Photographic vanity ? ? ?

[andy-g]

glass, glass, glass and glass.

Never a truer word,word,word spoken

[Westie]

Anyone want to gift me £5000 for my lens choices? I bought a lottery ticket, but realised that I've just lost a £1 in my camera fund... LOL

 

Perleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssse?

 

If I could start afresh in my career, I'd love to do something that I love - photography. Or is this just a case of the grass being greener?!

[nursejudy]

I wish I had paid more attention to the photography course i started,as I would love to have an SLR camera

[Peter Waller]

Westie, being an amateur photographer is a great privilege, it means that you only have to please one person, yourself!

[Westie]

Westie, being an amateur photographer is a great privilege, it means that you only have to please one person, yourself!

 

Tis true, tis true. A neat way of saying the grass is greener! I'd love the idea, but then again, being hunched over a computer until late in the night mucking around with photos. Hmm. Late at night. Hunched over a computer. I'm two thirds of the way there already.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Westie

[Peter Waller]

Judy, in my time I have been privileged to having either owned or been able to use some of the finest photographic equipment available. Whilst it is nice to own and use a Hasselblad or Leica S.L.R., or whatever, I have to admit to having far more fun with my bottom of the range Kodak crap-matic. And judging by your results you already have your ideal camera!

[poledark]

What is all this about glass? Are you saying that all lenses made before (say) 2005 are rubbish? If so, why are so many putting their "old" glass on their new SLR's? I have been reading about poor glass for about 50 years, and no doubt all the super duper (so called) lenses you have all mentioned will become "poor glass" in a couple of years time.

 

As for bells and whistles, just ask any sports reporter why he wants or has purchased one of the latest Nikons.. "only" 4mpx, but capable of a huge burst of shots per second. Ask why top wildlif men are purchasing the latest Nikon that will take multiple pics at 12mpx giving them the chance to pic the best shot afterwards.

 

If you really can see a difference in your "old" lenses and your new ones, then how come they got such good reviews such a short time ago.

 

Sorry, I don't buy all this "good glass, bad glass" stuff.

 

Den

[corydoras]

Are we the victims of advertising, our own photographic vanity and a desire to have the best, what is the best? and why? . . . ? . . . 4 wheels, an engine and a stearing wheel = a car. What = a camera???

 

SW

Megapixels are pure marketing and have little to do with the quality of the final image. Have a look some of at these pictures from the Mars Rovers.

 

You can find some here. http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/panoramas/spirit/

 

Download some of the full res TIFF images and have a squint at them, but be warned that some are 100MB+. Those images were taken by a one mega pixel digital camera, but you wouldn't want the glass, or the ccd to be bought on YOUR credit card. With film cameras its the qualit of the lens and the film that counts. With a digital camera it's the quality of the lens and the quality of the ccd that counts.

[corydoras]

Are you saying that all lenses made before (say) 2005 are rubbish?

Sorry, I don't buy all this "good glass, bad glass" stuff.

 

Den

I don't think anyone is saying that at all Den, but camera lenses are like anything else, you get what you pay for.

 

There is a helluva lot of work goes into creating quality lenses, things have of course changed somewhat since this clip was shot but it is still a labour and skills intensive process building quality lenses.

 

[Westie]

What is all this about glass? Are you saying that all lenses made before (say) 2005 are rubbish? If so, why are so many putting their "old" glass on their new SLR's? I have been reading about poor glass for about 50 years, and no doubt all the super duper (so called) lenses you have all mentioned will become "poor glass" in a couple of years time.

 

If you really can see a difference in your "old" lenses and your new ones, then how come they got such good reviews such a short time ago.

 

I don't think anyone has said old glass is bad glass. If that were the case, why would people put a lens on a camera where it then has to be manually focussed, because it doesn't configure with the new camera's autofocus system? Simply because of the quality of picture it produces.

 

Good glass doesn't become bad through age. Technology will undoubtedly advance and with it lens design and what a lens is capable of achieving. Look at the 14-24 f2.8 for the Nikon. I've never tried one, but all the reviews indicate that that lens single handedly bettered stellar prime lenses in the same range - something that the experts said was not possible for a zoom lens.

 

Fact of the matter is that most of us mere mortals cannot afford pro grade glass, but a point that comes out of your comment, Den, is that with a bit of detective work, you probably could collect yourself some quality, older lenses at a fraction of the price of newer versions, providing you are also prepared to take the occasional compromise with that too (e.g. manual focussing). It depends on purpose/application - you wouldn't want to be maually focussing a tele for a sports game! For stationary work - landscape etc, less of a problem.

 

ATB.

 

Andrew.