Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111535
Ok you're right we all need to shoot with this swedish guys approved list of equipment because we don't know and our work doesn't clearly show what is best for us...The ignorant statements keep hitting new highs and just keep on coming LoL.

Lol as much as you like. I haven't mentioned any gear list. I have only noted that what works best depends on what is available. What worked best for you before Leica released your current Leica? You saying that your previous camera wasn't limiting you and you had no reason to replace it? Strange then that you bought a new camera when Leica offered you the opportunity. Let's lol togeter about that one...

But your advice is based on the assumption that all the photographers you want we should read about were not limited by their gear and would not have changed gear if they had had the option of selecting from todays choices.

I have never said they made the wrong choices. And you know it. Or should, if you concentrated on what was written. I have said that they made their choices based on what they knew about or had available to choose from then. Which doesn't mean they would make the same choices if reliving their lives starting their professional career today. You not agreeing? You still think an Ansel Adams born say 20 years ago would go for the exact same gear today?

We'll never know waht Adams would today. We could kind of form some opinion by all the things he wrote about photography what he might be shooting with and I have a feeling it would still be some kind of large format and a digital back and he would have come up with a really effective zone system for digital. If not he would still be using his old Deardorff, film and hte zone system. We do know what Ralph Gibson would do. He bought an M Monochrom. Meyerowitz still shoots with large format and a Leica M9,. Jill Friedman shots with an M9.

And I have given NO ADVICE. I just state what works for me and what I know what has worked for some others. I don't care what you shoot with. It really is none of my business. I wish other felt the same way. LoL. But the zoom police just can't let it go and realize that there are those out there that are creative without their tool of choice. If zooms work for you fine but don't tell me it is restricting my creativity or to others that have found what matched their vision and is clearly working for them. And some came to these conclusion through experience. But hey why should anything surprise anyone. It's the world wide web and the good thing is everyone has a voice. The bad thing is everyone has a voice. LoL. Go out and take interesting images with your tools of choice and don't get your panties in a bunch when someone else has found a different path. I certainly don't care what you make images with. Why do you care so much about my choices?

Oh and my camera? Finally a tool that really matched my vision.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111592
We'll never know waht Adams would today. ...

Actually, we can divine quite a bit though. Your own hypothesis pretty much spot on. He'd use the best available, just as he did then.
So either large format with digital back, or maybe MF Digital for more portability, (though that was not usually his concern, he did have more portable rigs) Or large format film.

How many large format zooms are there? Medium Format?
How many of them are considered the best?

In this case of Adams specifically, I am pretty confident we know exactly what he'd be shooting. In 2003 it would have been a 1Ds, (as so many large and medium format shooters bought it to see what this digital was all about,) alongside his film bodies. Now it would be large/medium format digital.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111592
We'll never know waht Adams would today. We could kind of form some opinion by all the things he wrote about photography what he might be shooting with and I have a feeling it would still be some kind of large format and a digital back and he would have come up with a really effective zone system for digital. If not he would still be using his old Deardorff, film and hte zone system. We do know what Ralph Gibson would do. He bought an M Monochrom. Meyerowitz still shoots with large format and a Leica M9,. Jill Friedman shots with an M9.

See - your proofs aren't really proofs.

All you have is what people did decide to use at the time when they made their decision. At a different time, their decisions might have been different.

What zoom police? You been arrested and not allowed out before you replace your primes? People noting that a zoom does add a level of options aren't zoom polices - they just happen to be correct. If that level of options is needed is up to each photographer to decide. But it would be hiding the head in sand to pretend that the zoom ring doesn't offer an option.

I haven't made such a claim. But I have told you that your "proofs" aren't proofs. And it's quite likely that you will make some further changes to your gear at a later time because you will find it an improvement. And anything before that improvement could then be seen as a limitation that can be reduced.

I don't care about your choices. Only about your claim that there can't be other equipment that can work even better, because that is an extrapolation that just can't be made.

What are you not reading? I know there are not better choices for ME but apparently you know better. I am talking and have been talking about what works best for me, the way I see and what allows me to fully explore MY creativity. I never said it was better for Tom or you and listed others that it worked for to. The bigger question is why do you care so much? Do you own stock in a company that makes zooms? You have locked on to this as if I had insulted your family or something. I do know whats best for me and the way I see. If you don't like that take it to PM. But I can't understand why it bugs you so much or anyone for that matter.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17111614
Actually, we can divine quite a bit though. Your own hypothesis pretty much spot on. He'd use the best available, just as he did then.
So either large format with digital back, or maybe MF Digital for more portability, (though that was not usually his concern, he did have more portable rigs) Or large format film.

How many large format zooms are there? Medium Format?
How many of them are considered the best?

In this case of Adams specifically, I am pretty confident we know exactly what he'd be shooting. In 2003 it would have been a 1Ds, (as so many large and medium format shooters bought it to see what this digital was all about,) alongside his film bodies. Now it would be large/medium format digital.

I think, because of rise, fall, tilt and shift he would probably be large format with digital back. You're right he did shoot some with a blad (called that a small camera) and a lot of other cameras but most of his serious work was large format. I think the University of Arizona has all of his negatives.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111626
What are you not reading? I know there are not better choices for ME but apparently you know better.

Once more you make a statement that isn't true. Post a quote where I have said there are better choices for you.

Which doesn't say anything about any items you haven't tested or items that will be released next year.

And I'm not claiming that your gear would be better for me or Tom. I'm claiming that there will always be released new products that will require us to reevaluate our choices.

Care about what? I'm not trying to get anyone to select a zoom. And I have already said that. But you want me to have made such a claim because you want to argue back based on me having made such claims.

As I have repeated several times - I don't care what equipment you use. And haven't written anything that may even look like I would want you to use anything else.

Me mentioning that a zoom ring is an extra parameter that can be tweaked does not mean I am saying that you are wrong in using primes.

Me mentioning that Ansel etc would evaluate what gear to use based on what is available to chose from does not mean that you have to switch gear. You, yourself, had no option but to make your choices based on existing gear. Everyone is limited to make their decisions based on existing gear (unless they are inventors with enough money to create or order their own stuff).

Okay guys, take it to PM or stop. No need for us all to see this picking apart of words.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111430
Agree with almost everything but I don't find zooms give me more control. If I did I would have a bag full of them.

Come to think of it. You're right. I was too hasty in my response. Zooms give you more control over distance, compression and other related aspects of photography. Primes give you more control over light, depth of field, etc. Different lenses for different purposes.

Perhaps a truly creative photographer uses both and sees the value of each in different situations.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17111441
I chose the wording of my thread title very carefully. I said that zooms allow for more creative control than primes. They do.

Creativity is in the mind of the photographer, right? The creative photographer will use the lens that help achieve his vision... that lens can be either zoom or prime depending on the situation. You sacrifice the benefits of a prime for the relative benefits of the zoom, in that given situation, and vice versa.

Why argue about this?

Nathan I use what matches my vision. Leica M only makes one zoom and in my opinion not exactly great on a rangefinder, the rangefinder shooting experience or the way I work. Time, years of working and hundreds of thousands of images have shown me I see at 35mm on a FF camera. That covers my personal work.

But I only use primes for my professional work to. And I only have primes that work for the way I work and the way I see. Now thats me. It could be something different for someone else.

Nathan wrote in post #17111669
Why argue about this?

Because the internet.

Nathan wrote in post #17111669
Come to think of it. You're right. I was too hasty in my response. Zooms give you more control over distance, compression and other related aspects of photography. Primes give you more control over light, depth of field, etc. Different lenses for different purposes.

Perhaps a truly creative photographer uses both and sees the value of each in different situations.

Charlie wrote in post #17109921
sometimes yes, sometimes no, that is the answer

if I'm stopped down and have a great zoom that stops down well, what do I care about primes? If I want the ability to maximize separation or low light, what do I care about zooms? I have a bit of both, I dont like to limit myself.

some Deja Vu going on here

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17111441
Also, regarding the frog photos, they're really nothing that special; it just happened to be what I found to shoot that day, and so that is what I used as an example for the point I was making. The 173mm version is infinitesimally better than those taken at other focal lengths; the difference is something that would only be noticeable if one was comparing all of the images side-by-side on the same monitor at the same time. But those minute, almost-too-subtle-to-even-notice differences are important to me.

I will add the image to one of the galleries on my website sometime soon, and provide a link to it, if anyone is really interested in seeing it. But I promise you, it is just a simple image of a frog sittin' on a sun-bleached log with some blurred out mud, leaf debris, and spruce needles behind/under it.

it as mainly the description of getting the shot of the frog that makes me want to see it...it reminded me of peter lik's bella luna description...only this one was believable

Charlie wrote in post #17111747
some Deja Vu going on here

Okay, bravo. Pat on your back. Seriously?