
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
>>> sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks.
>>> If that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
>>
>> Sailing takes less time when you simply stand in an ice cold shower
>> and shred $100 bills.
>>
>> At the resolution of the $8K D3x one is doing pretty much the same if
>> they have anything less than good primes or holy-trinity zooms.
>>
>
> Uh ... this is a full-frame camera with very ordinary sized (5.9 micron)
> pixels.
> It's not a Canon 50D with teensy pixels.
>
> As such, the D3x is not in need of the super-best lenses to get
> pixel-peeper approval. It just needs ordinary ... not bargain basement ...
> lenses. Same for all the Canon full-frame cameras.
Resolution is a function of both glass quality and sensor resolution.
Per the empirical Kodak equation:
1/final_res = 1/lens_res + 1/sens_res
In effect you can't even be as good as the worst of lens or sensor, it
is always worse that the worst of the two. So using a simple, low
priced lens like a 50 f/1.8 will yield good results at f/4 or so, but
using a "good" zoom like a Canon 28-105 f/var will degrade the image
potential of the sensor except perhaps in the FL and aperture sweet spot
of the lens.
Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.
They have much fatter sweet spots in both FL and aperture as well.
Full frame cameras like the D3x and Sony a900 have pixel densities close
to 170 px/mm/ That is _dense_ by any definition when you consider the
equation above coupled to most lenses other than high end primes.
Alan Browne
> Oh, yeah. You can be sure that I have been looking at the corners. I am
> not sure why you think pixel size has anything to do with it. Vignetting
> and softening at the corners are lens-driven. Have been forever. You get
> the same thing with many APS sensors and lenses specifically designed
> for them.
Vignetting can also be sensor driven in full frame cameras with wide
angle lenses because the rays arrive at an increasing angle towards the
corners. This means differing angle through the filter as well as
arriving at the wells (which are perpendicular to the surface) on an
angle resulting in loss of signal.
Some manufacturers correct for this with microlenses to increase the
gain as a function of distance from the center, but this is a fixed gain
and geometry which cannot match all lenses (or even more than a few) ray
angles.
This can also be corrected in f/w by numerical boosting of the corner
signal while reducing the center signal a little.
Paul Furman
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
>> and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.
>>
>
> holy-trinity zooms?
16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
(or close to that depending on brand and year).
The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
anything professionally.
> - JT
> doesn't remember hearing (reading) this term before
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Chris Malcolm
> JT's Keeper wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
>>> and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.
>>>
>>
>> O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
>> holy-trinity zooms?
> 16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
> (or close to that depending on brand and year).
> The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
> anything professionally.
With which size of sensor? That looks to me like a 35mm film family of
lenses.
--
Chris Malcolm
Alan Browne
> JT's Keeper wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger
>>> aperture and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms)
>>> resolution.
>>
>> O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
>> holy-trinity zooms?
>
> 16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
> (or close to that depending on brand and year).
> The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
> anything professionally.
<nitpick>
"... as a photojournalist."
</nitpick>
Paul Furman
Right, that's full frame. It doesn't matter so much for longer focal
lengths though so only the wide one has typically been done for APS.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> JT's Keeper wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger
>>>> aperture and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms)
>>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
>>> holy-trinity zooms?
>>
>> 16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
>> (or close to that depending on brand and year).
>> The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
>> anything professionally.
>
>
> <nitpick>
> "... as a photojournalist."
> </nitpick>
Or wedding, or fashion (mostly, I think).
Personally I don't like those lenses. They are big & heavy, not good for
street shooting.
Alan Browne
They are _full frame_ compatible lenses.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> JT's Keeper wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger
>>>>> aperture and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms)
>>>>> resolution.
>>>>
>>>> O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by
>>>> the holy-trinity zooms?
>>>
>>> 16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
>>> (or close to that depending on brand and year).
>>> The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
>>> anything professionally.
>>
>>
>> <nitpick>
>> "... as a photojournalist."
>> </nitpick>
>
> Or wedding, or fashion (mostly, I think).
>
> Personally I don't like those lenses. They are big & heavy, not good for
> street shooting.
Love 'em (well love my primes more...).
Now salivating over the 16-35 f/2.8 from Sony (Carl Zeiss design).
C J Campbell
> JT's Keeper wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
>>> and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.
>>
>> O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
>> holy-trinity zooms?
>
> 16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
> (or close to that depending on brand and year).
> The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
> anything professionally.
>
>
>> - JT
>> doesn't remember hearing (reading) this term before
For me it is the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkors. These are
the lenses I carry nearly all of the time. If I am expecting any
wildlife I also take the 400 mm f/2.8, but the 200-400 mm f/4 is much
more popular. Whatever. I can fill in much of the range between 200 and
400 mm in a pinch with a teleconverter if I have to. I haven't really
had to, though.
But you are correct in saying that these lenses are heavy and bulky. If
weight is an issue, though, I still have the D300 and any number of
smaller, lighter DX lenses. I like DX for that. I also like it for the
crop factor on the 400 mm lens.
Alex Singleton
<christoph...@hotmail.com> said:
> And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
> enough to me.
Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
after.
Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
experimenting with some decent lenses...
--
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.co.uk/
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more experience
than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX lenses :-(
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
Savageduck
> In rec.photo.digital Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-01-31 16:51:03 +0000, C J Campbell
>> <christoph...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
>>> enough to me.
>>
>> Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
>> that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
>> wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
>> after.
>>
>> Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
>> experimenting with some decent lenses...
>>
>
> Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more experience
> than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX lenses :-(
It seems to me a D200 or D300 would do.
...and if you buy a D300 or D70 body, why would you need DX lenses. The
only DX lens I own is the 18-70mm kit lens which came with my D70. My
D300 & D70 currently share that kit lens as well as a12-24mm, a 24-70mm
f2.8, an 80-400mm VR, a 24-120mm VR, a 35m f2.0, a new 70-300mm VR, all
non-DX. None of my subsequent lens purchases have been DX. Having said
that, there will be an FX DSLR in my future, be it a D700 or its
successor.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Furman
> Thomas T. Veldhouse said:
>> Alex Singleton wrote:
>>> C J Campbell said:
>>>
>>>> And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
>>>> enough to me.
>>>
>>> Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
>>> that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
>>> wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
>>> after.
>>>
>>> Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
>>> experimenting with some decent lenses...
>>
>> Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more
>> experience
>> than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX
>> lenses :-(
>
> It seems to me a D200 or D300 would do.
>
> ...and if you buy a D300 or D70 body, why would you need DX lenses. The
> only DX lens I own is the 18-70mm kit lens which came with my D70. My
> D300 & D70 currently share that kit lens as well as a 12-24mm,
Sigma 12-24? When I bought that for my D200, the salesman said, are you
sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.
> a 24-70mm
> f2.8, an 80-400mm VR, a 24-120mm VR, a 35m f2.0, a new 70-300mm VR, all
> non-DX. None of my subsequent lens purchases have been DX. Having said
> that, there will be an FX DSLR in my future, be it a D700 or its successor.
--
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse said:
>>> Alex Singleton wrote:
>>>> C J Campbell said:
>>>>
>>>>> And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
>>>>> enough to me.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
>>>> that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
>>>> wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
>>>> after.
>>>>
>>>> Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
>>>> experimenting with some decent lenses...
>>>
>>> Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more experience
>>> than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX lenses :-(
>>
>> It seems to me a D200 or D300 would do.
>>
>> ...and if you buy a D300 or D70 body, why would you need DX lenses. The
>> only DX lens I own is the 18-70mm kit lens which came with my D70. My
>> D300 & D70 currently share that kit lens as well as a 12-24mm,
>
> Sigma 12-24? When I bought that for my D200, the salesman said, are you
> sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.
Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
Here is what it did on the D300;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg
>
>
>> a 24-70mm f2.8, an 80-400mm VR, a 24-120mm VR, a 35m f2.0, a new
>> 70-300mm VR, all non-DX. None of my subsequent lens purchases have been
>> DX. Having said that, there will be an FX DSLR in my future, be it a
>> D700 or its successor.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-23 11:37:23 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>>
>
>>> you sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.
>>
>> Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
>> non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
>> Here is what it did on the D300;
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg
>
> That is a seriously overdone example of why you should never use HDR on
> a anything with lots of black and lots of white in it. Did you have a
> reason for this or were you just looking for a dramatic effect?
>
> I trialled a Sigma 12-24 for a week when they were first released and
> sent it back. Too many times it failed to focus properly. The Nikon
> wide zoom I bought instead has no such problems, even though it cost
> considerably more.
>
> IMO the only Sigma lens worth considering for a Nikon is the F/1.4,
> 30mm. Even this does what the 12-24 does with auto focus but to a
> lesser extent. It's a lot easier to manual focus a fixed FL lens than
> mess around with disengaging auto.
>
> Funny... I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Sigma lens for the Canon
> DSLRs I sold so cheaply last year to buy into Nikon after 5 years with
> Canon but then I discovered the resolving power of most Nikon lenses
> exceeded the Sigma lenses by a visible amount when I enlarged the image.
>
> Got any more HDR shots?
>
> Doug
Doug, Doug, Doug,
This was not a request for a Doug critique.
If I had asked for your opinion I might have actually phrased things that way.
What I actually did with the RAW file was my business. I posted that
file just to show Paul what I had done with that lens.
I have had that 12-24 for 4 years now with no significant problems.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion. This lens does a reasonable
job for me, and Paul seems to find it satisfactory.
Where you ever got the idea that was HDR beats me. In this case your
fine professional eye failed you.
Not even a thought of HDR .
This was just a screwing around shot with a bit of CS4 manipulation,
and this is what I came up with. Nothing special just a wide shot.
If I share any HDR shots I create I will actually note they are HDR, so
don't make assumptions.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
DMac
You don't have to request critique. Just posting a link to an image in
a public forum is sufficient to get it. Next time why not send the link
to Mr Furman personally? Although I'd have a guess he's already lifted
your images and begun altering it, ready to claim it's his.
Just like he did to my images when he didn't like the way I showed
everyone that a $500 camera was the equal of a $3000 outfit. He came
within hours of losing everything he owns when he took the advise of
another regular here and left the images on his site, claiming for
nearly a year they were copyright to him.
Take some advise Savageduck... Be careful what you post and link to from
groups that Paul Furman subscribes to. If he decides he doesn't like
what you have to say, he'll just steal your images and alter them to
reinforce his attempts to discredit you. Women can change... Men never do.
Doug
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-23 17:54:20 -0700, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-23 11:37:23 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> you sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
>>>> non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
>>>> Here is what it did on the D300;
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg
>>>
>>> That is a seriously overdone example of why you should never use HDR on
>>> a anything with lots of black and lots of white in it. Did you have a
>>> reason for this or were you just looking for a dramatic effect?
>>>
>>> I trialled a Sigma 12-24 for a week when they were first released and
>>> sent it back. Too many times it failed to focus properly. The Nikon
>>> wide zoom I bought instead has no such problems, even though it cost
>>> considerably more.
>>>
>>> IMO the only Sigma lens worth considering for a Nikon is the F/1.4,
>>> 30mm. Even this does what the 12-24 does with auto focus but to a
>>> lesser extent. It's a lot easier to manual focus a fixed FL lens than
>>> mess around with disengaging auto.
>>>
>>> Funny... I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Sigma lens for the Canon
>>> DSLRs I sold so cheaply last year to buy into Nikon after 5 years with
>>> Canon but then I discovered the resolving power of most Nikon lenses
>>> exceeded the Sigma lenses by a visible amount when I enlarged the image.
>>>
>>> Got any more HDR shots?
>>>
>>> Doug
>>
>> Doug, Doug, Doug,
<REINSERTED>
This was not a request for a Doug critique.
If I had asked for your opinion I might have actually phrased things that way.
>> What I actually did with the RAW file was my business. I posted that
>> file just to show Paul what I had done with that lens.
<REINSERTED>
I have had that 12-24 for 4 years now with no significant problems.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion. This lens does a reasonable
job for me, and Paul seems to find it satisfactory
Where you ever got the idea that was HDR beats me. In this case your
fine professional eye failed you.
Not even a thought of HDR .
This was just a screwing around shot with a bit of CS4 manipulation,
and this is what I came up with. Nothing special just a wide shot.
If I share any HDR shots I create I will actually note they are HDR, so
don't make assumptions.
>
> Very curious... You shared a shot on a public forum where the "public"
> have every right to post comments but actually wanted to share it with
> only one person. Are you sure you're in the right place?
OK.
...but my comment was about the lens not the photograph.
You made a comment regarding HDR which was waaaay off base, and had
nothing to do with the lens issue being discussed, and not in context.
You also changed the context of the discussion by editing my comment. I
have replaced that which you removed.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
We will cross that bridge if we ever come to it. At this stage of my
life my artistic integity (whatever that means) & ego do not feel
threatened by Paul.
I shoot RAW and I haven't exactly surrendered that file to anybody.
>
> Just like he did to my images when he didn't like the way I showed
> everyone that a $500 camera was the equal of a $3000 outfit. He came
> within hours of losing everything he owns when he took the advise of
> another regular here and left the images on his site, claiming for
> nearly a year they were copyright to him.
I don't want to be too disparaging, but the long term interchange you
engaged in with several contributers to the various photo NGs presented
you in a strange light. I was not a part of any of those discussions as
I was in not involved in any way. I thought the entire interaction
peurile.
>
> Take some advise Savageduck... Be careful what you post and link to
> from groups that Paul Furman subscribes to. If he decides he doesn't
> like what you have to say, he'll just steal your images and alter them
> to reinforce his attempts to discredit you.
Wait until you have been in a criminal Court and had a defence attorney
try to discredit you. I understand the nature of Usenet. There will be
those who disagree and argue that difference to the point of appearing
quite kooky, even if, in a face to face meeting they would be most
personable.
> Women can change... Men never do.
...speak for yourself.
> Doug
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Furman
crops to demonstrate an editorial point in a public debate & he called
me a thief, then spent a couple grand on a lawyer. New laws force the
host to shut down your site if such paperwork is filed. The burden in on
the poster to argue any objections so I just removed the silly little
crops and it was over. I don't waste my time trying to discuss anything
with him now and don't waste time reading his posts, I filter them &
mark as read, flagged. I've got probably a dozen identities in my filter
for the dude over the years.
The topic was how his P&S took better pictures than a DSLR, which is of
course nonsense and his shots showed that clearly but he had shown a
pattern of removing images once people questioned them. I should have
known better than to even enter that discussion. This was preceded by us
questioning his super-secret enlarging algorithm where I pointed out his
demonstration showed a deceptive 'crop' enlargement... which of course
was removed when this was pointed out. Silly stuff.
Savageduck
I have noted the bipolar behaviour over the years. Sometimes I have
found his post reasonable, however this time it was an intrusion.
He made an incorrect assumption, and them resurrected the old battle he
had with you.
Time to adjust the meds.
--
Regards,
Savageduck