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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547
    RichA, Jun 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), 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


    Wrong. All rank amateurs are more concerned with equipment than the
    photographs they are trying to create, no matter what camera and lens might
    be in their hands.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jun 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    > <>,
    >
    > 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.  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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547

    >
    > This matters ... why?
    >


    Because it's there? Why does anything matter?
    RichA, Jun 21, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    /dev/null/ Guest

    Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras.

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547
    >
    /dev/null/, Jun 21, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    /dev/null/ Guest

    "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), 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

    >
    > Wrong. All rank amateurs are more concerned with equipment than the
    > photographs they are trying to create, no matter what camera and lens
    > might
    > be in their hands.
    >

    I agree with that. Earlier I commented about neither Panasonic or Olympus
    being pro cameras. That is not a reflection on the product, but rather the
    market segment. Nikon and Canon both have Pro Service that give advantages
    over Pentax, Sony et al. A skilled shooter can get great results if he/she
    knows their limitations.
    /dev/null/, Jun 21, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:51:48 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=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.

    Given that Four Thirds is an open standard, a third party manufacturer
    who produced a range of high quality lenses for [Micro] Four Thirds
    might do very well out of it.
    Bruce, Jun 21, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > 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.


    the photographer does matter, but equipment is not irrelevant. knowing
    when to use a particular camera and/or lens is a skill that seasoned
    amateurs and pros should have (but not all do, sadly).
    nospam, Jun 21, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 21, 2:19 pm, "/dev/null/" <> 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.
    RichA, Jun 21, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 21, 3:51 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > 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.  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.

    >
    > I don't know what you're rambling on about. People walk around with
    > whatever lens that pleases them. The Oly is apparently compact, which is
    > great for walking around with a small camera street shooting, and costs
    > less, which is the other point of m4/3. I love wide angle street
    > shooting at 12mm FF. The demo pics are not award winning high art but
    > nothing wrong with them either and I didn't see where they claimed to be
    > pro.
    >
    > 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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547


    Them, and some 4/3rds lenses are.
    RichA, Jun 21, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 21, 1:23 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
    > <>,
    >
    >
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    > >> <>,

    >
    > >> 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.  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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=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.


    Go shoot an image with a cheap P&S. Use whatever compositional skills
    you have. It'll still suck technically and there is nothing you could
    do to prevent it because the equipment would fall short.
    RichA, Jun 21, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Russ D Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:55:17 -0500, George Kerby <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 6/21/10 12:23 PM, in article ,
    >"John Navas" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
    >> <>,
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    >>>> <>,
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.  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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=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...
    >


    Yes you do. You've been wrong on every count so far. Unless you don't want
    to continue to look like an idiot, then no, don't go on.
    Russ D, Jun 21, 2010
    #11
  12. On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:36:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 21, 1:23 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
    >> <>,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    >> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    >> >> <>,

    >>
    >> >> 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.  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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=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.

    >
    >Go shoot an image with a cheap P&S. Use whatever compositional skills
    >you have. It'll still suck technically and there is nothing you could
    >do to prevent it because the equipment would fall short.


    I guess that's why P&S cameras compared to DSLRs beat DSLRs and a keep
    paces with a medium format Hasselblad.

    <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

    <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>

    Your obsessive-compulsive psychoses run deep.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jun 21, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    krishnananda Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    > 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. 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.

    >
    > I don't know what you're rambling on about. People walk around with
    > whatever lens that pleases them. The Oly is apparently compact, which is
    > great for walking around with a small camera street shooting, and costs
    > less, which is the other point of m4/3. I love wide angle street
    > shooting at 12mm FF. The demo pics are not award winning high art but
    > nothing wrong with them either and I didn't see where they claimed to be
    > pro.


    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...
    krishnananda, Jun 22, 2010
    #13
  14. Rich wrote:
    > John Navas <> 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.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 22, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 21, 9:19 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > John Navas <> 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?
    Rich, Jun 22, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Joel Connor Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 21, 9:19 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >> Rich wrote:
    >> > John Navas <> 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?


    I can take an award winning photograph with a Brownie-Box camera (and
    have). Can't you?

    Tsk tsk.

    >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?
    Joel Connor, Jun 22, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:44:21 -0700, John Navas <> wrote:
    : On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    : <>,
    : 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. 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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547
    :
    : This matters ... why?

    John, John, John. If you have to ask, you probably don't know.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 22, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:23:44 -0700, John Navas <> wrote:
    : On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
    : <>,
    : RichA <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    : >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    : >> <>,
    : >>
    : >> 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.  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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=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
    Robert Coe, Jun 22, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), 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. 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.

    Damn me, Rich, I thought the actual purpose of a wide-angle lens was to allow
    me to photograph an entire large building from the roof af a building across
    the street. If that's not true, I have to wonder whether I'm nothing but a
    rank amateur! :^|

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 22, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:55:17 -0500, George Kerby <>
    wrote:
    : On 6/21/10 12:23 PM, in article ,
    : "John Navas" <> wrote:
    :
    : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
    : > <>,
    : > RichA <> wrote:
    : >
    : >> On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    : >>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    : >>> <>,
    : >>>
    : >>> 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.  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/read.asp?forum=1041&message=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.
    :
    : And you could do a class panorama with your toy P&S.
    :
    : And you could do an underwater coral reef with your toy P&S.
    :
    : And you could do an architectural digest layout with your toy P&S.
    :
    : And you could do a catalog with your toy P&S.
    :
    : And you could do a fashion spread with your toy P&S.
    :
    : And you could do a Sports Illustrated SuperBowl with your toy P&S.
    :
    : I don't need to go on, you moron...

    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!

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 22, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TD

    need advice from seasoned B & H buyers...

    TD, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    569
    Flycaster
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. rank amateur needs advice on Antarctic trip

    , Oct 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    335
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    201
    Chris H
    May 28, 2008
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    342
  5. nospam
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    259
Loading...

Share This Page