How to Annoy a Photography Snob

[jrista]

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. 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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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.

 

[jrista]

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.

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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.

 

[expatinasia]

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.

 

[krisbell]

Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

 

[Sporgon]

I would consider myself to be the antithesis of a 'Photographic Snob', and I'm all for IS standard to wide primes. I do not want to always have to carry or use a tripod and virtually all of my Building Panoramic pictures are taken just after sunrise or just before sunset so you're talking about EV 9. In these pictures I always want through depth of field, so about f8 depending, and an ISO of 100. ( Though this is not written in stone with the 6D). So my most common shutter speed is in the region of 1/20, and I can't guarantee to hand hold that speed shake free with any focal length without IS.

So from my point of view these new three IS primes are excellent. Bring on the 50 ! I guess the only reason they have not been introduced earlier is that the focus has been on zooms, which is, after all, where the bulk of the market is, but I wonder if the increase in smaller cameras is going to regenerate the small prime market.

 

[Sporgon]

Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

If you are not going to manipulate the data in post processing I agree that if you can get it right in camera, then given the modern camera produced jpegs, there just isn't any practical difference.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

I leave it on most of the time too.. But through trial and error I found that you really do need to turn it off when on a tripod and if you are resting the camera on a good solid surface or you will get IS induced blurring of the image. I think the best example of IS induced blurring is trying to get a picture of the ISS overhead... You have a tiny bright dot surrounded by darkness and there is nothing for the IS to lock on to, so it jumps around and the IS makes the picture worse...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

It did not take too long for this thread to go down the toilet.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

While I decry those who advocate RAW shooting as the be all, end all of photography- I have a similar feeling about those who strongly criticize shooting in RAW and PP-ing. Shooting RAW has a lot of benefits, and actually just ONE disadvantage- file size.

A person isn't born with 'decent' Photoshop talents- he learns his way, and he learns by making mistakes and getting feedback.

Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.

 

[brad-man]

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.

I leave it on most of the time too.. But through trial and error I found that you really do need to turn it off when on a tripod and if you are resting the camera on a good solid surface or you will get IS induced blurring of the image. I think the best example of IS induced blurring is trying to get a picture of the ISS overhead... You have a tiny bright dot surrounded by darkness and there is nothing for the IS to lock on to, so it jumps around and the IS makes the picture worse...

Point taken. Since I was relating IS to 85mm and wider, I was referring to hand held shooting. Though the majority of my subjects are closer than 250 miles, I shall keep your good tip in mind

 

[CarlTN]

Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.

Definitely agree, it can apply to both types of photogs.

 

[kirispupis]

There's only one true way to really annoy a photography snob - take better photos with lesser gear. Most of the photography snobs I know take horrible shots with very expensive gear. The photographers I know who truly have talent are far friendlier.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"? ;D

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.
So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.


But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.
I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200).
Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.
By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

+1 I have taped over the red rings for years with black gaffers tape. Along with other parts of the lens. Partly for less attention, partly for protection since the top edge of the lens is usually shiny hard plastic that hits everything, esp when the camera is put down on a flat surface, etc.

 

[Halfrack]

Not to validate Ken, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 is almost an L in every way. The upside is there are lots of used 17-55 EF-S lenses out there, and getting them repaired is a known quantity. Sigma has improved dramatically, but if you're going to flip a lens after 6 months, better to stick with Canon. If you're going to keep and love it, Sigma is a solid choice.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Not to validate Ken, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 is almost an L in every way. The upside is there are lots of used 17-55 EF-S lenses out there, and getting them repaired is a known quantity. Sigma has improved dramatically, but if you're going to flip a lens after 6 months, better to stick with Canon. If you're going to keep and love it, Sigma is a solid choice.

He recommended the 18-55, not the 17-55 if I remember correctly.