Lenses...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18995189
See post # 26 about a single photograph and stories.

I agree but I still want super sharp bird photos. I'm a fan of Vivian Maier. I have never once considered sharpness when viewing her images. People here have commented on sharp images and they are typically wildlife. If a wolf is taking on a bear then yes it is weighted to the scene. If a headshot of a bird does not have sharp eye then it really doesn't do it. Not for me anyway. I'm referring to focus not being not the eye. The thread is about lenses.The lens type makes a difference for crisp details, if that is what one seeks. There must be a reason Canon keeps making them better. I believe people appreciate it when looking at an image.

digital paradise wrote in post #18995224
I agree but I still want super sharp bird photos. I'm a fan of Vivian Maier. I have never once considered sharpness when viewing her images. People here have commented on sharp images and they are typically wildlife. If a wolf is taking on a bear then yes it is weighted to the scene. If a headshot of a bird does not have sharp eye then it really doesn't do it. Not for me anyway. I'm referring to focus not being not the eye. The thread is about lenses.The lens type makes a difference for crisp details, if that is what one seeks. There must be a reason Canon keeps making them better. I believe people appreciate it when looking at an image.

There is nothing wrong with that!

I think that we have endowed different types of images with different expectations for their photographic characteristics. Street photography, sports and some kinds of photojournalism are accepted as being of the moment, and hence some latitude and perhaps even encouragement is made to have blurred images depicting they dynamics of the capturing process, involving subject or camera movement. We accept that to get the image something had to give.

Other types of photography have different yardsticks. Absolutely, we have got used to, nay come to expect beautiful, sharp images of wildlife and landscape. It would be a poor portrait image that did not have the eyes in focus!.

Tronhard wrote in post #18995320
I think that we have endowed different types of images with different expectations for their photographic characteristics. Street photography, sports and some kinds of photojournalism are accepted as being of the moment, and hence some latitude and perhaps even encouragement is made to have blurred images depicting they dynamics of the capturing process, involving subject or camera movement. We accept that to get the image something had to give.

Other types of photography have different yardsticks. Absolutely, we have got used to, nay come to expect beautiful, sharp images of wildlife and landscape. It would be a poor portrait image that did not have the eyes in focus!.

.
You are absolutely right!

I do find that sharpness - specifically, well-defined resolution of very fine detail - does not matter to me much when I view many different types of images. . But when it comes to the kind of photography I do - wildlife photography - then it matters SO MUCH.

I have analyzed my photographic values and priorities enough to have figured out why this is the case. . It is because my main reason for photographing wildlife in the first place is because I want to capture that which I find beautiful. . Many people have other reasons for creating photographs. . Many are looking to capture emotion, or a mood, or a feeling. . They don't discriminate between the beautiful and the plain, nor the dramatic and the peaceful. . They are looking to capture the emotion of a scene or subject, and to do so in a way that evokes a similar emotion in the viewer.

That is not usually my purpose in creating an image. . My vision and goals are what some would call much shallower than that. . I simply want to photograph things that I think are beautiful. . The statement I want to make with my imagery is, "look how beautiful this is!" . That is what I have to say with my images. . Emotions and feelings don't really resonate with me as much as beauty does. . When I see images of humans and human scenes that are really sad, or triumphant, or introspective, or festive, I pretty much think, "ok, whatever" ..... I mean, I'm just not very interested in that kind of imagery.

Ok, back to what I am interested in - wildlife and birds!

I think that herps, mammals, and birds are beautiful because of the very tiny details that make up their exterior - the colorful scales on reptiles, the hairs on mammals, and the feather filaments on birds. . It is the details themselves that are beautiful. . It's a rare case of things in which the sum of the parts are more beautiful than the whole, because those tiny little parts are what make the animal beautiful. . Hence, I am primarily trying to photograph the animals and the birds in the way that best showcases the tiny little parts that they are made of. . And of course to do so, I want each hair to be resolved clearly, and distinctly from the hairs that are adjacent to it. . To me, that is what makes a beautiful image. *

And so for me to make the kinds of photos that I am trying to make, I really do need the sharpest lens possible. . In fact, sharpness matters more to me than any other trait or quality that a lens can have. . I do value the other attributes of lenses, but none of them mean more to my efforts than resolving ability.

* There are, of course, exceptions to this, and times when what I want to emphasize something different than hair or feather detail in my images. But most of the time, my goal is to show the extremely fine details of the subject's exterior.


.

Tom, I completely understand your point of view. The first truth about photographers is that they take photographs for different reasons and we have to consider those when gauging the merit of an image. Likely that is why I have little engagement with photography societies that run endless competitions. Past a certain point of technical skill, it quickly becomes a matter of opinion...

When I gauge an image I seek to get at least SOME context as to the intent and constraints of the photographer.

Lots of Thoughts are available - FWIW & IMHO The only thing most photographers have in common is they own photographic equipment (some more than others) - We all See differently - I Can & Do appreciate others interpretations of Life seen via their cameras..
L

digital paradise wrote in post #18994183
I have been in trouble for posting this before by not wording it correctly. The owner of a local mom and pop photo store once told me amateurs are far more picky when it comes to lens purchases. A few pros took that the wrong way and responded by saying that it was important to them, which it is. Working pros need to make money. They research and pick the lens they need. Amateurs spend more time agonizing over details and will exchange them more often.

I just caught this. I hope I can answer this as an ex-pro... For them it is a business, the camera and the lens are tools to be wielded as required for the desired effect. They have to consider budget, along with earnings and costs in their business like any professional.

Another thing is familiarity: almost every new model of equipment takes time to get to know, in fact some would say, with some justification, that every individual lens has its own personality. In the field they can't afford to bed in a lens, so they tend to stick with what they know.

So buying, duplicating, or replacing lenses has to be done in that context. While we might go out and get more gear because we are enthusiasts, they will get it out of necessity. Often they will seek to get loaner gear or align themselves with a brand to get access to free gear to use.

digital paradise wrote in post #18994183
The owner of a local mom and pop photo store once told me amateurs are far more picky when it comes to lens purchases. Working pros need to make money. They research and pick the lens they need. Amateurs spend more time agonizing over details and will exchange them more often.

.
I think this may be somewhat genre-dependent.

I know quite a few professional wildlife photographers. . They agonize over the details of lenses when they are considering a purchase. . In fact, I have had several of them ask if they could borrow a lens from me for a few hours in order to get a better idea of how it will perform in challenging conditions.

The pros I know spend several months, if not a year or two, considering which lens to get, or whether to upgrade or not. . But then again, we're usually talking about long supertelephotos that cost anywhere from $8,000 to $13,000, so it makes sense that they would consider the purchase for quite some time and sweat all the little details to death. . But once they do go ahead and buy the lens, they normally use that lens for many years before they consider a change.

............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
.

Tronhard wrote in post #18995457
.
In the field they can't afford to bed in a lens .....
.

.
Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with this term. . In fact, I have never seen it used before. . Perhaps it is only used on your side of the world?

I would be interested in what you mean when you say, "bed in a lens". . Any explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks!

.

Hi Tom:

You may be right, it may be cultural or just a product of my history, one of my careers being as an engineer. And one "beds in" equipment and systems...

So...

When one gets a new piece of equipment, one has to familiarize oneself with not only the operation of the unit and its general performance, but also any individual quirks that that specific unit may have. It is good to know for oneself the degree of distortion, CA, and sharpness of the lens one has rather than the one the review had.

Interestingly I have seen wildly divergent reviews on the performance of lenses from various reviewers, and in part I could put that down to how they tested the lens, but there is definitely the possibility of variations in lens construction and thus performance. I have had a couple of the exact same model of lens that have behaved slightly differently - most likely down to manufacturing. I have also used duplicates that have different filters on them - I never change lenses in the field (it's a personal thing), so I carry multiple bodies as required.

Perhaps a wider ranging example is to see how a lens works with a particular body as well. DXO mark take metrics to examine exactly this relationship. Looking at their results of the same lens on different bodies can be quite revealing!

So what I mean by "bedding in" a lens, is getting to know it really. It not only means checking the performance of the technical aspects but being able to reach any control without looking - IMHO an important skill for any wildlife or sports photographer in particular.

Absolutely a professional will agonize over a new purchase - it's a business investment after all, and also subject to the vagaries of technological changes, the ability to transport it and suitability for the specific types of images one is going to engage with. These days, actually for quite a while, companies like Canon, Nikon etc. make available equipment for their select professionals. Just look at the resources they will throw at the Olympic Games. They not only supply equipment but have service staff on hand to fix any issues, because they know that pros have choices and the ability to have working equipment in stressful situations is critical.

Different genres have different situations. For example, a sports photographer covering the Superbowl or Olympics will expect service on site as part of their business relationship and they only get one shot during a winning moment. Wildlife photographers will have no such support luxuries and tend to work on patience, but they will have to deal with equipment weight, bulk and security unless they can have handlers to help them out - and that really escalates the cost. For myself, when I did that, I was a freelancer, so I did everything myself. Thus my purchasing decisions were made in that context.

Does that make sense to you?

Tronhard wrote in post #18995518
.
Hi Tom:

So what I mean by "bedding in" a lens, is getting to know it really.

Does that make sense to you?
.

.
Yes, it does make sense now. . Thanks for explaining it. . At first I thought it might be something that you do to a lens, in the way of adjustment or customization. . But it seems that what you mean, really, is just getting used to it.

I never took very long at all to get used to a new lens until I got the Sigma 300-800. . As unbelievable as this may sound, it actually took me three years of near-everyday use to finally get to where I can get the most from that lens. . 800mm with no Image Stabilization at slow shutter speeds is really, really hard to master! . But I'm glad I stuck it out, as now that I have that lens "bedded in", it has become invaluable to me.

.

For modern digital photographers the bedding in process can be much shorter. The design and quality assurance is better than a couple of decades ago, and with modern post production software fixing a lot of lens issues is a matter of a couple of click, heck some of that is done in camera now. When I was doing scenic, travel and wildlife photography as a freelancer I shot film, normally Kodachrome and Ektachrome transparencies. My product was thus a very much SOOC sort of thing and that had a profound effect on my shooting style.

I had to know any vagaries of my lenses so I could compose my shots to minimize any issues. The other major difference was how I shot... I would have a certain amount of film with me, and because I was away from civilization for weeks at a time I had to husband my resources. So, the conundrum was that I could not chimp to see if my shot was good (I would find that out maybe weeks later when I got the developed slides back), so it was tempting to take multiple image, but I had a finite film resource. Thus I became very careful on composing and gauging exposure - actually it didn't take that long when you got used to it. That conservative approach has never left me, so although I have digital gear now I don't engage in what I sometimes call "Rambo Effect" - i.e. why use a single shot when you can fire off a whole belt of rounds! When I go out with a group I find that I take a tiny fraction of the number of shots as my digital native associates do, but my keeper rate is higher, so it ends up about the same. What I like is not having to wade through 600 images or so after the event.

That was why I changed brands specifically for the Nikon Df, because it gave me back the feeling of shooting film but without the drawbacks. Still, I use my Canon gear far more in the end.

Tronhard wrote in post #18994136
There is no price too great to pay for a happy and fulfilling life with the one you love.

Yup, that's why I bought my 400 DO.

Tronhard wrote in post #18991528
Arguably the investment in a lens will outlast a series of bodies if the history of DSLRs is anything to go by. Bodies change frequently, while lenses not so much. I believe this is mostly because bodies are centred around electronics, and lenses around (electronics of course but) mainly optics - and these change at a much slower rate. Hence one could argue that the decision as to what lens, or for that matter lens system to engage with can have long-reaching effects. So lenses deserve their own space for discussion.

I see a lot of people buy into a camera system because of the bodies. For myself, having shot quite a few brands, when I moved from film to digital, I choose my dominant brand based on the glass rather than the bodies at the time. I have not personally regretted that decision.

Understanding lens concepts such as focal length vs field of view and the impact on how a sensor alters what is delivered by a lens and how we have to then consider that when looking at lens focal lengths (equivalence) are always interesting topics.

Yup! "FF vs crop" is always an interesting technical, some say "emotional", topic, but here's the news: it should not!!!

The problem w/ those conversations are commonly caused by a web of different paths. There are two paths to the FF vs crop conversation: 1. principles; or 2. practice.
The ideal conversation for individuals should yield something like:
1. e.g. in principles: the DOF is not different just because it's FF or crop, but because when quantify the specs in this manner [I.e. show the math here] there's no difference.
2. e.g. in practice: the DOF is different based on observations between the FF and crop, because we are not doing the math - JUST OBSERVATIONS!!!

There shouldn't be any issues when these topics comes up, and the conversation can end very quickly!! Again, there's nothing wrong w/ articulating what we see based on observations (i.e. practical aspect), and it doesn't need to get mixed in with the world of math and physics.

Trey T wrote in post #19001112
Yup! "FF vs crop" is always an interesting technical, some say "emotional", topic, but here's the news: it should not!!!

The problem w/ those conversations are commonly caused by a web of different paths. There are two paths to the FF vs crop conversation: 1. principles; or 2. practice.
The ideal conversation for individuals should yield something like:
1. e.g. in principles: the DOF is not different just because it's FF or crop, but because when quantify the specs in this manner [I.e. show the math here] there's no difference.
2. e.g. in practice: the DOF is different based on observations between the FF and crop, because we are not doing the math - JUST OBSERVATIONS!!!

There shouldn't be any issues when these topics comes up, and the conversation can end very quickly!! Again, there's nothing wrong w/ articulating what we see based on observations (i.e. practical aspect), and it doesn't need to get mixed in with the world of math and physics.

We are not served well when we consider Equivalence purely in terms of focal length. Focal length (and lens aperture) are fixed characteristics, based on the physical design of lenses. So a an EF lens with a focal length range of 50-100mm will not change those characteristics if attached to an APS-C body. But what we see is also impacted by what the sensor captures from what the lens delivers - which for the purposes of this discussion I define as the Field of View.

Thus, if we changed the nomenclature slightly we might have less debate. On a 35mm Nikon FF body for example the lens still crops the round image to suit the native 3x2 sensor format, but that is seen as delivering a full FoV. The Nikon APS-C sensor is reduced by a factor of 1.5, producing a narrowing FoV by that factor, which for the 50-100 FF lens would be equivalent to that rendered by a 75-150mm lens on FF body. The actual Focal Length never changed, or did it's physical aperture range, what was captured by the SENSOR changed.

There is an article on this topic posted on DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.co​m …nce-and-why-should-i-care

Tony Northrop (sometimes controversial character) has a video attempting to demonstrate this
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Usually this is just a hotly debated topic and has less practical consideration, but I have seen it. I had a student who had seen a Canon a wide angle lens on a FF body. He really liked the results and the coverage and bought this expensive piece of glass on line. He was thus heartily disappointed when he got a much less wide angle FoV from his crop body. The thing is the FoV is penalized at wide angles, but takes a "boost" on telephoto, mostly because the crop of the APS-C sensor often has a great pixel density than actually cropping the result from a FF output.

Tronhard wrote in post #19001513
We are not served well when we consider Equivalence purely in terms of focal length. Focal length (and lens aperture) are fixed characteristics, based on the physical design of lenses. So a an EF lens with a focal length range of 50-100mm will not change those characteristics if attached to an APS-C body. But what we see is also impacted by what the sensor captures from what the lens delivers - which for the purposes of this discussion I define as the Field of View.

Thus, if we changed the nomenclature slightly we might have less debate. On a 35mm Nikon FF body for example the lens still crops the round image to suit the native 3x2 sensor format, but that is seen as delivering a full FoV. The Nikon APS-C sensor is reduced by a factor of 1.5, producing a narrowing FoV by that factor, which for the 50-100 FF lens would be equivalent to that rendered by a 75-150mm lens on FF body. The actual Focal Length never changed, or did it's physical aperture range, what was captured by the SENSOR changed.

There is an article on this topic posted on DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.co​m …nce-and-why-should-i-care

Tony Northrop (sometimes controversial character) has a video attempting to demonstrate this
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Usually this is just a hotly debated topic and has less practical consideration, but I have seen it. I had a student who had seen a Canon a wide angle lens on a FF body. He really liked the results and the coverage and bought this expensive piece of glass on line. He was thus heartily disappointed when he got a much less wide angle FoV from his crop body. The thing is the FoV is penalized at wide angles, but takes a "boost" on telephoto, mostly because the crop of the APS-C sensor often has a great pixel density than actually cropping the result from a FF output.

Foreword: just a casual conversation...

Youre still explaining things in principles, which is fine because it "appears" that you're in academia - just to point out an example of how a person speak. Again, the way that you speak in terms of quantitative values, that's engineer and scientist's level of communication. Most of us are not camera engineers or scientists, we're just operators/artists. We don't have to make the "FF vs crop" topic precise, just accurate to our senses. I'm not trying picking on you or anyone, just trying to facilitate what people perceived as contentious that shouldn't have been.

Also, it depends on your goal with the conversation; if you want to parse out the difference, "man" and "boy" (i.e. elitist and modest), and shove all the math down their throat, that will work perfectly fine. But it would be meaningful if the goal is to mentor the individuals to capture the best photo they can with whatever they use (e.g. iphone, P&S, FF, or crop), which is defined as "art", instead of science. On the contrary, the conversations are almost never like the latter, simply because the man is possibly confused in the direction of conversation they're heading.

And I do realized that I'm the odd man out here...