Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading through a different thread a couple statements or questions seemed to stand out. First thing that popped out at me was the phrase "achieve bokeh", ALL lens create a bokeh which is nothing more than photog speak for the out of focus background of an image. Some are more pleasing to the eye that others and are often described as smooth or creamy. Generally the higher a lens is up the hierarchy of a manufacturers line of glass offered the better/smoother the bokeh. That said though; you can have a real nice smooth creamy looking bokeh on a kit lens, and you can have a harsher sharper bokeh on a "better" lens. It all depends on what the lens is made to do and how it is constructed. I've seen some killer smooth bokeh from kit lenses (less so on modern kit lenses and more so on older kit lenses).
Another is the "Auto vs manual" issue. I've watched a couple local photographers who have had photos published in national magazines shoot using auto. I've also watched students of theirs in workshops trying to replicate their shots using manual mode and fail miserably. I think it comes down to knowing when to use Auto, Program, Aperture, Speed, or full Manual modes. I mix it up usually, doesn't make it the right way, but it makes it the way I can get what I want usually. If someone can shoot full manual all the time and produce the images they envision then more power to them. If someone shoots all the time in Auto mode and produces the images they are happy with, more power to them as well. There are plenty of point and shoot cameras out there that allow you to shoot in manual mode as well.
The main difference between shooting a point and shoot in auto and a DSLR in auto is still the image quality in the long run. Even shooting in auto the DSLR is working with a bigger sensor usually which cuts down on digital noise somewhat, and the ability to change lenses makes a huge difference, even from one "kit" lens to another. Plus the amount of light entering a DSLR is usually much more than the smaller lens and sensor on the P&S cameras can take in so there is more "image" for the sensor to work with. It all adds up to having much more potential for a better shot using the DSLR.
Prime vs Zoom: Shooting or owning a bunch of prime lenses doesn't make you a camera snob, or the lack of owning them doesn't make you a noob. They both have their places, but you can get away without a prime without a worry. Primes tend to be a bit "faster" and allow lower ISO and faster shutter speeds than a zoom in the same situation. I have a few (wife says to many) and I haul out a couple if I know I am going to be in an area or situation where I need a faster lens. Most are older and fully manual, but they work well and I keep them around. I am lens rich really, but it comes from farting around in this hobby for decades (Dad stuck an old 35MM in my hands when I was still a kid) I have lenses I still use, that I have used for 35+ years. A zoom is what is usually hanging off the front of my camera body because it gives me greater flexibility, and that is the real beauty of a zoom -- flexibility. Knowing I have a 24mm f2.0, a 50mm f1.7 or the 135mm f2.8 in a lens bag just gives more of a choice if I need it.
I would really like to hear some thoughts and ramblings from others on a few topics that seem to crop up once in a while, but really don't warrant a dedicated thread. Plus your thoughts on the couple I have tossed out here. After decades shooting film, I am still trying to come to grips with the DSLR and it's capabilities. I find helpful tidbits all over the place, and a LOT of help and advice from this forum. Here is a thread to toss out one of your observations on something to do with our hobby/passion/livelihood that may be too small for it's own thread, but still helpful to someone like myself who is still learning.
One thing I can add is that the focus speed of the high end lenses is a lot faster. I seldom use my DSLR anymore but the years it put food on the table I used three pro level lenses. A 17-40 f4.0L, a 24-70 f2.8L, and a 70-200 f2.8L. I would liked to have had more but there was no justification for anything else. All three of these lenses worked well in low light and the focus was there without it having to hunt. I rarely used any mode but Shutter Priority or Aperture Priority. It was either stop the action or show max depth of field most of the time. Monopods, quality tripods, and cable releases played an important role in still life subjects for me. IS is something I had on one lens but kept it turned off.
A question about primes. I know someone that bought the 50mm, 1.4, which is a lot more expensive than the 1.8. The pictures she was getting were not good quality, and the guy at the camera store told her it was because she needed to use a smaller aperture. Why would you pay so much for 1.4 if you can't use it at that aperture? Wouldn't she have been better off with a 1.8 at that point? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me.
A question about primes. I know someone that bought the 50mm, 1.4, which is a lot more expensive than the 1.8. The pictures she was getting were not good quality, and the guy at the camera store told her it was because she needed to use a smaller aperture. Why would you pay so much for 1.4 if you can't use it at that aperture? Wouldn't she have been better off with a 1.8 at that point? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me.
Most lenses have an optimal aperture in relation to sharpness, and maybe it's not f/1.4 for that individual lens. Also, without knowing the details about the lens and looking at the photos, it's hard to tell what the problem is. He can always take a few photos with the lens on auto-focus (AF), and then taking the same number of photos but focusing the lens manually (switch to M). The final step is to compare the AF and the M photos to see which are sharper.
But, it's also possible that he was using an ISO too low for the lighting conditions, in which case often result on soft images. And finally, that lens when set to f/1.4 produces a razor-thin DOF. In fact it's best to focus this lens on the eyes, and the thin DOF sometimes looks soft just slightly behind than the person's ears. In this case, closing the lend to f/4 or so gives you a deeper DOF. So, with the lens on f/4, focus on the eyes, and the whole face should look sharp from tip of the nose to behind the ears or more.
Yea, she's not a huge camera person but bought a DSLR when she found out she was having twins. The lighting in her house is terrible, so this is the lens the guy at the camera store recommended. It's supposed to be good as a portrait type lens, which is essentially all she's doing right now. She is basically using seamless paper (pink, if it makes a difference) as the backdrop with the babies there. I know all about poor lighting, since I pretty much gave up taking pictures inside my place and stick to the outdoors, but she doesn't have that option all the time with 2 young babies. I should mention, the lens is wonderful outside. I really don't know what to tell her and she's sad she's missing out on taking pictures while they are young. I'll tell her about the focus stuff to see if that fixes it. Thanks!
A question about primes. I know someone that bought the 50mm, 1.4, which is a lot more expensive than the 1.8. The pictures she was getting were not good quality, and the guy at the camera store told her it was because she needed to use a smaller aperture. Why would you pay so much for 1.4 if you can't use it at that aperture? Wouldn't she have been better off with a 1.8 at that point? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me.
depth of field at 1.4 is very shallow... as others have said if you shoot that wide many times everything isnt in focus.
as previuosly said always go for the eyes, if the eyes are sharp then the entire photo appears sharper then it may actually be.
most lenses arent their best wide open and do better 1 or 2 clicks in from fully open.. so its all proportional... the 1.4 will allow lower light shooting 2 clicks in at a faster speed then a 1.8 2 clicks in... they are both fully usable wide open as well ,its not a major difference in quality 1 or 2 clicks in.
Reading through a different thread a couple statements or questions seemed to stand out. First thing that popped out at me was the phrase "achieve bokeh", ALL lens create a bokeh which is nothing more than photog speak for the out of focus background of an image. Some are more pleasing to the eye that others and are often described as smooth or creamy. Generally the higher a lens is up the hierarchy of a manufacturers line of glass offered the better/smoother the bokeh. That said though; you can have a real nice smooth creamy looking bokeh on a kit lens, and you can have a harsher sharper bokeh on a "better" lens. It all depends on what the lens is made to do and how it is constructed. I've seen some killer smooth bokeh from kit lenses (less so on modern kit lenses and more so on older kit lenses).
This is one of my pet peeves too. I've seen people using the term "practising bokeh". Bokeh alone is not something you can practise, it simply is what it is. You can practise using strong bokeh, for example, but you can not simply "practise bokeh".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
depth of field at 1.4 is very shallow... as others have said if you shoot that wide many times everything isnt in focus.
It's not just the fact that not everything is in focus (sometimes you want that) - it's also that it can be difficult to get the RIGHT thing in focus with such a shallow DOF. At that aperture, it's easy to miss the focus on the eyes, for example, and if it's even the slightest bit off, it will look wrong. It's possibly her problem is simply user error. The guy in the shop might have suspected this but didn't want to be rude to a customer so he suggested she stop down a little bit to make it easier for her. In the hands of a very experienced shooter, the focus probably would have been spot on and the user would have no complaints.
the difference in bokeh between lenses is huge as far as smoothness or what you see in the bokeh itself. ... some bokeh looks like shapes in the blur, others are smooth as silk.... one lens i have looks like multisided shapes in the right lighting....
Yea, she's not a huge camera person but bought a DSLR when she found out she was having twins. The lighting in her house is terrible, so this is the lens the guy at the camera store recommended. It's supposed to be good as a portrait type lens, which is essentially all she's doing right now. She is basically using seamless paper (pink, if it makes a difference) as the backdrop with the babies there. I know all about poor lighting, since I pretty much gave up taking pictures inside my place and stick to the outdoors, but she doesn't have that option all the time with 2 young babies. I should mention, the lens is wonderful outside. I really don't know what to tell her and she's sad she's missing out on taking pictures while they are young. I'll tell her about the focus stuff to see if that fixes it. Thanks!
I wonder if she can try a few daylight photos, but in the shade? For example, setting the camera white balance to Shade, and then bringing the babies closer to a window so that daylight illuminates the baby (s) face. Daylight in the shade, without flash, can often result into beautiful portraits.
I wonder if she can try a few daylight photos, but in the shade? For example, setting the camera white balance to Shade, and then bringing the babies closer to a window so that daylight illuminates the baby (s) face. Daylight in the shade, without flash, can often result into beautiful portraits.
So true. I knew a professional portrait photog that did 90% of his shooting on sunny days in the shade both inside and outside. His regular studio inside had some huge windows in it on the North side of the room and he loved to put his subjects close to the window with a reflector just out of frame on the other side of them. Beautiful lighting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
