- Messages
- 2,099
- Name
- Douglas
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I read a thread earlier, where the discussion seemed to lead one to the conclusion that a lens without IS was somehow sub-standard. I begin to wonder where new technology is taking us, and how we ever managed to take a sharp photograph without IS??
Are all the superb sharp pictures taken with a 70-200 f 2.8 lenses of yesteryear, these poor lenses crippled without IS, just abberations?? The odd lucky shot?? Were the photographers just fortunate to make the shot, and find it sharp??
Of course not.
I sometimes despair when I see this sort of subject being discussed. IS is an aid, a means to an end, nothing more. Why does an 18-55mm zoom need IS?? I can see it's value when using a big heavy lens at long focal lengths, but surely most people can manage a sharp handheld capture at 55mm without an artificial aid??
Are we as a group, going soft?? Are we forgetting what fun we had with 35mm film cameras, and big heavy zooms?? We took photographs then, and with an act of faith, expected the resultant picture, to be sharp, and well exposed.
Photography is well over 150 years old, and the vast majority of the best photography ever, that exhibited in museums, captured for ever in books about famous photographers, and extolled by many as some of the finest captures ever made, were made with glass negatives, and 35mm film. No modern technology, and in a lot of cases, unmetered, with the exposure guessed by the photographer.
My favourite photographer of all time, Frank Meadows Sutcliffe, produced perfection, with an old plate camera. Perfectly exposed, bitingly sharp, beautifull framed, and exemplars of the photographers art. I'm sure that he made many bad shots, and these were, of course, discarded, at great cost, both in terms of financial loss, and time. But he would have learned a valuable lesson from each discarded capture.
Today, digital film is free, as are processing costs. We can expose 1000 shots in a day, review them and discard 995, and the remaining 5 have cost nothing, and yet we applaud ourselves for producing fine, well exposed images, and tell ourselves how good we are.
The makers of modern equipment make matters even worse. They produce a state of the art £2000 camera, which we all agree is the greatest and best camera ever made. We congratulate ourselves on spending a months salary when we buy one, yet two years later, we are persuading ourselves that this camera that was producing the work we were so proud of, is now out of date, old hat, and of little further use, whilst we tell ourselves how much better life will be when we buy our new electronic marvel.
Are these cameras, in reality, any better?? Sure, it may have a bigger monitor, a sensor with a new acronym, more MPixels, a live view screen, a better burst rate, etc, etc. Whilst this new wonder may make picture taking easier and more convenient, will it actually make better pictures, or more importantly, make us better photographers?? Sure, the software that we use in post production will enhance, and if we like, improve a capture if we don't like the product of our new wonder camera. Does this make us better photographers?? Sadly, I think not.
What about all the fabulous old fast lenses, made without compromise or regard to cost 20 years ago for the only people that could afford them, the professionals? Are we to dismiss them because they dont have the latest motors that will establish AF confirmation a second or so faster, or have IS, which will make them easier to use?? These lenses are as good now as they were 20 years ago, in fact, some are far better than their modern equivalents, yet we still buy the newer ones, and convince ourselves that they will make us better photographers.
Are the photographers, members of our community here, who can't afford, or justify the latest technology any less photographers because their equipment is a few years old, or do their photographs suffer because they are not using the latest IS lenses?? Of course not, in fact I often see pics that are taken with such equipment that are far better than anything I have managed to produce.
I'll be the first to admit that I would love an AF 600mm f4 IS lens. It would make possible shots that at the moment I can only dream of, but here's the rub. For less than half the price, I could have a manual focus 600mm f4 that would take pictures every bit as good, but would take a little more effort.
It is my belief that that we are becoming shutter bugs, and pixel peepers, enjoying photography more for it's technological excellence, rather than concentrating on the end result. More and more, I find myself looking at old camera reviews, and the examples produced by older cameras, and if the truth be told, I really can't see any difference between the output of say, a D100 and a D300, or a D1X and a D2X. I'm sure that if you printed them up to poster size, then you would see a difference, but when was the last time you had a poster made??
The only possible arguement I can see for utilising the best and latest technology, is for the real professional, who makes his living from photography, when the difference between an indifferent shot and a good one can be realised in terms of time and cash. Yet, in truth, there are still professionals making their living with film cameras, both 35mm and medium format. My daughters wedding was photographed using a Mamiya medium format film camera, and the results were spectacular - far better than my efforts using a Canon1D MkIIN and a few L lenses, and I consider myself to be a reasonable photographer, indeed for several years, I made my living with a film camera.
So, is the latest modern equipment making us better photographers?? Perhaps. I am fairly certain however, that we would be even better without it, relying as we would have to, on our own skills, rather than technology.
Are all the superb sharp pictures taken with a 70-200 f 2.8 lenses of yesteryear, these poor lenses crippled without IS, just abberations?? The odd lucky shot?? Were the photographers just fortunate to make the shot, and find it sharp??
Of course not.
I sometimes despair when I see this sort of subject being discussed. IS is an aid, a means to an end, nothing more. Why does an 18-55mm zoom need IS?? I can see it's value when using a big heavy lens at long focal lengths, but surely most people can manage a sharp handheld capture at 55mm without an artificial aid??
Are we as a group, going soft?? Are we forgetting what fun we had with 35mm film cameras, and big heavy zooms?? We took photographs then, and with an act of faith, expected the resultant picture, to be sharp, and well exposed.
Photography is well over 150 years old, and the vast majority of the best photography ever, that exhibited in museums, captured for ever in books about famous photographers, and extolled by many as some of the finest captures ever made, were made with glass negatives, and 35mm film. No modern technology, and in a lot of cases, unmetered, with the exposure guessed by the photographer.
My favourite photographer of all time, Frank Meadows Sutcliffe, produced perfection, with an old plate camera. Perfectly exposed, bitingly sharp, beautifull framed, and exemplars of the photographers art. I'm sure that he made many bad shots, and these were, of course, discarded, at great cost, both in terms of financial loss, and time. But he would have learned a valuable lesson from each discarded capture.
Today, digital film is free, as are processing costs. We can expose 1000 shots in a day, review them and discard 995, and the remaining 5 have cost nothing, and yet we applaud ourselves for producing fine, well exposed images, and tell ourselves how good we are.
The makers of modern equipment make matters even worse. They produce a state of the art £2000 camera, which we all agree is the greatest and best camera ever made. We congratulate ourselves on spending a months salary when we buy one, yet two years later, we are persuading ourselves that this camera that was producing the work we were so proud of, is now out of date, old hat, and of little further use, whilst we tell ourselves how much better life will be when we buy our new electronic marvel.
Are these cameras, in reality, any better?? Sure, it may have a bigger monitor, a sensor with a new acronym, more MPixels, a live view screen, a better burst rate, etc, etc. Whilst this new wonder may make picture taking easier and more convenient, will it actually make better pictures, or more importantly, make us better photographers?? Sure, the software that we use in post production will enhance, and if we like, improve a capture if we don't like the product of our new wonder camera. Does this make us better photographers?? Sadly, I think not.
What about all the fabulous old fast lenses, made without compromise or regard to cost 20 years ago for the only people that could afford them, the professionals? Are we to dismiss them because they dont have the latest motors that will establish AF confirmation a second or so faster, or have IS, which will make them easier to use?? These lenses are as good now as they were 20 years ago, in fact, some are far better than their modern equivalents, yet we still buy the newer ones, and convince ourselves that they will make us better photographers.
Are the photographers, members of our community here, who can't afford, or justify the latest technology any less photographers because their equipment is a few years old, or do their photographs suffer because they are not using the latest IS lenses?? Of course not, in fact I often see pics that are taken with such equipment that are far better than anything I have managed to produce.
I'll be the first to admit that I would love an AF 600mm f4 IS lens. It would make possible shots that at the moment I can only dream of, but here's the rub. For less than half the price, I could have a manual focus 600mm f4 that would take pictures every bit as good, but would take a little more effort.
It is my belief that that we are becoming shutter bugs, and pixel peepers, enjoying photography more for it's technological excellence, rather than concentrating on the end result. More and more, I find myself looking at old camera reviews, and the examples produced by older cameras, and if the truth be told, I really can't see any difference between the output of say, a D100 and a D300, or a D1X and a D2X. I'm sure that if you printed them up to poster size, then you would see a difference, but when was the last time you had a poster made??
The only possible arguement I can see for utilising the best and latest technology, is for the real professional, who makes his living from photography, when the difference between an indifferent shot and a good one can be realised in terms of time and cash. Yet, in truth, there are still professionals making their living with film cameras, both 35mm and medium format. My daughters wedding was photographed using a Mamiya medium format film camera, and the results were spectacular - far better than my efforts using a Canon1D MkIIN and a few L lenses, and I consider myself to be a reasonable photographer, indeed for several years, I made my living with a film camera.
So, is the latest modern equipment making us better photographers?? Perhaps. I am fairly certain however, that we would be even better without it, relying as we would have to, on our own skills, rather than technology.
Wll it make me a better tog? Nope. Do I care? 
