Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JamesA on April 06, 2009, 03:07:13 pm
-
The article, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dark-side.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dark-side.shtml) highlighted the fact noise in small sensor, compact cameras (with interchangeable lenses) is a problem, but can be dealt with. IMO, if we developed a bit of discipline, this is easy to overcome. Remember how cameras came in the 1960s, 70s, 80s? An SLR came with a 50mm f1.8 lens. If people would dispense with the sloth-slow compact zooms and simply adopt one fast prime lens, the noise problem would be mitigated by at least 2-3 stops. What you shot at 1600 ISO at f5.6 could now be shot at 400 ISO at f2.8. The discipline comes from being more readily willing to adjust the distance to your target rather than letting the zoom do it.
-
The discipline comes from being more readily willing to adjust the distance to your target rather than letting the zoom do it.
Carefully does it! I have had the experience of inviting animosity by suggesting the use of primes only and of doing the leg-work instead... Ironically, and really as a means of avoiding having to change lenses in the field, as it were, in the fight to avoid dust, I have gone ahead and bough myself my first zoom ever - the 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor. Broke the bank but solves the changing problem whilst creating another: so damn heavy and bulky that I fear a tripod is the only reasonable way to go from now on in. I hate tripods. Wish there was a chance of winning with photography, but there ain´t! I had developed the habit of deciding which lens I was going to use prior to going out to shoot and thus keeping the weight down, but that´s clearly been defenestrated along with the mythical cat.
Rob C
-
Carefully does it! I have had the experience of inviting animosity by suggesting the use of primes only and of doing the leg-work instead... Ironically, and really as a means of avoiding having to change lenses in the field, as it were, in the fight to avoid dust, I have gone ahead and bough myself my first zoom ever - the 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor. Broke the bank but solves the changing problem whilst creating another: so damn heavy and bulky that I fear a tripod is the only reasonable way to go from now on in. I hate tripods. Wish there was a chance of winning with photography, but there ain´t! I had developed the habit of deciding which lens I was going to use prior to going out to shoot and thus keeping the weight down, but that´s clearly been defenestrated along with the mythical cat.
Rob C
Monopod?
David
-
Carefully does it! I have had the experience of inviting animosity by suggesting the use of primes only and of doing the leg-work instead... Ironically, and really as a means of avoiding having to change lenses in the field, as it were, in the fight to avoid dust, I have gone ahead and bough myself my first zoom ever - the 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor. Broke the bank but solves the changing problem whilst creating another: so damn heavy and bulky that I fear a tripod is the only reasonable way to go from now on in. I hate tripods. Wish there was a chance of winning with photography, but there ain´t! I had developed the habit of deciding which lens I was going to use prior to going out to shoot and thus keeping the weight down, but that´s clearly been defenestrated along with the mythical cat.
Rob C
With Nikon, that is an option, though I don't relish the idea of using a hulking 24-70 f2.8 on a D40/60. In this case, the Panasonic G1 is a small camera so a fast prime really is the only option, also because they don't make a faster zoom than their kit lens.
-
"Discipline" doesn't do any good in situations where you *can't* arbitrarily adjust your distance to the target. In street shooting, it's usually difficult to ask your candid-shot subject, "Can you please back up and walk past that building again while I move to the other side of the street and wait for a gap in traffic?" In much landscape shooting, for example in mountains, you may be on a road or path that would require you to grow wings or do mountain climbing to get the zoom right with your feet alone. If you only shoot in a studio or carefully staged conditions, sure, using a prime works, but that's rarely the case for a lot of us here.
Lisa
-
Carefully does it! I have had the experience of inviting animosity by suggesting the use of primes only and of doing the leg-work instead...
Your apprehension was well-founded, although I did not plan to answer to the OP, but your post raised the level of stimulus (but do not take this personally).
I am one of those, who think that only bloody amateurs or snobs would make such a ridiculous suggestion. (Btw. do you put a glass or a lens on your camera?)
Let's get back to the initial point.
You don't want the carry around a heavy camera with heavy lenses. You want to take advantage of the small, light weight camera. Walking around and looking if perhaps there is something to be shot?
All right, put that prime on your camera and start walking in a city or in a natural area worth of photographing, except in Nevada (I apologize if there are hills in Nevada, it was only an example). Do you see an interesting looking scenery, a building, a musician in the city or whatever catches your eye? Well, then walk into the middle of the busy street, because that is the point, from where your lens gives the ideal field of view.
Are you at the balkony of a tall building or on the top of a hill? Well, rent a helicopter. Are you on an outcropping at the shore? Ask a seagall to make the shot if you don't have an underwater housing for your camera.
After having hurdled these obstacles, I am sure you want to make a 20x30" print of these great shots, right?
-
"Discipline" doesn't do any good in situations where you *can't* arbitrarily adjust your distance to the target. In street shooting, it's usually difficult to ask your candid-shot subject, "Can you please back up and walk past that building again while I move to the other side of the street and wait for a gap in traffic?" In much landscape shooting, for example in mountains, you may be on a road or path that would require you to grow wings or do mountain climbing to get the zoom right with your feet alone. If you only shoot in a studio or carefully staged conditions, sure, using a prime works, but that's rarely the case for a lot of us here.
Lisa
Honestly? Better to lose some shots than make dozens of poor quality shots with a problem, be it noise or whatever. Prior to good zooms (1950s?) how did people manage?
-
Honestly? Better to lose some shots than make dozens of poor quality shots with a problem, be it noise or whatever. Prior to good zooms (1950s?) how did people manage?
You're forgetting the other option: Use the zoom to frame the shot optimally from where geography/traffic constrains you to stand, instead of using an unnecessarily-wide lens and cropping unnecessarily, which is how it was done before the advent of good zoom lenses.
-
Based on the reviews, it would seem the lens makers have taken the opportunity to produce a lot more cheap primes, rather than go for higher quality. Certainly they're feeling the heat from all of those wonderful new modestly-priced zoom lenses.
-
Based on the reviews, it would seem the lens makers have taken the opportunity to produce a lot more cheap primes, rather than go for higher quality. Certainly they're feeling the heat from all of those wonderful new modestly-priced zoom lenses.
I have a Nikon D3 and a 24-70. I also had a Pentax K10D for a while, with three pancake lenses (primes) and one zoom. I think that kit might have weighed less, altogether, than the D3 with the 24-70. I did some street work at the Republican National Convention that required me to carry all three Nikon f2.8 zooms, a D3 and a D300. It was a workout, and got me looking for a different set-up for news photography (I'd already gotten rid of the Pentax; besides, I like zooms for news work.) I'll be very interested in what Olympus comes up with this summer, with the Micro 4/3. If they will put some primes with it, it could be a great camera...
Over on The Online Photographer, Mike Johnston asks (today) what we'd think of a high quality 3mp camera, designed for web-only use. Now *there*s a concept. If you had a *modern* full-frame 3mp camera, I wonder how high you could push a clean ISO? 50000?
JC
-
What is the depth of field like at f1.8? At f5.6 you have a better chance to get a decent image?
-
I have a Nikon D3 and a 24-70. I also had a Pentax K10D for a while, with three pancake lenses (primes) and one zoom. I think that kit might have weighed less, altogether, than the D3 with the 24-70. I did some street work at the Republican National Convention that required me to carry all three Nikon f2.8 zooms, a D3 and a D300. It was a workout, and got me looking for a different set-up for news photography (I'd already gotten rid of the Pentax; besides, I like zooms for news work.) I'll be very interested in what Olympus comes up with this summer, with the Micro 4/3. If they will put some primes with it, it could be a great camera...
Over on The Online Photographer, Mike Johnston asks (today) what we'd think of a high quality 3mp camera, designed for web-only use. Now *there*s a concept. If you had a *modern* full-frame 3mp camera, I wonder how high you could push a clean ISO? 50000?
JC
Some CCDs available are 35mm film size and are only have 1 megapixel. They want the low noise of 23um pixels. I think if they'd kept 4-5 megapixel cameras around, it might have been interesting, but the market was directed elsewhere.
-
What is the depth of field like at f1.8? At f5.6 you have a better chance to get a decent image?
It's not hard to focus at f1.8, and if the subject is some distance away, DOF is fine, depending on what you are after. Besides, if all we needed to produce good images was deep DOF, we'd still be shooting P&S cameras with tiny sensors. But the constraints of night shooting mean the first priorities are to maximize shutter speed (if you subject is non-static and you aren't using a tripod) and minimize noise.
As for image quality at different focal ratios, that's a whole other subject.
-
The discipline comes from being more readily willing to adjust the distance to your target rather than letting the zoom do it.
From a composition point of view, that's really not the same!
It does change the perspective and composition of a shot to "frame with one's feet" and therefore, if you're concerned with careful framing and composition, you need both : variable position in space, and variable angle of view.
Of course (quantitative) lack of light can be offset with a wider aperture, but as that's true for all sensor formats, and moreover more true for big sensors which have lots of wide fixed-focal lenses (did you many compacts with a fixed 7/1.4 lens?), it's not something that does promote the use of smaller sensors in low light.
-
With Nikon, that is an option, though I don't relish the idea of using a hulking 24-70 f2.8 on a D40/60. In this case, the Panasonic G1 is a small camera so a fast prime really is the only option, also because they don't make a faster zoom than their kit lens.
On a d40/60, why use the FX 24-70? I have a tamroon 17-50 2.8 and it's very nice. More to the point it's about a third the length and size of the nikon zoom. Sure, you couldn't use it as a hammer in the way you can the nikon, but your back will thank you.
-
On a d40/60, why use the FX 24-70? I have a tamroon 17-50 2.8 and it's very nice. More to the point it's about a third the length and size of the nikon zoom. Sure, you couldn't use it as a hammer in the way you can the nikon, but your back will thank you.
To answer your question, the use of the 24-70 on my own cropped-format D200 is a matter of choosing it because it equates with around 35-105 on FF which is what I would have wanted for the majority of people shots, even if I really like long-lens pictures more; had it been the wider angle I wanted I´d have gone for the wider 2.8 zoom.
Writing this, in the manner that I have, reminds me how difficult it has become to find simple, readily understood terminology for formats today. FF; then, cropped-format: could be any of many; 2.8 and 24-70: how slack to ignore both f and mm in this context, but there we go - it´s catching! Yet it is understood - I think. But still not a good way to fly.
Rob C
-
fwiw,
Most serious street shooters shoot with a prime lens and usually just use one focal length anywhere from 28-50mm. That requires you to get right up and into the action. If you do that after a while you will begin to see things from the perspective of your focal length and will develop an eye for what is in that bubble. You will actually capture much better photographs because you will be more focused on what will work rather than what you could shoot with a 10X zoom.
When walking down a street where do you look? Do you look 4 blocks down since you can reach it with your 300mm zoom? Or do you look up and try to see what is going on 5 stories up. How much are missing because you are looking down the street rather than what is right next to you?
-
fwiw,
Most serious street shooters shoot with a prime lens and usually just use one focal length anywhere from 28-50mm. That requires you to get right up and into the action. If you do that after a while you will begin to see things from the perspective of your focal length and will develop an eye for what is in that bubble. You will actually capture much better photographs because you will be more focused on what will work rather than what you could shoot with a 10X zoom.
Before digital I used M series Leicas and 90% of the time with a 35mm 1.4 mounted on it, mostly doing street and back country landscapes. I never like flash, so everything was available light and mostly HP5 pushed to 800. Loved the look and focal length. Sure, it takes a bit more effort and thought, but after awhile it becomes second nature. Hyperfocal distance eliminates any supposed advantage of auto focus. And yeah, I did spend a lot of time in the middle of the street. Still do. Unfortunately it would take the M8.2 and 24mm1.4 to do it digitally, and I just can't justify the expense.
I'm now in the process of picking up a 5D II and then the Zeiss 35/2 when it becomes available in the Canon mount. It's about as close as I can get to my previous setup for a reasonable price. Still a bit of a hulk compared to the rangefinder, but hopefully it will prove to be convenient enough to start carrying a camera with me at all times again.
I'm currently using a 30D with the 16-35 L II. A real love/hate relationship.
-
I'm now in the process of picking up a 5D II and then the Zeiss 35/2 when it becomes available in the Canon mount. It's about as close as I can get to my previous setup for a reasonable price. Still a bit of a hulk compared to the rangefinder, but hopefully it will prove to be convenient enough to start carrying a camera with me at all times again.
I'd wait a bit, for that Micro 4/3 from Olympus, to see what they do with it. They make terrific lenses when they want to, and this could be a very Leica-like camera. The big question mark at this point is how fast the lenses will be, or if they will just come across with a couple of crappy P&S-style "super-zooms" with the first twist. If they do that, though, they'll be missing their market: there's a positive hunger out there for a compact cameras with a relatively large sensor and good glass.
JC
-
On a d40/60, why use the FX 24-70? I have a tamroon 17-50 2.8 and it's very nice. More to the point it's about a third the length and size of the nikon zoom. Sure, you couldn't use it as a hammer in the way you can the nikon, but your back will thank you.
That's one alternative, but f2.8 zooms all weigh a fair bit. Way more than the kit zoom and more than most primes.
-
I'd wait a bit, for that Micro 4/3 from Olympus, to see what they do with it. They make terrific lenses when they want to, and this could be a very Leica-like camera. The big question mark at this point is how fast the lenses will be, or if they will just come across with a couple of crappy P&S-style "super-zooms" with the first twist. If they do that, though, they'll be missing their market: there's a positive hunger out there for a compact cameras with a relatively large sensor and good glass.
JC
Well, one of the next ones is going to be a 14-140mm (something like that) zoom that'll cost $1k and won't be fast. The new G1H is (at first) going to be sold only as a kit with that lens, $1800 U.S. sugg. price.
-
fwiw,
Ah Wally you have it right on the head. That's what it's all about, but one would have had to be there to know what your talking about.
Most serious street shooters shoot with a prime lens and usually just use one focal length anywhere from 28-50mm. That requires you to get right up and into the action. If you do that after a while you will begin to see things from the perspective of your focal length and will develop an eye for what is in that bubble. You will actually capture much better photographs because you will be more focused on what will work rather than what you could shoot with a 10X zoom.
When walking down a street where do you look? Do you look 4 blocks down since you can reach it with your 300mm zoom? Or do you look up and try to see what is going on 5 stories up. How much are missing because you are looking down the street rather than what is right next to you?
-
One normal to moderately wide lens works for a good chunk of street photography, but far from all: for example, not for the longer shots in Michael's recent essay. Substantial cropping is about equivalent to using a substantially smaller sensor: more IQ loss than the lower speed of a zoom, I suspect.
Right now, my fantasy for a small, discreet kit is a small Micro Four thirds body with in-body IS, articulated LCD (no complaints about LCD washout with night photography!), the promised Panasonic 20/1.7 "wide normal", and a smallish telephoto zoom. Camera motion is far more of a worry for most of my photography than subject motion, so several stops of stabilization is worth far more than a lens that is several stops faster, given the weight, cost, and shallower DOF that goes with faster apertures.
-
As I understand, the article is about using high ISO without flash. How useful is your camera in low light? The old 5D is remarkable. Here's a shot at ISO 1600 without flash, in a night market in Chiang Mai ... an artist trying to support his two kids.
[attachment=12866:ISO_1600...ash_1824.jpg]
-
As I understand, the article is about using high ISO without flash. How useful is your camera in low light? The old 5D is remarkable. Here's a shot at ISO 1600 without flash, in a night market in Chiang Mai ... an artist trying to support his two kids.
[attachment=12866:ISO_1600...ash_1824.jpg]
Ray, I see he´s already painted Michael, second row on the left... which one is you and who the babe in the ´bra?
Rob C
Edit: Painted? No, probably pencilled him in.
-
which one is you and who the babe in the ´bra?
The babe in the bra, I have no idea. However, I can assert that I'm definitely not featured in the painting.
This is me, giving a terrible fright to a tiger. You can tell from his blurred right paw that he's agitated. I'm sorry that I should give such distress to tiger. I hope Jesus forgives me.
[attachment=12873:Tiger_0144.jpg]
-
In case anyone takes exception to my harsh treatment of tigers and accuses me of animal cruelty, I'll offer the following shot showing that I'm very loving.
[attachment=12875:Tiger_on_lap_0133.jpg]
-
In case anyone takes exception to my harsh treatment of tigers and accuses me of animal cruelty, I'll offer the following shot showing that I'm very loving.
[attachment=12875:Tiger_on_lap_0133.jpg]
Which one's the big pussycat?
David
-
In case anyone takes exception to my harsh treatment of tigers and accuses me of animal cruelty, I'll offer the following shot showing that I'm very loving.
I have also done that! A bit scary actually and I’ve always thought they were rough like a horse’s tail, but they are really smooth and soft like small pussycats.
-
You two are both effing mad.
Rob C
-
You two are both effing mad.
Rob C
And I thought I was one of the sanest persons anyone could hope to meet .
-
And I thought I was one of the sanest persons anyone could hope to meet .
Ray, sorry for being so slow these days: now I understand: it´s the magic of Photoshop!
Rob C
-
Ray, sorry for being so slow these days: now I understand: it´s the magic of Photoshop!
Rob C
No it's not. Those shots are unmanipulated, apart from color, contrast and sharpening. They're snapshots taken with my camera by one of the tiger marshals or wardens. These are Buddhist tigers. Very peaceful! They are fed chickens. No red meat.
-
No it's not. Those shots are unmanipulated, apart from color, contrast and sharpening. They're snapshots taken with my camera by one of the tiger marshals or wardens. These are Buddhist tigers. Very peaceful! They are fed chickens. No red meat.
Only joking abut the PS, Ray, but the marshal sure doesn´t suffer from camera shake - guess cool nerves must go with the job, brief that it might probably prove to be... Very touching was the youtube video clip about the re-union with the lion called Christian.
Rob C
-
Only joking abut the PS, Ray, but the marshal sure doesn´t suffer from camera shake - guess cool nerves must go with the job, brief that it might probably prove to be... Very touching was the youtube video clip about the re-union with the lion called Christian.
Rob C
The lens on my 5D had IS, but despite this fact most of the shots those marshals took were not sharp due to misfocussing or too slow a shutter speed. I should have had the foresight to set my 5D on ISO 1600 and F16 before handing it over.
Here's one I took of a young New Zealand lady (on a working holiday I think) demonstrating how to chain up a rebellious youngster.
[attachment=12969:Chaining_tiger.jpg]
-
In case anyone takes exception to my harsh treatment of tigers and accuses me of animal cruelty, I'll offer the following shot showing that I'm very loving.
[attachment=12875:Tiger_on_lap_0133.jpg]
Where did you go to tickle tigers?
You look a right pair of softies!
-
Honestly? Better to lose some shots than make dozens of poor quality shots with a problem, be it noise or whatever. Prior to good zooms (1950s?) how did people manage?
Quite simple, they didn't pixel peep obsessively.
If you were to post work from those days online, they would be sneered at by many for their poor quality. A better qaulity image, does not necessarily make for a better photograph. Many times it's better to have a grainey not perfectly sharp image than no image. Look at iconic images from the last century and many are not sharp, grainy, blurry or all 3 in the case of some war photographs.
-
Where did you go to tickle tigers?
You look a right pair of softies!
The location is quite close to Death Railway Bridge 277 over the Khwae Yai river, Kanchanaburi, Thailand, as featured in the movie 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'.
There's a movement by the monks of a nearby temple to save the tiger from extinction. The first stage is to raise money from tourists by allowing them to mingle with tame tigers, closely supervised of course.
I wonder what William Blake would have thought!
TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
[attachment=12973:Tickling_tiger.jpg]
-
Ray you´ve really blown it now: the magic of the movies and even of the conjouring arts is not to reveal trade secrets!
Far better to have delicately removed all sign of chain or collar and then, voila, your own religion: Animal Animism. Coulda cleaned up - the new Maharishi...
Sore throat and back yesterday, today and probably tomorrow. Dulls the sense. Summer is long in coming and my daughter and her two girls are here for a short Easter break and rain doesn´t do much to help them enjoy the trip. Old misery guts neither, I suppose, but c´est la vie; some days are better than others.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Ray you´ve really blown it now: the magic of the movies and even of the conjouring arts is not to reveal trade secrets!
Far better to have delicately removed all sign of chain or collar and then, voila, your own religion: Animal Animism. Coulda cleaned up - the new Maharishi...
Ciao - Rob C
Drat it! And I was trying to create the impression I was brave and fearless. Can't fool you folks .
-
Quite simple, they didn't pixel peep obsessively.
If you were to post work from those days online, they would be sneered at by many for their poor quality. A better qaulity image, does not necessarily make for a better photograph. Many times it's better to have a grainey not perfectly sharp image than no image. Look at iconic images from the last century and many are not sharp, grainy, blurry or all 3 in the case of some war photographs.
I think jjj makes an excellent point. I visited the (US) National Gallery of Art this weekend to see the show on Robert Frank's The Americans, and was struck by the fact that while many of the images were what we would consider technically flawed (imperfect focus, grainy, signs of motion blur), that did not detract from their emotional content, and in some cases even enhanced it. While I love being able to get (technically) better images with my DSLR than I could get with medium format 20 years ago, a sharp image of a fuzzy idea (to quote a famous photog) is still a mediocre shot.
[Just my two cents - NOT trying to steer the thread toward "Your camera does/does not matter! " ]
-
There's a movement by the monks of a nearby temple to save the tiger from extinction. The first stage is to raise money from tourists by allowing them to mingle with tame tigers, closely supervised of course.
I wonder what William Blake would have thought!
TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
Are you modeling yourself on a Blake painting, by any chance?
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_02/WilliamBlake_468x602.jpg)
-
Dear me! What have the Buddhist monks done to these tigers? Are they drugged? It was a hot day and I can understand they are a bit sleepy, but you would think my roar would have produced a response .
[attachment=13217:overwhel...ers_srgb.jpg]
-
Dear me! What have the Buddhist monks done to these tigers? Are they drugged? It was a hot day and I can understand they are a bit sleepy, but you would think my roar would have produced a response .
Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!
-
Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!
Nah - there´d be a cigarette end or two somewhere around the place...
Rob C
-
Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!
Copulating in front of the visitiors would definitely be discouraged. I imagine if any tigers were to try it, a peace-loving monk would quickly appear and give the tigers a big whack with a big stick.
However, I was surprised the monks have not succeeded in toilet training these cats. Everyone who's owned a cat knows that you can't allow it to poo whenever and wherever it likes. It's simply not hygienic.
[attachment=13525:Doing_poo.jpg]
I suspect the real reason for the apparent lethargy is that they are bored witless having to lie in the hot sun most of the day whilst a constant stream of nervous tourists prod and tickle them. They are just waiting for their turn to have a bit of fun, like these tigers are having in the background.
[attachment=13526:In_pool_0249.jpg] [attachment=13527:Playing_1446.jpg] [attachment=13528:Playing_1452.jpg]
-
Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!
I forgot to ask: how could you tell they were both female?
Rob C
-
I think jjj makes an excellent point. I visited the (US) National Gallery of Art this weekend to see the show on Robert Frank's The Americans, and was struck by the fact that while many of the images were what we would consider technically flawed (imperfect focus, grainy, signs of motion blur), that did not detract from their emotional content, and in some cases even enhanced it. While I love being able to get (technically) better images with my DSLR than I could get with medium format 20 years ago, a sharp image of a fuzzy idea (to quote a famous photog) is still a mediocre shot.
[Just my two cents - NOT trying to steer the thread toward "Your camera does/does not matter! " ]
Well put. Some of HCB's work are also "technically flawed." Emotion evoking shots with blemishes trump technically superb eye candy shots, everyday. It takes understanding and feelings for the subjects, guts, patience, quick reaction and serendipity to capture such images.
And don't get me started again on whether street photography is easy...
-
Well put. Some of HCB's work are also "technically flawed." Emotion evoking shots with blemishes trump technically superb eye candy shots, everyday. It takes understanding and feelings for the subjects, guts, patience, quick reaction and serendipity to capture such images.
And don't get me started again on whether street photography is easy...
Yes, there are situations where art is all, but also others where technical quality is even more important. In the end, it´s all horses for courses and that´s about all one can ever say about the matter, and, to claim that one will always trump the other is neither accurate nor true any more than the implication that superb eye-candy has to be devoid of emotional content.
It isn´t even a divide between pro and am anymore, both can get things sharp or even over-sharp just as both can induce blur.
Rob C