# How to Annoy a Photography Snob



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 2, 2014)

Thought some of you might like it ... I like No.10
How to Annoy a Photography Snob - Top 10!


----------



## tolusina (Apr 2, 2014)

#11, Insist a video is 100% CGI when it's creators state that it's not, support that statement with quotes from the creators that state that it's not.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 2, 2014)

Why does the snob character uses Nikon camera? : Seriously: Almost all "snob" attitudes are just methodical behaviors practiced by professional photographers. No one is obliged to follow the playbook of the professional photographer, but who decides to follow, will be safer and more reliable results.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 2, 2014)

#12: Watching DigitalRev videos 

For this, I'd rather actually have a list and maybe a few sentences around each one.

Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.


----------



## PhotographAdventure (Apr 2, 2014)

People who don't follow these items shouldn't even own a camera. And having a nikon is simply unforgivable, that's probably the main issue right there.


----------



## infared (Apr 2, 2014)

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## iron-t (Apr 2, 2014)

I'll admit to having snobby attitudes about photography, but I try not to impose them on others. Or even let them show in public. But I also use "A" and "S" at least as often as I use "M" mode, so I can't be THAT snobby. Most often this snobbery manifests as mentally criticizing photos; e.g., "hmm, you really thought that portrait was ok lit from behind with no fill?" or "might have been better without all the motion blur," or "what the hell kind of framing is that?"

The other temptation I try to avoid is the, to use a Vonnegutism, the "granfalloon." I.e., in my case the temptation to simultaneously create a bond with another photography enthusiast as such, and show off my knowledge of equipment and/or technique. I recently resisted the temptation to comment on a friend's Facebook-posted image thusly: "Great image. Shot with EF-S 10-22mm, great lens. I can tell from the shape of the flare."


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 2, 2014)

Funny, and around 3.54 minutes you get a good sense why a camera snob must have a BIG lens


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Apr 2, 2014)

I have to try REALLY hard no to tell people they are holding the lens "wrong", i.e, with 4 fingers ON TOP of the lens, not underneath.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 2, 2014)

dawgfanjeff said:


> I have to try REALLY hard no to tell people they are holding the lens "wrong", i.e, with 4 fingers ON TOP of the lens, not underneath.



A friend of mine does that (and it looks really stupid to me) but there's no way he's changing his technique because the 'right' way is uncomfortable for him. No matter how often I told him he gets a less stable grip, and the tendency of zoom rotation to tip the camera. Not being a snob, just trying to help - but I gave up. :


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 3, 2014)

You can find a photo snob when he/she has a barbie hung on their microphone~ HAHA! did anyone else see that??


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.


If someone wants to own a 1DX or 5D MK III and use it in P or Auto mode, why not, its their their money and their choice ... when more people buy high end DSLR's, its better for the manufacturer and the customer - they get volumes and we get lower prices.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2014)

infared said:


> I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)


How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question *L* supremacy"? ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.
> ...


Joe Buissink is a $10,000+ wedding photographer, he shoots almost exclusively in P mode. 

Once you understand what the camera is doing you should be able to shoot in any mode and get exactly the same exposures. It is just finding a balance between what you have the time and inclination to set, and what you leave to the camera to work out, shiftable P, Av, Tv, and M are all the same especially if you understand and use exposure compensation.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> dawgfanjeff said:
> 
> 
> > I have to try REALLY hard no to tell people they are holding the lens "wrong", i.e, with 4 fingers ON TOP of the lens, not underneath.
> ...


Last weekend, I went out to the desert with the local natural history group and saw a huge guy with muscles on muscles, shooting with a big Nikon D4 + 800mm lens, *holding them with just one hand* ... obviously he was showing off to some of the ladies there, who were gushing with amazement about how he could carry all that weight with just one hand : ... the guy saw me with my Canon 70D + 100-400 L IS and told me how inadequate it was for birding ... he recommended that I switch to Nikon and a big a55 lens like the 800mm, he said that 800mm was the minimum focal length required for bird photography : ... when I told him that I cannot afford such equipment, he generously offered to give me his Nikon D4 for free, "as he already got the D4S in Kuwait" (all this happened in front of some nice looking women) but the moment the women went their way, this guy takes his Lexus 4X4 and disappears into the desert - needless to say, I still haven't got the D4 :


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > dawgfanjeff said:
> ...



Darn! When I saw the underlined part, I thought you linked a snapshot of this guy holding the camera+lens combo.
Next time, try to keep the ladies around until he fulfills his promise (oh, and take a photo!).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


I tried to take a photo, but he was too close for my 100-400 lens and couldn't focus on the show off guy. I did think of holding my 70D+100-400 with just 2 fingers, so the ladies would stick around, but I couldn't ;D


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 3, 2014)

As much as Kai is a little abrasive at times I have learned from their videos, and the three of them (he, Lok and Alamby) add up to better chemistry than a lot of contemporary TV. I wonder how they are off-camera, I'm pretty sure Kai is hamming it up a lot.

Jim


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> As much as Kai is a little abrasive at times I have learned from their videos, and the three of them (he, Lok and Alamby) add up to better chemistry than a lot of contemporary TV. I wonder how they are off-camera, I'm pretty sure Kai is hamming it up a lot.
> 
> Jim


I agree. Some people don't like them but I find their videos entertaining ... they are not pretending to teach you or make you into a professional photographer ... its meant to be informative and funny, which works well for them ... that's the reason why they are the number 1 photography video channel on youtube and many professional photographers participate in Kai's videos, especially for the "cheap camera challenge" videos. From what I hear Alamby left the show and all the new videos for the past few months only show Kai & Lok.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 3, 2014)

This reminds me of coming on this forum, except it’s FRIGGIN HILARIOUS. “Why don’t you just give up photography and take up stamp collecting!”…LMFAO…Snaps 11 fps of a still drinking cup, “yeah I think I got a shot”…LMFAO. “Mirrorless, I think it’s the future isn’t it?” Hahahah… 

I hate to say it but DigitalRev guy reminds me of a few guys on here, except…again…Revguy is funny and less hateful!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> I hate to say it but DigitalRev guy reminds me of a few guys on here, except…again…Revguy is funny and less hateful!


+1


----------



## slclick (Apr 3, 2014)

I've reserved the IGNORE function for a single CR soul who fits these descriptions. It's working very well. And in hindsight I realized he never shares any images himself. perfect for Kai's list.


----------



## slclick (Apr 3, 2014)

LOL, @ 4:00 he's showing us his big glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2014)

slclick said:


> I've reserved the IGNORE function for a single CR soul who fits these descriptions. It's working very well. And in hindsight I realized he never shares any images himself. perfect for Kai's list.



Ooh ooh who is it? 

I wonder if we could work out the most blocked posters?


----------



## slclick (Apr 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I've reserved the IGNORE function for a single CR soul who fits these descriptions. It's working very well. And in hindsight I realized he never shares any images himself. perfect for Kai's list.
> ...



Oh come on, isn't my post about Kai and his 'birding' lens a bit more interesting?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2014)

slclick said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



No! We live in an age of salacious, melodramatic, ego driven, instant gratification and self indulgent "entertainment", normally at the expense of somebody else. Given that, who cares about a lens? We want the dirt on the blocked people, I am sure I am blocked by a few, maybe as a feature the blocked person should be able to see who is blocking them.

Much more fun than lenses........


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.
> ...



I really get a kick out of the people who put the camera in Manual and then adjust until the in camera meter says 0. Dude, there I was!, deep in the jungle, tigers to my right, supermodels to my left: totally shooting in Manual!


----------



## sdsr (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.
> ...



Quite so. Aside from that, the advantages of Av etc. apply just as much to Rebels, and the advantages of FF - esp. low noise - apply regardless of whether you use Av or P etc.; and while you can learn how to use these various controls on a Rebel, it's actually easier to do so on more advanced cameras as they make it easier to use them - easier still if you have a camera with an EVF that lets you see the effect of the changes you make as you look through the viewfinder - and provide a better viewfinder to boot. I dare say that, for many, a fancy camera is overkill (esp. if all you're going to do with the results is post them on, say, facebook), but that's their loss, not anyone else's.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 3, 2014)

I use my 1d in P mode, but only when using on camera TTL flash. I'm sure it'll make someone want to harm me for it but still... P mode works well when you are using slow lenses, especially with variable aperture like the kit lenses

I agree holding the lens the wrong way around annoys me but then so do lots of other things other people with cameras do. 1) Having the lens hood on the lens but in reverse position and the lens cap on, preferably on a piece of string. 2) Rotating the camera the wrong way, the best was the guy with a gripped 5dII who rather than using the extra shutter button, used the normal one as he was rotating the wrong way. 3) people who frame subjects with the face in the centre and then never crop their photos. Inevitably feet will be cut off.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 3, 2014)

I am learning to shoot large format 4 x 5 (B&W), and am awaiting my first photo encounter with a high-end Canon or Nikon user. Great opportunity for reverse snobbery - film, old format, old bellows camera, really old (circa 1960) single-coated lens.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 3, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> I really get a kick out of the people who put the camera in Manual and then adjust until the in camera meter says 0.



I fear there is a significant number of photographers who shoot manual who do just that. 

But in any case, the best way to annoy a photography snob is to ignore them. They hate that! Their opinion *is* important!!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 3, 2014)

Don't just take better pictures than the snob.... take better pictures than the snob in "green box" mode


----------



## DWalla (Apr 3, 2014)

There are always good reasons to shoot in various modes.

P-mode is fantastic when run-and-gunning a live event where light is constantly shifting as well as the subjects. Where shutter speed or aperture effects aren't important to the shot.

A-priority is great for various reasons especially when trying to control depth-of-field. Or when trying to keep the ISO below a certain point.

T-priority is wonderful when you need a specific shutter speed for either greater sharpness or blurriness of action.

Manual also has it's place. I use this frequently as well.... I shoot on the 5D3 and will set my aperture for the depth-of-field I prefer, set my time to a minimum of 60 (for motion shots) and Auto-ISO to let the camera adjust for the lighting. This way I have control over the look. The 5D3 is great in low-light situations, so the manual feature with auto-ISO comes in very hand at this point.


----------



## zim (Apr 3, 2014)

DWalla said:


> There are always good reasons to shoot in various modes.
> 
> P-mode is fantastic when run-and-gunning a live event where light is constantly shifting as well as the subjects. Where shutter speed or aperture effects aren't important to the shot.
> 
> ...




I think you just annoyed a whole bunch of them right there ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 3, 2014)

DWalla said:


> There are always good reasons to shoot in various modes.
> 
> P-mode is fantastic when run-and-gunning a live event where light is constantly shifting as well as the subjects. Where shutter speed or aperture effects aren't important to the shot.
> 
> ...



Being able to set a minimum shutter speed is an absolute gem of a feature on this camera. Love it


----------



## jrista (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Last weekend, I went out to the desert with the local natural history group and saw a huge guy with muscles on muscles, shooting with a big Nikon D4 + 800mm lens, *holding them with just one hand* ... obviously he was showing off to some of the ladies there,



One hand, as in the shutter button hand (gripping the camera, and letting the lens "hang off" the front)? That guy is crazy!! I'd be worried about the stress on the mount by such a huge lens... People HAVE sheared off their supertelephoto lenses right at the lens mount, and it doesn't seem to take as much force as you would expect.


----------



## dhr90 (Apr 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Don't just take better pictures than the snob.... take better pictures than the snob in "green box" mode



How about doing that with a camera phone?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)
> ...



My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.
So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.


But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body. 
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...




Well Ken does think that the tripod is a menace to society and is the #1 tool to ruin your photographs. :|


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



+1 !!


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 4, 2014)

Ugh, I bet the guy was shooting in JPEG too. What a loser. If you're not shooting in RAW, why are you even taking the picture?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 4, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> If you're not shooting in RAW, why are you even taking the picture?


 ;D ;D ... that's a good one ... unfortunately, I've actually heard a guy say that.


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 4, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> yorgasor said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not shooting in RAW, why are you even taking the picture?
> ...



Heh, it was probably me


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 4, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > yorgasor said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## infared (Apr 4, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > yorgasor said:
> ...


hey...it could have been me, too. LOL!

(I saw an "pro" once...shooting a wedding in jpeg...I just HAD to wonder how the detail looked in the bride's dress..my thought was..."why buy a 5dIII to shoot jpegs...wouldn't the Rebel have sufficed?..I guess it only mattered to me.. So I think that makes me a snob....oh well....8).).


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

tolusina said:


> #11, Insist a video is 100% CGI when it's creators state that it's not, support that statement with quotes from the creators that state that it's not.



Or, misrepresent what somebody else actually said, at what point did anybody say it was 100% CGI? Or be 100% wrong and not admit it. Or jump threads and criticise people, unfairly and incorrectly. Or hold Canon, or any other corporation, up to ridiculous personal ideals and expect disillusion levels of transparency and "honesty". Or run away when you are taught something and be a bitch about it rather than appreciate the learning experience.


----------



## tolusina (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> .......at what point did anybody say it was 100% CGI?...





privatebydesign said:


> 100% it is CGI.
> 
> But this isn't.





privatebydesign said:


> ....It is just CGI, so what?...





privatebydesign said:


> .......IT IS A COMPOSITE, it is CGI.





privatebydesign said:


> This conclusive enough?
> Shot _almost_ entirely as separate elements, ...


Um, er, what part of_ almost_ escapes your reading comprehension skills? Almost means not all, doesn't it?



privatebydesign said:


> ..... …...digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?
> 
> She says "The _majority_ of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . ....


You missed _majority_ right there, kind of implies that while the majority of images were composites, some were not.
At no point did you ever concede that any of that video might have been shot in camera, you repeatedly insisted emphatically that it was CGI, just GCI, 100% it is CGI.



privatebydesign said:


> Goodness you really do have a bug up your butt....


Yes, please crawl out. 
I phrase my writings carefully. When I am less that 100% certain of any topic, I use terms like might, possibly, maybe, could, not 100%, is, certain, conclusive etc.
Even in light of multiple examples from others, including links from yourself to a Franz Lanting example and an entire flickr page demonstrating the concept and technique for showing reflections from distance showing clearly on the surface of an eye, the eye being the focus point of the camera/lens, you continued going on about auto focus blather which is totally irrelevant from a technical standpoint. 
You apparently learned nothing even from your own examples, possibly forgot some that you might have known previously.

Your foot stamping petulance comes across as infantile, pompous, contradictory self aggrandizement.

I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them.
---
_“If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots”_ – Robert Kiyosaki
_“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”_ – Mark Twain
This idjit is done.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 4, 2014)

infared said:


> (I saw an "pro" once...shooting a wedding in jpeg...I just HAD to wonder how the detail looked in the bride's dress..my thought was..."why buy a 5dIII to shoot jpegs...wouldn't the Rebel have sufficed?..I guess it only mattered to me.. So I think that makes me a snob....oh well....8).).



Just curious ... how did you know he was shooting in JPEG mode?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > .......at what point did anybody say it was 100% CGI?...
> ...



I am not the one with reading comprehension issues, "100% it is CGI" does not mean, 100% *of* it is CGI.

Love your selective quoting too. Did I not say these too?


> "I knew from first look* some of them had to be CGI*,some are very easy to do without, the first 16 seconds for instance, the sparklers, the spotlights etc, but some are impossible to film directly, the surfer, the boxer, the meteorite etc. "





> As is the meteor shot, *which castes doubt on most, if not all*, the others.



And gave you quotes from the artists that created it like this. 


> "Shot *almost entirely* as separate elements, the eyes and the reflection plates were composited seamlessly together."





> "*The majority* of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . It was our job then to composite in the various reflections".



You were the one saying Canon wouldn't use CGI with comments like this, "On further reflection, why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI in a corporate production? They make and sell the gear that makes such a production possible, surely they also have access to the talent and experience to execute." And "I continue to doubt that Canon would resort to CGI to promote imaging gear, this was not an Adobe, fake what you can't do for real, production." I wasn't saying they never don't use CGI.
---------------------

Here are some more fool quotes for you too

“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” - Winston Churchill.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Søren Kierkegaard
“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.” ― George Gordon Byron 
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain--and most do.” ― Dale Carnegie
“The greatest fools are ofttimes more clever than the men who laugh at them.” ― George R.R. Martin
“A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.” ― Molière
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt.” ― Leah Wilson
“What have you done when you have bested a fool?” ― Charles Portis

And with Charles, I leave you, though I couldn't do you the favour of blocking you, after all who would point out your foolishness next time?


----------



## sdsr (Apr 4, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I am learning to shoot large format 4 x 5 (B&W), and am awaiting my first photo encounter with a high-end Canon or Nikon user. Great opportunity for reverse snobbery - film, old format, old bellows camera, really old (circa 1960) single-coated lens.



Good for you! A couple of years ago I came across someone photographing autumn leaves behind some historic buildings here in Philadelphia using a similar camera on a huge wooden tripod - looked marvelous.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It appears I'm not the only one who is met with hostility on CR!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 4, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.
I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200). 
Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.
By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I will keep that in mind, and approach his page with that attitude. I've only briefly looked at it years in the past...it must have been off-putting to me even then, lol. Doesn't the tape leave a residue? I've had to clean it off lenses before (not my own). No doubt you have good reason for using it though, so I didn't mean to question your motivation. It's just I think of people doing the opposite, putting red tape to make a ring on a lens that doesn't have one! Lol...

I am delighted to hear that anything I said about the 135L, helped you in any way. That you are enjoying it is a very thick chocolate icing on the cake! I look forward to seeing some images you get from it, if you ever share them.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 5, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



I sure hope so. I am slowly beginning to post images- being in an august company as this forum is very intimidating to an amateur (not just literally) like me.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Don't be intimidated, please!! Apparently a good bit of the images I post, are thought of as sucky...so I don't post too many! Lol...Also, some of my friends on here, feel intimidated too, yet they still post theirs. And most of them are better photographers than me...or else they get better results than me much of the time. Of course their gear costs several times what mine does, and that's a big factor, especially for telephoto shots of wildlife or sports, etc. So much of getting a great shot, is being in the right place at the right time, and having the right lens on the camera when it happens. I don't see much studio work posted here; I suspect they don't want to show that because it's not meant for public distribution...which is very understandable. The 135L is quite a good studio lens, as you no doubt already know. I don't have a studio...


----------



## sdsr (Apr 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
> And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.



Rockwell says enough silly things (often contradicting himself) that you don't need to make stuff up to criticize him. Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness, or say anything negative about the lens's optical performance aside from "significant axial chromatic aberration at close distances" at f1.8? Rather, he states that "optically this lens is extraordinary" and that "if you don't mind the weight and don't worry about the future ... [it] works fantastically well today." He does make his usual comment about many people worrying to much about sharpness (he may have a point), but the reasons he gives for not wanting one himself are its size and weight, lack of IS, his fondness for the Nikon 35mm DX, and worries about long term performance and compatibility with future camera bodies.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 5, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Rockwell says enough silly things (often contradicting himself) that you don't need to make stuff up to criticize him.



Didn't make anything up, please see below:



sdsr said:


> Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness,



He doesn't "say" sharpness is a bad thing, but he "holds" it as a negative factor, because he associates sharpness with amateurs, instead of praising it as a feature.



> Warning 1: Image sharpness depends more on you than your lens.
> Warning 2: Lens sharpness doesn't mean much to good photographers.
> Amateurs waste too much time worrying about lens sharpness, and since this lens is designed for amateurs, it's super sharp.





sdsr said:


> or say anything negative about the lens's optical performance aside from "significant axial chromatic aberration at close distances" at f1.8? Rather, he states that "optically this lens is extraordinary" and that "if you don't mind the weight and don't worry about the future ... [it] works fantastically well today."



And I quote myself "(even he had to agree it is optically superior)". I never said he has said anything negative about the optical quality of the lens, I said exactly the opposite.



sdsr said:


> He does make his usual comment about many people worrying to much about sharpness (he may have a point), but the reasons he gives for not wanting one himself are its size and weight, lack of IS, his fondness for the Nikon 35mm DX, and worries about long term performance and compatibility with future camera bodies.



Here is his comment on the build of the 35mm:


> The Canon L lens is all-metal, and optically superb as well. This Sigma is nowhere near L quality mechanically.



Don't ignore the forest for the trees. Reading both the Sigma reviews, don't you feel he goes to great lengths to bash these lenses when everyone else is praising them? And that was my point about brand name fanboys who bash third party lenses, even if they are really good, in relevance to the previous posts I quoted. While I am generally against criticizing Ken Rockwell for the heck of it (see link below), it was appropriate here.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17112.msg316510#msg316510

Why do you feel the need to start an argument by claiming "I am making things up"? You could have nicely asked for a clarification. Because online posts are anonymous, we don't need to be polite and courteous to each other, is that it?


----------



## sdsr (Apr 7, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness,
> ...



OK, apologies for the tone - I perhaps should have said that your interpretation of his comments on sharpness is not persuasive. They don't read like that in isolation, and you will find language to that effect in every lens review he writes (every one I've read, at any rate), regardless of who makes the lens, and regardless of whether he likes it, including all his Nikon and Canon favorites. It seems to be part of his review template. Nowhere does he say that sharpness is a negative factor - it's part of his insistence that sharpness is overrated and that sharpness also depends on factors beyond the physical properties of a lens.


----------



## infared (Apr 7, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



The only thing I want to know here is HOW did my original comment denigrate into a Ken Rockwell discussion??? LOL!


----------



## infared (Apr 7, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > (I saw an "pro" once...shooting a wedding in jpeg...I just HAD to wonder how the detail looked in the bride's dress..my thought was..."why buy a 5dIII to shoot jpegs...wouldn't the Rebel have sufficed?..I guess it only mattered to me.. So I think that makes me a snob....oh well....8).).
> ...



I engaged him in a conversation about photography......but I did not "show my cards"...there was no reason (so that makes me a clandestine photo snob, I guess)...I did say (because I am old), that digital cameras were amazing...and we had a discussion about image files...but I did not express opinion. I expressed an awareness of the different files..and basically the gist if the conversation was that he shoots jpegs to conserve space on his computer... which I guess it does!


----------



## infared (Apr 7, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)
> ...



It's all about the "rendering"!!! LOL. (I love my "L" lenses...but they are not the only fish in the sea.)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 7, 2014)

sdsr said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



That's fair enough. As I wrote in my linked comment- I don't completely disapprove of his views on sharpness. It is his overdoing it, and lying about the Sigma's build quality that irked me.
Now let me wrap this up before there's another remark on how Ken Rockwell got into this thread.


----------



## jrista (Apr 8, 2014)

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:
> 
> http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm
> 
> ...



Shoot, now how will I ever un-see that?
Interesting definition of oral contraceptive, by the way. They neglected to teach me this one in medical school!


----------



## Arctic Photo (Apr 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:
> 
> http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm
> 
> ...


This actually makes me accept that a couple of countries Ive lived in has internet censorship. He must have been drunk.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:
> 
> http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm
> 
> ...


I now blame you for making me read that crap  ;D  ;D  ;D ... seriously that guy really sounds like a "poo-poo hole"


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 11, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:
> ...



unfortunately for me china didn't block that now i will never un see that either :'(


----------



## Arctic Photo (Apr 11, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I don't sleep well any longer


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 11, 2014)

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo



Yeah. I'm going to dodge that bullet. Rockwell institute of biological sciences did enough for me...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 12, 2014)

On a side note, the movie "Noah", disappointed me...it was just pure silliness.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo



On second thoughts, I actually watched a few. The guy is corny as hell, but not totally ridiculous as Rockwell's baby page, and also accurate about the facts. Well mostly, anyway.
Sorry, how did we get here again?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 12, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo
> ...


I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 12, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 12, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Yes we are, and I think snobbishness exhibits a skewed bell-shaped distribution with knowledge.
If you know very little, you're not a snob.
As you get to know more, but far less than enough, you develop more and more snobbishness.
You think all you know is correct- and everything else is wrong.
However, once you know a lot, you cross the peak of snobbishness, and you go into enlightenment.
And then on it's all downhill in terms of snobbishness.

Along that scale, my knowledge and snobbishness are both early on the upward slope (fortunately only in terms of photography knowledge, not in my chosen profession, but I have spent a much longer time in that).
Still long way to go here though...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Excellent observation, but if it were true, it would mean the most knowledgeable people are not snobs, and they clearly are.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 16, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


If we are honest with ourselves, yes we are all snobs ... it does not have to be only photography, it could be anything ... everyone is prejudiced about something or another ... so yes, we are snobs at some level.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 16, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> If we are honest with ourselves, yes we are all snobs ... it does not have to be only photography, it could be anything ... everyone is prejudiced about something or another ... so yes, we are snobs at some level.



Not sure I agree with this sweeping generalization.

I am only a snob when I look down on or denegrate people who do not share my opinions. If I happen to like something but I am accepting of others not liking it, I don't think I am a snob.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 16, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Or possibly none of us know enough to be truly enlightened 

Personally, I don't think you can connect knowledge and snobbishness. I know several very knowledgeable photographers, some are arrogant snobs and some are humble and helpfull... and some are a mix. I also know some very poor photographers who have an inflated opinion of themselves.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I suppose you are right, but it does seem like the more knowledgeable posters in this forum, have a bit of snobbery going on. Their outlook is fairly rigid. 

I don't know any very poor photographers with inflated self opinions. In fact I don't know any poor photographers at all. Many of the decent or very good photographers (or professionals), that I know, or have met...Either have extremely high opinions of their work, or of themselves. This seems especially true of pro's who give seminars, or photo tours. They state things matter-of-factly, when it's really just their own way of doing things...not recognizing there are other equally good ways of accomplishing the same task. (For instance the guy who gave a lecture at a photo club meeting I attended, who said he always shoots with a tripod and a polarizer filter, because "you can't get sharp pictures any other way". That attitude is a hold over from the film days.) I admit I've not met dozens of lecturers or photo education professionals yet, but of the ones I've met and known...this seems to be the case. It's their way, or the highway.

Let's face it. Anyone who spends time and effort on something (whether they're a pro or not), and is happy with the results, would rarely admit there might be the tiniest thing wrong with their approach (or with some virtue they hold to be true)...or attitude. And as for photo equipment, it's like every other endeavor, or hobby...or cars, planes, boats, houses. People like, and defend from criticism, what they own.


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

Another way to look at things, instead of thinking about a "matter-of-fact" way of delivering knowledge, is to look at an instructional pro as someone who does indeed have a lot of experience, garnered over a very long period of time, who has done and tried a LOT of ways of doing things, and has a very firm grasp of what works and what does not.

Here is an example. I love Art Morris' bird photography. The insight and knowledge he FREELY disseminates on his blog and on some bird photography forums is utterly invaluable. His delivery method is blunt, directly to the point, matter of fact, and often somewhat shocking or startling in it's delivery. However, I don't complain about that. The guy has been doing bird photography for longer than I've been alive. He KNOWS what he is doing, he KNOWS his stuff, and every time I listen to what he has to say...regardless of his method of delivery...I learn something, something invaluable, something that improves my skill and changes my photography.

If all you ever do is look at the method of delivery, you miss what's being delivered. I think Art Morris could be a little less blunt in the way he delivers his insight, but I honestly don't care that he's blunt and direct...THE GUY KNOWS HIS S___!!! The fact that he freely shares his knowledge is amazing, and I'm a better photographer for it. If/when I scrounge up the $12,000 or so for one of his IPTs, I'm going, I have no doubt in my mind that it would be some of the best $12,000 I'll ever spend. And to be quite frank, I would rather have someone shut me down when my own thought processes are going down the wrong path, and correct my understanding of a concept or theory immediately, than allow me to continue thinking about something incorrectly. By allowing me to keep my own incorrectly formed opinion, they aren't doing me any good, and rather could be doing me a disservice. You learn from your mistakes, no? Well, you have to know what your mistakes are first, before you can learn from them.

Sometimes what may seem like arrogance may simply be the consequence of having a great depth of knowledge. It isn't arrogance or rigidness and a lack of willingness to change one's opinions. It's a confidence that one's opinions are most probably right, a confidence backed up by years or even decades of extensive first-hand experience, and justification to put the burden _on the other guy_ to prove them wrong. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions usually tend to out themselves quick enough, with either too much arrogance or not enough knowledge...ignore the exceptions, listen to the experts. 

As much as I think I may know something, if it's Morris or Murphy or any number of other highly seasoned bird photographers, or Andy Rouse or other world-renown wildlife photographers, or one of the juggernauts of astrophotography like Robert Gendler or Russel Croman, I bury my own opinions, shut the hell up, and let them teach me. ;-) As a small example, I thought I understood exposure. Then I bought and read Art Morris' book "The Art of Bird Photography", and learned not only that I knew nothing about exposure...but I also _*LEARNED*_ about exposure!

Anyway...thought that needed to be said, in general, for anyone who would listen.


----------



## philmoz (Apr 17, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Frankly your response is needlessly wordy and condescending, and misses the point entirely. But that’s par for the course for you.



Hmm - pot --> kettle --> black.

Can't speak for anyone else; but I would much rather read an informed and informative post from jrista, than a whiny, derogatory and offensive post from you.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Tisk tisk, such hostility...I suppose I am not entitled to relate the anecdote I related, without being talked down to for it.



???


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

Just to be clear, my last post was generalistic, not to anyone in particular (if it was I would have explicitly addressed it.) Just offering a different point of view about professional photographers and their mannerisms.

Oh, also, my last post was not about me in any way. I am no pro, at best an avid hobbyist. I am simply trying to give credit to highly skilled pros who both freely offer their knowledge, and those who offer the opportunity of on site, interactive, personal instruction. I don't think it is fair to lump pros into a stereotype of arrogant, stuck up, condescending jackasses who only like to belittle and shame "lesser" photographers.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Just to be clear, my last post was generalistic, not to anyone in particular (if it was I would have explicitly adressed it.) Just offering a different point of view about professional photographers and their mannerisms.



I felt that was fairly clear already. I was rather surprised by the post above.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 17, 2014)

Well, since it was "purely coincidence" and not directed at me, I will be happy to delete it myself. One thing is certain, it's not difficult to annoy a photography snob!


----------



## brad-man (Apr 18, 2014)

At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck." OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

brad-man said:


> At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck." OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.



I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs. 
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important. 
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement. 
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life. 
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck." OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.
> ...


or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



I agree to the extent that IS is frequently not needed at these FLs, and that it certainly is not a cure-all for poor technique. However, I have made quite a few shots where IS has undoubtedly helped, and have never had a shot ruined by it. I leave it on always, needed or not.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck." OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.
> ...



Image Stabilization has one purpose, and one purpose only: To reduce blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. There is no other purpose for IS, thats its sole reason for being. 

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true. As pixel sizes continue to shrink, that notion will become increasingly less accurate and less valid. Smaller pixels register smaller degrees of camera shake. In other words, smaller pixels magnify the effect of camera shake to a greater degree. Were around 4µm pixels (+/- 0.3µm) now, but they will continue to shrink. Having IS on a 50mm lens will be far more valid at 3µm than it is today at 4.3µm. Having IS on a 35mm lens will be more valid at 2µm than it is today. 

I don't know how small pixels will shrink...I think were going to have problems with other things before APS-C and FF cameras get sensors with pixels in the 2µm range (exponentially increasing in-camera processing power requirements, similarly increasing computing power needs just to import and process RAW images, significant increases in storage space needs, etc.) By the time we actually do get down to pixels a quarter the area of pixels today, I think the argument about having IS on lenses shorter than 85mm will largely resolve itself...the results will simply speak for themselves.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...




So you are saying, in addition to giving false confidence to inexperienced photogs (that IS is a magic tool that will allow slower shutter speeds no matter what) it was also valid for lesser sensor resolutions.
Fair enough.
However, there are still people claiming IS is not necessary on the future 50mm or the existing 35mm, etc. That is a fact, and I think that was Brad's point.
You type faster that I can read. No wonder you are a programmer


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.



What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t. 

Here are some perfect examples of why I don't give a damn that the 24-70 f2.8 MkII is sharper than the MkI, and why when they come out with an IS version I am in. They were both shot on a camera with 6.4µm pixels.

First image: 24-70 f 2.8 MkI, 60mm f2.8 1/10 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have been considerably sharper.

Second image: 24-70 f2.8 MkI, 24mm f3.2 1/2 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have had better dof control.

Give me IS on a 16-35 now and I'll buy it.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.
> ...



Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true. 

I also said that the notion would become _*increasingly *_untrue...indicating that it is untrue now.

In other words...I agree with you. Back in the days of 10µm pixels (mid 2000s), I think IS with a 50mm or 35mm wouldn't have been nearly as useful as it would be today. 

Chill. Sheesh.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that _prove _they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.) 

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens. 

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that _prove _they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)
> 
> If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.
> 
> And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?



First off, no hostility at all, just a very strong disagreement with your untenable point of view. Calling something sh!t that is sh!t is not hostile. I'm just doing an Arthur Morris on you.

Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.

Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.

Fourth, do you honestly think I would post an illustrative example that doesn't illustrate my point? I have posted hundreds of them! 

Anyway, here are the 100% crops with zero sharpening or noise reduction on the best point of focus. They are both focused within this 700 x 700px square, the sharpness falls off as you go further away. They both show camera movement as can be evidenced by the shadow/ghost around the front of the monks face in image one, and the fact that the second image crop is the sharpest section of the frame, the point of focus and I were completely static (I was braced against a wall) and my camera is set to not take a picture without achieving focus.


----------



## philmoz (Apr 18, 2014)

philmoz said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly your response is needlessly wordy and condescending, and misses the point entirely. But that’s par for the course for you.
> ...



Must have really hit a nerve here, as I received this personal message from CarlTN shortly after (edited to avoid offending anyone):
_Who the f..k asked your opinion you a..hole..._


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that _prove _they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)
> ...



Very clever. Although even Arther Morris has more tact than you do.  He's blunt, but he isn't a dick.



privatebydesign said:


> Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.
> 
> Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.
> 
> ...



Well, not going to get into a deep debate with you. We have our opinions. They still differ.

Fair point about aperture, don't disagree with you there. However from the manufacturer's standpoint, I think THEY see it differently. I do believe that faster apertures are used more frequently with the fast primes (especially the fast portrait primes), and I believe that gives manufacturers less reason to invest in designing IS systems for those lenses. I'm not saying the reason is good, as I already pointed out before, the reasoning for why 85mm and shorter focal lengths is INVALID (that's what I've been saying the whole time...you seem to think I'm saying the opposite). 

Your third point is exactly what I'm talking about. Today we definitely have enough resolution to resolve the blur from camera shake at 85mm. Probably at 50mm if your talking about stopping down to f/8 (personally, I've never had a problem with my 50mm f/1.4 up through around f/2.8 or so...I've used it to photograph a good number of nighttime car shows in years past. I don't generally use it at f/8, and I certainly don't try to use my camera at ISO 100 in the dark, personally I think that's a little unreasonable...but to each his own, I guess). If the 7D II comes out with a 24mp APS-C, that will only be even more true that IS on lenses with focal lengths shorter than 85mm will be increasingly necessary. That is exactly what I was saying...hence the reason I'm confused about your responses. 

Regarding your first image...the kind of softening there looks like a _small _amount of camera shake blur and a _lot _of missfocus blur. I think the softness would have been significantly less if the guys head was fully in focus. I think camera holding technique can help there as well...that looks like a pretty well-lit scene to me for a fast prime, and it certainly appears as though you were using a wider aperture. 

As for the second image, it might be possible that IS would let you do what you describe, however your burning up three stops of hand-holdability just to reduce your ISO. That doesn't leave much room to reduce shutter speed any more to compensate for camera shake, and IS gets sketchy in that last stop (even the IS of the much-vaunted EF 600 gets borderline when you try to push it to a full four stops of hand-holdability unless you have wicked-stable hands.)

Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.



As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.



jrista said:


> Fair point about aperture, don't disagree with you there. *However from the manufacturer's standpoint, I think THEY see it differently.* I do believe that faster apertures are used more frequently with the fast primes (especially the fast portrait primes), and I believe that gives manufacturers less reason to invest in designing IS systems for those lenses. I'm not saying the reason is good, as I already pointed out before, the reasoning for why 85mm and shorter focal lengths is INVALID (that's what I've been saying the whole time...you seem to think I'm saying the opposite).



So that would be the reasoning they used in making the f2 35 IS? Even if you tried to dismiss the 24 and 28 IS lenses because they are f2.8's, which you can't for several reasons. The discussion was about the need for IS in short focal lengths, not IS in fast primes.



jrista said:


> Your third point is exactly what I'm talking about. Today we definitely have enough resolution to resolve the blur from camera shake at 85mm. Probably at 50mm if your talking about stopping down to f/8 (personally, I've never had a problem with my 50mm f/1.4 up through around f/2.8 or so...I've used it to photograph a good number of nighttime car shows in years past. I don't generally use it at f/8, and I certainly don't try to use my camera at ISO 100 in the dark, personally I think that's a little unreasonable...but to each his own, I guess). If the 7D II comes out with a 24mp APS-C, that will only be even more true that IS on lenses with focal lengths shorter than 85mm will be increasingly necessary. That is exactly what I was saying...hence the reason I'm confused about your responses.



Duh, I just showed you a 24mm image that needed IS with 2003 tech, get pixel size out of your head, it is irrelevant to the discussion of IS in short focal lengths and has been since at least 2003.

That you haven't explored and pushed the capabilities of your bodies and lenses in this way doesn't mean nobody should, does it? I mean I have zero interest in astrophotography and don't push my gear in that direction one iota, but I respect that you do.



jrista said:


> Regarding your first image...the kind of softening there looks like a small amount of camera shake blur and a lot of missfocus blur. I think the softness would have been significantly less if the guys head was fully in focus. I think camera holding technique can help there as well...that looks like a pretty well-lit scene to me for a fast prime, and it certainly appears as though you were using a wider aperture.



It might to you, but I know what I am talking about with my files and it is camera shake, 100%. I know my cameras focus and I know missfocus, I have several others in the series, some worse, and it is all camera shake. Sure it was very flat light with low DR and contrast, but there is no missfocus going on here.



jrista said:


> As for the second image, it might be possible that IS would let you do what you describe, however your burning up three stops of hand-holdability just to reduce your ISO. That doesn't leave much room to reduce shutter speed any more to compensate for camera shake, and IS gets sketchy in that last stop (even the IS of the much-vaunted EF 600 gets borderline when you try to push it to a full four stops of hand-holdability unless you have wicked-stable hands.)



I, and everybody else that sees it know for a fact IS would have helped that image, it is only stubbornness that is preventing you from accepting that. It doesn't matter if I want to use the stops gained by IS on iso, aperture or shutterspeed, at least I would have them to choose what best to do with them. I don't understand why that is so hard to accept. 

To me the thought of the mega money you'd spend on an astro mount is insanity, I just don't see the need for it, but when I see the images you link to that demonstrate its use I understand where you are coming from, would it be any use to me and my imaging? No, but that isn't the point, I well understand people saying they, personally, have no need or desire for IS in a lens of any length, just look at the continued sale of the 70-200 f2.8, but to try and argue there isn't a point, albeit with a pixel size proviso! for anybody to need it in a specified focal length even when shown images that demonstrate the opposite, is all the heavy handed wording I have previously used.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.
> ...



Well, all I can say is I'm really glad I don't take any of your classes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It only offends the headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish. But they were not classes, it was vocational training in safety critical situations, a smart mouth didn't stop you getting hurt, paying attention to me did.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 18, 2014)

Seems that some of this thread has gone in totally the wrong direction and become rather personal in parts. Chill out guys.

What annoys me the most when I am working (in some occasions) - and I am not a snob - is when someone stands in front of me. Generally speaking, at media events all the photographers have a general understanding of what each of us need and so if we move forward there is more often than not an unspoken line that is drawn so we can all take photographs of the subject. This also includes video. Sometimes a moron decides that he does not need to respect that line and stands in front of the other photographers.

This can result him being shouted at, quite severely at times, and if that does not work he could be physically pulled back.

I think that is what annoys me the most when, especially at media events and launches etc.


----------



## krisbell (Apr 18, 2014)

Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures _per se_ but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2014)

I would consider myself to be the antithesis of a 'Photographic Snob', and I'm all for IS standard to wide primes. I do not want to always have to carry or use a tripod and virtually all of my Building Panoramic pictures are taken just after sunrise or just before sunset so you're talking about EV 9. In these pictures I always want through depth of field, so about f8 depending, and an ISO of 100. ( Though this is not written in stone with the 6D). So my most common shutter speed is in the region of 1/20, and I can't guarantee to hand hold that speed shake free with any focal length without IS. 

So from my point of view these new three IS primes are excellent. Bring on the 50 ! I guess the only reason they have not been introduced earlier is that the focus has been on zooms, which is, after all, where the bulk of the market is, but I wonder if the increase in smaller cameras is going to regenerate the small prime market.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2014)

krisbell said:


> Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...
> 
> I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures _per se_ but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!



If you are not going to manipulate the data in post processing I agree that if you can get it right in camera, then given the modern camera produced jpegs, there just isn't any practical difference.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


I leave it on most of the time too.. But through trial and error I found that you really do need to turn it off when on a tripod and if you are resting the camera on a good solid surface or you will get IS induced blurring of the image. I think the best example of IS induced blurring is trying to get a picture of the ISS overhead... You have a tiny bright dot surrounded by darkness and there is nothing for the IS to lock on to, so it jumps around and the IS makes the picture worse...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 18, 2014)

It did not take too long for this thread to go down the toilet.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

krisbell said:


> Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...
> 
> I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures _per se_ but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!






While I decry those who advocate RAW shooting as the be all, end all of photography- I have a similar feeling about those who strongly criticize shooting in RAW and PP-ing. Shooting RAW has a lot of benefits, and actually just ONE disadvantage- file size. 

A person isn't born with 'decent' Photoshop talents- he learns his way, and he learns by making mistakes and getting feedback. 

Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Point taken. Since I was relating IS to 85mm and wider, I was referring to hand held shooting. Though the majority of my subjects are closer than 250 miles, I shall keep your good tip in mind


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.



Definitely agree, it can apply to both types of photogs.


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 20, 2014)

There's only one true way to _really_ annoy a photography snob - take better photos with lesser gear. Most of the photography snobs I know take horrible shots with very expensive gear. The photographers I know who truly have talent are far friendlier.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



+1 I have taped over the red rings for years with black gaffers tape. Along with other parts of the lens. Partly for less attention, partly for protection since the top edge of the lens is usually shiny hard plastic that hits everything, esp when the camera is put down on a flat surface, etc.


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 20, 2014)

Not to validate Ken, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 is almost an L in every way. The upside is there are lots of used 17-55 EF-S lenses out there, and getting them repaired is a known quantity. Sigma has improved dramatically, but if you're going to flip a lens after 6 months, better to stick with Canon. If you're going to keep and love it, Sigma is a solid choice.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> Not to validate Ken, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 is almost an L in every way. The upside is there are lots of used 17-55 EF-S lenses out there, and getting them repaired is a known quantity. Sigma has improved dramatically, but if you're going to flip a lens after 6 months, better to stick with Canon. If you're going to keep and love it, Sigma is a solid choice.



He recommended the 18-55, not the 17-55 if I remember correctly.


----------

