September 01, 2014, 10:03:32 AM

Author Topic: How to Annoy a Photography Snob  (Read 14018 times)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3062
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2014, 07:55:27 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.
or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2014, 07:55:27 PM »

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 694
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2014, 08:14:11 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.
or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.

I agree to the extent that IS is frequently not needed at these FLs, and that it certainly is not a cure-all for poor technique. However, I have made quite a few shots where IS has undoubtedly helped, and have never had a shot ruined by it. I leave it on always, needed or not.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 08:27:53 PM by brad-man »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4107
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2014, 08:32:59 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.

Image Stabilization has one purpose, and one purpose only: To reduce blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. There is no other purpose for IS, thats its sole reason for being.

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true. As pixel sizes continue to shrink, that notion will become increasingly less accurate and less valid. Smaller pixels register smaller degrees of camera shake. In other words, smaller pixels magnify the effect of camera shake to a greater degree. Were around 4µm pixels (+/- 0.3µm) now, but they will continue to shrink. Having IS on a 50mm lens will be far more valid at 3µm than it is today at 4.3µm. Having IS on a 35mm lens will be more valid at 2µm than it is today.

I don't know how small pixels will shrink...I think were going to have problems with other things before APS-C and FF cameras get sensors with pixels in the 2µm range (exponentially increasing in-camera processing power requirements, similarly increasing computing power needs just to import and process RAW images, significant increases in storage space needs, etc.) By the time we actually do get down to pixels a quarter the area of pixels today, I think the argument about having IS on lenses shorter than 85mm will largely resolve itself...the results will simply speak for themselves.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1259
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #93 on: April 17, 2014, 08:53:24 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.

Image Stabilization has one purpose, and one purpose only: To reduce blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. There is no other purpose for IS, thats its sole reason for being.

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true. As pixel sizes continue to shrink, that notion will become increasingly less accurate and less valid. Smaller pixels register smaller degrees of camera shake. In other words, smaller pixels magnify the effect of camera shake to a greater degree. Were around 4µm pixels (+/- 0.3µm) now, but they will continue to shrink. Having IS on a 50mm lens will be far more valid at 3µm than it is today at 4.3µm. Having IS on a 35mm lens will be more valid at 2µm than it is today.

I don't know how small pixels will shrink...I think were going to have problems with other things before APS-C and FF cameras get sensors with pixels in the 2µm range (exponentially increasing in-camera processing power requirements, similarly increasing computing power needs just to import and process RAW images, significant increases in storage space needs, etc.) By the time we actually do get down to pixels a quarter the area of pixels today, I think the argument about having IS on lenses shorter than 85mm will largely resolve itself...the results will simply speak for themselves.


So you are saying, in addition to giving false confidence to inexperienced photogs (that IS is a magic tool that will allow slower shutter speeds no matter what) it was also valid for lesser sensor resolutions.
Fair enough.
However, there are still people claiming IS is not necessary on the future 50mm or the existing 35mm, etc. That is a fact, and I think that was Brad's point.
You type faster that I can read. No wonder you are a programmer :)
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #94 on: April 17, 2014, 08:54:05 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Here are some perfect examples of why I don't give a damn that the 24-70 f2.8 MkII is sharper than the MkI, and why when they come out with an IS version I am in. They were both shot on a camera with 6.4µm pixels.

First image: 24-70 f 2.8 MkI, 60mm f2.8 1/10 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have been considerably sharper.

Second image: 24-70 f2.8 MkI, 24mm f3.2 1/2 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have had better dof control.

Give me IS on a 16-35 now and I'll buy it.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4107
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #95 on: April 17, 2014, 10:04:07 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

I also said that the notion would become increasingly untrue...indicating that it is untrue now.

In other words...I agree with you. Back in the days of 10µm pixels (mid 2000s), I think IS with a 50mm or 35mm wouldn't have been nearly as useful as it would be today.

Chill. Sheesh.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 10:07:16 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #96 on: April 17, 2014, 10:08:44 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

Chill. Sheesh.

Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #96 on: April 17, 2014, 10:08:44 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4107
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #97 on: April 17, 2014, 10:16:22 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

Chill. Sheesh.

Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.

Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2014, 12:09:48 AM »
Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?

First off, no hostility at all, just a very strong disagreement with your untenable point of view. Calling something sh!t that is sh!t is not hostile. I'm just doing an Arthur Morris on you.

Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.

Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.

Fourth, do you honestly think I would post an illustrative example that doesn't illustrate my point? I have posted hundreds of them!

Anyway, here are the 100% crops with zero sharpening or noise reduction on the best point of focus. They are both focused within this 700 x 700px square, the sharpness falls off as you go further away. They both show camera movement as can be evidenced by the shadow/ghost around the front of the monks face in image one, and the fact that the second image crop is the sharpest section of the frame, the point of focus and I were completely static (I was braced against a wall) and my camera is set to not take a picture without achieving focus.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 12:11:46 AM by privatebydesign »
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

philmoz

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #99 on: April 18, 2014, 12:30:48 AM »
Frankly your response is needlessly wordy and condescending, and misses the point entirely.  But that’s par for the course for you.

Hmm - pot --> kettle --> black.

Can't speak for anyone else; but I would much rather read an informed and informative post from jrista, than a whiny, derogatory and offensive post from you.

Must have really hit a nerve here, as I received this personal message from CarlTN shortly after (edited to avoid offending anyone):
    Who the f..k asked your opinion you a..hole...


jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4107
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #100 on: April 18, 2014, 12:40:28 AM »
Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?

First off, no hostility at all, just a very strong disagreement with your untenable point of view. Calling something sh!t that is sh!t is not hostile. I'm just doing an Arthur Morris on you.

Very clever. Although even Arther Morris has more tact than you do. :P He's blunt, but he isn't a dick.

Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.

Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.

Fourth, do you honestly think I would post an illustrative example that doesn't illustrate my point? I have posted hundreds of them!

Anyway, here are the 100% crops with zero sharpening or noise reduction on the best point of focus. They are both focused within this 700 x 700px square, the sharpness falls off as you go further away. They both show camera movement as can be evidenced by the shadow/ghost around the front of the monks face in image one, and the fact that the second image crop is the sharpest section of the frame, the point of focus and I were completely static (I was braced against a wall) and my camera is set to not take a picture without achieving focus.

Well, not going to get into a deep debate with you. We have our opinions. They still differ.

Fair point about aperture, don't disagree with you there. However from the manufacturer's standpoint, I think THEY see it differently. I do believe that faster apertures are used more frequently with the fast primes (especially the fast portrait primes), and I believe that gives manufacturers less reason to invest in designing IS systems for those lenses. I'm not saying the reason is good, as I already pointed out before, the reasoning for why 85mm and shorter focal lengths is INVALID (that's what I've been saying the whole time...you seem to think I'm saying the opposite).

Your third point is exactly what I'm talking about. Today we definitely have enough resolution to resolve the blur from camera shake at 85mm. Probably at 50mm if your talking about stopping down to f/8 (personally, I've never had a problem with my 50mm f/1.4 up through around f/2.8 or so...I've used it to photograph a good number of nighttime car shows in years past. I don't generally use it at f/8, and I certainly don't try to use my camera at ISO 100 in the dark, personally I think that's a little unreasonable...but to each his own, I guess). If the 7D II comes out with a 24mp APS-C, that will only be even more true that IS on lenses with focal lengths shorter than 85mm will be increasingly necessary. That is exactly what I was saying...hence the reason I'm confused about your responses.

Regarding your first image...the kind of softening there looks like a small amount of camera shake blur and a lot of missfocus blur. I think the softness would have been significantly less if the guys head was fully in focus. I think camera holding technique can help there as well...that looks like a pretty well-lit scene to me for a fast prime, and it certainly appears as though you were using a wider aperture.

As for the second image, it might be possible that IS would let you do what you describe, however your burning up three stops of hand-holdability just to reduce your ISO. That doesn't leave much room to reduce shutter speed any more to compensate for camera shake, and IS gets sketchy in that last stop (even the IS of the much-vaunted EF 600 gets borderline when you try to push it to a full four stops of hand-holdability unless you have wicked-stable hands.)

Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.  :P
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #101 on: April 18, 2014, 01:23:34 AM »
Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.  :P

As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.

Fair point about aperture, don't disagree with you there. However from the manufacturer's standpoint, I think THEY see it differently. I do believe that faster apertures are used more frequently with the fast primes (especially the fast portrait primes), and I believe that gives manufacturers less reason to invest in designing IS systems for those lenses. I'm not saying the reason is good, as I already pointed out before, the reasoning for why 85mm and shorter focal lengths is INVALID (that's what I've been saying the whole time...you seem to think I'm saying the opposite).


So that would be the reasoning they used in making the f2 35 IS? Even if you tried to dismiss the 24 and 28 IS lenses because they are f2.8's, which you can't for several reasons. The discussion was about the need for IS in short focal lengths, not IS in fast primes.

Your third point is exactly what I'm talking about. Today we definitely have enough resolution to resolve the blur from camera shake at 85mm. Probably at 50mm if your talking about stopping down to f/8 (personally, I've never had a problem with my 50mm f/1.4 up through around f/2.8 or so...I've used it to photograph a good number of nighttime car shows in years past. I don't generally use it at f/8, and I certainly don't try to use my camera at ISO 100 in the dark, personally I think that's a little unreasonable...but to each his own, I guess). If the 7D II comes out with a 24mp APS-C, that will only be even more true that IS on lenses with focal lengths shorter than 85mm will be increasingly necessary. That is exactly what I was saying...hence the reason I'm confused about your responses.

Duh, I just showed you a 24mm image that needed IS with 2003 tech, get pixel size out of your head, it is irrelevant to the discussion of IS in short focal lengths and has been since at least 2003.

That you haven't explored and pushed the capabilities of your bodies and lenses in this way doesn't mean nobody should, does it? I mean I have zero interest in astrophotography and don't push my gear in that direction one iota, but I respect that you do.

Regarding your first image...the kind of softening there looks like a small amount of camera shake blur and a lot of missfocus blur. I think the softness would have been significantly less if the guys head was fully in focus. I think camera holding technique can help there as well...that looks like a pretty well-lit scene to me for a fast prime, and it certainly appears as though you were using a wider aperture.

It might to you, but I know what I am talking about with my files and it is camera shake, 100%. I know my cameras focus and I know missfocus, I have several others in the series, some worse, and it is all camera shake. Sure it was very flat light with low DR and contrast, but there is no missfocus going on here.

As for the second image, it might be possible that IS would let you do what you describe, however your burning up three stops of hand-holdability just to reduce your ISO. That doesn't leave much room to reduce shutter speed any more to compensate for camera shake, and IS gets sketchy in that last stop (even the IS of the much-vaunted EF 600 gets borderline when you try to push it to a full four stops of hand-holdability unless you have wicked-stable hands.)

I, and everybody else that sees it know for a fact IS would have helped that image, it is only stubbornness that is preventing you from accepting that. It doesn't matter if I want to use the stops gained by IS on iso, aperture or shutterspeed, at least I would have them to choose what best to do with them. I don't understand why that is so hard to accept.

To me the thought of the mega money you'd spend on an astro mount is insanity, I just don't see the need for it, but when I see the images you link to that demonstrate its use I understand where you are coming from, would it be any use to me and my imaging? No, but that isn't the point, I well understand people saying they, personally, have no need or desire for IS in a lens of any length, just look at the continued sale of the 70-200 f2.8, but to try and argue there isn't a point, albeit with a pixel size proviso! for anybody to need it in a specified focal length even when shown images that demonstrate the opposite, is all the heavy handed wording I have previously used.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 01:27:06 AM by privatebydesign »
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4107
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #102 on: April 18, 2014, 01:50:28 AM »
Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.  :P

As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.

Well, all I can say is I'm really glad I don't take any of your classes.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #102 on: April 18, 2014, 01:50:28 AM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2014, 01:57:50 AM »
Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.  :P

As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.

Well, all I can say is I'm really glad I don't take any of your classes.

It only offends the headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish. But they were not classes, it was vocational training in safety critical situations, a smart mouth didn't stop you getting hurt, paying attention to me did.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 901
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2014, 03:40:06 AM »
Seems that some of this thread has gone in totally the wrong direction and become rather personal in parts. Chill out guys.

What annoys me the most when I am working (in some occasions) - and I am not a snob - is when someone stands in front of me. Generally speaking, at media events all the photographers have a general understanding of what each of us need and so if we move forward there is more often than not an unspoken line that is drawn so we can all take photographs of the subject. This also includes video. Sometimes a moron decides that he does not need to respect that line and stands in front of the other photographers.

This can result him being shouted at, quite severely at times, and if that does not work he could be physically pulled back.

I think that is what annoys me the most when, especially at media events and launches etc.
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2014, 03:40:06 AM »