09-09-2018, 07:51 PM
21
Re: are you happy with your photography?
Somewhat related......I took up photography (in an amateur sense) when I first started travelling a lot. The job as a development/commissioning engineer took me all over.
My first camera was a Zorki, a Russian plagiarised Leica.
I later got a Minolta SLR film camera and a bunch of different lenses. Served me well for many years.
A couple of years ago I got a DSLR with a lot of memory. And also a bunch of different lenses. It took me a while to get my head round the notion that I could take as many frames as I wished with no incremental cost in contrast with the film camera where each frame has a cost to get itdeveloped.
I take Realspeed's point about taking your time to get the best shot and I have no disagreement with that. But sometimes you are just not ready. An example. We have rarely seen black squirrels in a park where we walk. Wrong lens to get the best shot and no opportunity to change it.
That's life.
09-09-2018, 07:55 PM
22
Re: are you happy with your photography?
I'm usually happy enough with the photos I take. The quality could be a bit better with some but the majority turn out OK. I mostly only like to photograph static scenes and might take two or three photos of the same one. There will nearly always be one of them worth keeping.The good thing about digital shots is that the ones that don't look satisfactory can be discarded without it costing anything. Not like the 35mm days when developing costs were involved.
13-09-2018, 05:52 PM
24
Re: are you happy with your photography?
how much difference does a pro lens make compared to a consumer lens?here is a link showing the difference
https://www.over50sforum.com/showthr...36#post1516136
The question is ,is it worth spending a lot more money or not to get a pro lens.?
I suppose it depends on finances and how keen one is to get the best one can possible get out of a picture. Clarity must be the first consideration although it depends on what one is happy with.
There are times when even a pro lens is a bad copy , it is not unheard of.
According the engineer where I took a lens to this morning to fix a broken lens hood retaining part in the lens barrel, He said even the latest Nikon 24-70mm VR lens has a recurring fault . It is something to do with the new electronics ( magnet) ceasing up a drive motor and vignetting.
.
26-09-2018, 03:27 PM
25
Re: are you happy with your photography?
I try not to analyse them to much to be honest, in general I am quite happy with them, it is a lot easier these days as well, I remember humping my heavy SLR around with a wide, telephoto and normal lens, now just the one camera a Panasonic Lumix which is fine for me and quite light to carry27-09-2018, 08:34 AM
26
Re: are you happy with your photography?
Originally Posted by realspeed
->
how much difference does a pro lens make compared to a consumer lens?here is a link showing the difference
https://www.over50sforum.com/showthr...36#post1516136
The question is ,is it worth spending a lot more money or not to get a pro lens.?
I suppose it depends on finances and how keen one is to get the best one can possible get out of a picture. Clarity must be the first consideration although it depends on what one is happy with.
There are times when even a pro lens is a bad copy , it is not unheard of.
According the engineer where I took a lens to this morning to fix a broken lens hood retaining part in the lens barrel, He said even the latest Nikon 24-70mm VR lens has a recurring fault . It is something to do with the new electronics ( magnet) ceasing up a drive motor and vignetting.
It's not possible to show a photo's original quality on the Internet because it has to be condensed down to a pixel size that can be shown in a web page or a post. If this isn't done in an editing program before uploading, the site the photo is being shown on might do it for you. One way or another, the pixel size is usually cut down so that people viewing a photo can see the whole thing at a reasonable size on their monitors, tablets and phones. This is going to mean a loss of detail to a degree. The quality gained by using an absolutely super lens then isn't going to be so appreciated.
Having said that, I don't think the reduction in quality of a photo displayed on the web is very noticeable. A good sharp photo with lots of detail is still possible. We only have to look at the fine photos that a posted in this forum to know that. The detail shown in some of the photos is very often complimented because it is so good.
All in all, a reasonable quality lens such as those used in some phones and better types of compact cameras can produce photos good enough to be admired when displayed electronically on a screen.
Well, that's what I reckon anyway.
|
|
