From: John McWilliams on
Rich wrote:
> John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in

>> While really "cheap" P&S do have their limitations, affordable P&S
>> (compact digital) cameras are now easily capable of producing excellent
>> images. When something falls short, it's the photographer, not the
>> eequipment.
>>
>
> Go shoot a close-in sports even and say that. All equipment has
> limitations, some a lot more than others and the photographer (no matter
> how good) is at a disadvantage because of it.
>

It's hard to believe that this old set of shibboleths is being trotted
out and vetted again.

--
john mcwilliams
From: Robert Coe on
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:44:21 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
: On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
: <ccd9a097-d27c-4940-8488-d3124e49cd48(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
: RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
:
: >The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made
: >later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
: >9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The
: >Olympus is a kit lens. 14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never
: >meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant
: >for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not
: >frigging "street shooting" lenses. We've become spoiled because these
: >kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices
: >until recently (the last 10 years or so). Prior to that, they were
: >high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's
: >bag. It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue
: >as to their actual purpose.
: >
: >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547
:
: This matters ... why?

John, John, John. If you have to ask, you probably don't know.

Bob
From: Robert Coe on
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:23:44 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
: <87351056-2e43-4c5c-b33d-c1d2a42d014c(a)d4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
: RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Jun 20, 11:44�pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
: >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
: >> <ccd9a097-d27c-4940-8488-d3124e49c...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
: >>
: >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: >> >The original poster is a rank amateur. �He argues against a point made
: >> >later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
: >> >9-18mm Olympus. �The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. �The
: >> >Olympus is a kit lens. �14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never
: >> >meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant
: >> >for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not
: >> >frigging "street shooting" lenses. �We've become spoiled because these
: >> >kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices
: >> >until recently (the last 10 years or so). �Prior to that, they were
: >> >high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's
: >> >bag. �It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue
: >> >as to their actual purpose.
: >>
: >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547
: >>
: >> This matters ... why?
: >
: >Because it's there? Why does anything matter?
:
: I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.
:
: The only way to tell to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a
: pro, is to look at their images. Equipment is irrelevant, except to
: those who mistakenly think great equipment will make them great
: photographers. It won't. What matters is the photographer, not the
: equipment.

How dare you, sir? I spent more than $600 on my wide-angle lens. If that
doesn't count for something, there's no justice in the world!

Bob
From: Robert Coe on
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made
: later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
: 9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The
: Olympus is a kit lens. 14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never
: meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant
: for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not
: frigging "street shooting" lenses. We've become spoiled because these
: kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices
: until recently (the last 10 years or so). Prior to that, they were
: high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's
: bag. It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue
: as to their actual purpose.

Damn me, Rich, I thought the actual purpose of a wide-angle lens was to allow
me to photograph an entire large building from the roof af a building across
the street. If that's not true, I have to wonder whether I'm nothing but a
rank amateur! :^|

Bob
From: Jeff Jones on
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:58:16 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:23:44 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT), in
>: <87351056-2e43-4c5c-b33d-c1d2a42d014c(a)d4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>: RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: >On Jun 20, 11:44�pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>: >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), in
>: >> <ccd9a097-d27c-4940-8488-d3124e49c...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>: >>
>: >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>: >> >The original poster is a rank amateur. �He argues against a point made
>: >> >later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
>: >> >9-18mm Olympus. �The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. �The
>: >> >Olympus is a kit lens. �14-18mm lenses (equivalent on a FF) were never
>: >> >meant as "walk around lenses." 14-18mm lenses are specific tools meant
>: >> >for very narrowly defined tasks involving extreme angles, they are not
>: >> >frigging "street shooting" lenses. �We've become spoiled because these
>: >> >kinds of wide angles weren't available to amateurs for cheap prices
>: >> >until recently (the last 10 years or so). �Prior to that, they were
>: >> >high priced prime lenses that rarely saw the inside of an amateur's
>: >> >bag. �It's no wonder current owners (some of them) don't have a clue
>: >> >as to their actual purpose.
>: >>
>: >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35620547
>: >>
>: >> This matters ... why?
>: >
>: >Because it's there? Why does anything matter?
>:
>: I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.
>:
>: The only way to tell to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a
>: pro, is to look at their images. Equipment is irrelevant, except to
>: those who mistakenly think great equipment will make them great
>: photographers. It won't. What matters is the photographer, not the
>: equipment.
>
>How dare you, sir? I spent more than $600 on my wide-angle lens. If that
>doesn't count for something, there's no justice in the world!
>
>Bob

It only counts in your bank-balance and the bank-balance of the company you
bought it from. Well, the CEO's bean-counters count it too. I guess that's
some kind of "justice".



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?