Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

Reply
Thread Tools

How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:27:51 -0500, George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On 6/21/10 5:12 PM, in article http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed),
: "Russ D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:55:17 -0500, George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >> On 6/21/10 12:23 PM, in article (E-Mail Removed),
: >> "John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>
: >>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
: >>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
: >>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> On Jun 20, 11:44*pm, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
: >>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
: >>>>>
: >>>>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>>>>> The original poster is a rank amateur. *He argues against a point made
: >>>>>> later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
: >>>>>> 9-18mm Olympus. *The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. *The
: >>>>>> Olympus is a kit lens. *14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never
: >>>>>> meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant
: >>>>>> for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not
: >>>>>> frigging "street shooting" lenses. *We've become spoiled because these
: >>>>>> kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices
: >>>>>> until recently (the last 10 years or so). *Prior to that, they were
: >>>>>> high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's
: >>>>>> bag. *It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue
: >>>>>> as to their actual purpose.
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35620547
: >>>>>
: >>>>> This matters ... why?
: >>>>
: >>>> Because it's there? Why does anything matter?
: >>>
: >>> I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.
: >>>
: >>> The only way to tell to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a
: >>> pro, is to look at their images. Equipment is irrelevant, except to
: >>> those who mistakenly think great equipment will make them great
: >>> photographers. It won't. What matters is the photographer, not the
: >>> equipment.
: >>
: >> Right.
: >>
: >> And you could do an aerial mapping with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Yes. Those with CHDK cameras are using them to map the BP oil disaster in
: > the Gulf of Mexico.
: >
: >>
: >> And you could do a class panorama with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Yes. I have many such panoramas that have been printed. One memorable one
: > being of a Glacier Nat. Park fire that overtook the whole north-west shore
: > of Lake McDonald. My P&S camera on tripod situated at the mid-point on the
: > SE shore. It took 12 portrait oriented frames to capture the whole expanse.
: > The image can be printed to 10 feet wide and 2 ft high with absolute
: > clarity.
: >
: >>
: >> And you could do an underwater coral reef with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Yes, they make underwater housings for many of them. Many who do underwater
: > photography applaud those P&S camera compatible with CHDK because they can
: > run scripts on their cameras while underwater. Far surpassing the basic
: > features of any manual or automatic camera.
: >
: >>
: >> And you could do an architectural digest layout with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Yes, easy. One of my super-zoom P&S cameras has <1% barrel distortion at
: > the wide-angle and <0.1% pincushion distortion at full telephoto. A huge
: > range of focal-lengths in the middle where geometric distortion is
: > imperceptible.
: >
: >>
: >> And you could do a catalog with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Why not? How big does an image have to be in a catalog? Many of them could
: > be produced with a 1 megapixel toy-store camera.
: >
: >>
: >> And you could do a fashion spread with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Again, how large are those images printed? You've not thought this through
: > very clearly. And all P&S cameras can be synced to external flash arrays by
: > using readily available and inexpensive slave-triggers. The plus side is
: > that they are not limited to the crippling 1/250-1/360 slow flash-sync
: > shutter-speeds of focal-plane shutters. Flash can be used in full harsh
: > sunlight synced perfectly at speeds up to 1/20,000 of a second shutter
: > speeds and faster in P&S cameras. Faster than the duration of the flash
: > itself if it is on a higher power setting.
: >
: >>
: >> And you could do a Sports Illustrated SuperBowl with your toy P&S.
: >
: > Why not? How large are those images printed? And some super-zoom lenses
: > beat the pants of many DSLR lenses.
: >
: >>
: >> I don't need to go on, you moron...
: >
: >
: Oh asshole Troll of Many Socks, all of us are awaiting the work of you
: varied and illustrious career to be presented. PLEASE enlighten us!!!
:
: Are you sure that you and NavASS are not joined at the clavicle collar?

George, are you playing the game with all 52 cards tonight? We all know that
Russ is a good photographer. Have we EVER seen anything that you've produced?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
Rich wrote:
> On Jun 21, 9:19 pm, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> While really "cheap" P&S do have their limitations, affordable P&S
>>>> (compact digital) cameras are now easily capable of producing excellent
>>>> images. When something falls short, it's the photographer, not the
>>>> eequipment.
>>> Go shoot a close-in sports even and say that. All equipment has
>>> limitations, some a lot more than others and the photographer (no matter
>>> how good) is at a disadvantage because of it.

>> It's hard to believe that this old set of shibboleths is being trotted
>> out and vetted again.
>>

>
> So you're saying that a good photog can take any camera, and shoot
> anything, a get a good shot out of it?
> Are we going to delve into the abstract here, where an ugly, blurred
> and technically crap shot is good because it has some kind of obscure
> artistic merit?


No, Rich, that isn't at all what I am saying, or have ever said.

--
lsmft
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
krishnananda
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > I was beginning to worry that there was something wrong with me ...
> > I've been "walking around" with ultra wide-angle lenses since my first
> > 21mm Super Angulon on a Leica M3 in 1983. I also walk around with the
> > smallest Hasselblad -- the SuperWide 38mm non-retrofocus true wide
> > angle. It has the added benefit of looking nothing like a camera to
> > most people so street shooting is easy. Wen Cosina bought the
> > Voigtlander name and came out with their first 15mm, that went on one
> > body nearly permanently. And their 12mm also occupies a place in my
> > camera bag.
> >
> > And the best part is that all these lenses work perfectly on the M8.2.
> >
> > I'm glad I can continue to walk around with super-wides. I'd hate to
> > have to switch to 1,000mm mirror lenses...
> >

>
> Histrionics will get you nowhere. A 12mm on FF is not a street lens.


OK, here's a recommendation for you, Ansel, I mean Richie-boy: if _you_
don't want to walk around with a "FF" camera and a 12mm lens, then I
suggest you don't.

Other than your asinine opinion -- which is based on exactly what? -- do
you have a coherent explanation for any of the following:

1. What is _your_ definition of "street lens"?

2. Why should anyone else in the world agree with _your_ definition?

3. If I have been "walking around" in the streets of various cities
around the world taking pictures with 21mm, 15mm, 12mm rangefinder
lenses and 21mm and 16mm SLR lenses for 27 years, then who the **** are
you to tell me what I am or am not allowed to do?

4. Have you _ever_ used a lens shorter than 28mm for _anything_? Didn't
think so.

And on topic, the fastest and easiest way to identify a rank amateur is
anyone who says/writes "A 12mm on FF is not a street lens."

You take pictures your way, little boy. I'll take pictures my way. You
can be sure I will never pass judgement on your choice of equipment.

By the way, when (if) you do grow up, you will realize that categorizing
equipment as "pro", "amateur", "enthusiast", or any other specious
label, you are parroting the marketing propaganda of the equipment
manufacturers and their toadies like dpreview and kent rockwell. You'll
learn, maybe, to think for yourself instead of memorizing test results
from Popular Photography. Previsualize your photos (don't worry, you can
look it up in a dictionary) and then use the right equipment to
accomplish the image you want. All the tests, definitions, and rules
that you think you are the bee's knees for parroting don't mean ****
compared to the final image.

You really need to read more about what actual photographers do instead
of reading propaganda in the photo magazines. Maybe when you go to
college you could take some photo courses.

Then maybe come back and tell us what is and what isn't a "street lens".
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:58:16 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:23:44 -0700, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
>: <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>: RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>:
>: >On Jun 20, 11:44*pm, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
>: >> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>: >>
>: >> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: >> >The original poster is a rank amateur. *He argues against a point made
>: >> >later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
>: >> >9-18mm Olympus. *The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. *The
>: >> >Olympus is a kit lens. *14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never
>: >> >meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant
>: >> >for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not
>: >> >frigging "street shooting" lenses. *We've become spoiled because these
>: >> >kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices
>: >> >until recently (the last 10 years or so). *Prior to that, they were
>: >> >high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's
>: >> >bag. *It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue
>: >> >as to their actual purpose.
>: >>
>: >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35620547
>: >>
>: >> This matters ... why?
>: >
>: >Because it's there? Why does anything matter?
>:
>: I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.
>:
>: The only way to tell to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a
>: pro, is to look at their images. Equipment is irrelevant, except to
>: those who mistakenly think great equipment will make them great
>: photographers. It won't. What matters is the photographer, not the
>: equipment.
>
>How dare you, sir? I spent more than $600 on my wide-angle lens. If that
>doesn't count for something, there's no justice in the world!
>
>Bob


It only counts in your bank-balance and the bank-balance of the company you
bought it from. Well, the CEO's bean-counters count it too. I guess that's
some kind of "justice".



 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:45:49 -0500, grateful lurker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hahaha! You guys all crack me up! Thanks for the laugh. Here's how to tell
>a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro: An amateur responds to crap
>like this. A pro doesn't even read this dreck! Hahaha!


Counts you out, doesn't it.

LOL!!!!!!!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:14:20 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>George, did you listen to one too many hours of Limbaugh this morning? John
>has a point of view, and he's not afraid to express it; but he's NOT the P$S
>Troll!



Navas may not be "The P&S Troll" but he is definitely "a p&s troll".

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:23:41 -0400, krishnananda
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>And on topic, the fastest and easiest way to identify a rank amateur is
>anyone who says/writes "A 12mm on FF is not a street lens."



Agree 100%.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:33:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Jun 21, 2:19*pm, "/dev/null/" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras.

>
>At some point in the near future, pro will no longer always include
>bulk.



So you agree that small senor P&S camera have something to offer the
professional?



 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
RichA wrote:
> The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made
> later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
> 9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The
> Olympus is a kit lens.


This is true. The Panasonic 7-14mm (14-28mm) costs $1200, the Olympus
7-14mm costs $1450. The Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm) costs $475.

The 9-18mm was brought out because Olympus desperately needed a low-end,
low-cost, wide angle lens for Micro four-thirds (which, in general, is a
system that only rank amateurs would ever consider). Canon has the
excellent 10-22mm (16-35mm) for around $700, and Nikon has the 12-24mm
(18-36mm) for around $1000. The Canon is the best quality extreme
wide-angle lens of the three, and the best deal (I ended up getting mine
for around $600 on sale).

Even Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell concedes that the Canon extreme
wide-angle lens is very high quality, offering L quality optics at not
much more than a non-L price (since you can't use that EF-s lens on a
high end Canon body, it's safe for Canon to offer it for their consumer
level, APS-C frame size, D-SLRs). Rockwell writes: "The Canon 10-22mm
has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means
it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm., much better then the Tamron
11-18mm, much better than the Tokina 12-24mm and much better than the
Sigma 10-20mm, period. No contest: compare the numbers in my wide
digital zoom comparison. It's also much better than the Canon 17-40mm L
and 16-35mm L used on full frame digital and film cameras. Bravo!"

When you select a D-SLR body it's important to remember than you're
making a long-term commitment to a specific manufacturer and that will
be very expensive to make a change. Spending $500-750 more for an
extreme wide-angle zoom, an extremely useful lens, is one good reason to
not go the Micro four-thirds (or Nikon) route. Of course you cannot get
anywhere close to 14mm or 16mm or 18mm at the wide end with a point and
shoot camera where 24mm to 28mm is considered wide angle.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2010
Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:51:48 -0700, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> BTW, I didn't realize different brand m4/3 lenses were actually
>> compatible for electrical connections, metering, AF, etc... That's got
>> to be a first in the industry, ever.
>>
>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35620547

>
>
> There have been incompatibilities, especially with Olympus lenses used
> on Panasonic bodies. However, the co-operation between the two
> companies to solve these problems has been particularly impressive.
>
> It's a pity that there are no third party manufacturers making a range
> of lenses for Four Thirds. Yes, I know about Sigma, but the lenses
> are adaptations of Sigma lenses for other formats, particularly APS-C,
> rather than being designed from scratch for Four Thirds.


The market share for four-thirds is so tiny that there's just no
incentive for third-party manufacturers to spend much money on
development. It doesn't cost Sigma much to slap on a four-thirds mount
on their existing lenses, but the result is less than optimal.

It's ironic how four-thirds is touted as an open standard when in fact
the non-open-standard Nikon and Canon mounts have far greater
availability in lenses from third party manufacturers. You've even had
third-party manufacturers making bodies that used Nikon or Canon lenses,
so you could theoretically have put together a system with no Nikon or
Canon equipment, but that used a Nikon or Canon mount.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Re: How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro nospam Digital Photography 2 07-09-2010 10:16 PM
Quality Web Video from a seasoned and powerful staff! christopher.dixon44@gmail.com Digital Photography 1 05-28-2008 10:50 AM
rank amateur needs advice on Antarctic trip WilsonMarkT@googlemail.com Digital Photography 8 10-05-2006 03:54 PM
need advice from seasoned B & H buyers... TD Digital Photography 15 07-17-2003 05:52 PM



Advertisments