Photo tricks. Part MMXVII
Many noticed that reviews of photographic equipment began to be carried out on some ancient rubbish: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi и Nikon D90... Life is an unpredictable thing that requires a lot of money. At one point I had to sell everything. Now rented orders are mainly for Nikon D90 и Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 + SB-900.
And here are the conclusions I made:
- the client does not see any difference in image quality at all
- least of all the difference between good and bad photographic equipment is visible when shooting in a photo studio
- photo processing is more important than photo equipment
- during printing of most photo books, noise / grain is practically invisible, and you should not worry about these artifacts
- shooting on old trash is psychologically difficult, but quite real
- wide angle, which gives a 28 mm lens on a crop (ether 42 mm) - uncomfortable, but not so much to worry about it
- when shooting in hellish conditions with poor lighting, the flash helps very well and is the main tool of the photographer
- I shoot 'serious' orders using more or less tolerable equipment. My friends, colleagues and readers of the Radozhivs (with the reader, for example, took an order on his 5D Mark III)
- It is important to be able to shoot on photographic equipment of any manufacturer with any control. It teaches to think in general terms and does not bind to the tool by which photographs are created
- experience and ability to work with people / client / model is much more important than all this nonsense associated with the choice of photographic equipment
- Yes, you correctly noticed, there are more advertisements on Radozhiv :)
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Well, how do you like Mark-3 Arkady
Mark as Mark, a lot of subtleties in autofocus, with a 24-105 / 4 L lens, autofocus clings worse than on a d700 with any lens. A purely personal opinion without long communication.
I switched from nikon to kenon and noticed exactly the same thing, the kenon af algorithm is different and the tenacity and accuracy of the af are in general worse than nikon. Although the color of Kenon is still much easier to work with, optics are often cheaper and the system is more logical.
Stelmakh drove for autofocus d800. Say the Kenon flagship will break the speed of autofocus Svyazau d800 + 135 2.0 ds. Either the autofocus on the d800 has deteriorated significantly compared to the d700 or the stelmah is paid as I will not say who.
Stelmakh is an eccentric! And a hack! I would not believe him!
The plot against nikon is 100% so. They say even the Masons put a hand to this
I looked at the profile of Arkady,
beautiful photos of course
but
as you can see here Arkady does not distinguish between colors and cameras,
it does not matter to him what to film people - what is Nikon, what canon, what watering can and so on,
therefore he does not see
what photos he has as a result. (well, of course - clients do not even distinguish between them)
And there is a difference - what and what to shoot (it makes no sense to go into details and disputes - this is IMHO).
He discerns everything, but life is such a bitch that it winds ropes out of us. And of course there is a difference in what to shoot, and I am sure that Arkady understands this perfectly. So dear Kitya ... or Katya, pliz, write your nickname with a capital letter - respect yourself.
I fully agree with the speaker
Only shhhh, so that manufacturers would not hear. I also came to the same conclusions a long time ago, but if I had read this article about 3 years ago ... I would not have heeded, probably.
“The client doesn't see any difference in image quality at all” - many photographers don't.
“The wide angle, which gives a 28 mm lens on the crop (42 mm ether), is uncomfortable, but not so much to worry about” - I have a Nikkor 28-80 G on a fuji protroyka 100% satisfied.
Sensible.
Great article. I imagined everything about that. The last straw was the review of two new Zeiss 85-currents at Evtifeev. Judging by the pictures presented, the picture from the new Zeiss is no different from the Nikon 85 1.8g which is cheaper than Zeiss by 4 times. Modern lenses have lost their individuality and everyone has become similar to each other.
Don’t touch it. Zeiss pays him, even if soap and soap comes out in the tests, then Zeiss will be better.
I wonder why no one will ever pay attention to the fact that Zeiss and Leica are actually Zeiss and Laika ([ˈtsaɪs], [ˈlaɪka] - en.wikipedia.org)? :)
because nikon, not nikon :)
Nikon pronounce Nikon correctly (with emphasis on the second syllable), but this is optional :)
More precisely Lyayka and not Laika, because in German ´l´ soft
and there were Squirrel and Arrow
Because London, Paris, Beijing, Pyongyang, Lady Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt - the forms are so well-established that a different record simply hurts the eye.
you do not carry nonsense and do not compare high-class ceiss with carbon monoxide crafts with ha from Nikon.
just look at the tests of optics and understand that today the OTUS line is the most advanced lens in the market. Kenon has several glasses, but their price is comparable to OTUS
Arkady, but still what are you leaning towards d700 or d810 for?
Amateur, rent for myself. The most pleasant drawings for me are obtained during a leisurely shooting of the landscape on the D70. The development of ViewNX, was lazy and I correct only the BB.
The resulting photos catch the eye, looking at the old photos, I linger on them. Who the outsider sees - the reaction "photography as a picture"
One thing is sad about the D70 - there is no shutter lag.
a tripod and a remote control to help, not? it helps me.
It doesn’t work on a tripod, it’s probably a little liquid, although it’s a normal manufacturer. Details answered a little lower.
Why pre-lift in the D70 with the landscape? This is on newer cameras, where 16 or more MPs are already available, you can catch micro-lubrication even at a width, and then why?
Just on a tripod, a full-frame mirror gives a powerful blur at shutter speeds below the golden rule. Especially if the lens is lighter than a kilogram. The tripod is normal, but I hold it better with my hands. I use it for heavy 80-200 or for short exposures, I do not put it on a tripod at all.
"The wide angle that a 28mm lens on the crop gives (42mm ef) is inconvenient, but not enough to worry too much about it"
I came to a similar conclusion: on a crop, Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 24-85G VR paired up give an excellent result, which suits me much more than any station wagon 18-105, 16-85 and others like them.
I worked as a photographer for eight years, filming weddings and all kinds of events back in the 80s in New York. Filmed on widescreen film. All lovers thought that it was NECESSARY to shoot weddings on wide-format film because of the quality, but the real reason was because in wide-format cameras it was easy to recharge the film by changing the film assembly without rewinding the film. It was convenient and no time wasted. NOBODY could determine the difference between 35mm and 645, or even 6x7 to 28x36cm, and 40x50cm could be determined only by looking at it very closely.
Arkady’s conclusions do not surprise me at all. Customers do not know the quality even if it crept up and bit them in the ass. All that they look at is how THEY themselves turned out and whether there is a photo with Aunt Betty and with Grandma and Uncle Vasya. Everything else is decoration to show that you are professional and somehow different from other photographers.
Communication with customers is much more important than technology and even skill. If clients don’t like you, they won’t love your work no matter how good it is. The main thing is that they would feel that they are in good hands.
And once again, it's not the camera that shoots. :)))
I wish you a speedy transition to the most convenient technique.
With irony?
iPhone is always with you, and takes up a little space
and EXIF can be wiped, no one will guess what was removed :)
That's just freaks with long arms and outstretched heads, but the digital generation is used to seeing the outside world as such.
It was interesting to read it. I sincerely wish you will soon return to work (and a hobby) on the usual technique, Arkady.
I wrote everything correctly. I support and I always speak about it myself. Although, not everyone removes weddings. Many shoot for example for drains, and there it is just that all of the above technical specifications are very important. However, there is one important point. Sometimes, in pursuit of contrived technical characteristics, people are ready to pay the last money for equipment, the result of which does not always correspond to its price. At the same time, fairly good instruments with a less prestigious price tag are undeservedly avoiding. At the same time, the person is sincerely convinced that when a golden or red ring is present on his technique, a certain inscription will appear, then his work will grow by as much as he spoiled for this inscription, compared to a cheaper one. And when such a person, at the cost of incredible efforts, finally becomes the owner of the desired instrument, he simply does not find in him that miracle for which he gave all his fortune, so he feverishly starts looking for him and constantly proving something. So they become the photonanists who conceive holivars. And then, the marketer begins to eat red caviar with an even bigger spoon!
)))))))Those. D5000 and D810-one hell?))))
If there is no skill (knowledge) - then YES!
Well, it seems like all the masters.)
It depends on what to shoot. Full can stretch many shoals of the photographer. Not all. But a lot .. Plus for all sorts of shady events, where the puff can frustrate, Di5000, for example, will drown from powerlessness (well, good optics can save), and Di810 will pull on a whale (for example, 28-300)
Exactly!
It is said.
Excuse me, Arkady, but all this talk, unfortunately, is from poverty. It is a pity that with the economic collapse a lot of good things die, including such a pleasant "lamp" resource. “Flash is a photographer's best friend” when the camera cannot shoot at high ISO. With a good camera, natural light is a photographer's best friend. It is good when with ISO 800 grain is not visible on the prints, but it is much more pleasant when it is not visible in the pictures taken with ISO 6400-12800. This is only about the "oakiness" of the matrix, then you can write a lot about AF, AE, working with optics, etc., etc. I do not want to go further into the "technique", you yourself perfectly understand everything. You can also ride a cart with a horse, but it is much more convenient and enjoyable, although more expensive, in a brand new jeep. You can also shoot with a matchbox, which has been proven more than once, but ... :(
The main problem is that lion customers love photos with a thick layer of Photoshop. Not all customers will be able to catch the difference between pictures taken in natural light and with a flash.
About Photoshop. I believe that the increased demand for retouching to a gradient or uniform tone and photoeffects greatly spoils the quality of modern photo-graphs. I don’t know if they are forced to do this or they really like it (there were such characters as well), but this approach negatively affects photo art. I have a closer art photo on the boxes.
I agree that expensive professional equipment is more convenient, but practice shows that although it is important, it is not the most important thing. Many photos from this site are an example of this.
100500
this is for you 100500
In general, an amateur, but people even in raw, without processing, prefer flash pictures, whether it's a room or even a sunny day. Whitened perfect faces without wrinkles. Photos that have a weak relation to reality (color of skin, clothes, decor, etc.) are liked the most. For fun, they showed the same photo with a good background blur of 2,8, then the same photo with a flash and the same photo hastily edited in Lightroom and Nik collection. The first one did not impress anyone, the second one was pleasant, the third one was delighted.
Then a woman came who had a new German car burned down from an internal fire. I took photos on my iPhone and sent them to the importing company in Moscow. No one was impressed, they didn’t even answer. He took his crop with a flash and took ordinary photographs as best he could (inside the car, even with a detached flash, it’s extremely inconvenient to shoot any nooks and crannies). Slightly lightened the pictures in dark corners, uploaded it with 60% quality, sent it with a claim, after 3 days an expert arrived with professional optics, still shot it again, today they change the car for free.
Hence the conclusion: the flash drives and no picture on the Iphone 6S (megasuper) of 12 megabytes in size can not be compared with a cheap SLR and a simple flash, even if the photo is 1 megabyte in size.
As for the shooting itself, with the flash we can freely move the slider 1-2 stops up, lighten the photo (especially on nikon), plus another sliders of shadows, light, white and black. And the quality of the original D 5200 iso 1600 will be no worse than that of the d 7200 on iso 6400. And with the flash, even the graininess is not visible even on the diagonal of the 108 TV.
OMG. Can I even comment on this I will not?
I think it's too late to comment here ...
Snobbery is a good feature :) You are a professional, judging by your words, I'm just an amateur
But the captain of the obviousness says that all these "magically draws", "warm colors" and so on, after getting acquainted with any processing program, is almost nothing. With a vision of 250%, you can, of course, distinguish a photo of a country house with a D810 + nikkor 28-70 or a D7100 + tamron 28-75 by bringing the railing of the house 10 times closer (this is 3,5 - indistinguishable from 5,6). Of course, the proportions are different, but you also have to guess them. And, since there are much more than 60% of people with visual impairments, they are not interested in any pixel areas, matrix area. In fact, it is better to carry a watering can with you like D.A. Medvedev, but without protection, they will simply be torn off with a watering can. The l800 printer takes maximum A4 photo paper, A3 photo paper is not so easy to find, only there will be no difference on A3. Therefore, for everyday photographs (weddings, nature, events) crop is suitable, plus the blur zone is stronger than that of FF.
Does crop blur more than FF? For the first time I hear ... With the same framing on FF, the blur is stronger on the same glass, as it were ... Or what I don't understand? ...
Based on this article by Arkady: https://radojuva.com/2016/04/aps-c-bokeh-again/
“This suggests a serious conclusion: if you shoot with a cropped camera and a full-frame camera with the same lens, at the same aperture value and from the same distance, then the blur effect on the cropped camera will look stronger due to different proportions of the out-of-focus areas.” ...
Inclined to trust the author. At the same time, to the question: at the same price you choose crop or FF, the answer will, of course, be in favor of FF, but there are no such prices. And there are no quality issues between FF and crop, but there is no such money. Although my two tamrons are already for FF and not quite convenient in focal lengths, they are simply cheaper than analogs from Nikkor and tokens for crop.
Andrey, you urgently need to be thrown into the Soviet and post-Soviet times, then the “fine-grained” film with ISO 250 will seem to be the highest quality)))
Alexey, I don’t have to throw me anywhere. I live in 2017, like my clients. :)
I mean, to get masterpieces you don’t need insanely expensive equipment with ISO 12800 or more. I have a familiar americos for glossy magazines who shoots on the D90 and works only in the ISO 200-400 range and changing it to something else does not burn with desire, the main thing is knowledge and experience, not technology, but trying to compensate for the absence of the first or second, or and all at once expensive equipment is not the best option)
Alexey, I personally know people who shoot great macro and great in the studio with the D5100. You yourself understand that for different types of shooting you can be limited to certain equipment. But if we are talking about reportage, and most often this type is at the heart of commerce, then the quality of the technique is mainly critical here. Arkady himself wrote that for "serious" orders he attracts, after all, the normal technique of his friends. At the heart of the post, as I understand it, is commercial shooting, and more specifically “wedding” ...
Well, Arkady Mark took off the baptism, but the point is complete crap. Krivoruk ff will not help.
Is there where to look?
Are you talking about “serious commercial photography” when you mean wedding photography? A serious (!) Commercial photographer will never (well, maybe at the request of friends) go to reportage. Is this where “crouch / lay down / stand up”? Yeah, I can see it. But! All serious photographers started with something, not disdaining to report, including, but at the time when they were doing this, they were not serious, and not commercial :)))
These people (already tired of the phrase "serious commercial"))) shoot mainly in studios, or on the road, but with studio light. Shooting at ISO above 800 is out of the question: do not care about the noise when printing A2, but on the billboard? In the dark, sports photographers (not all!), News journalists shoot at ISO100500, where a fingerprint is already suitable, if only there is.
Speaking of technology: a serious acquaintance of mine (!!!)), until recently, the photographer shot the d80 with great success and only bought the d7100 a year ago (pixelity is important on stocks). We are not talking about any ff at all, since it is filming in his (!) Studio, and there the f8 / 11 norm is.
All of the above (for wedding photography) does not apply to such masters as Jeri Geonis, for example, and not a large number of weddings. Most of them are ordinary “welders”.
Film 250ed. just coarse-grained, you are our connoisseur.
Obviously, for this reason, the word is in quotation marks, the essence is that it is as usual in small things)))
Thank you!
It's a shame that real photographers are forced to shoot with old cameras and simple glasses, and in the ads on Avito a bunch of 5dm3 + 24-70 2,8 “bought, lies on the shelf”. Good means of production do not go to producers, but to consumers in the worst sense of the word. Here it would be possible to speculate about communism, about justice, about logic, but this will not clarify much.
On the other hand, the truths that are stated in the article are quite correct. The result of a photographer's work is good shots, satisfied clients and good pay. And this all primarily depends on the photographer, his ability to shoot and the ability to present himself correctly. Secondly, it depends on the ability to process and if you need to print photos. And technique is noticeably lagging behind in importance. It is more important for the photographer himself - for the sake of convenience and speed of work.
Well, there are hundreds of questions on the forums “I'm a beginner, I want to shoot weddings / love stories / subject matter / reportage professionally. Tell me what to buy, the budget is 10/50/200 thousand rubles. " Questions that this short article can answer. The main thing is to stop hoping to get a huge advantage in picture quality for the customer with the new technology. This most likely will not happen.
In that year, he shot Shrovetide at 5dm3 + 24-70 2,8, and this year at d70s + sigma 18-35 1.8. I did not see a fundamental difference, although the type of shooting is the same, and the difference in the price of sets of equipment is huge. The old man Nikon even pleased more in terms of colors, although the shooting itself lacked autofocus and shutter speeds. So, as one of thousands of amateur photographers, I can confirm the words of a professional with my own experience. Even some photographers do not see the difference in image quality, not like customers.
"Bought, they are on the shelf" == "you can't cheat, you can't sell"
If I hadn't bought, I probably would have thought the same. I agree, very suspicious. But more than once I bought good equipment in perfect condition with minimal maintenance. d3300 for half the price of a new one with a run of 2 thousand frames. 70-200 2.8lis2 without a single speck of dust from an amateur, whom his friends gave him, but he doesn't need such a bandura. Aging fuj s5pro with less than 10 thousand frames in use. In general, what is far to go, a friend bought a mirrorless camera with optics for 200 thousand, took a couple of pictures of the family and said - it's not mine. He's not selling it yet, but I'm sure sooner or later he will understand that this junk only takes up space and sells it. So very often beginners buy really good equipment. The financial stratification of society quite allows to have in one small town a pros with 500d + 18-55 and an amateur with 5dm3 + 24-70 2,8l2. For it is quite difficult to earn a lot in photography and not everyone is lucky, and those who have earned on something else just buy something better. Is it solid with a salary of 5-10 thousand dollars a month to buy a camera for 400 bucks? So they buy the best, or what the sellers in the store will advise. And then a year later it turns out that this thing has been lying and dusty on the shelf all this time.
Again, I know several proffesters, reporters and weddings who dream of a budget of 200 thousand in the sweetest dreams, but in fact they shoot some at 7d, some at 550d, some at d7000. And a friend who does not even recognize a tenth of the capabilities of a camera and optics for 200 thousand - he takes this set simply because for an hour of studying the Internet, this proposal seemed more interesting.
So, a very real alignment, although, I do not argue, sometimes they are deceived. I, thank God, have not yet been deceived into buying / selling used photographic equipment, and other used equipment, although I buy it regularly. If even in a text ad they can and can lie, but at a personal meeting you absolutely have to be a scoundrel in order to lie to your face. There are not many such scoundrels, thank God, although they often appear in articles on the Internet :) I have not yet met such a technique, if there is a jamb, they will always say. But with cars, everything is much sadder, but that's a completely different story ...
there are exceptions of course. D3300 sells at half price - reality.
but the rich man realized that he didn’t need it, he wouldn’t give an ad, he would just give it to someone :) or the camera would lie on a shelf, because for some reason it was bought :)
Here at the expense of giving, unfortunately, this is not about the rich, at least those whom I know :) Maybe you are more fortunate, but I just can't get snow from my rich acquaintances in winter, and they don't even give my relatives a nifig not like friends / acquaintances. Here are a couple of friends who are more generous, but to give a camera for 200 thousand to someone is unlikely) Maybe not rich enough yet, because with an annual income of more than $ 3-5 million, I think such gifts are quite normal. But my friends don't even have half a million every year, so they are unlikely to donate such cameras.
In general, I did not mean the super rich, but simply the upper middle class. Those who, having bought an expensive toy, quickly played enough, but they cannot afford to roll around with such money and are sold. In any case, in my region this is quite a common option. Now 6d with a mileage of 10 thousand are selling for 60 pieces. The price is quite reasonable. And 10 thousand for a full-frame carcass is just a run-in. That is, a person bought a camera, drove it a couple of times to rest and realized that the phone is easier to carry, and the result is not to say that it is worse.
I, too, recently, "from poverty" (-: changed the fujik X10 to D90. Externally, the phot looks great, the mileage is less than 4000. But the joy was short-lived, a week later something happened to the mirror or the shutter - hell knows, in general it broke. Now I’m thinking, either the previous owner knew about this problem, or it just coincided. It's a shame to tears, as if a childhood dream was killed (-:
Sorry, no luck so no luck. I, pah-pah-pah, have not had this yet, but no one is immune from this. Unfortunately. As for me, such a breakdown is rather difficult to predict. Well, you can see the shutter at short exposures, beat it with a mirror in burst mode, but still, as I understand it, you looked at it when you bought it. And so this is just the fate of the villain. Find a diagnosis - maybe so little thing and repair for a couple of thousand? But if the replacement of the shutter, then I don't even know which is easier - to give it for repair or sell it for analysis for a couple of thousand and buy something else.
We have a service center here in Izhevsk, it’s kind of authorized to repair Nikon. We need to tear it down, let’s look. And is the Sigma 18-35mm lens really good? I still have a D70 in stock. And also a Canon 300D (((-:
Yes, usually the diagnostics are free, well, or 300 rubles - let them issue a verdict. Sigma is good, but autofocus walks - it behaves differently on different carcasses. On some it hits the target, on some it is corrected by intra-chamber correction, and on some it is just sore. I work with d70s quite often - I like the color and the fact that the files are lightweight. By the way, for portraits I would choose it, not d90, but this is purely IMHO. And I plan to buy 300d tonight :) How is the device? The first amateur DSLR, the first crop with an ef-bayonet mount, until recently one of the rare amateur crop with a second display ... It is very interesting to try, especially in conjunction with elks :)
Thank you for the detailed answer about the Sigma.Canon 300D. Well, what can I say? I'm far from a pro, closer to the photo-nanists (-: Well, such a healthy body, solid. I got it by accident, almost for free, but with the shutter not working. The shutter was repaired in Moscow, he had one good master for 2500 in 2014. The first DSLR, a kind of mastodon, but I like it. I asked him for some other hacker firmware, functions appeared on the menu, like Canon 10D. And I got the lens from the canon 300v film camera - 28-90mm. With Sovdepovskom glass I tried it-normal. At the moment he is in another mountain de, left Bata-old Zenit-let her fun (-:
Some photos from the Canon 300D. Father's portraits on Jupiter9, the rest 28-90mm EF, the second version seems.
https://flic.kr/s/aHskQ2cVre
Cool, I can’t wait until the evening to test it. The one I buy, also with firmware from 10d. It's nice that replacing the shutter is so inexpensive.
And in terms of sigma, I can also say that 1.8, even at 18mm, gives a very small grip, which looks extremely unusual and interesting. Well, the sharpness is fantastic for a zoom, 35mm for me is not worse than my native Nikon 35 1.8dx. And also from the interesting - the weight is very large, the autofocus is fast, the bokeh is pleasant, the MDF is small, the assembly is excellent. But the accuracy of autofocus greatly spoils the impression of the lens - you need to test it on your own carcass or buy a docking station, which, again, will correct the position on one carcass, and putting it on another can cause problems again.
Well, as Nikulin said in the "Diamond Hand" - we will search, we will search! (-:
Thanks for the examples. The colors are really interesting, definitely worth a try.
Thank you for your feedback!
“That year I myself filmed Shrovetide at 5 dm3 + 24-70 2,8, and this year at d70s + sigma 18-35 1.8. I didn’t see any fundamental difference ”+“ Even some photographers don’t see the difference in image quality, let alone customers. ” = Direct insult to Arcadia's site! Who does he do all these reviews for then?
What is the insult? Reviews do for everyone interested, including me.
If “readers” don't see the difference - why write to such “readers”?
A person who does not see the difference between shooting with a professional (albeit from Canon) set and an old (albeit from Nikon) amateur camera will not see a difference in the picture in 99% of lens reviews on Radozhiv. Hence the conclusion - why throw beads in front of such “readers” ...
Thus, the meaning of such a titanic work of Arkady is questioned. Therefore, as a seer, I consider this a deep insult to this wonderful site and myself!
Well, it's your business, think so. Well, let me remind you that I wrote “I didn't see a fundamental difference”, which means that there is a difference, but not a cardinal one, do you understand? Of course, 5dm3 has lower noise, but on ISO 200 both are without much noise, 5dm3 higher resolution, but when viewed on a full HD monitor in full size this is not visible, at d70s the rate of fire is lower and autofocus is slower, but again you cannot see this in frames ... Except that dd stands out on contrasting scenes at 5dm3, but it was cloudy and dd d70s was enough. And why did you decide that “The person who does not see the difference between shooting ...”, I'm not saying that everything is one to one, I am saying that both sets made a good picture. If you adjust the bb and the resolution, erase the exif, I can hardly determine with 100% accuracy where what was shot. And this despite the fact that I shot myself, let alone the pictures of other people.
I also note that similar tests were conducted more than once on clubphoto and other forums - people laid out unprocessed jpegs with shabby exeif, shot on very different cameras such as 1dx and 400d with approximately the same settings and the same scene. Pros with many years of experience guessed at best 70 to 30, or even just 50 to 50, that is, with a finger to the sky. Moreover, the photos were both studio ones, where it is completely difficult to distinguish something, and street ones. In addition, often, even from the classic photos of bokehi, lovers of this business could not tell what was in front of them - some old zenitar or Zeiss, Canon or Nikon. There were a few users who guessed most of the images, but still not all.
In addition, note that I didn’t have a whale 70-18 on the d55s, but a very good sigma lens, which, for me, allows you to use the crop to take pictures comparable in flu and sharpness with pictures on ff with a zoom of 24-70 2.8 .
Well, in general, to be offended is your right, I cannot take it away.
And, actually, I'm not the only reader happy. If Arkady, like you, thinks that I personally am a “reader”, before whom beads rush, and I insult him and other readers with my comments, then he and you can simply ignore my messages, the benefit of other readers is very much even.
I subscribe to your every word!
My friends and acquaintances often do not distinguish between photos taken on the phone, a soap box and a DSLR with good optics, so I’m also ready to subscribe to an article :-)
... And sometimes they also ask to print out photographs that are only suitable for a trash can - at what both in the plot and in quality ...
Lenses are just an aperture and lenses, a matrix is a matrix on Nikon, and Kenon, and on deshman, and on flagships.
Why make a dramatic difference in the picture, if both lenses are made of glass, approximately the same round shape and +/- the same size. Matrices are generally standardized, all with Bayer with red, green and blue filters, and not with purple, yellow and blue.
And, note, everyone is equally flat, and not, for example, bent into an arc, like modern TVs.
And as for the laws of optics, I’m generally silent, do you really think that on an expensive camera there will somehow behave a very special way to the dispersion circle, rather than on a cheap one? Maybe there is some kind of technology or it can be fixed with firmware, right?
And if everything is the same, like two snowflakes, is it any wonder that in the total mass of snow you cannot (yes, YOU can not!) Distinguish them if you do not have a microscope. Yes and whether it is necessary?
Snowmen will still turn out to be as big as much effort has been spent on them, and will be equally cold and white.
like a car is a body on 4 wheels, but it can be either a foreign car or a bucket with bolts
You have no idea how right.
But just, let's agree yet we do not compare pinholes and stuff. So we leave aside the buckets with bolts.
And so - yes, there can be no practical difference between new cars of different brands and prices. Sit in a taxi, close your eyes and do not distinguish Logan from Camry or Focus from Solaris.
Well, and what difference does it make to you, as a customer, if in any case you get to the place on time with sufficient +/- comfort?
Of course, there are special troubles with each brand, with service there, etc. but by and large - those are still eggs, only in profile.
Onotole, so to speak, then progress (scientific and technical) is not needed. And the difference between the Ford T and the modern Mondeo would not be.
Only "IMHO" is missing :)
Those. in the lenses the projected image is not affected by the photosensitive layer (matrix or film) ?:
-enlightenment
-number of aperture blades and their shape
-the presence of aspherical elements
optical scheme
lens material
- precision drive focus
Doesn't it affect matrices ?:
sensor size
microlenses
-availability of antimoire
signal to noise ratio
And the cameras do not care?
autofocus system
exposure metering algorithm
CPU performance
-convenience of management
system reliability
If all this doesn’t make a difference, then a pinhole is in our hands, and even better, a wall in a cave for painting on stone.
-coating -> mostly only for strong backlight
- the number of aperture blades and their shape -> on open - does not affect at all, on closed - only on bokeh and only if the background is sufficiently contrasting
-the presence of aspherical elements -> affects, but not as much as marketers write about it in advertising
-the optical scheme -> just don't tell me that you can determine the optical scheme of the lens from the photo
- lens material -> not plastic and okay.
-precision of the focusing drive -> what did you mean?
Doesn't it affect matrices ?:
-size of the sensor -> it certainly influences, but again it all depends on the conditions, and if so much depended on it, then pictures on an iPhone with a sensor in a match head would not have been obtained practically at all.
-microlenses -> and what, and what they are, I do not vkurse. Do the D7000 have good microlenses, for example?
-the presence of antimoir -> only if viewed with a magnifying glass
-signal to noise ratio -> for extremely difficult shooting conditions which any photographer should try to avoid.
And the cameras do not care?
- autofocus system -> for many, autofocus is generally unnecessary, somehow they manage to take good photos with manual lenses? Or is the manual picture somehow not so striking?
-exposure metering algorithm -> I put whatever you like, you will never guess the exposure algorithm from the photo.
-CPU performance -> WTF? What does this have to do with it?
-convenience of management
-reliability of the system -> this, by the way, is the cornerstone of how an expensive camera / lens / auto differs from a cheap one. Reliability and convenience. For this, they take mostly money (although the reliability of cheap / expensive cars does not quite fit into this rule, but we are now talking about photographic equipment, right?).
But how much reliability and convenience affect the final photo? Fair?
If all this doesn’t make a difference, then a pinhole is in our hands, and even better, a wall in a cave for painting on stone.
->
Very strange juggling. If I claim that I will get from the point of home to work at the same time both on a car and on a horse-drawn carriage (and let’s say this), then why should I now ride a horse chtoli?
I have said it more than once: not only is the result important, but the process also has not the last meaning.
In the dry residue:
do not take pictures in the back and better on the open, so that the circles are round and there are no hares
we do not pay attention to distortion
lens designers went in vain beyond monocle
glass can be any (as in the USSR with bubbles) if not plastic
50-f plastic fiction or 50 / 1.4 have the same backlash in the drive and are stable both
the size of the sensor is sufficient in the match head
matrices of all manufacturers have the same quality
sharpness is the lot of photo shoppers
the photographer is better off avoiding shooting in difficult lighting
for many autofocus, manual lenses are generally unnecessary; our everything
set the expopair manually (not even an expopair, because on an open photo shoot)
processor performance is not important because it’s better not to shoot moving objects, and the time between pressing the shutter and fixing the image is not interesting to anyone
system reliability: turned on - did not turn on, pressed the trigger did not take a picture, photographed, but did not write down the hell with him
Reliability and convenience. For this, they take mainly money
Whether there is a picture or not, its quality is not affected
From good technology and the photographer is pleased
“But how much does reliability and convenience affect the final photo? Fair?"
Here you are walking around, say, Prague, on vacation, taking pictures for pleasure, and then bang - and the shutter jammed. Now tell me, how does reliability affect the photo?
The trick is that you can not get any photos at all in the event of a hardware failure.
Out of context. It was about quality, about the differences between photos from cheap and expensive equipment. What does this have to do with it?
According to this logic, then public transport plays a role: Here you are walking around, say, Prague, on vacation, taking pictures for pleasure, and then bam - and the tram ran over you, and you did not take any photos ...
Maybe not in the subject, but what kind of impression was formed from this wonderful Sigma? The information on the Internet is mixed. I would especially like to know your opinion about autofocus.
I wrote above. In short, autofocus behaves differently on different carcasses. If there is only one carcass, then either immediately see if it hits the target, or take a docking station. The main disadvantage of glass as for me. Well, the lack of weather protection. The rest is just pluses - sharpness, drawing, speed af, aperture.
"Good means of production do not go to producers, but to consumers in the worst sense of the word." - Ay, bravo!
Yes, those who like to “reinvent the wheel” are not decreasing ... they believe that the so-called. “Old trash” - it sucks ... well, look at THIS from the other side: which is better - optics, which “live” for decades (and will live as long), or “plastic modern miracle”, which will crack at the first fall on asphalt, or in a few years the worm couplings will wear out and you will be forced to buy a similar gadget again? But, the most interesting thing in this situation is that the level of photographic works, which are especially eloquent here on the portal, does not reach the level of the picture created by a simple, ordinary, penny Industar! Run in the wrong direction, guys! And, Arkady - THANK YOU for voicing the thoughts that visited me too.
Correct theses and conclusions! Arkady!
Of course, it is more pleasant to work with good technology, and this is not a question for discussion, but by and large, especially in everyday commercial photography, this is not so important.
My friend once worked on weddings with a mirrored Olympus, then Obimpus had a failure, and a friend switched to the Nikon D700, and now he is back to Olympus, only works without a SLR camera.
So the main thing is not what, but how to shoot, and it completely depends on the photographer.
That is why it is often funny for me to read and hear the opinions of nutcrackers who are fixated on the technique (because I don’t dare call such comrades a photographer). Well, for example, artists do not argue about the qualities and merits of brushes ... :-)
Do not exaggerate about the artists. In photography, visualization is carried out using technical means, their influence cannot be denied.
It has long been checked for details of Arcadia. Crazy.
I know the photo for myself, and I will also get used to my thoughts, but the technique for a lot of people is fig. People didn’t care about the photo, but those who didn’t know it. Nostalgic guesses D40. I know about D80, before I bought a decal about "active" and I think about it. If you go to the next frame - it’s not really robotic, because it’s depriving ponti of people who want to use photographic technology. First of all, the best photos for koristuvachiv - as in the minimum of crumbling and de-vidosutni “poisonous”, wild colors.
Oh, and I love you ... read))) !!!
Yes, an unexpected "optimization", all this is a little sad.
All the same, Lynx is right to say: "that a big brick is not always needed." Well, the difference between a crop and a full frame in a photo and a specialist will not always notice
On the whole, everything is correct, and I personally completely agree with both the topic and those who speak in the same vein that if you look from the point of view of the final result (a beautiful, well-made, interesting photograph), then there is very little use in expensive technology. Take a look at the example of the work of the nominees for the WordPress competition - yes, everyone there uses a technique of at least Mark3 level. But, are there any photos there that could not be captured exactly the same, but with the help of the D3000 with a whale?
Once again, it is important not what was filmed, but how filmed.
But in fairness, I want to remind you that another point of view may also take place.
Of course, the one who earns a living by photography is most important to get the result, preferably spending as little time, money and effort as possible, like any other professional in any other craft.
But what if photography is just a hobby? If for a person the process is much more important than the result (because he is an adequate person and understands perfectly well that he does not shine with the second Cartier-Bresson under any circumstances). And in all honesty, which camera / lens / other equipment will make the process more pleasant? Old-cheap-bad or new-good-expensive?
And if such amateur people, earning enough from their main activity (and, moreover, by honest labor!), Decide to buy for themselves even the same Mark4 with a set of L-glasses, clearly realizing that they will not be able to realize even a 10th part of all their capabilities, but they will get immeasurably more pleasure from practicing their favorite hobby than if they had a thoroughly amateurish, miserable 1200D, then do the hardened pros with helios and helios in their bosoms have the right to point a finger at them and say: "Fu, a photoonanist !!" ?????
Dont Have
A professional will never say "Fu".
Photo curing Yes, this is his main task.
Having read it to the tsyo m_stsya; “Right now I'm shooting orders mostly for Nikon D90”
thinking “I don’t recognize Arcadia ...”
Having read to the end of the day, I will remember it for a while !!!!!!!!!!!
D90 is not a D700 at all, but a good device in our hands!
Before the confirmation, I’ll say that I’m working in the photo studio and for our friend I often create photos from telephones, with a simple haggard appearance, defecting, noise, dark photos, the smallest pogirshuvachiv ...
I have nothing to do with the pleasures.
If you bring orders from mirror cameras, it’s okay to do it, but you’ll get your feet in auto mode - or even nothing ...
I myself know on the D7000 + recently having bought the D70 (for classy colors and the nearby Maybucker photo gallery)
About photographic equipment and not only. With the filing of Topygin. Just google Miroslav Tikhiy.
Andrei, imagine how many times a young couple will be shocked, for example, if such a colorful photographer, with such unique technique, comes to them to photograph a wedding (or baptism, love story, etc.). Or does a person come to the studio to capture the family, and there is such a photographer, samples of his work are hanging, would you stay to take a photo? :)