quote:Originally posted by eeyun
Go somewhere else, you're not wanted here.
Thank you, you're not wanted here either.
quote:Originally posted by splitboarder
Arnold, while its perfectly clear you received no love as a child, there is no reason to result to calling names because someone has a different viewpoint.
Not because he has a different viewpoint, but because he's an asshole.
quote:Why is it that every topic you post to is just you bullying (unsuccessfully) other members.
That is your viewpoint, that you are free to express if it makes you happy.
o you need help Arnold? Going through a rough time? I suggest you vent your frustrations elsewhere, you have no idea how stupid you ridiculous you make yourself look...
Does it look like I care how I look to you? If only people were a little more independent...
quote:Now to respond to the quarrel you caused on this topic. I somewhat agree with you, there will be times when a difference cannot be discerned from for example a prime vs. a zoom lens. Good glass vs. bad glass are such general terms though, I wouldn't consider the nifty 50 from canon (ef 50 f1.8ii) to be good glass but yet stopped down its stellar, in fact most poorer lenses are still quite adequate when stopped down. But then there's the times you shoot with wider aperatures, wide open even. There you would certainly see a difference in most comparisons (sticking with prime vs. zoom as the example though there are still exceptions - see above nifty 50 or the 70-200f4L is great wide open). There are also more things to consider then just sharpness/detail. Strong considerations in many lens choices include flare resistance, bokeh, good contrast and colour, qualities that pricier glass is engineered to improve on. SLR lenses span the gamut to match any application, hell I know pro photogs who have never bothered with primes, others still who use them exclusively, they all have their reasons. At an amateur level though, I would agree the difference is mostly insignificant all other things being equal.
You miss the point that a great lens doesn't make a photo great, and that a good lens doesn't make a photo good. Seeing that you're mentioning "good contrast and colour" does not help either. Why are you comparing a 50/1.8 lens wide open to 70-200/4 wide open? If you were comparing them both being at f4, then the 50 will put the 70 to shame. Pixel peeping aside, you will not see a difference and it will not make a great photo just a "good" photo. Flare resistance...of course, but we're talking about technically great photos. Shooting into the sun (aka being completely oblivious to where the sun is) is not technically great, but technically awful. I understand there are some special situations where shooting into the sun would make a great photo, but these are minimal, and even an expensive lens will have enough of visible flare.
I see the same thing over and over again among SLR beginners. First they ask what camera you use, so they would buy the same one, ignorantly assuming that all it takes is a nice big black camera. They buy the camera, then they progress to the next logical step: whine about how absolutely what's holding them back from taking great pictures is the consumer grade lens they got. They buy an "L", and realize that their pictures still suck. If they're smart, they will start looking at themselves as being the source of all the problems. If they're stupid, they'll just put their expensive toys on ebay and find themselves a new pocket sized P&S camera. It would have been much better if they would instead used and learned what they had, mastered their skills, and hit the ceiling, then they would precisely know the limitations of their current gear, and why they need something more expensive. So what I'm trying to say here is a photographer makes a great/good/awful photo, not his equipment or his status (pro/amateur). If someone is taking just good or awful photos, then he should look for problems in his techniques and fix them. If I still didn't get my point across, then it's likely that we have a different definition for great/good photos. For examples of great photos you can look here: http://borievky.com/gallery.php
or here http://www.photographybyvarina.com/
For examples of good photos...I'm sure you can find them yourself all over the internet.
quote:Originally posted by Matt
You're joking, right?
quote:Originally posted by swebster
Of course there are many scenarios where the differences are much greater.
In landscape photography the most evident scenario you will ever see is in the amount of CA. By this I mean see in real life, not pixel peeping. However, that will not render a technically great photo just "good". Besides, any such flows are later easily removed in PP anyway.