Less L More Photography!

[Scottes]

So the last two message I just read mentioned that we spend more time talking about equipment rather than photography. Another got worried that s/he bought non-L and thinks it should be returned and swapped for L before it's too late. Other messages talk about eating Kraft Dinner because they can't afford real food due to the purchase of L. It's said tongue in cheek but it has meaning. I'm afraid of convincing someone to buy a lens they can't afford.

OK, granted this is the Equipment forum, but as someone pointed out these equipment messages far exceed the Photography messages. How about we tone down the L and raise up the Photography, even in the equipment forum?

I'm guilty of L, guilty of talking about it and guilty of raising expectations due to L. I, for one, am going to try to lessen the L. Besides, I suck at photography and no amount of L is going to fix that. It's not the answer.

[E.D. Sterns]

There are several fine boards on this forum devoted to the discussion of photography, including one entitled "Talk About Photography".

I wouldn't go into a board devoted to the discussion of cars and expect to read about driving.

We go to the "Talk About Photography" forum to talk about photography. We go to this forum to talk about gear. I don't see the problem.

[Tom W]

Took this one today using non-L glass. Since I had so much to do with the "L" controversy on the other thread, I figured I owed at least a picture. :D

Used my Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 at around 38 mm.

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Conrail_Today.jpg

[NILOLIGIST]

E.D. Sterns well said. I visited your website E.D. and I was blown away with your photos. I have never seens photos that clear, sharp and perfect before. Thanks for sharing. Now, I know why you don't want to talk about photography...LOL....What lenses do you use for the macro work?

Tom very nice shot.

NiL,

[EoSD30fReAk]

but this is THE place to talk about our gear! like said earlier if you want to talk about photography you go to that part of the forum

[evilenglishman]

Of course its legitimate to discuss this subject here for the reasons mentioned above.

What is sad is when people fill their signatures with all the L they own. :roll:
Why is it important to do that? It's not really relevent to anything.
Maybe I should list my DVD collection :D

[EoSD30fReAk]

don't get me wrong i also think there is to much talking about L and i think a lot of people are buying lenses they realy can't afford, because we say it's good stuff. some people come here for the first time and think we know everything and believe everything we say!

and is it so importent what your signature says? i don't think so.

[Tom W]

Would this be a good thread to discuss my rear-focus issues?

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Rear_Focus.jpg

I was trying to study a rear focus problem when several birds took to flight and blocked my focus point!

This was also non-L glass, BTW.

[EoSD30fReAk]

of course you can discuss this :D

i don't like arguing so give this thread a happy turn :lol: :lol:

i think the effect of the flying birds is not so bad.

[Tom W]

And finally, "L" glass (with a little perspective adjustment in PS-elements:

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/FirstBaptist750.jpg

[EoSD30fReAk]

nice shot

i am very happy with my non L lenses to
i use them a lot.

[Tom W]

One more angle on the Church - I had to hang around and repent for all those "rear-focus" ideas I had earlier. :)

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/FirstBaptistUpward.jpg

[Tom W]

nice shot

i am very happy with my non L lenses to
i use them a lot.

Thanks, BTW. I've only had my L for 2 weeks, so I'm only now exploring its capabilities.

[Sketcher]

There are several fine boards on this forum devoted to the discussion of photography, including one entitled "Talk About Photography".

I wouldn't go into a board devoted to the discussion of cars and expect to read about driving.

We go to the "Talk About Photography" forum to talk about photography. We go to this forum to talk about gear. I don't see the problem.
Hey Mr. Sterns,

Welcome to the Forum! I've enjoyed your Macro work over in FM. Good to see you throwing your two cents this way too. (People, check out the link in his Sig - He does some crazy Macro stuff).

****

Regarding "L" discussions... It's good stuff but it doesn't elevate your photography to god-like quality simply by its use. If you suck at photography before buying Pro glass, you'll suck just as bad after - it'll just be that much more clear that you still suck and you don't have any excuses for being so. I think what is often meant by expressing derision toward "L" discussion is that the conversation doesn't always lend itself to actual photography. But really, this is a gear forum in a photography board - is it really so bad a topic?

The pains of ones attainment of the stuff borders on obsession and it seems that Canon would do well to market their pro gear with Kraft and Ramen being that those are the most often quoted foods one often buys with "L" glass. It's fun to make fun of our obsession and or those who are given to that taste. Sometimes it is tiresome as it seems by some talk that simply having it separates the men from the boys, serious photogs from rank amateurs etc... but view it all in context. It takes an insane amount of money to own the stuff, of course some insanity will inhabit the discussion of such.

Personally, I prefer to buy the best quality gear I can afford and am willing to save for it. If all my gear is of great or superb quality, then my learning curve is 100% just that - all a matter of learning. In my wish list however, not all that is great and superb is "L" -> but there is enough to induce a little irrationality.

[defordphoto]

I'm afraid of convincing someone to buy a lens they can't afford.

If someone is that indecisive that they rely on a group of people they have no clue who they are to spend a thousand dollars or more on a lens then they are just plain stupid. One thing to keep in mind however, that everything we speak here about L-glass—in between our tongues in the cheeks humor—is reliable truth.

So, the advice here is solid and I could care less of someone buys too much glass and goes into hock over it. That is not our problem. This is not a financial forum.

And like E.D. Sterns so elogantly waxed: This is a gear forum. There are plenty of other genres to search out just on this board alone. Here, we yak about gear. And will continue to do so.

Welcome E.D. Nice entry! :)

[Belmondo]

Oh hell. Somebody needs to stick up for poor Scottes. Might as well be me.

I basically agree with everything that's been said so far, but don't think we should dismiss Scotte's point quite so summarily. There does seem to be a prevailing opinion that L glass is the ‘holy grail’ of Canon digital photography, and a disproportionate amount of space in this board is devoted to discussions that appear to reinforce that point of view.

A reoccurring theme that appears over and over is the question of “which lens should I buy?� Regardless of who asks the question, what constraints they’re dealing with, or what their budget is, someone inevitably recommends one of the Canon L lenses. From the standpoint of quality, it’s a reasonable suggestion, but it may not be at all appropriate from the standpoint of the person asking the question.

I think there is a danger that in some small way we are providing disinformation to newer users. It would not be unreasonable for someone just getting their feet wet in the hobby (and in this forum) to be left with the opinion that the only hope they have of ever getting a decent photograph is to spend thousands of dollars over and above the considerable investment they’ve already made, and buy Canon professional lenses.

I don’t mean to suggest that we should attempt to moderate the discussion here in any way. I only think it would be helpful to newer users and forum members to try to come up with solutions beyond the purchasing of L lenses as a means to improving photo quality.

I also think we could talk about general photography a bit more than we do, at least as it pertains to digital SLRs. There are technical and artistic considerations that are unique to the medium and don’t belong in a general board like ‘Talk About Photography,’ as good as it is.

Okay. Now you can all beat up on me too. I can handle it.

Thos.

[Scottes]

There does seem to be a prevailing opinion that L glass is the ‘holy grail’ of Canon digital photography, and a disproportionate amount of space in this board is devoted to discussions that appear to reinforce that point of view.

A reoccurring theme that appears over and over is the question of “which lens should I buy?� Regardless of who asks the question, what constraints they’re dealing with, or what their budget is, someone inevitably recommends one of the Canon L lenses. From the standpoint of quality, it’s a reasonable suggestion, but it may not be at all appropriate from the standpoint of the person asking the question.

I think there is a danger that in some small way we are providing disinformation to newer users. It would not be unreasonable for someone just getting their feet wet in the hobby (and in this forum) to be left with the opinion that the only hope they have of ever getting a decent photograph is to spend thousands of dollars over and above the considerable investment they’ve already made, and buy Canon professional lenses.

That's pretty much what I meant to say. Thanks, Thos.

[defordphoto]

Well, I certianly am not going to beat up on you, or anyone else for that matter. Public forums are just that. Public forums. Take it all in a with a grain of salt, but by no means make it the last stop on your research journey for information about anything, including photography.

You do find lots of real-world experiences that you cannot find anyplace else, but they're also known to be place where people drop off their whiny complaints and leave.

But to say there is disinformation here I do not agree with. For the most part the information here is correct. Sorry folks, L glass is better than any other currently available. Some come darn close and for the average user they'd be thrilled with those lenses.

That being said: You do not have to have L-glass to produce a stunning, award-winning photograph. But they do produce better photographs (if used properly) than other glass will.

Just like 5 years ago we were not all running around with 1v cameras and L-glass to take pictures of junior for the family album, today has not changed anything. For most people they can get by with their little P&S'ers and create an awesome family album/DVD.

For us that yearn for the finer side of this art, we stick with the top-of-the-line products.

This is where the line between amateur and semi-pro/pro cross in these forums and becomes a problem from time to time. We mix Pro and Amateurs here and that's just the way it is.

I will still and always tout L-glass as the best on the planet, until something else comes out. To say any different would indeed be disinformation.

[E.D. Sterns]

Hi Sketcher, nice to see you here :)


NILOLIGIST, thanks for the kind words. I use a 180mm L macro for the larger stuff, but my most-used lens is the MP-E 65mm macro (100% non-L :D).


Scottes, I didn't mean to be harsh or anything. I see your point, but there's a place for everything, and between this board and the others here I think the information is pretty balanced. Someone who spends $1000's on camera gear and goes into debt just to look cool on a web forum has other problems anyway.

I'm glad we have a place where we can talk about the equipment part of photography without having to wade through everything else.

[Belmondo]

This is where the line between amateur and semi-pro/pro cross in these forums and becomes a problem from time to time. We mix Pro and Amateurs here and that's just the way it is.

Now Jim, this is the best point you’ve made so far, succinct and appropriate to the discussion. Admittedly we cannot address every thread to the lowest common denominator in terms of knowledge, experience, and equipment. My concern is the sincere newer user that poses a question like the following:
“I just got a Drebel, and I really love it. I have the ‘kit’ lens (18-55) and wonder, what is the next lens I should buy? I can spend up to $500.00.

Invariably, someone will answer, “It’s a little out of your budget, but the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a really great lens. Best of all, it’s white!� Who have we really helped with answers like that?

Understand, I don’t contend that people asking such questions are totally absolved of their personal responsibility to research these things on their own independent of this forum (and others). I have always argued that the best thing a person can do when not actually taking pictures is to read everything the can get their hands on. Not only will they likely learn something, but they will ask better questions as a result.

The only thing I’d like to see is sincere questions answered by something other than “Buy L glass. Everything else is crap.’ It simply isn’t true, and just isn’t fair to people who are entitled to a more thoughtful answer.

Besides, some people get expensive lenses and then drop them. Such people don't deserve any help at all.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

The thing is,. when the ever popular "which lens should I buy" question comes up.. by far,.. BY FAR the two most recomended lenses are NOT "L"

We recomend in unison,. in harmony.. over and over like a chorus;

..50mm f/1.8

..28-135mm IS

As allways the reasoning,. the 28-135 IS gives a nice usable zoom range with crips clear pictures.. a great lens to start with

...and the 50mm f/1.8 gives "L" prime sharpness coupled with "L" prime aperture.. this gives the recomendy the oportunity to try world class glass in a $70.00 package..

Any one who accepts this advice AND has bliundered across a less than than top notch lens as well,. is perfectly well equipped to then draw there own conclusions.

[CyberDyneSystems]

E.D.

Why are "weevils" so damn cute!????

Amazing photos,. I too have enjoyed them at FM,. but I had not ventured to your gallery. Wonderfull.

[MediaMagic]

I will admit that in the last couple of months I've become far less involved with scrutinizing my equiptment and far more involved with the aestetics of my shots.

I am one of the ones who basically threw a bunch of money at a problem, creating a bandaid, where the underlying disease of inferior photography remained untreated.

I will espouse with the best of them that L glass is presently the best glass on earth. I love the equipment chatter, but I'd also love to see more of a good mix of "photography using EOS" along with "EOS equipment" discussions. I think this is the place for both.


BTW, E.D., great portraits. I have no idea whose family that was, but, damn they had some ugly kids! :wink:

David

[Wickedfn4u]

You know what they say TomW, don't look at the train you missed, you might get hit with the one coming behind you. Wonder if that is true for photography?

TomC

[Anders Östberg]

I don't buy the idea that talking about technology like L lenses, talking about photography, or learning by doing are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, this idea is totally wrong IMO. The equipment is part of the game and it's very useful to talk about it to learn what it can do for you - otherwise how will you know when the gear is what's limiting you? It's not as if having L lenses is a negative, or a handicap, is it? I'd much prefer learning photography using great equipment than be more limited by cheaper gear, and I'm lucky enough to be able to do so. Does owning good gear automatically make me a good photographer? Of course not. "Earning your dues" using cheap gear is a crock IMO though.

Finally, having a list of your gear in the signature can be helpful to those who search for opinions from other people. I have received many email inquires and I try to give as unbiased a view as possible of what my experience is with different pieces of my camera equipment. If some feel my sig is just bragging, so be it. ;)

[evilenglishman]

Invariably, someone will answer, “It’s a little out of your budget, but the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a really great lens. Best of all, it’s white!� Who have we really helped with answers like that?


Canon :wink:

I personally don't understand why someone would buy the rebel and then buy L glass for it.
Why didn't they just buy a 10D??

[defordphoto]

Finally, having a list of your gear in the signature can be helpful to those who search for opinions from other people. I have received many email inquires and I try to give as unbiased a view as possible of what my experience is with different pieces of my camera equipment. If some feel my sig is just bragging, so be it. ;)

I agree. Therefore I have expanded my sig a little to reflect a partial equipment list. :)

[EXA1a]

Canon :wink:

I personally don't understand why someone would buy the rebel and then buy L glass for it.
Why didn't they just buy a 10D??

Are you serious or sarcastic on this one?

[Belmondo]

Canon :wink:

I personally don't understand why someone would buy the rebel and then buy L glass for it.
Why didn't they just buy a 10D??

Are you serious or sarcastic on this one?

EXA1a:
You have to learn to recongnize English humor----more specifically, Evil English humor.

:wink:

[Tom W]

You know what they say TomW, don't look at the train you missed, you might get hit with the one coming behind you. Wonder if that is true for photography?

TomC

:D
Realistically, I wasn't standing on the second set - I cropped the picture a bit in order to make it a little more pleasing. I hadn't noticed at first that it made it look like I was standing on the second set of tracks.

[Belmondo]

You know what they say TomW, don't look at the train you missed, you might get hit with the one coming behind you. Wonder if that is true for photography?

TomC

:D
Realistically, I wasn't standing on the second set - I cropped the picture a bit in order to make it a little more pleasing. I hadn't noticed at first that it made it look like I was standing on the second set of tracks.

Lovely picture, Tom. As you know, I've taken a few railroad pictures in my life, and the first thing you learn is, 'Make sure you are where the trains ain't!' Anything else can be painful. :wink:

[Tom W]

Lovely picture, Tom. As you know, I've taken a few railroad pictures in my life, and the first thing you learn is, 'Make sure you are where the trains ain't!' Anything else can be painful. :wink:

Thanks - I've been fortunate enough to not have had to learn that the hard way (though you almost always only get one chance at that).

Off-topic story:

A couple of weeks ago, there was a train approaching a crossing, so pulled off to the side and hopped out, 10D in hand. Wouldn't you know it, some woman (on a cell phone, no less) drove beyond the gate as it was starting to descend, then stopped on the first set of tracks (it was fortunate for her that the train was on the second).

Well, I ran over to her and motioned for her to back up, since there was enough room for her car between the tracks and the gate. What did she do? She slapped it in reverse and backed up rather firmly, causing the gate to slap rather loudly against her back window. Its a wonder neither broke.

Anyway, throughout this whole scenario, she remained on the cell phone. After I got my rather poor shot, I had to go over and knock on her window to tell her that she was still in reverse.

The train engineer, as he rode past, could only shake his head and grin. He's probably seen it all already so this is nothing new for him.

[Belmondo]

The train engineer, as he rode past, could only shake his head and grin. He's probably seen it all already so this is nothing new for him.

I've known a few engineers over the years, and it's a rare one that will smile under those circumstances. Among the most traumatic experiences they live in constant fear of are fatal grade crossing accidents. They are life-changing experiences, and usually not for the better. Another thing they dread are the jumpers who choose 'suicide by train' as their ticket to heaven. I know one engineer who had that happen twice in one year running commute trains in San Francisco.

I'm sure that whenever train crews see me out there with my camera, they'ry at least wary until they can be sure I'm out of harm's way. Then, they're generally friendly, although not always.