Jump to content

Good enough is good enough?


jeffrey_prokopowicz

Recommended Posts

<p>I see photographers who are always looking to acquire the sharpest lenses and the highest spec'd cameras. I see Nikon photographers who are using Zeiss lenses and adapters to mount various top-shelf lenses from other manufacturers. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it but it seems to me that good enough is good enough. I own good gear but nothing super expensive or exotic. I have a Nikon D700, D200, and a D80. I own all Nikon lenses, the usual AF-D primes and a few good zooms for my D200 (12-24, 17-55, and 80-200/2.8). I never find myself looking for greater image quality since it seems to me that the picture succeeds or fails on the subject of the picture. I mean if I capture a great image it's a great image whether the image quality is Leica-like or just Nikon good. If my picture fails, all the sharpness, detail and noiselessness in the world is not going to save it. So my point is that I'm perfectly content with my Nikon gear and feel that the quality is good enough for any reasonable photographer. Good enough is good enough. Am I nuts?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No, you are perfectly sane (in this respect at least).<br>

Ultimately, the qualities of a photo are determined by composition, colour, light. The rest are just tools to achieve that, where each toolset has its own pros and cons.<br>

That said, a set of decent sharp lenses does help of course.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you are doing fine!<br>

If the quality of your photos are good enough for you, why should you bother getting more expensive equipment? I am sure that you can do many other fun things with your funds. Maybe spending some on a travel, where you can take even better photos?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeffrey,<br>

I think you're sane in your attitude that Nikon lenses are good enough. Now, Leica are supposed to be better. OK but from what I know that's all MF & that's just insane to have all MF lenses today.<br>

I have expensive equipment & I admit it. But I have to admit I will not spend the extra money on the Leica lenses. For most that I do AF is really the best way to go.<br>

Also, based upon what you're telling us you have in lenses, you have some very nice lenses.<br>

Like Wouter writes</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Ultimately, the qualities of a photo are determined by composition, colour, light. The rest are just tools to achieve that, where each toolset has its own pros and cons."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very well written I must say.<br>

Just enjoy your equipment & go out & have fun shooting with it. That's all that matters in the long run.<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The demand placed on lenses by ever higher resolution sensors often demands the best to really see the benefit. Printing very big or doing very critical work and trying to get away without medium format digital it probably is important.</p>

<p>For some though, I'm sure it's just as case of wanting to have the best of the best.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What is the average and maximum size that you are printing? The largest I've printed is 36x24 but I'm sure there are others printing much larger. If you do and always use a tripod then you can probably see the difference between lenses and the difference between a D3 and 24MP D3X. Some of them use medium format but it can get cumbersome in the field.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If I remember the story correctly, Nikon got a big boost in the post-WWII United States, when Time/Life photographers covering the Korean War had to replace some damaged equipment. At the time they used Leica, but none was available in Japan. They tried Nikon and found the lenses the equal of, or better than, their Leica equipment. </p>

<p>Since being a Time/Life photographer at that time is like being a National Geographic photographer today, their endorsement carried quite a bit of weight. My feeling is if it is good enough for Time/Life, it certainly is more than good enough for me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Are any of us reasonable photographers? The right choice of ink and paper to print on are by far more important than most of the things we discuss. The choice of mat color and frame are more important than camera or whichever zoom. I know this as well as anyone, but does it stop me from lusting for the latest and greatest? Nope. But you have a D700 so you must be worse than I am!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There was a recent post of someone complaining that photos from his D300 were not acceptable. My feeling was that they were very good. I believe good enough is good enough. I've been using two D70s bodies for the last three plus years with a Tokina 12-24, Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4, 70-300 VR and just recently a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I shoot concerts and events and posted on a Wednesday a shot I took using ISO 1600 for the first time, I was pleased to see that it came out very well. Maybe someone else would say it's too grainy for them, but I was happy. I have not tried to print one at 13 x 19 on my Canon i9900, which I will try as a test.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>good enough is an entirely subjective term, it means different things to different people...</p>

<p>however, i think you're on the right track. whenever i think about getting a new body/lens, i say to myself, have i completely exhausted the possibilities of my current gear? are there lenses on my wish list? sure. would a d3/d700/14-24/24-70/85pc make me happier? probably. would it make me a better photographer? not necessarily.</p>

<p>i think gear should be look at as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Lil Judd: Now, Leica are supposed to be better. OK but from what I know that's all MF & that's just insane to have all MF lenses today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's say you want a huge landscape print, would you prefer best possible quality or AF?<br>

A lot of macro work is done manually and same goes for setup / studio shoots.<br>

Canon 17, 24, 45 and 90 TS-E lenses (basically for architecture, landscapes, product shoots and close-ups) are MF.<br>

MF really isn't such a big issue for all purposes and MF only lenses tend to have really good focus rings.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for all the kind responses! I forgot I posted this thread.</p>

<p>Michael, a "crappy lens" is not good enough. I mean equipment that's good enough but not necessarily considered the best.</p>

<p>Eric, yes, good enough is "subjective," but photographers seem to have no problem telling when something isn't good enough, if that makes sense.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone! </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's totally ok to be content with a certain level of quality, in fact perfectly sane and rational. Since I'm continuously working to improve both the quality of my the content of my images as well as the technical quality of them let me offer another perspective. Suppose you're out there and in front of you you see a very photographic scene. You feel that this is probably the best shot you will get this year. So are you just going to have the shot in quality that is just ok or the best possible? Especially if the scene is such that you may want a big print. In order to stand out, you may need to have a very high technical quality; in this day when photographs are abundant, few people with bother to look at a picture with an interesting subject matter but not very technical execution.<br>

Further, improving the technical level oh the photographs can be a fun sub-hobby in itself :-) Alas, for some people photography is too much about the gear but I guess that's their hobby.<br>

Regarding AF lenses as superior to MF is, however, nuts. There are plenty of uses for both and AF is not showing any signs of obsoleting MF lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff P makes an excellent point. He also takes great photos (even though he doesn't always like it when I say so). :)</p>

<p>I don't think it's crazy at all. I'm prefectly happy with my first generation 70-200 f/2.8 VR G. Even though about half of the internet dismisses the 70-200 as "unusable on FX," I get great shots with it and don't see the need to upgrade to the new model right away.</p>

<p>Instead of rushing out to buy the amazing 14-24, I decided to take my old 20mm f/2.8 with me on my travels this year. Fanboy Nation has declared the 20mm f/2.8 to be "inferior," but I got some GREAT shots with this lens this year. As a bonus, the 20mm is very compact and lightweight.</p>

<p>I could have picked up a D3X if I had stretched my wallet in all sorts of ugly ways, but I decided to save the money and stick with the D700. The images I capture with my D700 delight me every time I look at them. Maybe someday I'll succumb to "hi-res mania," but for now, the D700 is making me extremely happy.</p>

<p>Leica? Zeiss? Well maybe if I win the Lotto. Nikon rocks!</p>

<p>It's all about what you SHOOT, not what you shoot it WITH.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is the first time I've posted a thread here where everyone seems to agree :). I better cherish this moment because I don't think it will ever happen again haha.<br>

<br />Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments: Wouter, Per-Christian, Lil, Nic, Mark, Walt, Brooks, RL, David, Michael, Eric, Kari, Michael Axel, Oscar and Dan. Great Posts! Thankyou all!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For general photography I don't place too much effort on lenses these days (reviews). Being an amateur I have used consumer kit lenses like a 80-200/4.5-5.6 and others have used Canon Rebel kit lenses and got favourable comments from judges. We have been more concerned about what the photograph is about than on equip or lens imperfections. </p>

<p>For what I do, landscapes and low light, I continue to use consumer lenses stopped down. If I was doing portraiture when I need fine details and color like skin, I may use a prime or one of the pro zooms. But I don't do that much. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In my little world it's pretty clear that the limiting factor is not my gear but my abilities as a photographer. Since my gear, in my estimation, fits into the "good enough" category, top-shelf lenses or a full frame camera with more megapixels are not factors that are going to elevate my photography. It's everything else except the gear.</p>

<p>Thanks Ray.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let me get this straight. I go to all the trouble of becoming as fluent as possible in Chinese language; custom build a flash kit that is second to no one's in terms of power/portability; read everything I can in books and on the internet to make myself as knowledgeable as possible in photography, and then go out and practice to make sure I really understand what I think that I have learned; take a 10-week vacation from my job; spend four days getting to the deserts of the ancient Silk Road; arrange to have five assistants for a shot that I've been planning for 18 months; spend four nights of 6-8 hours each in -20 degree weather on location; budget about $600 per photo (averaging all expenses) .....and you are saying I should make the shot with a kit zoom lens, instead of the best prime lens I can possibly afford ? I have a feeling that if you were in my situation, you might think differently. </p>

<p>"Good enough is good enough" may be a sensible statement to make for your situation (and it is true for me as well, MOST of the time, like for family vacation shots, pictures of pets, etc.). It can be dangerous to make generalizations that apply to all people at all times, however. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>That <em>IS</em> tactful, Jeffrey! ;-)<br /><br />I agree with the general statement you posed. For the kind of photography that <em>I</em> do, a good camera (that used to be the older F3 and F4, now D200), a couple of primes, TC's and extension rings allow me to take the best images I can. That means: good quality of the older type, not limited-featured consumer versions.</p>

<p>For the kind of expedition that mr. Olsen proposes, my gear would possibly consist of something more up-to-date, reliable and multi-purpose (incl. better AF, better AE, better flash and better sensor..). His contribution seeks a controversy that (as far as I read this thread) isn't there. "Good enough = good enough" for the situation at hand! Most posters in this thread seem to heartily agee on that, without immediately claiming a ban on modern, professional gear, or the right of amateurs to acquire that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ronald, forgive me, but I think it's amazingly tactful (even for the Diplomatic Corps.) considering that you went off on a long spiel that had nothing to do with what I posted. I was probably even talking about the very type of equipment that you use for your well-researched/ planned photo junkets.</p>

<p>In the end it's no big deal though, I'm grateful you took the time to respond. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks Albin. ;-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...