Since my primary camera for most of the last fifteen years was a
Mamiya Universal, I don't think so.
But, if my primary income, instead of just occasional, was from
photography I would have felt the need for a newer system. The
reason for that is the need for off the shelf equipment
availablit
Well, I will agree that the very best primes are better than the
very best zooms. But, once you get to the point the lens is
professionally acceptable it becomes more of desire than a
need.
If the quality of the image is very important I will go with a
bigger negative. Remember, my Graphic wi
>> I would venture if you make your living with your camera you won't be
using elderly equipment, you could not
afford to. <<
Well I can see where some might not want to "risk" it from the standpoint of
reliability and the problem of getting stuck all or part way through an
assignment with a brok
I live in a small town (Poolesville, Maryland) that has several historical
buildings. While visitng one such building with my Super Program and a 28mm
lens, I noticed an old-timer in the backyard, setting up his SLR on a
tripod.
"Hi!" I said. "Do you live around here?"
"No. I'm a longtime photog
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> "This is my way. What is
> your way? There is no such thing as THE WAY."
> --Tom
I never said it was the right way
But it's m
Sure, Bill, I agree with you to a point. But those large slow
moving cameras are for that kind of work. Except for folks who
are too poor to own but one camera, why would one want to work
that way with 35mm? And, those relatively poor photographers
aren't going to have a bag full of primes.
I
> William Robb wrote:
> >
> > What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
> > played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
> > photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
> > to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
> > think that
Your comments make some sense for ups Pentax users who can use
just about any lens Pentax ever made. But, for those other
brands? However, I would venture if you make your living with
your camera you won''t be using elderly equipment, you could not
afford to.
--Tom
"Provencher, Paul M." wrote:
William Robb wrote:
>
> What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
> played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
> photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
> to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
> think that it is cheatin
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> Hi Tom,
>
> I will take a gamble on this ( tell me how wrong I am Bill ),
I suspect Bill is
> referring to considered composition not s
At 02:14 AM 3/6/01 EST, you wrote:
>
>Todd<< : It would end up going against the A 50mm F1.4, and maybe a Sears
>50mm F1.7 for kicks.>>
>
>That comparison might be good for you, but wouldn't satisfy the test
>requirements.
>The tests are ~not~ for consumer zooms, just pro zooms.
I wasn't sure.
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: March 6, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and agai
I can't help but reply to this, and I will probably regret doing so... But
here goes...
>>Actually, the only thing prime only shooters have is faster-maybe
sharper. What other outstanding attributes do primes offer a "pro" zoom
won't? <<
Well, without commenting about image quality, flexibilit
On 6 Mar 2001, at 9:41, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and again
> disparaged the use of zooms and cropping in this never ending
> thread (renamed several times), and that your gallery entry this
> month is a highly cropped zoom lens photo.
> How do you r
William Robb wrote:
> Even in medium format, there are only a handful of zooms
> available from all the manufacturers combined.
Pentax makes a whole ONE zoom for the 67: the 55-100.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and fo
>Zooms make you lazy? Huh? How? That is a new twist on an old urban legend.
Applied to me. I had the same problem with zooms.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
Mafud quotes extensively and says:
> Paal responds to Mafud:
>
> Not Mafud > You need to be a good photographer to take full advantage of a
> zoom
>
> Pal<< :Probably true of taking *full* advantage of any lens, but I'll grant
> that with more to control on a zoom, there's more to learn h
I have a headache and am not sure how coherent this is going to
wind up being, but here goes anyhow. I need to wrap this up
and get back to work, so I'm going to be a bit more lazy with my
text-editing than I'd usually allow myself... How, ah, ironically
_a_propos_. Didn't plan it that way, hon
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: March 5, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> What we don't ever factor into the discussion is this: what
would HCB, Adams
> and the other "prime only" gre
Comments mixed in.
At 05:24 PM 3/5/01 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 3/5/2001 11:41:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><< I agree - either cropping with a zoom or copping by proximity works for
me.
> >>
>
>Hi Tom!
>
>We often forget, when shooting primes, that composi
20 matches
Mail list logo
