D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Is that a statement or a question?
Steve.
It was a statement that had a different conclusion than the calculation in post 511, hence the query.
Is that a statement or a question?
Steve.
Another irk is photographers who refer to lenses as copies. e.g. "I think I have a bad copy of this lens as it's not very sharp".
They're not copies, they're originals! Example would be a better word.
Steve
One example sentence for this particular definition from Oxford Dictionary even mentions copies of records ('the record has sold more than a million copies'), so I could see an argument for using it for photographic lenses.
And that has got what to do about 'what irks you about other photographers?'When your legs stick to the couch on a warm day.
What bugs me is when people use this to defend a poor lens. "They're great.... you must just have a bad copy, as MINE'S brilliant". b****x! The lenses are not ground by hand, they're all the same. A very small minority will be FAULTY, yes, but to suggest that there' an infinitely broad range of sharpness available with any given lens is just nonsense. If that were the case, then there'd be no point in actually choosing. Just buy anything, as surely it would be pot luck as to whether you get a "good copy".Another irk is photographers who refer to lenses as copies. e.g. "I think I have a bad copy of this lens as it's not very sharp".
They're not copies, they're originals! Example would be a better word.
Steve
A very small minority will be FAULTY, yes, but to suggest that there' an infinitely broad range of sharpness available with any given lens is just nonsense.
Obsessed with resolution when they never actually print.
I agree. There will be some manufacturing tolerances, but every lens I have ever taken apart has factory fitted shims to compensate.
That is possibly my biggest 'irk'. There was a thread here a few years ago titled "Who Still Prints?". There were many responses from people who stated that they only ever looked at their pictures on their monitors or uploaded then to websites but a lot of them were people who always had to have the newest, highest resolution cameras.
If you're not printing, 1MP will do!!
Steve.
This.That is possibly my biggest 'irk'. There was a thread here a few years ago titled "Who Still Prints?". There were many responses from people who stated that they only ever looked at their pictures on their monitors or uploaded then to websites but a lot of them were people who always had to have the newest, highest resolution cameras.
If you're not printing, 1MP will do!!
Steve.
This.
Most, not all, photos on here never see life outside flickr & most of those at low res, because they're scared their pictures will be stolen . If that's how your photos are shown stick to a low res camera and save yourself a fortune
I agree. In order to make it the same as every other lens, yes they may well do just that. Final quality checks assure they won't leave the factory unless they're fit for purpose. What manufacturer would distribute lenses of varying quality? It would be financial suicide. "Bad copy" = b****x and an urban myth perpetuated by amateurs who just won't accept they've bought a crap lens.
Even a 4k screen.. a TRUE 4k screen is only 8MP. The ones you can buy now aren't even proper 4k... they're UHDTV.. 3840 x 2160. Most high end 30" screens are 2560 x 1600.. which is a paltry 4MP. By far the widest used screen res is 1920x1080, and most reading this will have this screen resolution, and that equates to TWO MEGAPIXELS.
If you don't print, you don't need high res gear. Fact. Yes.. before anyone says anything... sometimes you need to crop, but even a 12MP camera will offer you as much cropping as you could possibly need and still have room to spare if you only show your images on screen.
So yeah.... this is high on my "what bugs me list". People who don't print need to spend less on cameras, and more on their damned monitor... but that doesn't make you look like a "pro" does it.
i dont think high resolution is necessarily the main selling feature of a full frame sensor - to me its the convenience that the lenses from a film slr will work without a crop factor and also much better low light performance - also wide angle primes for full frame are much cheaper than the equivalent on crop
in fact there aren't ANY wide angle nikon primes for crop! (apart from the fisheye...)
what about the 14mm f/2.8 ?
One question tho is there any point in most people like myself getting a full frame camera if they only veiw on a screen or print to 18 by 12 inches?
in fact there aren't ANY wide angle nikon primes for crop! (apart from the fisheye...)
Mobile phone photographers.
Nice post.Platitudes in place of critique, if I wanted that I'd post it to Facebook
Platitudes in place of critique, if I wanted that I'd post it to Facebook
Platitudes in place of critique, if I wanted that I'd post it to Facebook
Forgive my ignorance but what on Earth is a "platitude"?
I see, I should probably have guessed that from the Facebook comment...
Mobile phone photographers.
Forgive my ignorance but what on Earth is a "platitude"?
Forgive my ignorance but what on Earth is a "platitude"?
What bugs me is people too lazy to look up a word