*Official Photography Thread* (56k warning)

[Tnwagn]

Just think how did the guys years and years ago produce those stunning images before we had L lenses or VR and 20MP cameras?

They used lenses that were equally expensive and sharp with film bodies that rival the current generation of DSLRs in quality.

[cb7'kid]

some pics from tonight

[cb7wagonPL]

They used lenses that were equally expensive and sharp with film bodies that rival the current generation of DSLRs in quality.

Yes you're right but the were also manual focus. No fast auto focus and fancy metering in those days. Doesn't matter if the lens is sharp if you don't focus it correctly. Regardless of the fact, sharper lenses don't make better images, "sharper" photographers do

[zelseman]

Yes you're right but the were also manual focus. No fast auto focus and fancy metering in those days. Doesn't matter if the lens is sharp if you don't focus it correctly. Regardless of the fact, sharper lenses don't make better images, "sharper" photographers do

I dont know what era of film photography you are talking about, but the last 20-30 years of film have had autofocus.

[cb7wagonPL]

I dont know what era of film photography you are talking about, but the last 20-30 years of film have had autofocus.

Sure maybe they did, unfortunetly you missed the point I was trying to make. Not everyone is a pro or has the money for the top of the line equipment and therefore need to learn how to take full advantage of what we have and a lot of the equipment out these days is capable of a lot more than we think. Still to many people believe that the newest and best lens or camera will improve their pictures when they continue to make the same mistakes with the new stuff as they did with the old, such as framing or exposure, and even that can be argued. Everyone sees sthings a bit different and may have a different vision for the same kind of a picture

[zelseman]

I wasn't commenting on your point, and I agree. But the facts you used weren't accurate. Just a quick glance at craigslist will tell you that too many people under use their equipment.

[ilovemycb7]

Sure maybe they did, unfortunetly you missed the point I was trying to make. Not everyone is a pro or has the money for the top of the line equipment and therefore need to learn how to take full advantage of what we have and a lot of the equipment out these days is capable of a lot more than we think. Still to many people believe that the newest and best lens or camera will improve their pictures when they continue to make the same mistakes with the new stuff as they did with the old, such as framing or exposure, and even that can be argued. Everyone sees sthings a bit different and may have a different vision for the same kind of a picture

While true, you can't deny the better looking images that come out of nicer using equipment.

[cb7wagonPL]

While true, you can't deny the better looking images that come out of nicer using equipment.

Yes but .... get on flickr and look at different groups that use the lower end equipment and you will be surprised with some of the results. Also, look at the strobists website. One of the more popular strobes on there is an old Vivitar flash that doesn't support any kind of TTL metering or even have an lcd screen for settings, just a knob to set power output. The guys on there use it and produce some stunning images.

[ilovemycb7]

Yes but .... get on flickr and look at different groups that use the lower end equipment and you will be surprised with some of the results. Also, look at the strobists website. One of the more popular strobes on there is an old Vivitar flash that doesn't support any kind of TTL metering or even have an lcd screen for settings, just a knob to set power output. The guys on there use it and produce some stunning images.

Strobes are one thing.

Sharpness and contrast from nice glass are another.

Though, I completely agree with what your'e saying. I think it applies more to a body than to anything. Nearly any body will provide great results.

[cb7'kid]

what do you guys think.

tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

which one? currently i have a 50mm 1.8 a 55-250 and a sigma 10-20mm i sold my 18-55 to buy the 17-50 but now i was thinking about the extra reach on the 28-75. in the near future i was planning on selling my 55-250 for a 70-200 f/4 IS. thus closing the reach gap between the 28-75 and 70-200.

[zelseman]

On a 1.6 crop? 17-50 most definately. You will find 28 mm very long when you dont want to switch to your wide angle.

[cb7wagonPL]

I also suggest the 17-50 for a crop sensor. The 28-70 is a lot better suited for full frame bodies.

[cb7'kid]

Yes on a 1.6 crop. I mean I might go for the 17-50 now that u mentioned how 28mm is a bit too narrow on a crop. Since I got my 55-250 for now. Maybe I might just go with the 17-50. More like a upgrade to my kit lens. Thanks for the reply Z.

[cb7'kid]

I also suggest the 17-50 for a crop sensor. The 28-70 is a lot better suited for full frame bodies.

What body do u use the 17-50 for? Is it sharp and does it perform ok (I wouldn't say good good as it doesn't have IS) in low light? Thinking of doing strobes.

[J-specCb4]