What's the most useful technology in photography?
- Thread starter ckiang
- Start date
- Status
hmmm....how about the advent of digital sensors capable of capturing images as a replacement for film?
Originally posted by Red Dawn
hmmm....how about the advent of digital sensors capable of capturing images as a replacement for film?
Intentionally left out, coz this WILL garner the most votes. So no point there. ;p
Regards
CK
Tou left out the most useful technology of the lot....
THE Human Brain
After all all the electro-optical technology is worth nothing if the person using the camera isn't up to the job in terms of knowledge, creativity and knows when to override the machinery.
THE Human Brain
After all all the electro-optical technology is worth nothing if the person using the camera isn't up to the job in terms of knowledge, creativity and knows when to override the machinery.
Actually the first thing that comes to mind is dry emulsions... imagine still having to set up a tent... get silver nitrate onto glass panel, then put into the camera....
The next was the light meter...... Can't imagine how camera and lens will develope without light meters... And then it'll only be limited to people who really go all out to pick up the art... Metering using the eye...
The next was the light meter...... Can't imagine how camera and lens will develope without light meters... And then it'll only be limited to people who really go all out to pick up the art... Metering using the eye...
C
camera1001
Guest
I don't own any IS (Image Stab.) but I must say IS should be the one for tele lenses. Not so much for the 28-135mm. Also, fast and silent AF. No intention for any flames but I have to say Canon beats its competitors hands-down in these areas.
Oh here we go again...
Actually my own take is that IS is more applicable in the shorter lenses. The long teles are all big and heavy, and aside possibly from the 300/2.8 for short lengths of time, anything longer should be on a monopod or some other kind of support anyway.
Which leaves the shorter lenses. Which run into the problem of subject motion. Which brings us back to the real usefulness of IS lying in shooting from an unstable platform. And not a great deal else.
The one lens I see IS type technology being of some real use is in a 70-200 class lens, and possibly in a 300/2.8.
And as for fast and silent AF... do I really need to start again? Yes it's nice to have, but I'd hardly call it a huge advancement in the last 20 years.
Go through CK's list and ask yourself what has REALLY improved picture taking. What, if you had to do without, would have the most impact in the way that you work. As I've said before ad nauseum, 98% of the things people not in a specialised industry shoot can happily be done using manual focus. While helping to overcome laziness and breeding a generation of pampered photographers is credible, it does not replace the real advances made by technology to improve photo taking.
Actually my own take is that IS is more applicable in the shorter lenses. The long teles are all big and heavy, and aside possibly from the 300/2.8 for short lengths of time, anything longer should be on a monopod or some other kind of support anyway.
Which leaves the shorter lenses. Which run into the problem of subject motion. Which brings us back to the real usefulness of IS lying in shooting from an unstable platform. And not a great deal else.
The one lens I see IS type technology being of some real use is in a 70-200 class lens, and possibly in a 300/2.8.
And as for fast and silent AF... do I really need to start again? Yes it's nice to have, but I'd hardly call it a huge advancement in the last 20 years.
Go through CK's list and ask yourself what has REALLY improved picture taking. What, if you had to do without, would have the most impact in the way that you work. As I've said before ad nauseum, 98% of the things people not in a specialised industry shoot can happily be done using manual focus. While helping to overcome laziness and breeding a generation of pampered photographers is credible, it does not replace the real advances made by technology to improve photo taking.
oh no... some debate again
IS...IMHO is really important and it does improve picture taking in my context, there are times when I took shots from my 75-300 IS instead of using the 70-200 at 2.8 coz the depth is juz too shallow. And the dim light conditions cause me to shoot much slow than technically possible, if not for the IS to the rescue. Sure people say bad lens, might as well dont take, but then this lens ain't too bad also, f8 I can hardly see any differeence between these 2 lens, and I can shoot with the IS lens when the 70-200 cannot be handheld anymore....
there's no single MOST important technology, IS is just one of the marvels.....
but to cut things short i shall stop adding more comments here on....
IS...IMHO is really important and it does improve picture taking in my context, there are times when I took shots from my 75-300 IS instead of using the 70-200 at 2.8 coz the depth is juz too shallow. And the dim light conditions cause me to shoot much slow than technically possible, if not for the IS to the rescue. Sure people say bad lens, might as well dont take, but then this lens ain't too bad also, f8 I can hardly see any differeence between these 2 lens, and I can shoot with the IS lens when the 70-200 cannot be handheld anymore....
there's no single MOST important technology, IS is just one of the marvels.....
but to cut things short i shall stop adding more comments here on....
In what situation does, say, f5.6 increase the DOF of a telephoto lens to a significant extent such that it becomes acceptable whereas 2.8 on a 200mm isn't?
And the dim light conditions cause me to shoot much slow than technically possible, if not for the IS to the rescue.
IS gives you two stops. So does your 70-200/2.8. There is no substitute for lens speed at the end of the day.
f8 I can hardly see any differeence between these 2 lens, and I can shoot with the IS lens when the 70-200 cannot be handheld anymore....
I'm certainly not suggesting that it is optically inferior. Although there is a huge optical difference at the larger apertures. Namely, from f2.8 to f5. I'm sure you'll agree there's no contest there. And as above, you can hand hold the 70-200/2.8 as slow as you can with the 70-300, assuming you can drop your aperture down to f2.8. Which is why I asked my first question, what application do your have where f5.6 is sufficient but f2.8 is not.
there's no single MOST important technology, IS is just one of the marvels.....
Certainly not one SINGLE most important technology, but the gist of the question is not if there IS one, but what the most important one has been.
IS is a marvel yes, but it's strength I feel is often greatly overestimated. As I said above, I see it's use chiefly limited to the 70-200/2.8 class fast zooms and to a lesser extent the 300/2.8. Anything with a slower aperture than f2.8 needs a speed boosts to f2.8 before worrying about IS. That and as already mentioned above, shooting from unstable platforms.
but to cut things short i shall stop adding more comments here on....
Oh, please don't. At least do answer that question about what you're shooting that f2.8 won't cover in the 70-200 range that f5.6 will.
C
camera1001
Guest
Jed, I've never read your previous posts or whatever prior to this but I think different pple feel differently on technologies that work for them.
As an eg, if you feel IS will not work for you, that's ok. Like I said, I don't own or even use an IS lens b4 but I believe they will help in a couple of cases that I've enountered. Personally, I've gotten numerous feedbacks from pple I know and reviews in magazines that are all-praise for IS. Not for mere argument's sake but real life egs of how their shots would have turned out bad had it not been for IS.
Is silent USM important to me??? OF COURSE!!!! I don't know how I can get away with many instances had my lenses gone "weeekkk-weeekkk" while focusing. Sure, if you want to downplay every or most technological improvements there exist, we'll be back to old manual cameras in the 70's. You can still take beautiful pictures without all the so-called gizmos as some would call it. In the light of this argument, why bother doing any research anymore to improve? What do you expect as a major improvement then, a camera that can talk and think like a human?
The present technologies are for us to utilize and work for different pple with different needs. The question is not so much Is it really necessary but rather What do YOU consider to be a major improvement in technology based on your task at hand. So it comes from your own experience, not an objective account.
So if you find silent film rewind and focusing, AF and all that as not being a significant improvement, it's ok. But if anyone asks me, I'd say they are.
Maybe some are just jealous over pple over-praising all these technologies that exist in their cameras and lenses which the former don't own or use. Of course, we often hear the objective photographer saying It's not in the equipment that makes you take great pictures but yourself. I certainly agree with this, but we should also not overlook the ease and advantages that certain technologies provide us. If you don't fully utilize or don't need them, they are of not much use. If you know how, it will help and work for you.
Even when you say you feel IS is useful only in 70-200mm and 300 f/2.8 lenses, bear in mind that you are also forming your own subjective opinion. This is certainly not of universal truth. It's only how you feel and I can tell you there are pple who use other zooms and primes with IS and they can definitely feel it working tremendously for them. To reiterate my earlier statement, different pple consider different technologies as useful for them.
As an eg, if you feel IS will not work for you, that's ok. Like I said, I don't own or even use an IS lens b4 but I believe they will help in a couple of cases that I've enountered. Personally, I've gotten numerous feedbacks from pple I know and reviews in magazines that are all-praise for IS. Not for mere argument's sake but real life egs of how their shots would have turned out bad had it not been for IS.
Is silent USM important to me??? OF COURSE!!!! I don't know how I can get away with many instances had my lenses gone "weeekkk-weeekkk" while focusing. Sure, if you want to downplay every or most technological improvements there exist, we'll be back to old manual cameras in the 70's. You can still take beautiful pictures without all the so-called gizmos as some would call it. In the light of this argument, why bother doing any research anymore to improve? What do you expect as a major improvement then, a camera that can talk and think like a human?
The present technologies are for us to utilize and work for different pple with different needs. The question is not so much Is it really necessary but rather What do YOU consider to be a major improvement in technology based on your task at hand. So it comes from your own experience, not an objective account.
So if you find silent film rewind and focusing, AF and all that as not being a significant improvement, it's ok. But if anyone asks me, I'd say they are.
Maybe some are just jealous over pple over-praising all these technologies that exist in their cameras and lenses which the former don't own or use. Of course, we often hear the objective photographer saying It's not in the equipment that makes you take great pictures but yourself. I certainly agree with this, but we should also not overlook the ease and advantages that certain technologies provide us. If you don't fully utilize or don't need them, they are of not much use. If you know how, it will help and work for you.
Even when you say you feel IS is useful only in 70-200mm and 300 f/2.8 lenses, bear in mind that you are also forming your own subjective opinion. This is certainly not of universal truth. It's only how you feel and I can tell you there are pple who use other zooms and primes with IS and they can definitely feel it working tremendously for them. To reiterate my earlier statement, different pple consider different technologies as useful for them.
Oh yeah, certainly, I'm not disputing that.
Personally, I've gotten numerous feedbacks from pple I know and reviews in magazines that are all-praise for IS. Not for mere argument's sake but real life egs of how their shots would have turned out bad had it not been for IS.
As I said above, there aren't too many areas where IS really works, is essence it's more marketing spiel. And as for magazines, they're all paid up subscribers to the manufacturers, do you really think they can say anything bad about anything the manufacturers churn out?
The question is not so much Is it really necessary but rather What do YOU consider to be a major improvement in technology based on your task at hand. So it comes from your own experience, not an objective account.
Actually, the question's "What's the most useful technology in photography?" There's no specific "you" in that question. Maybe CK wanted an objective account, who knows.
At any rate, it asks for the "most" important, and you've come up with two most importants. Nice one.
I don't doubt that you find USM to be thoroughly invigorating, and similarly would be very pleased with IS. No doubt, so would I.
The issue is to determine which of that list is "most important", you have to look through that list to pick one in lieu of all the rest. I'm just saying that while IS and USM are certainly useful, they are not hardly essential, especially when compared to one of those other options.
So if you find silent film rewind and focusing, AF and all that as not being a significant improvement, it's ok. But if anyone asks me, I'd say they are.
As above, they might well be a significant improvement, but are they the "most" important?
Maybe some are just jealous over pple over-praising all these technologies that exist in their cameras and lenses which the former don't own or use.
Oh really?
Even when you say you feel IS is useful only in 70-200mm and 300 f/2.8 lenses, bear in mind that you are also forming your own subjective opinion. This is certainly not of universal truth. It's only how you feel and I can tell you there are pple who use other zooms and primes with IS and they can definitely feel it working tremendously for them.
True, as is your subjective opinion. Evidence of people using and enjoying it does not make something the most important technology. In fact, in this given day and age, it's not even evidence of important technology. Especially in Singapore where so many people own huge, fast cars, and feel them working tremendously for them. Or where photographers own cameras that they'll never fully utilise either.
To reiterate my earlier statement, different pple consider different technologies as useful for them.
Yes. But the most useful? From that list?
Hi,
Useful technology.
I think it would be just the choice of a good camera body (not necessarily branded, but one you trust & feel confortable handling), a decent lens array, and ultimately - our inner eye.
Technology I feel, should be something that aids and assists, making certain aspects of traditional photography more time-saving, while not altering the art and approach of it altogether.
Good photography is patience, awareness, looking & not just seeing, feeling for the presence of a picture, respect for light and natural laws. And it was never ever meant to be - easy.
Enough said, I am still just a beginner....
Regards,
CJ
:embrass:
Useful technology.
I think it would be just the choice of a good camera body (not necessarily branded, but one you trust & feel confortable handling), a decent lens array, and ultimately - our inner eye.
Technology I feel, should be something that aids and assists, making certain aspects of traditional photography more time-saving, while not altering the art and approach of it altogether.
Good photography is patience, awareness, looking & not just seeing, feeling for the presence of a picture, respect for light and natural laws. And it was never ever meant to be - easy.
Enough said, I am still just a beginner....
Regards,
CJ
:embrass:
Hi There,
Personally, and as a matter of fact a personal preference or taste, Photoshop is in its own right a very useful and manipulative image editor. And an image creator as well.
To me, this belongs to the likes of Industrial Light and Magic sort of genre. A useful technology for photography, it is not. Of course useful in touching up softness and poor metering. But wouldn't this be like MSG, used to spice up averagely cooked food?
But in Web Designing and Creations, PS is a tremendous help and use.
I still believe in the painstaking craft of darkroom manipulation, dodging manually, burning in manually. A craft, once automated, is a craft no longer. It would then have mutated into another category.
Regards,
CJ
Personally, and as a matter of fact a personal preference or taste, Photoshop is in its own right a very useful and manipulative image editor. And an image creator as well.
To me, this belongs to the likes of Industrial Light and Magic sort of genre. A useful technology for photography, it is not. Of course useful in touching up softness and poor metering. But wouldn't this be like MSG, used to spice up averagely cooked food?
But in Web Designing and Creations, PS is a tremendous help and use.
I still believe in the painstaking craft of darkroom manipulation, dodging manually, burning in manually. A craft, once automated, is a craft no longer. It would then have mutated into another category.
Regards,
CJ
I voted Auto Focus , but if were was one option as computers , i will was vote on that .
The power of the computers have change ,and will continue to change the ways that people do things .
At the bottom line or the DCs is computers , and all the computers does have common language OS , and they cooperate together , easy as that .
The DCs got boarn to work with computers .. Its so simple .
The old fashion photographers , does admire the power of the digital cameras , but they hate computers ..
Well that's theyr biger problem mostly , simply becauce , they think that its too late to learn how to use them .
The power of the computers have change ,and will continue to change the ways that people do things .
At the bottom line or the DCs is computers , and all the computers does have common language OS , and they cooperate together , easy as that .
The DCs got boarn to work with computers .. Its so simple .
The old fashion photographers , does admire the power of the digital cameras , but they hate computers ..
Well that's theyr biger problem mostly , simply becauce , they think that its too late to learn how to use them .
- Status
Similar threads
