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

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 6/21/10 5:12 PM, in article ,
    : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:55:17 -0500, George Kerby <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >>
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> On 6/21/10 12:23 PM, in article ,
    : >>
    : >>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
    : >>> <>,
    : >>>
    : >>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
    : >>>>> <>,
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>>> 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.
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> 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?

    Robert Coe, Jun 22, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. No, Rich, that isn't at all what I am saying, or have ever said.
    John McWilliams, Jun 22, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Jeff Jones Guest

    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".
    Jeff Jones, Jun 22, 2010
  4. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    Counts you out, doesn't it.

    LOL!, Jun 22, 2010
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Navas may not be "The P&S Troll" but he is definitely "a p&s troll".
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2010
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Agree 100%.
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2010
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

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

    Bruce, Jun 22, 2010
  8. RichA

    SMS Guest

    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.
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  9. RichA

    SMS Guest

    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.
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  10. RichA

    SMS Guest

    This is especially true in terms of wide-angle, where there's a big
    difference between the very low-end extreme wide-angle lenses and decent
    ones (or g-d forbid using lens adapters and converters on a P&S).

    However, ironically, digital has somewhat mitigated the need for those
    extreme wide-angle lenses because it's so much easier to do stitched
    panoramics. Though there are drawbacks to the panoramic approach, it is
    adequate for the typical P&S user.

    The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why
    digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1
    being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag).
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  11. RichA

    SMS Guest

    There will either need to be some major advancements in sensor and
    optical technology for that to happen, or several laws of physics will
    need to be repealed.
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  12. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Rich wrote:

    That's the bottom line. There are certainly situations where excellent
    results can be obtained with equipment that has limitations that don't
    matter much for the specific situation. But there are many times when
    the equipment makes a huge difference, and without the proper equipment
    you would not even bother to try to get the shot because you know that
    it's just not possible.

    It reminds me of when Cingular was touting "fewest dropped calls" in an
    ad campaign that even the research firm that performed the study
    disavowed. Yesterday I was out on the Northern California coast and at
    the end of the day I asked someone why she hadn't called me to meet for
    lunch in Mendocino as we had planned. The answer was that he had had no
    cell phone coverage after he left Fort Bragg, and indeed a later check
    of the coverage maps showed that AT&T had no coverage at all where he
    was (and for hundreds of square miles around him). On the plus side, he
    did not have a single dropped call in the area with no coverage! I had
    good coverage (roaming onto U.S. Cellular) other than a few valleys, but
    I did have a dropped call at one point. Clearly this proves that AT&T
    has fewer dropped calls! Of course the reality is that I had the right
    equipment for the situation and she did not.

    About the best you can do in the P&S arena is to buy a Canon P&S and
    install CHDK. I hesitate to tout CHDK, since our favorite troll also
    touts it, but the reality is that it does enable the use of a P&S in
    more situations than would normally be the case. Since I use it
    extensively, and since I contributed to the documentation for it, I try
    to spread the word about it. But CHDK doesn't turn a P&S into a D-SLR.
    The photographer matters a lot, but equipment matters a lot too. You
    need both.
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    No, it's designed for the man (or woman) from Peru. ;-)
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2010
  14. RichA

    gordito995 Guest

    The pro does not denigrate others. He is able to rise above that and provide
    positive responses.
    gordito995, Jun 22, 2010
  15. RichA

    SMS Guest

    It's denigrating someone to state the fact about their experience level.
    Everyone was a "rant amateur" at some point. Hopefully the person
    referred to doesn't take it personally and get defensive about their
    purchasing decision. In fact he/she may have needed a wide-angle lens
    and simply not cared that much about the problems with the low-cost
    lens. Of course the real problem is that they got stuck with 4/3 in the
    first place and had to make that compromise. If they'd had a Canon APS-C
    EOS D-SLR they could have obtained a very high quality extreme
    wide-angle lens without spending $1200-1500. That's one of the problems
    when you commit to the wrong eco-system of D-SLR.
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  16. RichA

    LOL! Guest


    Right on cue.

    Never fails!


    LOL!, Jun 22, 2010
  17. << Snipped bits out >>

    Was that a typo, or a clever pun?? We do seem to have our share of
    ranters, both rank and seasoned.

    IAE, no one seems to be talking about the rank pro vs. seasoned amateur.....
    John McWilliams, Jun 22, 2010
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    I think most women would prefer to be associated with a senorita
    model, regardless of their marital status. ;-)

    But it's a good idea for a model name!
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2010
  19. RichA

    SMS Guest

    A typo, but maybe a Freudian slip, LOL. It can sometimes be a fine line
    when you explain to others something that they may not want to hear. If
    they're sensitive about having made a mistake they can respond
    defensively or in anger. You certainly see this often on It's an attitude that I don't like, but I can accept
    the fact that there are times when I may not have bought the best
    product for the money, without being upset about it.
    The seasoned amateur does not own a 4:3 or micro 4:3 camera.
    SMS, Jun 22, 2010
  20. Amen.
    John McWilliams, Jun 23, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.