large range of zoom
mc
range of OPTICAL zoom (actual optical capability, not the frill as
boasted by "digital" one). My ideal is the one that can used as a wide
angle, standard, and somewhat macro one (such as shooting short distant
merchandises).
Would anybody please give your two cents?
Also, where may I find online resources of the review and comparison the
all 3- and 4m pixel cameras?
Thanks a lot!
Mike
digital GAH
Canon Pro90is, Sony Mavica FD97, etc.).
In the four megapixel ranges of zoom here are the more common ones:
Minolta S404
Nikon Coolpix 4500
Olympus E10
You should be able to find reviews on all of them at:
www.steves-digicams.com
Greg
---------------
www.digitalcamerabasics.com
"mc" <mc_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D3B5F1F...@hotmail.com...
PETERWOJ
Some cameras will accept X2 or similar tele extenders doubling the range. Here
again some cameras are easier than others as you might have to use extending
tube to which you can attach the lens, where some will accept the lens directly
like Minolta Di7 for example. Of course new cameras could show up in fall (just
in time for X-mas) with new selections. Looks like higher zoom and smaller size
is a trend right now.
Mxsmanic
limited utility unless you use a tripod or have some sort of image
stabilization built into the camera (electronic or, preferably, optical).
Even when you have those things, there aren't a great many situations that
really demand a very long focal length.
Also, macro capability may not be correlated with zoom range.
Finally, the greater the zoom range, the lower the optical quality,
especially for cameras that must be held to affordable price points for
ordinary consumers. One possible solution is to buy a camera that accepts
interchangeable 35mm lenses, although such cameras can be very expensive.
For what it's worth, I use focal lengths of 90 mm or less for a good 95% of
my work and leisure, which consists of a blend of different types of
photography (portrait, street, landscape, press). The only time I've really
required much longer focal lengths is for certain types of fashion
photography, in which I've used up to 200 mm. There are some other niche
applications that require long focal lengths, too (sports, wildlife), but I
don't know to what extent you'll be doing those.
"mc" <mc_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D3B5F1F...@hotmail.com...
Paul Saunders
> Very long focal lengths are of quite
> limited utility unless you use a tripod
Quite true.
> Finally, the greater the zoom range, the lower the optical quality,
True also. The professional rule of thumb with 35mm photography is 2x
maximum, therefore you get lens sizes like 35-70 or 75-150, 200-400 and so
on. My favourite lens is my 24-48. I'd love to get a 17-35 though.
> There are some other niche
> applications that require long focal lengths, too (sports, wildlife),
Long focal lengths are great for arty shots.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Very long focal lengths are of quite
>> limited utility unless you use a tripod
>
>Quite true.
But have you tried Image Stabilisation? The normal 35mm rule of shutter
speed at least equal to focal length for handhelds is superceded and
with IS you get at least 2 stops extra. I have some tack-sharp 400mm
(equiv) handhelds at 1/100 on my Olympus C2100. And even wide-angle
hand-helds at 1/4 sec. As you frame the shot you can see the camera
stabilising the image.
>
>> Finally, the greater the zoom range, the lower the optical quality,
>
>True also. The professional rule of thumb with 35mm photography is 2x
>maximum, therefore you get lens sizes like 35-70 or 75-150, 200-400 and so
>on. My favourite lens is my 24-48. I'd love to get a 17-35 though.
>
The different focal length ranges makes some of the 35mm rules obsolete
(read "different").
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Jifprint
Photo printing with Exif
http://www.braeburn.co.uk/jp.htm
Selkirk, Scotland
01750 21854
+44 1750 21854
Stromm
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
> How will you be using the camera? Very long focal lengths are of quite
> limited utility unless you use a tripod or have some sort of image
> stabilization built into the camera (electronic or, preferably, optical).
> Even when you have those things, there aren't a great many situations that
> really demand a very long focal length.
Oly 490z only had 3x. With my Oly2100's 10x I am very happy. I find I'm
zoom crazy sometimes. Since it does have a mechanical IS, I don't have
to worry about blurry pictures (I can't hold a 300mm zoom lense steady by
hand anymore).
>
> Also, macro capability may not be correlated with zoom range.
>
> Finally, the greater the zoom range, the lower the optical quality,
> especially for cameras that must be held to affordable price points for
> ordinary consumers. One possible solution is to buy a camera that accepts
> interchangeable 35mm lenses, although such cameras can be very expensive.
For the most part this is true. I think even non Oly2100 owners will
admit that for it's 2.1mp the picture quality through it's 10x lense is
much better than many other cameras of higher price with lower zooms.
>
> For what it's worth, I use focal lengths of 90 mm or less for a good 95% of
> my work and leisure, which consists of a blend of different types of
> photography (portrait, street, landscape, press). The only time I've really
> required much longer focal lengths is for certain types of fashion
> photography, in which I've used up to 200 mm. There are some other niche
> applications that require long focal lengths, too (sports, wildlife), but I
> don't know to what extent you'll be doing those.
One thing that stood out for me. Indoor shots at my kids school
functions. With 3x, my kids were still to "far" away even though I was
only 30-40' from the stage. I don't really care about all the other
kids. Plus, when I use the movie mode, I can get really good closeups of
my kids. I'll never go back to something with 3x even at 4mp.
I can't say enough for the 2100. I haven't even touched my film SLRs
since I bought it. Any I have over $1500 invested in those.
Jared
post. I'd like to learn more about this as it's something I'm interested
in pursuing.
Jared
Otsinekwar Ohkwari
MP the Dimage 7/7i beware the slow autofocus speed of the 5 and 7.
The 5 has a range of 35-250
the 7/7i have a range of 28-200
Those are 35mm equivelants.
The Nikon 5700 is supposed to be nice and is I believe 35-280mm 5 mp
Olympus 720 is around 35-320mm and I think 4 mp
Otsinekwar Ohkwari
wildlife/birds for the most part the Dimage 7's 28-200mm range is ok
tho I still miss my Nikon with a Tokina 60-300mm zoom on it.
Paul Saunders
> >> Very long focal lengths are of quite
> >> limited utility unless you use a tripod
> >
> >Quite true.
>
> But have you tried Image Stabilisation?
I'm still using totally manual cameras with mechanical shutters! I've tried
a few of those new fangled electronic cameras with "auto-exposure" but I
hated them and got rid of them.
Still living in the mechanical age here. ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
PETERWOJ
>limited utility unless you use a tripod or have some sort of image
>stabilization built into the camera (electronic or, preferably, optical)
My thoughts exactly until I got X10 UZI. Now I can't imagine not having long
zoom. I'm thinking of getting extender just to get better reach. Electronic
stabilization works only in movie cameras in still camera the only choice is
optical. Anything above 1/200 sec can be hand held with proper technique.
Cloudy sky is good enough as long as it's not close to sunset/sunrise. For
anything else there is tripod.
Otsinekwar Ohkwari
a Car show at the Jacob Javiotz center a few years back and had my
infamous Tokina 60-300mm with me, also had my camera bag and lo and
behold at the bottom I find my Vivitar 2X Extender. Me and my friend go
out for some air and I take some lovely shots of the planes on the Deck
of the USS Intrepid. sorta used a ledge for some stabilization. okie I
admit it I cheated wit hthe ledge ;-)
O:nen ki' wahi bye for now
Mxsmanic
news: ahg9kg$4p7$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Long focal lengths are great for arty shots.
So are short focal lengths; it all depends on what you consider art.
Mxsmanic
WZyclPAA...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
> The different focal length ranges makes some of
> the 35mm rules obsolete (read "different").
Irrespective of the format, building a zoom lens with a very broad
focal-length range and very high optical quality throughout is still very
expensive, and probably always will be. Television cameras can do this
because the requirements for optical quality are very low. Digicams can get
away with it for the same reason, albeit to a far lesser extent because the
resolution of digicams is many times greater than that of television. Film
cameras have no tolerance at all for poor optical quality, though, as it is
always possible that you'll put an ultra-high resolution film like Technical
Pan or even Velvia into the camera and expect complete sharpness within the
the limits of the film.
Mxsmanic
MPG.17a627d17...@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> With my Oly2100's 10x I am very happy. I find I'm
> zoom crazy sometimes.
What are you photographing that requires a 10x zoom? That would be a 500 mm
lens in 35mm.
> For the most part this is true. I think even
> non Oly2100 owners will admit that for it's 2.1mp
> the picture quality through it's 10x lense is
> much better than many other cameras of higher
> price with lower zooms.
In both consumer digicams and consumer video cameras, very often the picture
quality is limited more by the lens than by the CCD or other camera
characteristics. This is why professional digicams use $2400 lenses, and
professional video cameras use $15,000 zooms. I don't know how much
Panavision Primo lenses cost for cinematography (since they are rented, not
sold), but they probably add another zero.
Mxsmanic
3D3C6EA1...@me.ok...
> Sorry to jump off topic, but you mentioned
> press photography in your post. I'd like to
> learn more about this as it's something I'm
> interested in pursuing.
I'm probably not the best person to ask, as I only occasionally do press
work. However, what I've done has been a lot of fashion shows and stuff,
and for this you need very fast, long lenses. I find that in these
conditions, an 80-200/2.8 zoom comes in extremely handy with the 80mm end
serving for full body shots and the 200mm end for faces (the type of work
I've done required a lot of facial close-ups). The lens has to be fast
because the best work is work done in available light, not with flash, and
your subjects are always moving. For things like that, a long zoom is
required equipment.
For other types of press photography this might be useful as well. For
example, you may not be able to get close enough to the President to get a
decent shot with anything less than a very long lens. But I don't do a lot
of anything else so I can't say with authority.
Some press work requires just the opposite. I've done some outdoor events
and things, but there you have groups, and you end up shooting very wide
most of the time because conditions are cramped and you need to get a lot
into the shot. For stuff like that, I end up with a 17-35 zoom instead of
an 80-200.
Overall, shots at 90mm or more represent only a tiny part of the photographs
I shoot overall, press or otherwise.
Mxsmanic
20020722202448...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> Now I can't imagine not having long zoom.
What are you shooting that requires 10x zooms?
> Electronic stabilization works only in movie
> cameras in still camera the only choice is
> optical.
Electronic stabilization can be used in anything with an electronic
image-capture device, but it is true that you sacrifice a lot of resolution
to use it, and the last thing you want to do with a digicam is lose
resolution. For movies and TV, that's much less important.
> Anything above 1/200 sec can be hand held with
> proper technique.
Yeah ... if you can squeak up to 1/200. If you are shooting Provia or
Velvia, that's not always possible, even with a fast zoom. It's very
frustrating at times, as you cannot drag a tripod everywhere.
Bernard Hill
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
I really think that the resolution requirements for digicams are the
same as film cameras. (Unlike camcorders). Bear in mind that a lens
system is bought by many manufacturers: compare the 10x Image Stabilised
zoom on the
Olympys C2100
Olympus E-100
Canon Pro90IS
(there may be more for all I know). In fact this lens system (approx
38-380mm) produces far better pictures at top zoom than my Pentax with
Tamron 28-300, where the lens alone was more than I paid for the
digicam.
I'm not an optics expert, but it seems reasonable to me that to produce
f/2.8 lens on a digital requires much less technical accuracy than f/2.8
on a 35mm simply because the aperture is physically smaller.
Regards
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Jifprint
Bernard Hill
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
>"Stromm" <str...@nomail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>MPG.17a627d17...@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>
>> With my Oly2100's 10x I am very happy. I find I'm
>> zoom crazy sometimes.
>
>What are you photographing that requires a 10x zoom? That would be a 500 mm
>lens in 35mm.
>
PMFJI but that's easy for any to answer.
I took pictures of part of next door's roof to email to them to show
them that the leading was coming off while they were in Australia.
I have pictures of the moons of Jupiter.
Birds.
Bats flying around at night (well a picture of one, actually)
You might as well ask why you use binoculars.
>> For the most part this is true. I think even
>> non Oly2100 owners will admit that for it's 2.1mp
>> the picture quality through it's 10x lense is
>> much better than many other cameras of higher
>> price with lower zooms.
>
>In both consumer digicams and consumer video cameras, very often the picture
>quality is limited more by the lens than by the CCD or other camera
>characteristics. This is why professional digicams use $2400 lenses, and
>professional video cameras use $15,000 zooms. I don't know how much
>Panavision Primo lenses cost for cinematography (since they are rented, not
>sold), but they probably add another zero.
>
It's the weakest link which needs attention. And you are correct, often
the weakest link is the lens system. So my Oly E-100RS at 1.3Mp beats my
(cheap) old SLR at any size of picture on top zoom.
Stromm
digital zoom which I hardly ever use).
Anyway, I shoot school functions, air shows, animals, nature shots, in
home shots, etc. Look at www.pbase.com/tlynch for some of my nature
shots with this camera. Many are taken with that "excessive" zoom.
In article <9b9%8.330516$vq.18...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
Mxsmanic
> I really think that the resolution requirements
> for digicams are the same as film cameras.
If the lens is designed specifically for the camera (i.e., a non-removable
lens), it can be optimized to provide all the resolution the CCD requires,
but no more. This allows other aspects of the lens, such as zoom range, to
be pushed further.
In the case of a removable lens or a film-camera lens, there's no telling
what the image-capture medium might be, and so a lens designer cannot afford
to assume that some specific resolution is sufficient; the goal is always to
maximize resolution insofar as possible. So a designer for a lens intended
for film might favor resolution over a wide zoom range, whereas a digicam
lens designer might extend the zoom range further as long as he stays above
the resolution required for the particular CCD being used.
> I'm not an optics expert, but it seems reasonable
> to me that to produce f/2.8 lens on a digital
> requires much less technical accuracy than f/2.8
> on a 35mm simply because the aperture is physically
> smaller.
Smaller lenses in general are easier to produce with great precision.
Mxsmanic
Sg4NLFAt...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
> You might as well ask why you use binoculars.
Well, why do you? I don't have a use for binoculars.
Michael Meissner
> I wish it wsa equiv to 500mm. In reality it's 38-380 (not counting the
> digital zoom which I hardly ever use).
Many of us have bought an A-200 extension lens which multiplies the range by
1.5x (ie, giving you 57-570 range, but due to vignetting at the wide angle, you
only get roughly 290 - 570 range. The lens was originally made for the IS-1
and IS-2 film cameras, and has 49mm threads that mean you don't need an adpater
on the C-2100UZ. B&H seems to be the only place that has stock:
When I bought mine a month ago, B&H only had stock for 1 day, this time they
still seem to have stock after a week. Here is a page that describes the
various tele-extenders for the C-2100UZ:
http://members.cox.net/gandalfpublic/teleconverters.htm
--
Michael Meissner
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, MA 01886
email: meis...@the-meissners.org, fax: +1 978-692-4482
http://www.the-meissners.org
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
wrote:
Sorry to hear that. :-)
How many uses for binocs do you want?
Bird watching.
Sports watching. (A lot of territory there)
People watching.
Animal watching.
Viewing landscapes. (A trip to a National Park like, for example,
Yellowstone, without binocs means you miss a LOT!)
Airplane watching.
Train watching.
Just to name a few.
Paul Saunders
> > Long focal lengths are great for arty shots.
>
> So are short focal lengths; it all depends on what you consider art.
Ah, now that is the question, isn't it?
Of course you can take arty shots with any focal length, but the great thing
about long and short focal lengths is the perspective distortion, which
enables you to photograph ordinary subject matter in unusual ways.
Long is good because of compression and the ability to isolate small
details, removing the context of the larger scene.
Short is good because of expansion, allowing you to contrast tiny details
with panoramic backgrounds.
So what is art in photography anyway? I've come up with one definition, but
would anyone else like to make any suggestions before I tell you what it my
idea is?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> I'm not an optics expert, but it seems reasonable to me that to produce
> f/2.8 lens on a digital requires much less technical accuracy than f/2.8
> on a 35mm simply because the aperture is physically smaller.
Aperture ranges vary with film format. Considering the other extreme, most
35mm lenses only go down to f22, although some manage f32. The lens on my
6x9cm camera goes down to f45, whilst large format camera lenses can manage
f64.
I've noticed that most digitals only go down to f8. This seems ridiculously
limiting, but there must be some reason for it. Anyone know why this is?
It's also worth noting that depth of field varies between formats for a
given angle of view. A standard lens on a 35mm camera has more depth of
field than a standard lens on a MF camera, but then a standard lens on 6x6cm
is 75mm, whereas it's only 50mm in 35mm.
Should I conclude from this that the depth of field is the same for lenses
of the same focal length, even though the angle of view is different in
different formats?
If so, then digital cameras must have phenomenally good depth of field.
Isn't 7mm equivalent to 35mm or something like that? 7mm must have depth of
field equivalent to a fisheye on a 35mm camera, or doesn't it work like
that?
Would I be correct in thinking that f8 on a digital will give me similar
depth of field to f22 on a 35mm, or is that a flawed assumption also?
I'm not familiar with digital - 35mm lens relationships yet.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> What are you shooting that requires 10x zooms?
It's not so much a question of whether a long zoom is required, it's more a
question of what you can do with it if you've got one. From a purely
functional point of view it enables you to get closer to a subject without
having to move physically closer. From an artistic point of view it enables
you to take amazing photographs that just aren't possible without one.
Take a look at these two shots for good examples of what's possible, first
is 300mm, second is 600mm;
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/sheep.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/worm_s.jpg
Let's say you want to take a shot of one of your mates standing in front of
a waterfall (sorry to keep going on about waterfalls but I once took a
particularly good photo this way). You could stand right in front of your
mate and set the camera to wide angle. Result: Person large in frame, small
waterfall in the background. Alternatively you could walk some distance
away and set the lens to telephoto. Result: Person large in frame, huge
blurred waterfall in background - very impressive. If you play about with
the depth of field you might even be able to get them both in focus.
If you haven't tried this, do it! Next time you want to take a snap of
someone, walk away and take it with a telephoto instead, and make sure to
line them up with something interesting in the background. The further away
you go and the longer the telephoto lens, the larger the background will
become. It's a great effect.
> > Anything above 1/200 sec can be hand held with
> > proper technique.
Strictly speaking no. Well you might not notice the difference, but it'll
be there. Apparently tests have shown that hand holding even a standard
focal length lens at 1/250th second will produce camera shake. Of course,
you may need a microscope to see the difference (or a good scanner) but the
difference will be there. It won't look like camera shake, but the "quality
" won't be quite as good as if it were taken on a tripod.
I'm not suggesting you use a tripod for every shot, but a monopod is a great
compromise. Since I do a lot of walking I use a trekking pole with a camera
thread hidden inside the screw off top. It's not much more effort to take
every shot on the monopod, even on a sunny day, and it does make a
difference. The biggest cause of camera shake is downwards movement when
you press the shutter release, and a monopod prevents that. That's also why
I hold the lens with my left hand from underneath when I take hand held
shots.
> Yeah ... if you can squeak up to 1/200. If you are shooting Provia or
> Velvia, that's not always possible, even with a fast zoom. It's very
> frustrating at times, as you cannot drag a tripod everywhere.
I was photographing a fog inversion at sunrise in the mountains last year
and I had terrible trouble with Velvia, even with my monopod. Often I was
only getting 1/15 to 1/30th second. I did have a diddy tripod with me but
the scene was changing so fast and I was in such a rush to get to the top of
the mountain that I could rarely spare the time to set it up. I did set it
up for a couple of important shots, but mainly made do with the monopod. It
would have been a disaster without any support, and I was only using a 24-48
lens. I needed to keep stopping down for more depth of field.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Simon Bloomer
dependent on the viewer. What is one person's art may be another's trash.
The same applies to music.
JMHO...
Simon
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahkjav$3rk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote
>
>> I'm not an optics expert, but it seems reasonable to me that to produce
>> f/2.8 lens on a digital requires much less technical accuracy than f/2.8
>> on a 35mm simply because the aperture is physically smaller.
>
>Aperture ranges vary with film format. Considering the other extreme, most
>35mm lenses only go down to f22, although some manage f32. The lens on my
>6x9cm camera goes down to f45, whilst large format camera lenses can manage
>f64.
>
>I've noticed that most digitals only go down to f8. This seems ridiculously
>limiting, but there must be some reason for it. Anyone know why this is?
Certainly. The physical size of the opening. Above about f/8-11 you get
diffraction effects of light interfering with the resolution.
>
>It's also worth noting that depth of field varies between formats for a
>given angle of view. A standard lens on a 35mm camera has more depth of
>field than a standard lens on a MF camera, but then a standard lens on 6x6cm
>is 75mm, whereas it's only 50mm in 35mm.
>
>Should I conclude from this that the depth of field is the same for lenses
>of the same focal length, even though the angle of view is different in
>different formats?
Yes, pretty much. Angle of view is a better measure between camera types
but in the digicam area we seem to be stuck with "35mm equivalent" eg
9mm focal length is 36mm at 35mm equivalent: yuk! Better to say 52
degrees ange of view.
>
>If so, then digital cameras must have phenomenally good depth of field.
>Isn't 7mm equivalent to 35mm or something like that? 7mm must have depth of
>field equivalent to a fisheye on a 35mm camera, or doesn't it work like
>that?
Yes it does. f/2.8 is the same as f/11 or /16 [depending on the digital
camera] for DOF.
>
>Would I be correct in thinking that f8 on a digital will give me similar
>depth of field to f22 on a 35mm, or is that a flawed assumption also?
Only in that it's equivalent to about 4-5 stops, so gives same as f/32
to f/45 focal depth.
>
>I'm not familiar with digital - 35mm lens relationships yet.
>
>Paul
>--
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
>
>
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Simon Bloomer
dependent on the viewer. What is one person's art may be another's trash.
The same applies to music.
JMHO...
Simon
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahkjav$3rk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mxsmanic
news: ahkk3d$ql3$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I've noticed that most digitals only go down to f8.
> This seems ridiculously limiting, but there must
> be some reason for it. Anyone know why this is?
Possibly because (1) depth of field is already considerable at f/8 for a
small image area like that of a digital camera, and (2) diffraction is also
becoming significant at f/8 for small images (because diffraction depends on
the actual physical size of the aperture).
The larger the format, the smaller the f-stop can be before diffraction is a
problem, and the smaller it _must_ be in order to get better depth of field.
Additionally, the larger the format, the more expensive it is to build fast
lenses (because they require so much glass, the size of the lens at a given
f-stop being related to the size of the image). So the larger the format,
the smaller the typical f-stops available or used.
> Should I conclude from this that the depth of
> field is the same for lenses of the same focal
> length, even though the angle of view is different in
> different formats?
Depth of field depends on the size of the circle of confusion on the image,
and the viewing distance. As long as the circle covers less than 1 minute
of arc or so when viewed, it will appear to be within the depth of field.
> If so, then digital cameras must have phenomenally
> good depth of field.
They do.
> Would I be correct in thinking that f8 on a
> digital will give me similar depth of field
> to f22 on a 35mm, or is that a flawed assumption also?
I don't know the exact ratio, but your reasoning is correct.
Mxsmanic
news: ahkl85$rej$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> It's not so much a question of whether a
> long zoom is required, it's more a question
> of what you can do with it if you've got one.
Even 200 mm is a rarely-used focal length for me. Outside of a few
specialized areas (wildlife, sports, fashion), very long focal lengths don't
seem to be hugely useful.
> From a purely functional point of view it
> enables you to get closer to a subject without
> having to move physically closer.
Moving physically closer is not a bad thing. I've seen amateurs standing in
one spot and just zooming in and out to photograph everything around them,
but I hardly consider that good practice.
> From an artistic point of view it enables
> you to take amazing photographs that just
> aren't possible without one.
In certain circumstances, yes, but I'm not sure that those circumstances
arise very often.
> Take a look at these two shots for good examples
> of what's possible, first is 300mm, second is 600mm;
Both are nice, although the sheep shot has so little DOF that it looks a bit
isolated. Why did you need 600mm for the second shot? (As opposed to
moving closer.)
> Result: Person large in frame, huge blurred
> waterfall in background - very impressive.
Yes ... if you remember to bring the tripod.
> Apparently tests have shown that hand holding
> even a standard focal length lens at 1/250th
> second will produce camera shake.
I've taken pictures with a standard lens at that speed handheld and I've not
seen camera shake even under a high-resolution scan.
> Of course, you may need a microscope to see the
> difference (or a good scanner) but the difference
> will be there.
It didn't show on a scanner. I didn't look with a microscope, but since my
images are not normally viewed with microscopes, I don't have to.
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>So what is art in photography anyway? I've come up with one definition, but
>would anyone else like to make any suggestions before I tell you what it my
>idea is?
>
>Paul
To me, 'art' is nothing more than the way the artist expresses his
vision.
To me (again), this means that the person viewing the art doesn't have
to "get it".
Mxsmanic
ujtomul...@news.supernews.com...
> So.. If you have a 16 to 160 mm lens, then
> you have a 10x zoom lens.
Okay, so what are you shooting at 160 mm?
PETERWOJ
Let me jump in: Birds, wild animals, portraits (alas 100mm is the best for
those), concerts (especially when not in front row),kids playing soccer,
baseball and everywhere else where you can't or don't want to (wild bears for
example? )get close to the subject. Actually I'm shooting at 380mm and often
wish for more.
Paul Saunders
> > So what is art in photography anyway? I've come up with one definition,
> > but would anyone else like to make any suggestions before I tell you w
> > what it my idea is?
"Simon Bloomer" replied'
> Art could be defined as a visually pleasing image - and as such is totally
> dependent on the viewer. What is one person's art may be another's trash.
> The same applies to music.
Fair enough, but there's a slight problem with that, since art is not the
only reason why an image may be pleasing.
Talking specifically about landscape photography, which is my interest, the
distinction I make is that an artistic landscape (as opposed to a "postcard"
landscape) is one which is visually pleasing whether or not the location is
known. Most postcard type landscapes are of well known areas, and very
often the location itself is more significant than the photographic
technique.
I became aware of this distinction when a photographer visited and commented
that the photo on my desktop was crap. "But it's a really good mountain" I
said. "Yes, but the photo is crap". Detaching myself from my emotional
attachment to the place, I had to admit that the photograph itself had no
merit whatsoever, it was merely a "snap" of an impressive looking mountain.
I hadn't noticed that because I love mountains, so I wasn't really looking
at the photo, I was looking at the subject within the photo. But the person
making the comments had no such interest and saw the photo in purely
photographic terms.
Reversing the situation, someone interested in photography might appreciate
an artistic landscape photograph even if they had no interest in the subject
matter. In this case they'd be appreciating the composition, the light, the
shapes, the form, etc.
To someone like myself who is interested in landscapes for their own sake,
it's harder to see a landscape in purely artistic terms, so I've narrowed it
down to knowledge of the location. Many landscapes may be appealing because
the location itself is appealing, and often known to the viewer. If an
appealing landscape photo is not known, that may prompt the response; "that
looks nice, I wonder where it is?".
So my definition of an artistic landscape is one where the location is not
only unknown, but where the location doesn't even matter. It looks good for
it's own sake, and you couldn't care less where it was taken. In fact, it
could have been taken anywhere, it doesn't necessarily give any clues as to
it's actual location. For this reason, close-ups of landscape features work
well, as do telephoto shots that pick out abstract shapes.
"Location-independent" landscapes in effect.
The same principle would apply to photos of people. Many people take snaps
of their friends and family. These photos are meaningful to the people
involved, but to no-one else. Getting pleasure from such photos is
dependant on knowing the people in the photos.
So an artistic people photo would be one which looks good and is visually
appealing, even though the people involved are complete strangers.
Only one possible interpretation of art of course...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> To me, 'art' is nothing more than the way the artist expresses his
> vision.
True, but how do you differentiate a photo which expresses a vision and a
mere snapshot which was not motivated by vision?
Sometimes I simply take "record" shots, recording what a particular place
looks like. I don't consider these art. Very often when I photograph
landscapes I consider that the landscape itself is providing the bulk of the
"art" and that my contribution is minimal. Very often a simple composition
will work well because the landscape itself is "artistic". The less
interesting a landscape feature is, the more "artistic" the composition
needs to be to make it look good.
When I take arty shots I'm primarily thinking about shape and form, light
and colour, not the landscape itself. I'm not trying to show what a place
looks like, merely trying to capture something interesting on film, and this
can conceivably be done pretty much anywhere, anytime, and in any light.
It's all a question of vision, of seeing things in the landscape which
others might not. It's a lot more abstract than the postcard approach.
> To me (again), this means that the person viewing the art doesn't have
> to "get it".
I'd agree with that. And to emphasise the main point of my other post, in
the case of landscapes, the person viewing the picture doesn't have to know
or care where the photo was taken.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
David Eppstein
> > dependent on the viewer. What is one person's art may be another's trash.
> > The same applies to music.
I think many artists are more concerned with communication (does this
piece lead the viewers to have some particular intellectual or emotional
response) than aesthetics (does this piece look pretty).
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Paul Saunders
> I think many artists are more concerned with communication (does this
> piece lead the viewers to have some particular intellectual or emotional
> response) than aesthetics (does this piece look pretty).
A fair point. One doesn't necessarily have to like art. Some artists
clearly like to disgust people, although I can't see the point in evoking
negative reactions just for the sake of it, unless it makes you money of
course, but why would anyone want to pay money to be disgusted? It's a
strange world...
But surely making something look pretty evokes a response, a pleasurable
one? Isn't that just as valid?
Actually, I'm quite interested in creating dark images, such as dark
brooding clouds on a grey day, I actually find a certain lack of colour
appealing. I remember the first time I visited Blaenau Ffestiniog (famed
for it's slate quarries) on a dreary cloudy day. Almost everything I saw
was grey, the roads, the houses, the slate tips, the cliffs, the sky. What
amazed me was the number of different shades of grey, I'd never seen so many
different greys before! I guess that taking photos in those conditions is a
kind of black and white photography in colour!
Paul
--
Always assume a smiley :-)
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Simon Bloomer
I agree with all you've said in subsequent posts - what I was driving at was
something similar to defining a good wine. Living in an area with over 450
wine farms within a 150km radius of where I live, and having done all sorts
of snobby wine courses, a good wine to me is one you personally can sit back
and enjoy, with good food and good company. That wine could be $2 a bottle
or $40 a bottle, but if you enjoy it, it's good. As a wine connaisseur, one
might appreciate all the delicate flavours, the nose etc etc, but a good
wine is still one you enjoy. The same applies to art. As an artist, one
can appreciate the composition, lighting, the technical merit, but I still
have to "like" the image.
Then again when it comes to art, I am a pleb :)
Simon
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ai4an6$lmk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Paul Saunders
> I agree with all you've said in subsequent posts - what I was driving at
was
> something similar to defining a good wine. Living in an area with over
450
> wine farms within a 150km radius of where I live, and having done all
sorts
> of snobby wine courses, a good wine to me is one you personally can sit
back
> and enjoy, with good food and good company. That wine could be $2 a
bottle
> or $40 a bottle, but if you enjoy it, it's good. As a wine connaisseur,
one
> might appreciate all the delicate flavours, the nose etc etc, but a good
> wine is still one you enjoy.
Okay...
> The same applies to art. As an artist, one
> can appreciate the composition, lighting, the technical merit, but I still
> have to "like" the image.
Right, two points;
1. What about a "snapshot" that has content you like, do you consider that
art? Even if the person taking the photo just pointed it and clicked with
no great thought involved? Could you argue that to be "accidental art"
perhaps?
In such an instance I would tend to consider the subject matter to be art,
but not the photo itself (although some have claimed that art, by
definition, is created by humans, so nature in itself is not art - I tend to
disagree though, I think of is as randomly generated art).
2. Or are you saying that a photograph must be intended as art by the
photographer, but only succeeds if you actually like it? In effect, only
pleasurable art is art, the rest is just crap? Or that only pleasurable art
is art to you personally, in which case something that is not art to you may
be art to someone else?
I remember once hearing about a photographer who claimed that all photos
were the result of a decision making process, no matter how bad. I can't
recall what the point of that observation was, maybe that all photos were
art as a result, or that the content of all photos were biased by human
decisions.
But anyway, I think he wanted to take truly random photographs and so would
wander around pointing his camera in random directions at random times,
randomly photographing random things, to create a collection of images free
from the human decision making process. But of course, even he couldn't
escape making decisions about where and when to "randomly" take a photo.
Anyone heard about this? Anyone know any more information?
> Then again when it comes to art, I am a pleb :)
I'd very interested to find out more about artistic & aesthetic concepts,
but I rather suspect that the bulk of it is pretentious bullshit. I've got
no time for many modern art ideas like throwing paint against a wall, I
prefer art which I enjoy and which is clearly the product of talent rather
than some pretentious con-man trying to make a fast buck out of an easily
duped audience of would-be art connoisseurs who are afraid to show their
ignorance by saying that they think it's crap.
It seems that to really be able to appreciate and discuss art, you have to
learn the lingo, e.g;
"...only a dialectical perspective, which posits presences and absences,
appearances and realities, or essences can reveal...constitutive processes:
for a one-dimensional or positivistic semiotics, for example...related yet
dialectically distinct forms are reduced...[and] to which identical
instruments of analysis are then applied (Jameson, 1991: 76)."
Simon Bloomer
> no great thought involved? Could you argue that to be "accidental art"
> perhaps?
Yes. I'm not sure that art has to be intentional. A considerable
amount of art has been extremely thoughtfully produced with considerable
planning etc. But then again a lot is sort of "spur of the moment"
> In such an instance I would tend to consider the subject matter to be art,
> but not the photo itself
I'm not sure that one can completely separate the two. As an aside, before
I
switched to digital, I was dead against adjusting images after the fact -
the
"original" picture was the creation itself. I have come to appreciate that
post
"processing" is a vital part of digital photography as an art. This is
where the
"visually pleasing" point I was trying to make came from. Whether the
picture
turned out great at the time, or after a lot of processing, layering,
blurring etc etc,
the final result is the crux.
> (although some have claimed that art, by
> definition, is created by humans, so nature in itself is not art - I tend
to
> disagree though, I think of is as randomly generated art).
To a point I agree. The "real" art is in the recording of the image in such
a
way that it elicits some sort of emotional response.
> Or that only pleasurable art
> is art to you personally, in which case something that is not art to you
may
> be art to someone else?
EXACTLY. There are a lot of sculptures, paintings that I hate, and consider
eyesores. Others love the very same ones. I suppose it's a matter of
opinion.
I had this discussion with a friend who loves painting, and her opinion is
that art
is a representation of the imagination of the "artist" such that
it may evoke a response of the viewer (either positive or negative). It may
or
may not represent anything in the REAL world. I suppose this would
incorporate
music and movies.
> or that the content of all photos were biased by human
> decisions.
Indeed.
Simon