[absynthguzzler]

I beg all you guys to stop me with the knowledge , advice and amazing experiences with Gadgets.First it was the ICE section , then it was the LCD section , now its the DSLR section!.The Gurkha one will always remain a myth for many,so that doesn't cause much pain lol.

I feel like Im sleeping on a bed of nails every night purely because of feeling I'm missing out in the bliss of technology.Ive fought,cried,bargained with my heart/mind and shied away from all but the DSLR thread.You are all to blame for this,lol.

Last but not least,a big to all your hobbies , interests and enthusiasm.Sure makes life much easier for me to learn from 40,000 enlightened members.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

I took this photograph 2yrs back when my understanding about photography was very limited. I just had my Canon 400D and the 18-55mm kit lens. With almost no knowledge about night photography I had just followed a basic advice which every expert tells one to use...i.e. use a tripod.

Wrong example, I was talking about lowlight action shots. Lowlight landscape shots are not really a challenge when you have a tripod.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

If you have seen shots from a wide angle lens, say 10-22 there is a particular perspective that the image comes with where your subject sort of zooms out. You just cant achieve the same by stiching.
Offcourse nothing is impossbile in photoshop but I am not the one to spend hours and hours sitting in front and editing to give my images 'that' look.
I am taking the liberty of posting a pic from my friend's camera to make clear what I mean by that perspective.

Photoshop/stitching can't do that beyond a point. Stitching means you have to go back and use a different focal length. The whole idea of having it wide but not to have that 'subject sort of zooms out' look. For that, special lens (PC) is used.

Photoshop cant's do (from what you've shown) more than this:

[Torqueguru]

@Rudra
Well a little bit of warping and lens distortion correction filter, can produce an almost exact replica of what extreme posted, form a non deformed image. From what I have understood from his post, he wanted that effect...the subject zoom in effect. By the way I love it too!
Regards,
TG.

[Rudra Sen]

Yes it can but I was talking about vertical correction for architecture photography.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Im sorry, there were no assumptions on my part. As I mentioned, those were home truths that I came to realize from my experiences. I really was not judging anyone else.
Incidentally, your assumptions about my assumptions couldn't be farther from the truth. Some of the best pictures I've taken were with a humble film Minolta p&s. Those pictures are what sparked my interest in photography. Things went downhill for me when I bought an SLR with a 35-80 kit zoom because I would spend more time fiddling with settings and lamenting about my inadequate lens. Later, I realized why my p&s pictures were good despite its limitations - it got out of the way and let me focus on composition.

18-200 was just an example because it has the same max focal length as the 70-200 and yet the image taken from the former isnt a patch on the same image taken by the latter bringing to forth the point that gear matters. Th gear can be the difference b/w a good photographer and a very good photographer.
It was the other way round for me when I moved to a DSLR. My P&S wouldn't focus in harsh sunlight simply because the contrast detect autofocus would be useless as the sensor would just blow everything due to harsh lightening, the DOF was but non existent until and unless I was clicking at full focal length or a macro and then was the high ISO image quality and the fact that I couldnt click in RAW. There is more but I am not blaming my P&S because thats how I learnt the nuisances of photography and only when I was aware of the limitation of my P&S that I decided to go for a DSLR.
I still shoot with my P&S but the difference is that I now know when to use my DSLR.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

18-200 was just an example because it has the same max focal length as the 70-200 and yet the image taken from the former isnt a patch on the same image taken by the latter bringing to forth the point that gear matters. Th gear can be the difference b/w a good photographer and a very good photographer.

Have you compared the two - the Nikon 18-200 and the 70-200? And which 70-200 is this? The 2.8, Nikon VR? I will tell you this, at certain comparable focal lengths and adequately stopped down, it is hard for me to tell the difference between an image from the 18-200 and my Nikon 80-200/2.8 ED.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

It was the other way round for me when I moved to a DSLR. My P&S wouldn't focus in harsh sunlight simply because the contrast detect autofocus would be useless as the sensor would just blow everything due to harsh lightening, the DOF was but non existent until and unless I was clicking at full focal length or a macro and then was the high ISO image quality and the fact that I couldnt click in RAW. There is more but I am not blaming my P&S because thats how I learnt the nuisances of photography and only when I was aware of the limitation of my P&S that I decided to go for a DSLR.
I still shoot with my P&S but the difference is that I now know when to use my DSLR.

Key difference between time lines here. I started out in the days of film. The Minolta P&S I used hardly had any settings, single focal length and maybe two shutter speeds. The main difference in the days of film was that even the simplest camera would produce an image on the same quality medium as a pro camera. That changed with digital and the chasm between pro and entry-level equipment widened massively.

I can completely understand the frustrations with digital P&S's - IMHO they are too fidgety. I never liked them. I have a 10x12" blow up of my son taken from my film Yashica T5 Carl Zeiss P&S - that's difficult with a $100 digital camera.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Key difference between time lines here. I started out in the days of film. The Minolta P&S I used hardly had any settings, single focal length and maybe two shutter speeds. The main difference in the days of film was that even the simplest camera would produce an image on the same quality medium as a pro camera.

Ummm I guess I found it to be very difficult to use a P&S for shooting films. To say it mildly that I wouldn't have dared to use P&S. Well, I used to shoot transparencies. This amazing things are very sensitive to exposure, little bit of mis-calculation and you'll end up having either a badly underexposed or overexposed film. So I guess it was tougher for me to use P&S to get the similar quality from an SLR.
Yeah, for a new-bee, if he/she asks me for what lens and camera should he buy, I always tell them to go for a entry level camera with a decent lens(i.e. 50mm f1.8). But many goes for the zoom for versatility and then I tell them to stick to the lens till he know that he had out learned the lens and ready for upgrade. Which may take years depending on person to person. Well for me, a slow learner myself, took around 2-3 years to change to better glass. Till then I was using some very simple equipment. And yes, that 50mm is a gem for that price.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Ummm I guess I found it to be very difficult to use a P&S for shooting films. To say it mildly that I wouldn't have dared to use P&S. Well, I used to shoot transparencies. This amazing things are very sensitive to exposure, little bit of mis-calculation and you'll end up having either a badly underexposed or overexposed film. So I guess it was tougher for me to use P&S to get the similar quality from an SLR.

I used black & white film and that was great with a P&S because it was very forgiving of wrong exposure because of the film's wide latitude. You could always salvage something of the image while developing it. Transparencies are a different matter entirely.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by StarScream

I used black & white film and that was great with a P&S because it was very forgiving of wrong exposure because of the film's wide latitude. You could always salvage something of the image while developing it. Transparencies are a different matter entirely.

Oh yeah, monochromes, I tried a few Illfords and I must say I liked them. But I was mesmerized by the vibrant colors of transparencies so didn't pursue monochromes much.

But anyway, the debate is going on very nice, another never ending debate of photography .

[NomadVagabond]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Wrong example, I was talking about lowlight action shots. Lowlight landscape shots are not really a challenge when you have a tripod.

Absolutely correct. Who said it's a challenge at all??? It's a child's play to take a night photograph. You were saying that it's hard for low light photography while I gave you an example of NO-Light photography. My mistake. I reckon you should get yourself a 400mm f/2.8 that should suffice all your needs forever. It's the best in the business. Isn't it?

Why I gave you that example is that even with a pathetic kit lens good photographs are possible. ONLY if one wants to try harder to take the best out of the lens. Will be bothering you with another shot from another cheap lens I own.

The Gardener. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Lets ask a pro to click a bird using 18-200 at 200mm and I click the same using 70-200 at the same, 200mm... who would fare better?
Limitations are sometimes just that and there is no way to overcome those and thats when you 'need' better equipment.

Being primarily an Avian photographer myself. I've personally NEVER seen any bird photographer shooting birds with a 70-200mm f2.8/4/5.6 or whatsoever!! BUT I've seen plenty of photographers shooting with P&S and 18-200mm & 70-300mm's which are WAY inferior to the glass quality of any of the 70-200mm's available on the market on date. Why is that so?? A very simple reason. The 70-200 is NOT meant for bird photography rather it's a very good portrait/fashion/street photography lens. Hence, different lenses have different purposes and uses. You can't just put them at par with any other category as such.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

The fact is most of the pro's own pro level equipment but offcouse they decide to buy them because their earlier equipment just wasnt good enough. For a pro equipment is always taken for granted.

Even though I'm not a Nikon fanboy. Ken Rockwell is one of the foremost professional photographers whom Nikon asks to test their latest and best camera's and lenses. And lets see what he recommends everyone?? Recommended Cameras Ouch it's the good old Nikon D40!!! Couldn't he afford a D3X??? Ofcourse he can!! Can't most of us afford a Nikon D70-80?? Yes most of us can and already do. Then why does he suggest such an outdated camera?

Originally Posted by StarScream

And yes if the choice is between falling off a cliff and a lens, then please get the lens.

I ditto that too. Get a lens. No need to harm yourself trying to get a wider shot.

Originally Posted by StarScream

Some of the best pictures I've taken were with a humble film Minolta p&s. Those pictures are what sparked my interest in photography.

Well BTW Minolta made some of the best camera's of the good old days. No wonder yours gives you such good outputs.

@ TG. LOL about that fishing rod example. How do you even think of such one liners?

Anyway what I feel is that the entire point of discussion has not been understood by many of us. And all of us are just arguing over the fact that it's equipment which makes better photographs. It's not that better equipments are not needed for better photographs it is needed for sure. Like I keep lamenting for a 600mm f/4 all the time. Why?? Because my existing 400mm isn't long enough to get me that extra distance. Will a 600mm make me a better photographer?? Maybe NOT!!! It's not at all dependent on what equipment one uses or doesn't. What really matters is how much juice is one capable of squeezing out of the existing equipment. And in this particular case. It's a very fine combination of man and machine. No wonder photography is seen as an art form rather than as a profession only. We're light painters.

Regards,

Anirban.

[given2fly]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Have you compared the two - the Nikon 18-200 and the 70-200? And which 70-200 is this? The 2.8, Nikon VR? I will tell you this, at certain comparable focal lengths and adequately stopped down, it is hard for me to tell the difference between an image from the 18-200 and my Nikon 80-200/2.8 ED.

I know I shouldn't be joining this war of mettle, but StarScream, after all those wonderful gyan, I didn't expect this statement from you. If it is the pro class Nikon 80-200 2.8 lens equivalent of Canon 70-200 2.8L that you are comparing with an 18-200 normal walkaround lens, I gotta beg you to not do so. The difference being the glass quality and the elements, groups and whatever else they call give you a completely different picture every single time you click a picture. If you look carefully, you will see a lot of flare and a bit of distortion and very little to no background blur at all which is very crucial in bird photography that you have been debating with others. Otherwise, Nikon, Canon and others won't be able to sell the higher price lenses at all. They are completely different leagues and ought to be treated so. So I request you to not lead this healthy & very knowledgeable debate in wrong directions.

Disclaimer : I'm a Canon user, so I am bringing in my experience of Canon's kit lens, 18-200 (friend's) & 70-200 lenses. It simply doesn't compare with 70-200 at all, in any of the ranges.

[absynthguzzler]

Originally Posted by given2fly

Disclaimer : I'm a Canon user, so I am bringing in my experience of Canon's kit lens, 18-200 (friend's) & 70-200 lenses. It simply doesn't compare with 70-200 at all, in any of the ranges.

Yes there would be major DOF,CA and colour saturation compromises but i don't see how this would affect photographs if the composition and PP are done right. We are not comparing professional lenses to "walkaround" ones purely on the output we get. I reckon what majority are saying is that the 18-200 is not a bad choice when one needs to have just 1 lens and the Nikkor (NOT Canon) performs very well at that !.

Enjoying a gypsy safari ride in Kaziranga , I spot a Fish Eagle in the distance and hence get my famed 70-200 on.I bask in glory of the beautiful picture whilst missing out on the baby rhino crossing the road 5 feet away from my gypsy . I aint rich enough to have 2 cameras with different lenses nor am i speedy gonzales to change lenses that quickly. So what does the "aam" aadmi do ? he buys a Nikkor 18-200 and compromises on quality defects he cannot see, and basks in the glory of capturing 2 glorious animals purely due to the brilliance of a DSLR.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Absolutely correct. Who said it's a challenge at all??? It's a child's play to take a night photograph. You were saying that it's hard for low light photography while I gave you an example of NO-Light photography. My mistake. I reckon you should get yourself a 400mm f/2.8 that should suffice all your needs forever. It's the best in the business. Isn't it?

Whoa! cool down boss. I didn't realise you would take this much offense. I thought it was obvious, since it isn't, let me expalin. I was cribbing about noise at high ISO, not being able to use higher F-Stop for better DOF, not being able to auto-focus and lack of IS. Which very obviously means I am not talking about tripod. With the tripod, you can happily stay at ISO100, can use manual focus, don't need IS, choose any F-stop, and keep the shutter speed very very low since the subject is not moving. So where is the challenge? I gave you the example of a pair of Buffaloes racing towards me in the night and you are replying with a unmoving landscape. How does it compare?

BTW, the fastest I have at 200mm is F/3.5, while the fastest Olympus lens at 300mm is F/2.8, costs $6000. There is no 400mm lens in Olympus family. Check this list: Lenses - E-System Digital SLR

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Why I gave you that example is that even with a pathetic kit lens good photographs are possible. ONLY if one wants to try harder to take the best out of the lens. Will be bothering you with another shot from another cheap lens I own.

Boss, let me repeat again. I am not saying good photographs are not possible with modest equipment, in fact I would argue the same point: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shift...tml#post515695

Let's consider a photographer with decent skill. In his/her hand, entry level dSLR with Kit lens, or even P&S can get great photographs. But not under all circumstances. There will be many sitautions where equipment will place limitations. This is why photographers upgrade equipment. You shouldn't pooh-pooh it with general statements like good photographer can overcome equipment limitation, only novice photographers blame the equipment, etc. That is why I gave you two examples where I upgraded due to equipment limitation. Therefore, giving repeated examples of how mediocre equipment can take great photos is pointless.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Even though I'm not a Nikon fanboy. Ken Rockwell is one of the foremost professional photographers whom Nikon asks to test their latest and best camera's and lenses. And lets see what he recommends everyone??

Actually, many Nikon fans hate Ken Rockwell. They don't take him seriously at all. Also, Nikon doesn't ask Ken Rockwell to test anything, I thought it was well known. About KenRockwell.com

[kaushik_s]

Well Nomad, cool down, nothing is a piece of cake nor rocket science too. All I could say is that you didn't understand the situation what Samurai had in mind. Even I faced the similar issue while shooting a few such events. First experience was while shooting at a dance program (that was long time back, during film era) and with my cheap 70-300mm lens I was never able to freeze the moments which I wanted to. It was basically impossible. Even though there was no shake most of the photos came out blurred due to the fact that I was not able to get critical shutterspeed.
Then again recently, while covering another event( bangalore habba) I faced a similar issue. But this time with 70-200mm f4 IS, yes this awesome lens also kind of failed in few situation. But luckily I was carrying my macro lens which has the max aperture of f2.8 saved the day. With the extra stop freezing moment was easier. I tried to use 50mm also but was bit far and I wasn't getting the compositions right as movement beyond a certain point was restricted.
So equipments sometimes does matter but depending on situations. And having used both cheapo lenses and so called pro lenses, I must tell that there is a huge difference in the image quality of the photographs. But are the cheap lenses that bad? Absolutely not. They are absolute value for money for a person who has just started photography and they'll definitely have many many usable photographs. I have many such photographs and still have them on my album.
But as you keep going forward and as you are no longer satisfied with your photographs(technically) and wants to do something much better(technically) then it's time for change. And trust me, you'll know when you've to change. For some it takes times and for some it may happen earlier. As of now, for me a good glass matters most irrespective of the price.