What are your photography pet-peeves?

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8633368
Advanced Photo System. One of Kodak's formats, a.k.a. Advantix. I found it pretty annoying, though there were some niceties here and there.

Speaking of the film APS, wasn't it somewhat smaller than 35mm? I'm wondering -- I never got into the APS system, although being able to "hot swap" cartridges sounded kinda nice.

tonylong wrote in post #8633615
Speaking of the film APS, wasn't it somewhat smaller than 35mm? I'm wondering -- I never got into the APS system, although being able to "hot swap" cartridges sounded kinda nice.

Yup, it was 24mm.

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8633625
Yup, it was 24mm.

Ah. I thought it was something along those lines -- it was that that made me hesitant to buy into it at the time. Interesting that our "full frame" sensors still have the APS designation!

tonylong wrote in post #8633659
Ah. I thought it was something along those lines -- it was that that made me hesitant to buy into it at the time. Interesting that our "full frame" sensors still have the APS designation!

I think you have gotten something backwards. Canon doesn't call the FF sensors 'APS'. They call the two sub-frame formats 'APS-C' and 'APS-H' because they are close in size to those two sizes that were available with the APS film system.

Really, APS-C is 16.7mm x 25.1mm and APS-H is 16.7mm x 30.2mm. Neither of the two smaller Canon digital formats match these dimensions and so Canon should stop labeling them incorrectly.

JWright wrote in post #8633341
My peeve is that "full frame" has turned into some kind of a holy grail of photography. For those of us that are long time film shooters, FF is just a return to our roots. The limitations of technology at the beginning of digital photography forced the development of smaller sensors and "APS-C" was a convenient size because the manufacturers were already making cameras that size. I wonder how many of today's photographers even know what "APS"means? I would like the see the end of cropped sensor cameras and a return to 35mm sized sensors at all levels.

Its not going to happen - manuafacturers are interested in shifting units and as such more MP=more sales. Picture quality doesnt come into it.

For the vast majority of people out there (lets face it thats who manufacturers really want to sell to), smaller=better. Ultimate IQ doesnt matter to them nor the other features of larger sensors. For these people, even APS-C is too big as DSLR isnt of interest to them. http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Image_sensor_fo​rmat

Lets face it 35mm's popularity was only a quirk of fate - had APS film been there at the same time as 35mm it might have taken off better. The problem was that it had to overcome the volume of 35mm as well as the start of digital.

I also hate FF being the holy grail - if film size is the measure then surely medium or large format Digital backs are the Grail as they give unrivaled IQ.

neilwood32 wrote in post #8635360
Lets face it 35mm's popularity was only a quirk of fate - had APS film been there at the same time as 35mm it might have taken off better. The problem was that it had to overcome the volume of 35mm as well as the start of digital.

I also hate FF being the holy grail - if film size is the measure then surely medium or large format Digital backs are the Grail as they give unrivaled IQ.

I don't really agree with this, there is a good reason for 135 format (Full Frame) to be the grail for current photographers. The reason is this: 135 format is the largest sensor size for which one can use high feature dSLR equipment or rangefinders.

Start with a premise that the larger the sensor, the better the potential IQ can be.

If you use 135 format today you can select from a full lens range from Nikon or Canon that covers ultra wide to super telephoto. You can get cameras that shoot 10 frames per second (from Nikon at least) and focus and track fast action.

Go up in size bigger than 135 format and suddenly you are very limited in lenses and the equipment is not very fast nor very convenient to use. Costs go up astronomically.

When you go down in size (what Canon calls APS-C and APS-H and Nikon calls DX) you pick up all the negatives of using smaller formats and you gain little but cost savings. You are using essentially the same lenses and the cameras are very similar in use to the 135 format ones.

This is why 'Full Frame' is treated like the holy grail. It's because of the huge wealth of equipment that has grown up around what originally might be called an accident of invention of the 35mm film format.

Only one.

"Aperature"...

Madweasel wrote in post #8631506
The second form is "such-and-such lens is garbage; don't touch it" and then recommending something way beyond the OP's budget - you have to respect the fact that we all have different budgets available to indulge in our hobby, and the best available for the budget is all the OP requires.

Word.

I got into a debate on a non-photo site about this once. A lady wanted some advice for a decent DSLR set-up. She explained what she wanted to do, and what she expected, and so on. She was on a budget and she had no interest in turning it into an obsessive or expensive hobby, she just wanted good quality and to have fun. Myself and another person helped her out and made some good suggestions.

Along comes another guy we knew and he starts in about long lenses, and how she'd be wasting her time if she didn't get "the best", and how she *needed* all the long "L" primes from 200 to 600 or else she was just wasting her time, yada yada yada. This was so not what she was looking for.

JeffreyG wrote in post #8635431
...When you go down in size (what Canon calls APS-C and APS-H and Nikon calls DX) you pick up all the negatives of using smaller formats and you gain little but cost savings....

But my point, which you are inadvertently supporting, is that those negatives may be negligible compared with that little gain of cost savings. Everyone has a different set of values when comparing cost with benefit. If someone is happy with an APS-C camera, there's no way they could justify the substantial price step to a FF body. Consider that (in UK prices) the cheapest new Canon crop body is £320 and the cheapest new Canon FF body is £2000. For the majority of people that is a very big step.

Madweasel wrote in post #8636477
But my point, which you are inadvertently supporting, is that those negatives may be negligible compared with that little gain of cost savings. Everyone has a different set of values when comparing cost with benefit. If someone is happy with an APS-C camera, there's no way they could justify the substantial price step to a FF body. Consider that (in UK prices) the cheapest new Canon crop body is £320 and the cheapest new Canon FF body is £2000. For the majority of people that is a very big step.

I never meant to imply that the 1.6X cameras are a bad choice for many (most?) people. The cost differences explain why the vast majority of dSLR cameras sold are the 1.6X (or 1.5X for Nikon) formats. These cameras represent good value.

But people keep acting like 135 format is an arbitrary size (which it was until all the manufacturers developed complete systems around it) or that there is no performance reason to want to use it. These notions are wrong.

JeffreyG wrote in post #8636628
I never meant to imply that the 1.6X cameras are a bad choice for many (most?) people. The cost differences explain why the vast majority of dSLR cameras sold are the 1.6X (or 1.5X for Nikon) formats. These cameras represent good value.

But people keep acting like 135 format is an arbitrary size (which it was until all the manufacturers developed complete systems around it) or that there is no performance reason to want to use it. These notions are wrong.

Getting back OT...

People who think their opinion is fact

neil_r wrote in post #8636700
Getting back OT...

People who think their opinion is fact

Ha! It's like I tell my wife....I'm never wrong!

People who put gear that they don't have in their signatures.

#1 WOW your camera takes good pics!
#2 ducks !! people that duck and waddle in front of my 10-20 or video camera
#3 handies!! people that put there hand in front of there face when your shooting candids at a wedding and the person doing the handy is in the wedding party!
#4 KIDS at weddings that run around your stuff and the parents that say there "just kids" !!!!!!!!!!!
I want to say that my gear is pro choice.