Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

--
Money is Speech
Corporations are People
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

In article ,
nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
dot com | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
Autoreply disabled | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

there is, but like most snobbery, it's not based on facts. autofocus
can focus faster and more accurately than humans can in most
situations.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

but still stuck with manual focus and old lens designs. modern lenses
are not only autofocus, but of a better design and produce sharper and
better quality images.

you can always disable autofocus for the rare situations in which it's
not desired.

On 08/04/2014 18:56, Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when
the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock. In normal daylight the
modern autofocus systems are generally pretty good now.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Indeed. There are some very good second hand bargains to be had.
All of my longer lenses are second hand manual focus only. YMMV

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when
the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock.

edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the
mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions.

there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a
flash.

In normal daylight the
modern autofocus systems are generally pretty good now.

much more than pretty good.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Indeed. There are some very good second hand bargains to be had.
All of my longer lenses are second hand manual focus only. YMMV

there can be but newer lenses are generally better.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when
the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock.

edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the
mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions.

Not everyone has mid range to high end cameras, I'd like to try a high end
camera at gigs to see if I can get it to do what I want at the time I want
it. or it could be that what I like doing is 'edge case'.

nobody said they did. if you have a low end camera you are subject to
its limitations just like anything else low end. if those limitations
are an issue, get a more capable camera (or whatever product it is).

there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a
flash.

Can't quite see the advantage of that.

but the camera can.

a grid of lines provides the necessary contrast for the autofocus
system to lock on in dim light.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Indeed. There are some very good second hand bargains to be had.
All of my longer lenses are second hand manual focus only. YMMV

there can be but newer lenses are generally better.

So are newer cameras and newer cars, but sometimes an older good product will
have advantages over the latest version, all depending on price of course otherwise
they'd be little market for second hand kit.

price is about the only advantage.

today's lenses are much better than older lenses could ever be because
of the vast increases in computing power in designing them and the
higher precision of manufacturing them. many of today's lenses were not
possible back then.

and for the usual suspects in this group who will compare a top of the
line older lens with a bottom of the line new kit lens in an attempt
to prove it wrong, that's an invalid comparison and you know it.

go find something that comes close to nikon's 14-24mm. you can't. even
nikon said it's better than all fixed focal length lenses in its range
(namely the ones made 20+ years ago) and independent tests confirm it.
the real kicker is that it's a zoom lens that's better than a bunch of
fixed focal length lenses, busting that myth too.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

go find something that comes close to nikon's 14-24mm. you can't. even
nikon said it's better than all fixed focal length lenses in its range
(namely the ones made 20+ years ago) and independent tests confirm it.
the real kicker is that it's a zoom lens that's better than a bunch of
fixed focal length lenses, busting that myth too.

How does it compare for aperture?

There has been a lot of ooh-ing and aah-ing over Olympus' new "Pro" quality
12-40mm zoom, but it's f2.8 while the fixed lenses in its range are f1.8 or
even f1.4

--
Money is Speech
Corporations are People
Ignorance is Strength

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a
flash.

Can't quite see the advantage of that.

but the camera can.

a grid of lines provides the necessary contrast for the autofocus
system to lock on in dim light.

Ah well I was talking about gig photography with flashing lights so I
wouldn't be convinced it'd work as well as my manual focusing but oif course
it might work but I'd be unwilling to spend a lot of money on upgrading for
that reason alone wherre there is a cheaper and better way to go about it.

if there are flashing lights, autofocus is almost certainly going to
work. you only need focus assist when it's really dark.

today's lenses are much better than older lenses could ever be because
of the vast increases in computing power in designing them and the
higher precision of manufacturing them. many of today's lenses were not
possible back then.

and for the usual suspects in this group who will compare a top of the
line older lens with a bottom of the line new kit lens in an attempt
to prove it wrong, that's an invalid comparison and you know it.

Why would it be invalid surely a seriosu photographer would buy teh best lens
for the job, and if that were SH then they'd go for it.

if one is available. it might not be, and it might not be the best
anyway.

I've often seen statments reqarinf new lenses not being as good as their
predesessor the same goes for cameras, generally they improve but it's not
always the case.

when comparing like with like, new lenses are almost always better.
there are the occasional exceptions but that's rare.

comparing a high end older lens, say the legendary nikon noct nikkor,
with a cheap kit lens, is not a valid comparison.

In the case a certain expensove camera of $2,500 that has light leaks doens;t
make me think that newer and more expensove always equals better.

that's overblown and a defect.

there were old cameras with light leaks too.

go find something that comes close to nikon's 14-24mm. you can't. even
nikon said it's better than all fixed focal length lenses in its range
(namely the ones made 20+ years ago)

well there's a suprise they say that their latest lens is better to buy then
going SH.

they said that because it was true, which as i said, independent tests
confirmed.

and independent tests confirm it.
the real kicker is that it's a zoom lens that's better than a bunch of
fixed focal length lenses, busting that myth too.

Those myths weren't myths at the time they came out.
And now who's not comparing like with like.

i'm comparing like with like. anything else is invalid.

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

go find something that comes close to nikon's 14-24mm. you can't. even
nikon said it's better than all fixed focal length lenses in its range
(namely the ones made 20+ years ago) and independent tests confirm it.
the real kicker is that it's a zoom lens that's better than a bunch of
fixed focal length lenses, busting that myth too.

How does it compare for aperture?

it's a constant f/2.8

There has been a lot of ooh-ing and aah-ing over Olympus' new "Pro" quality
12-40mm zoom, but it's f2.8 while the fixed lenses in its range are f1.8 or
even f1.4

f/1.4 is not needed anywhere near as much because today's cameras can
shoot at higher isos without any noticeable problems. plus, depth of
field is very shallow at super-wide apertures anyway.

4/3rds is also smaller than crop or full frame (which is what the nikon
lens is). that means that f/1.4 on 4/3rds is comparable to f/2 on a
crop sensor and f/2.8 on full frame.