Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: theguywitha645d on February 29, 2012, 10:47:00 am
-
Beautiful photographs. I can't relate much to the essay, but the images speak for themselves. Well done.
-
Here we have yet again another "size matters" claim but the essay belies this. Glenn Guy says that you need to use a full frame sensor camera because of focusing and DOF and states that many of his pictures were taken with a Canon 24-105mm f4 IS L series lens (all the pictures in the essay). He shoots at f4 and states "a more powerful focal length (e.g. 100mm rather than 50mm) will produce a more shallow DOF." He also notes that focusing is problematic with a cropped frame sensor.
Well I have a Nikon D300 and have never had a problem at all with focusing and I really don't understand what he means by a "smaller viewfinder." It's just not the case with my Nikon. Secondly, I can achieve the exact same DOF that he says is necessary within the Nikon group of lenses. I can even do a little better by getting a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 zoom which with a crop sensor will allow me the same field of view except at the very wide angle (which is the one drawback to the DX cameras) and an extra stop at the max aperture. It's fine for photographers to prefer FX or DX (or even vice versa if one is doing wildlife photography where a DX might prove a little better) but to dismiss DX is just dumb and really has no basis in science.
-
He shoots at f4 and states "a more powerful focal length (e.g. 100mm rather than 50mm) will produce a more shallow DOF." ... I can even do a little better by getting a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8
Indeed: 70mm, f/2.8 on a Nikon DX, or even 50mm, f/2 in 4/3" or 37mm, f/1.5 in Nikon's new 1" format will all give very much the same framing and DOF and p... if used from the same position relative to the subject.
Artists are not necessarily experts in the underlying technology, I suppose, especially with respect to new technological options that they have never seriously experimented with, being capable of getting the result they want with the gear they already have and know well.
-
Beautiful photographs. I can't relate much to the essay, but the images speak for themselves. Well done.
+1
But I wonder if we would have the same view if the subjects were of our type or of the people next door. On a minor point getting up close with the w/a end of a zoom lens does not rock my boat when it comes to photographing people.
-
... "smaller viewfinder." It's just not the case with my Nikon...
It is absolutely the case with your Nikon. Or any other crop camera for that matter. Going to a full-frame viewfinder after using a crop-frame one is like viewing a scene on IMAX screen, vs. your regular movie theater. Not that it matters much, once you get used to the tunnel vision, but the difference is there.
-
Yes, that's why I went with full frame. Nice big bright viewfinder and I didnt wish to have my expensive Zeiss wide angles cropped.
-
Wonderful essay, a good example of a photographer describing his approach, tools, and motivations.
Folks have immediately "fallen" for the trap of discussing "my camera could have also done this, etc"... why? Just do as the author of the essay did, use whatever you require for your photography and vision, the end image is what matters. The author was just sharing some of his work, after all.
-
"Photographing the Human Condition"
aka
Those poor people are so d@mned photogenic...
Roy
-
I think this is the first time I've posted in this section. I agree with OldRoy insomuch that the images and article have little to do with essay's title. It seems more about how to make eyes look really large and stand out in an isolated street portrait. Perfect for a fundraising brochure, context free and no story telling. Sorry to be so harsh, but there are ways to engage with people that will avail opportunities to take pictures representing them honestly and engaged both with you (as the photographer), their surrounds and the intended audience. This isn't it.
As to the equipment part, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. A bright, large viewfinder really is an enabler. I don't think it's so much about the sensor as the rest of the system. I've attempted to use and look through some of the viewfinders of cameras like the G10, M43 systems, etc and, well it's a challenge for me. I've also shot extensively with a D300. I was very happy with it and I learned a lot. I only felt constrained with the view once I'd gone to the D700. Either camera could and can get the vast majority of the shots I want to capture. You just sorta gotta know how a lens matches a body and work with it.
-
So, four nice enough casual/candid portraits,..two 'old', two 'young' all well lit and the subjects looking boldly into lens,..rendered in black/white.....
........Hardly pictures of 'human condition'...we can see that the 'old' have felt lifes trials and that 'young' are curious but 'condition', no.
Yet again this site seems to have got a touch 'up itself'.....
-
While I like the images I never understood Why the Human Condition is always in a place far far away ??
-
While I like the images I never understood Why the Human Condition is always in a place far far away ??
It isn't for the people who live there.
-
I find that the best way to enjoy the human condition is to look at the pictures and ignore the words. That way, one can write one's own script and imagine wonderful imaginings that probably have little to do with the reality of said pictures. But why worry? After a while none of it matters squat; the subjects have moved on, the snapper has snapped his last and we ourselves are just as likely to have fallen off the cliff.
We should have learned all of this from our own time with cameras. We should already understand the permanently transient nature of time and life, the futility of dreams, and the common denominator awaiting both ourselves and our works. The dust is always falling, even as we sweep. And if we go to bed, do we really awaken or are we just dreaming on in a dimension that's as real or unreal as the one we might have just left? There's no measure; even the pinch might have been part of another's fancy, a scream on the silence of our lips as we continue along to God knows where to realise, to our surprise, that we might have been here all along.
FF is still the better option.
Rob C
-
It is absolutely the case with your Nikon. Or any other crop camera for that matter. Going to a full-frame viewfinder after using a crop-frame one is like viewing a scene on IMAX screen, vs. your regular movie theater. Not that it matters much, once you get used to the tunnel vision, but the difference is there.
It's easy to spot those that never shot (35mm) film, isn't it? :)
-
It's easy to spot those that never shot (35mm) film, isn't it? :)
Indeed, the corollary to that being the relative value of such people's views should be treated with respect, but not blind faith!
Rob C
-
It's easy to spot those that never shot (35mm) film, isn't it? :)
I presume this is a dig at my comment??? Just for the record I have a 35 year history shooting 35 mm, both color and B/W (which I developed, processed and printed myself). My only point was that the exact same pictures from the article could have just as easily been captured with a crop frame D300. Now landscape is a totally different matter. I think if you look at the stuff Michael has been posting on the home page of LuLa youi can find many engaging images that were captured with cameras that are not full frame. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a full frame camera and lots of great lenses and I would also love to have a medium format camera and lots of lenses but the cost is certainly a prohibiting factor.
-
Besides which, Alan was more right than Slobodan in the first place, IMHO (I say this despite my general reverence for Slobodan both as a human being and as a photographer.) When I was working primarily with a Nikon system, I shot a D3 and a D300 interchangeably, and, quite frankly, I never paid much attention to the difference in the viewfinders. (And for those who find a specific cachet in film shooters, I'm 68 and started shooting Nikons with the F2.) The D3 and D300 were what they were, and they were both just fine. And I am a viewfinder enthusiast. I now shoot mostly with Panasonics, for the size of the system, because I got tired of dragging the Nikons around, but the thing I miss most, and that keeps me looking at new cameras, is the D3/D300 viewfinders.
JC
-
It is absolutely the case with your Nikon. Or any other crop camera for that matter. Going to a full-frame viewfinder after using a crop-frame one is like viewing a scene on IMAX screen, vs. your regular movie theater. Not that it matters much, once you get used to the tunnel vision, but the difference is there.
Try looking through the viewfinder of an Olympus OM1 [2, 3 or 4] as the view is much bigger again when compared to say a 5DII and the camera is tiny too.
-
... My only point was that the exact same pictures from the article could have just as easily been captured with a crop frame D300..
And I never disputed that (note the "Not that it matters much" part of my post). But I argued that there is a difference between viewfinders, especially if you alternate them looking at the same scene.
-
Try looking through the viewfinder of an Olympus OM1 [2, 3 or 4] as the view is much bigger again when compared to say a 5DII and the camera is tiny too.
Indeed (I always loved OM, though never owned one). It just goes to confirm there is a difference between viewfinders within the same sensor/film size, let alone cropped vs. full-frame.
-
system, I shot a D3 and a D300 interchangeably, and, quite frankly, I never paid much attention to the difference in the viewfinders. (And for those who find a specific cachet in film shooters, I'm 68 and started shooting
Same for me. On more than one occasion I have picked up the 40D instead of the 5D MKII and didn't notice the difference until the mirror slapped at the first shot.
-
Same for me. On more than one occasion I have picked up the 40D instead of the 5D MKII and didn't notice the difference until the mirror slapped at the first shot.
You didn't notice!! Decent observational powers are kind of handy for a photographer.
Looking through a crop sensor viewfinder is usually like looking down a tunnel at a much smaller image. Horrible.
-
People also do not notice a monkey in a basketball game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo), so Pierre at al are forgiven ;)
-
People also do not notice a monkey in a basketball game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo), so Pierre at al are forgiven ;)
:)
But I'm sure they would notice if suddenly watching clip on a different sized TV. And I was specifically talking about photographers, who should be better at observation than average. Plus that experiment is a mind trick as you are being asked to keep count of something quite complex.
Are the people who do not notice the big variance in viewfinder size doing multiple quadratic equations with left eye, whilst looking through viewfinder with right eye? ;)
-
You didn't notice!! Decent observational powers are kind of handy for a photographer.
Looking through a crop sensor viewfinder is usually like looking down a tunnel at a much smaller image. Horrible.
Perhaps his observational powers were focussed on what he was trying to photograph. A capacity to concentrate on what is important (taking the picture), and ignore everything that can have no immediate impact on it (the quality of his viewfinder), is maybe also kind of handy for a photographer.
-
Perhaps his observational powers were focussed on what he was trying to photograph. A capacity to concentrate on what is important (taking the picture), and ignore everything that can have no immediate impact on it (the quality of his viewfinder), is maybe also kind of handy for a photographer.
To quote a famous quotation: you can not be serious!
Rob C
-
Perhaps his observational powers were focussed on what he was trying to photograph. A capacity to concentrate on what is important (taking the picture), and ignore everything that can have no immediate impact on it (the quality of his viewfinder), is maybe also kind of handy for a photographer.
Except it does have a very immediate impact.
-
To quote a famous quotation: you can not be serious!
Rob C
I am entirely serious. Perhaps I mean something other than you suppose. I used to own a 40D and a 5D Mkii myself and of course was aware of the difference between their viewfinders, particularly immediately after I first acquired the 5D. But after a while I became less aware of it, and took each camera as I found it. And when I picked up either camera, I simply used its viewfinder to look through and rarely reflected on its quallity, whether positive or negative, because it was a given as far as my current image was concerned and noticing it could only be a distraction which, if the subject was fast moving, might even result in my missing the shot. I am not saying that an excellent viewfinder isn't a fine thing and generally conducive to image quality - that would not be a serious proposition - rather that when taking a particular photograph with a given camera, it is only the variables that can have an immediate impact so that thinking about anything else is a waste of time. My general point was about the importance of concentration in photography, as opposed to - or in addition - to observational powers, however defined, and about the nature of concentration, as requiring that we notice only what is immediately relevant. In the video referenced by Slobodan, anyone who notices the monkey necessarily fails at the assigned task - counting the number of times a player in white passes the ball. In photography, think about the quality of equipment before you buy it rather than while you are using it.
-
Except it does have a very immediate impact.
I would count as "having an immediate impact" only things you can do something about, at that moment, with the camera in your hand. You can't fix the viewfinder, so don't even think about it. Look through it rather than at it. Pay attention to framing, exposure, timing etc - things you can change and which can make a difference.
-
You didn't notice!! Decent observational powers are kind of handy for a photographer.
Looking through a crop sensor viewfinder is usually like looking down a tunnel at a much smaller image. Horrible.
Well, accidents do happen and I wasn't especially proud of myself. This being said, the problem arose because I have 5 DSLRs and they are usually mounted on what I feel the best lenses are for them (at least for my use). The full frames have the 12-24 and the 24-70 permanently installed. And the cropped frames are usually ready to go with the 70-200 and 300. It's only when I plan video that I switch things since only one of either kind supports video. That was one of those days... Having my photographic skills described as horrible doesn't bother me as they are much closer to awfulness than they are to genius. I am not the kind of who takes an hour to photograph a flower and then believe I've shot a museum piece. :-)
-
Having my photographic skills described as horrible doesn't bother me as they are much closer to awfulness than they are to genius.
Your work was certainly not described as horrible. Pokey viewfinders were.
-
I would count as "having an immediate impact" only things you can do something about, at that moment, with the camera in your hand. You can't fix the viewfinder, so don't even think about it. Look through it rather than at it. Pay attention to framing, exposure, timing etc - things you can change and which can make a difference.
I on the other hand would count as "having an immediate impact", anything that does just that. Just because you cannot affect/change something does not mean it has no affect on how you use one's camera.
-
I on the other hand would count as "having an immediate impact", anything that does just that. Just because you cannot affect/change something does not mean it has no affect on how you use one's camera.
I suspect that at this point we may be in violent disagreement about - nothing much.