[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: Chris Wong <chris_wong@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:54:11 -0800
I have to agree. :-) Two of the most well-known nature photographers,
Art Wolfe and John Shaw, uses zoom in a lot of their pictures. I'm very
impressed by their image composition and the use of light. For me,
technical sharpness comes second. Of course, sharpness is as important
to make the picture impressive though... So, arguably it should come
first provided you also have a great composition...
Chris
Peter K. wrote:
>Assumptions Counselor, purely assumptions on your part. I know many
>proiduct and commercial photographers who use digital SLRs with zooms.
>And for zooms I wrote in response to your comment, and I quote
>
>"whyever would ANY photographer of quality wish to use a zoom lens?=20
>This sort of trash is for the P&S crew and not for serious
>photographers."
>
>So I would assume that the same product photographers must not really
>be "quality" photographers. Only those using fixed focal lengths are
>"quality" photographers. Get real Marc. Its the image that make the
>photograph beautiful and not the sharpness, etc. As I have said
>before, I would rather have a quality image (even from a zoom) that is
>not technical sharp, then a lousy image (from a fixed focal lenght)
>that is technical sharp.
>
>Peter K
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:15:39 -0500, Marc James Small
><msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>At 08:15 AM 3/31/05 -0800, Peter K. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Marc,
>>>
>>>Tell that to the thousands of PJs and Pros who are using zooms. And
>>>for the record, the new zooms are every bit as good as many fixed
>>>focal lengths.
>>>Again, YOU may feel otherwise, but you do not use your cameras
>>>professionally now do you? So the 50mm may suit your needs.
>>>
>>>
>>=20
>>Hmm.
>>=20
>>Most professional photographers are either photo-journalists, for whom zo=
>>
>>
>om
>
>
>>lenses are now the norm, or wedding photographers. PJ's are not interest=
>>
>>
>ed
>
>
>>in producing more than a small image for inclusion in a newspaper or
>>magazine, for the most part, so the loss of quality in a zoom lens is not
>>an issue. And I have yet to meet a wedding photographer who uses a zoom
>>lens regularly, though I do know a few who own them. Again, horses for
>>courses: if you know the quality of picture you need to produce, then a
>>zoom lens might well be a capable tool for restricted images. Technical a=
>>
>>
>nd
>
>
>>product photographers do not use zooms regularly, and architectural and
>>landscape photographers do not, as well. (For that matter, Rollei still
>>produces photogrammetric versions of its SL 3003 and Rollei 35 cameras --
>>but not a zoom is offered with the 3003.)
>>=20
>>Despite the many claims to the contrary, no zoom lens ever built truly
>>equals the optical ability of a prime lens, though many now come VERY
>>close. (For instance, when you cut through the advertising goobledegook
>>Zeiss spews forth and read their technical literature, this difference in
>>quality is pretty clear.)
>>=20
>>And, yes, I do an occasional professional shoot. I have produced a coupl=
>>
>>
>e
>
>
>>of CD covers and a bunch of jazz shots. I have even shot some weddings
>>professionally, once with a Leica IIIc and once with a Rolleiflex 3.5E,
>>though I have used either Leica M's or Hasselblads for the others.
>>=20
>>In the end, zooms are perfectly acceptable for average-quality prints of =
>>
>>
>a
>
>
>>limited size: I have one on my Rollei d41com, for instance, but I have
>>never tried to get a print larger than about 16" by 20" (actually, an 8" =
>>
>>
>by
>
>
>>10" priont with a cropped portion of the entire image.) And I do own one
>>of those magnificent Zoomar 4/50-125 zooms, a truly capable 35mm lens.
>>=20
>>Marc
>>=20
>>msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D20
>>Cha robh b=3DE0s fir gun ghr=3DE0s fir!
>>=20
>>=20
>>
>>
>
>
>--=20
>Peter K
>=D3=BF=D5=AC
>
>
>
Other related posts:
