DSLR v. P&S

[kiev4a]

Michael:

I think your observations on AF and panning are probably valid. There's a ouple of generations of younger photographers who seldom, if ever have focused manually.

On the big fast lenses that changed the way some things were done, I get a kick out of some of the folks who still believe ya gotta have big glass. Especially in the case of digital the sensors are so much more sensitive than film that if you don't mind some background noise you can shoot black cats in a coal bin with a modern DSLR and an f2.8 lens.

In nearly 50 years, dozens of cameras and scores of lenses I have only owned one lens as fast as f1.4 and then only for a brief time. Most of my "fast" lenses have been in the f2 range although I do like the f1.8 ai and af Nikkors.

[nikkortorokkor]

Wayne, I was thinking more of the last gasp (late 80s to Y2K) of the pro 35mm SLR when writing about big, (perhaps I shoulda written 'long' fast glass. I suspect that the combination of long focal length, big aperture, AF and blindingly fast titanium shutters allowed sports photographers to freeze the action while blowing out the background in a way that was (for me at least) totally arresting.

I agree (somewhat sadly until I finally get one) that the modern DSLR, with its amazing ISOs, along with IS lenses, brings such magic into the hands of the less well heeled.

As for me, I feel pretty chuffed at having stepped up from a 135/f4 to a blindingly quick 135/2.8!

P.S. ain't it a shame that most of that hi ISO gear & fast glass seems to wind up being used to snap a grainy, fuzzy, or over flashed image of some 'celebritant' holding a handbag in front of her face as she rushes from limo to rehab clinic? The Nikon/Canon engineers do their best to make equipment that can be used to make great art, when what the Paps actually need is something to make the 'bright and the beautiful' look ugly. The cheapest P&S can do that without even breaking a sweat. Oops, waaay OT now.

[olroy2044]

Hi guys; In regards to the big, fast glass, and panning, I learned to pan with fast moving, lowflying aircraft back a long time ago. In looking thru some of my old Ektachromes, I see that I was enamored of shooting at the highest shutter speed available to me (1/1000 on my Mamiya). I was stopping propellers cold with a 400mm f6.3 tele on that camera. I finally realized that the photos were more interesting with a controlled amount of blur both in the background and of the props. At least then you could tell that the engines were actually running, and the planes airborne, and not stage props! It is easy to fall prey to the idea that hi-shutter speeds are necessary when shooting action. They have their place, but quite often a well-panned shot, at lower shutter speed is very effective. I would wager that the majority of my airshow shots now are at no more than 1/250.

Of course, in order to freeze a particular millisecond of a close play at third base, a fast lens, hi ISO film (or sensor), and high shutter speeds are an absolute necessity. Personally, I don't think I have ever used the 1/2000 speed on my Me Super. Roy

Mike, re your PS: Ain't it the truth!!!

[kiev4a]

Only time I had a real need for fast shutter speed was when I ised 1/1000 sec to catch a shell just leaving the barrel of an 81mm mortar. It was still a blur. I was using a Nikon F with a 4 FPS motor (high tech at that time) . Also used it to get a shot of a missile just leaving the barrel of an M551 Sheridan (sort of a light tank). The missile was easier as it's velocity was quite low until the rocket motor kicked in after clearing the barrel.

Actually a state-of-the-art DSLR doesn't guarantee results. The Nikon and Canon forums are full of posters with virtually no photographic background who have gone out and bought high end cameras and then can't figure out why is doesn't automatically take great pictures of their kids' soccer games.

[doubs43]

kiev4a said:

<Snip>
Actually a state-of-the-art DSLR doesn't guarantee results. The Nikon and Canon forums are full of posters with virtually no photographic background who have gone out and bought high end cameras and then can't figure out why is doesn't automatically take great pictures of their kids' soccer games.

Wayne, that's not only true today but has been for ages. People would buy a Leica, Nikon F or whatever gee-wiz camera was on the top of the heap that week and expect it to turn them into instant pro photographers. They had the gear so composition, exposure, lighting etc. would automatically fall into place. They'd be overnight sensations with spreads in Life and National Geographic. The letdown must have been like going over Niagra Falls.... without the barrel.

I suspect that everyone on this forum, without regard for their level of experience, is still learning every day. IMO the photographs posted by almost everyone here is head-and-shoulders above whatever "average" is. I'd say they've learned pretty well and will continue to do so.

Walker

[kiev4a]

Walker:

I know, particularly with the Nikon F and Leica M, there were people who bought them primarily because the cameras were sort of a status symbol.

On the bright side, those sorts of camera buyers are one reason that every so often we encounter a mint Nikon or Canon or Minolta long forgotten on the top shelf of a closet.