A practice of silliness.

[Franglais]

I find the autofocus works better with an f2.8 lens. With a lens only opening to f5.6 (example the 18-200 at longest focal length) it's a little hesitant. Perhaps this is why manufacturers are introducing more f4 constant lenses.

It doesn't usually matter to me but then I'm not shooting racing cars.

[OldClicker]

On my Sony A700, the center AF cross also has an f/2.8 sensor AF mode (uses a wider spread for the two phase detect light beams). This makes a huge difference but, obviously, needs an f/2.8 lens. - TF

[Loupey]

Perhaps we're forgetting about the people who just use dSLR's as sophisticated point-and-shoots. The ones who buy the kit, photograph their kids, take them on vacations, and shoot birthday parties. Never comes out of AUTO or P, not very techie and so not likely to have any other lenses. I imagine this group makes up a substantial percentage of camera buyers.

Perhaps they notice digital noise but haven't really thought about all the factors that lead to digital noise. All they know is that if they buy a newer body, they will take cleaner images.

And that's all they want.

[Grandpaw]

If I upgraded my five lenses that I have to 2.8 I would probably have around $15,000 to $20,000 in glass. Right now I have about $2500 in glass. If I went out and spent $3000 on a camera with good ISO capabilities I would have a total of $5500 in all my CAMERAS AND LENSES. I have something I can use in low light situations for 10 to 15 thousand dollars of savings.

I do realize that the faster glass would be sharper but for me I can get pretty decent pictures at a price I can afford. If the funds were there to buy whatever I wanted I would have the fast glass and the higher ISO capabilities.

I am looking into buying a Nikon 70-200VR 2.8 lens from a friend at a price I can manage and I am looking forward to using it, Jeff

I would like to say that for me the thing that I consider really silly is not learning the equipment you have and getting the most out of it before buying a newer model and not learning how to get the most out of it either! Now to me "that is silly".

[zerodog]

I have all Nikon 2.8 lenses. I find they focus faster and hunt less. The color and contrast on them is excellent as well. But the drawback for some things I shoot is the range. They are not perfect for shooting a fight with 1 body. So that means I have to use 2 bodies. That is the attraction to those 2 lenses for me.

High ISO? I think I have shoot my D3s more at 10,000 and 12,800 than any other setting. I can run over 1/1000 in a gym or auditorium setting and get off the floor of 2.8 and have some more DOF. When you have 2 or more main subjects some DOF is a good thing. And I do not need a flash. It is pretty cool to make things look better than they really are in these situations using just available light. High ISO is awesome. What I think is silly is when I read about people trying to stay at low ISO on these high end bodies. Doing everything possible to keep the ISO low. Even at the cost of shutter speed. Shutter speed is king for stopping motion, or giving you the blur you want to have. ISO lets you pick the shutter speed you need. Instead of letting the ISO hold you back. Another plus is if you are not using a flash you get the full burst speed of your camera. For action this is a great thing.

[Asmarlak]

I think people who didn't take impressive shots using their old P&Ss, most likely they won't when using top of the line DSLRs/lenses, and that takes us back to the old subject of weather better gear makes better photographers.

[Anbesol]

As we all have well demonstrated - there are very good reasons to hold high-iso image grain to a high bar, and to be picky and enjoy a cleaner grain at higher ISO.

I am not emphasizing my point properly though - I used to be the kind of silly consumer that I am criticizing here. I used to overvalue high ISO grain, then the years of practice showed me how much more important 100-400 is than anything else, I very rarely find myself going beyond 1000, even though I'm comfortable with the grain at 1600-2000. That is why I even have this thought, because I know it was a miscalculation I made earlier on. Some people have more use than others for high ISO grain, but we shouldn't ever forget the importance of grain at 100-400 either.

Franglais, awesome shot.

Asmarlak - I do believe that people are capable of learning, as well. Being good at photography I don't think involves being good at it from the get-go, if that were the case I should have given up a long time ago! No, better gear doesn't make a better photographer, but it does afford them a better leverage over the craft.

[Asmarlak]

Asmarlak - I do believe that people are capable of learning, as well. Being good at photography I don't think involves being good at it from the get-go, if that were the case I should have given up a long time ago! No, better gear doesn't make a better photographer, but it does afford them a better leverage over the craft.

I disagree Anbesol. Photography is like any other art form, we can always learn the technique and technology of it but up to that limit alone, no one can learn to be "Picasso".

[OldClicker]

I disagree Anbesol. Photography is like any other art form, we can always learn the technique and technology of it but up to that limit alone, no one can learn to be "Picasso".

Picasso learned to be Picasso - we all need to learn to use what talent we have. - Terry

[Asmarlak]

Picasso had the talent and learned the technique like most other artists in all categories. If someone thinks he got the talent then he's not included in my replay.
Besides, is it a talent good enough for a hobby or profession?. for a hobby there is no issue, we can be at any level we can be. but for a profession that we depend on to make living, things are totally different.
But since this thread is "A practice of silliness", I find it silly that some people take on photography as profession thinking that they could learn it all from A-Z.

[OldClicker]

Picasso had the talent and learned the technique like most other artists in all categories. If someone thinks he got the talent then he's not included in my replay.
Besides, is it a talent good enough for a hobby or profession?. for a hobby there is no issue, we can be at any level we can be. but for a profession that we depend on to make living, things are totally different.
But since this thread is "A practice of silliness", I find it silly that some people take on photography as profession thinking that they could learn it all from A-Z.

I've seen/heard many pros that may or may not have the talent, but certainly had NOT learned the techniques. Also, I think that there are many areas of professional photography that I would categorize more as 'craft' than 'art' in that good (learned) technique will more than suffice. - Terry

[Anbesol]

Perhaps we're forgetting about the people who just use dSLR's as sophisticated point-and-shoots. The ones who buy the kit, photograph their kids, take them on vacations, and shoot birthday parties. Never comes out of AUTO or P, not very techie and so not likely to have any other lenses. I imagine this group makes up a substantial percentage of camera buyers.

Well, with just the kit lens - that DSLR would be more like a pointlessly complicated point and shoot. If they are using the camera like that, then theres really no point in the upgraded camera body, they'd be better off with something like a Canon SX20 or something. Or an elph.

*edit - "complicated" isn't really the best word for what I meant, I think "hassle" is more correct.