Will switching to FF and primes make me a better photographer?

[luis_g]

<p>"will my visualization skills, and overall photography improve?"</p>

<p>No. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Of course the other gear won't make you a better photographer, you already know that, having been a film major! You need to mentally focus on effectively using the gear you have rather than distracting yourself into thinking..."if only I had.....I could achieve....better". Ain't so. Now if you WANT to switch, just do it, no justification needed. OTOH, practice the skills and learn how to achieve your goals with what you have. All of us occasionally get GAS, but it is more of a successful marketing ploy which dazzled us than anything else. 99% of people could achieve results similar to what they want with old gear, and if they know film, they know they could do it with 1950s gear!</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>I am considering flipping my gear</em></strong> to full frame and all primes (particularly Canon 5d, Canon 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 100mm 2.8 macro) . . . and I do not foresee being at all unhappy with the 5d in any way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggest you do it.<br>

You will learn a great deal, by the doing of it.<br>

And you will learn more, by the using of the new gear.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[nathangardner]

If buying a corvette will make me a better driver.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>NO.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Yes, it might sorta make you a better photog. Owning better gear might inspire you, at least in the short run, to go out and practice shooting more and hence haphazard improvement might take place. Or, even more powerful, you may feel guilty about spending the price of a new car on photo gear and attempt to get you money's worth by taking classes, studying texts, polishing processing skills and shooting more. And when you get better at something you tend to enjoy it more and keep doing it. Worked for me!</p>

<p>Plus, buying more gear is good for the economy: spreads wealth by supporting retail, wholesale, shipping and manufacturing businesses. So get out there and enjoy life, buy new gear and shoot the living crap outta it!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I will go against the grain here (nothing unusual there) and say, it very well might. In and of itself there is no reason it should, but that is too narrow minded, if you take the thoughtful approach you are I can't see how it could fail to affect your image making. I have a very good friend who has had a keen interest in photography for years, he recently bought a used pro FF camera and "pro" midrange zoom, his photography has grown immeasurably in the last few months.</p>

<p>It isn't just the tangibles, it is far too easy, and misguided, to say "it's all the photographer" or "Galen/Adams could shoot with a box brownie", others might be able to work with the gear available in times past, in Adams case often the best gear available at that time, but that doesn't mean we all can, or should. There is nothing wrong with choosing a piece of gear because it gives you a tiny bit more confidence, or it makes you approach things slightly differently for whatever reason. I know somebody who wouldn't use their Canon 70-200 because they were so self conscious because it was white, after they got a lens coat they used it much more, that change made no tangible difference, the images were not sharper and in truth the lens attracted no more or less attention because of the coat, but it did make a difference to the photographer.</p>

<p>Anything that makes you think about your photography will make you grow as a photographer, if that means throwing it all away and using an iPhone so be it, but that works the other way too, my first friend now understands the benefits for his images of shooting RAW and careful post processing, something he was adamantly against a short time ago.</p>

<p>I often go out with one prime just to see what happens, I recently saw a very good video on the use of fisheye lenses so I now often walk around with one. I have never really been a "street shooter" but I find the combination interesting, it might not have made me a better photographer, but I am now shooting stuff I didn't before.</p>

 

[richard_bach1]

<p>Thanks for the responses everyone. Let me narrow things down yet again, and put my quandary in simpler terms:</p>

<p>Im curious to hear opinions on primes vs. zooms, from a purely creative standpoint (considering that I don't see the selection of primes in DX land as workable, this would involve an upgrade to full frame). Does a prime make you focus more, because of the lack of variables, or does it slow you down because of their lack of versatility?</p>

<p>I'm not necessarily looking for better technical quality, there's just a certain "look" I'd like to achieve that I feel my current gear just can't give me. misguided, perhaps.</p>

<p>I'd love to be able to do both, but I just can afford it. This isn't a case of "I want more gear", as I'd be selling what I have to finance it anyway. i'd say I'd be mostly DOWNGRADING in technology all said and done.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I have always been against zooms and found them to be more complicated. Yet that is a personal preference. I walk around with a 58mm (83mm on my crop camera) lens mounted on an old DSLR. I shoot mostly medium format when shooting film. The nature of your photography probably dictates a move away from crop bodies and investing in fill frame and wide primes. I would say that buy the full frame if you have to and buy just one wide angle prime and a 50mm 1.8 for everything else. Limit yourself to just these two and see how your photography takes shape.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Does a prime make you focus more, because of the lack of variables, or does it slow you down because of their lack of versatility?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither. There's less to focus on, because I have to surrender one variable that is no longer in my control. And it certainly doesn't slow me down. It's a lot quicker to get a sub-optimally framed shot than to take the time to refine it. Properly used to the extent of their capabilities, zooms require more skill, more thought, and more time/effort.</p>

<p>Primes, OTOH, can sometimes do things that zooms can't do as well. They can be faster and ever so slightly (hardly noticeably) sharper. Mostly the advantage to a prime is speed. Other than that, a zoom can do pretty much whatever a prime can do (and more).</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Im curious to hear opinions on primes vs. zooms, <strong><em>from a purely creative standpoint</em></strong>(<strong><em>considering that I don't see the selection of primes in DX land as workable</em></strong>, this would involve an upgrade to full frame). Does a prime make you focus more, because of the lack of variables, or does it slow you down because of their lack of versatility?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using a Set of Prime Lenses generally makes me plan prepare think and focus more on the task at hand. I own only two zoom lenses for my DSLR kit<br />I do not feel slowed down by using Primes.<br />You, all the way along have made an assumption that a Set of Prime is "not versatile" and questioned from that standpoint.</p>

<p>In any event, this question and the continuum of this line of questioning are irrelevant to your choice as you have repeatedly made statements similar to:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong><em>I don't see the selection of primes in DX land as workable” </em></strong></li>

<li>And you want to experiment with<strong> <em>“</em></strong><strong><em>Real fast lenses, especially on the wider end.”</em></strong></li>

<li>And also –<em> <strong>“I LOVE that cinematic shallow depth of field look, and I just can't get the right combination of focal length/blurry background I'd like.”</strong></em></li>

</ul>

<p>And moreover you’ve already stated that you have identified the use zooms in a lazy manner is presently a limitation:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong><em>“Rather than grab a zoom and hope for the best, will i choose the appropriate prime and really think about my composition? I have a fear that the missing convenience of a zoom might be detrimental, but I really don't know.”</em></strong></li>

</ul>

<p>Of course you don’t know how you will use the Set of Primes. Of course you don’t know what you will learn from making this change.<br /><strong>You do not know what you do not know</strong>: no one does.</p>

<p>However considering all, the elements you DO KNOW and all the KNOWN SHORTCOMINGS of the system you presently use: it is a no brainer.<br />DO IT.</p>

<p>Of course there is no rule which says you cannot save up and buy a zoom lens for the 5D to use with those three Primes you are considering.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>P.F. said:<br>

"Yes, it might sorta make you a better photog. Owning better gear might inspire you, at least in the short run, to go out and practice shooting more and hence haphazard improvement might take place. Or, even more powerful, you may feel guilty about spending the price of a new car on photo gear and attempt to get you money's worth by taking classes, studying texts, polishing processing skills and shooting more. And when you get better at something you tend to enjoy it more and keep doing it. ..."<br>

I would go one step futher by replacing "might" with "may" or even "will"<br>

The more you enjoy, the more you want to learn/improve, and the better photographer you will become.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>No they will not.</p>

[nathangardner]

I personally think I tend to get more visually pleasing shots with primes than with zooms because it forces me to find the

shot rather to find a spot and zoom. I feel like with zooms I will find a spot from which I think a photo will look best and

then use the zoom to dial in the composition. This 'lazy' approach often leaves me wanting more from the composition.

With the primes I don't get in a rut of thinking there's only one good location to shoot from, and it forces me to find a

composition that works rather than 'zooming' into a mediocre one. So for me, the primes help with composition, but it

doesn't necessarily make any other aspect of my photography better.

[JohnMWright]

<p>You can try primes without switching your camera. The only limitation with primes on a crop sensor (DX) is on the wide end. I don't see a point in switching brands however, even if you decide full-frame (FX) is the way to go.</p>

<p>When I think of primes, I think of faster apertures, and often, better bokeh. However, some zooms are just as good or better than many primes. Quality differences aren't likely to be noticed unless you apply the best possible technique.</p>

<p>There is no reason not to have both primes and zooms. When I go on family outings, I generally select a zoom because there are certain family members with a very low tolerance of waiting while I switch lenses. If I choose a prime, there is a specific goal in my mind, and I have to accept that I'm not likely to be able to switch lenses whenever I want.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_whalen]

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

It sounds like you've reached a plateau. As others have said it's not so much about equipment, but I do think that using the best equipment you can afford never hurts and if new equipment causes you to experiment more than maybe this is a good thing. The FF will certainly buy you a slightly shallower DOF, more wide angle lens choices and primes will get you slightly better contrast and less DOF, more light in dark situations, and a bit more sharpness and less distortion. But your current equipment should be able to produce award winning images just as it has done for many others.<br>

IMO, better images are more about good composition, the right lighting and being in the right place at the right time. Maybe what you need more than new equipment is inspiration. I get mine from attending weekly meetings at the local camera club, making photo trips both near and far at odd hours of the morning, and learning how to post-process images correctly using Lightroom and Photoshop. I also get inspiration right here on Photo.Net by looking at the wonderful works of art created by so many talented photographers. The thing I like about photography is it is an endless journey of learning and the more I practice, the better the results seem to get. Don't be afraid to experiment with new techniques (such as intentional blur for example) .Maybe sign up for a workshop that interests you with a local pro. This could be money well spent. Also, don't underestimate the art of post-processing. This has saved many images and even helped to create a few masterpieces for me. There's also a ton of good books out here on photo techniques and PP. This might also be a good place to look for new insight. Best of luck.<br>

Mike W.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>Where can we see your photos? The only way to suggest improvements in your photography is to actually see the photos. I do a lot of mentoring, but it obviously requires photos to make even a minor recommendation.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p>Thanks again for more responses, I definitely got some info to think over.<br>

for those who asked to see some photos, heres a horribly disorganized flickr. No order whatsoever, quality jumps around a ton because hasn't been edited in a long long time. But its something:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/78430586@N06/page8/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/78430586@N06/page8/</a></p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"I am considering flipping my gear to full frame and all primes"</p>

<p>Switching to a 8x10 view camera and sheet film isn't going to improve your eye ...</p>

<p>Stupid question. Learn to see, teach yourself discipline, and quit blaming your tools.</p>

 

[don_baccus]

<p>" No order whatsoever, quality jumps around a ton because hasn't been edited in a long long time."</p>

<p>So which of these photos would be improved artistically if you used a 35mm-equiv digital body an prime lenses?</p>

<p>Please be specific. Please point out which of these images are weakened by your gear, not your skill, and, again, be specific. Tell us *why* a particular image would be improved by buying more expensive gear.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Richard, to be perfectly honest, I see very few of your photos that have an extremely shallow depth of field or that are shot in difficult light. Most appear to have the lens stopped down a bit. When stopped down, a zoom and a prime are pretty much the same beast, except obviously for the lack of zooming ability in the prime. In my estimation, there's no reason you need to move to full frame, and there's no reason to dump your zooms for primes. If I were you, I would just add a very fast prime of whatever focal length interests you and play around with it. I say this as someone who shoots both formats and both types of lenses.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"Tell us *why* a particular image would be improved by buying more expensive gear."</p>

<p>Actually, by this, I mean a more expensive FF body ... </p>

<p>There's nothing magic about the 24x36mm FF format, which is why I posted my snarky comment about switching to 8x10 film. 35mm format is an accident of history, born of the German recession that followed WWI. AP-C failed as a film format, but for digital bodies, it's been very successful.</p>

<p>FWIW, I found no photographs in Bach's portfolio that would be strengthened if shot on a higher resolution FF sensor or prime lens.</p>

 

[don_baccus]

<p>"I find that one of the unsung virtues of a FF body (having grown up with 35mm and then 6X6) is.....No math! A 50mm is still a 50 and likewise for all the other focal lengths."</p>

<p>Uhhh ...it wasn't on your 6x6 ... your 6x6 spent it's life on the shelf? Or are you forgetting that an 80mm normal lens (slightly wide, actually) on your 6x6 was a mild telephoto on your 35mm body?</p>

<p>The sung virtue of an SLR of any format is that you can see exactly what the sensor/film sees through the lens. If we can't frame it as you want it, you switch lenses. Why do the math? (and I have a BS in mathematics.) Look, move feet or zoom or change lenses, look again, shoot.</p>

 

[richard_bach1]

<p>Alright alright i get it :)<br>

Staying with what I have now. Full frame will wait in the far future. I suppose I'd be better off trying one of those $100 chinese 50mm f1.8's then to upgrade my whole system as an experiment. I really liked the d7000 anyway...</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"Alright alright i get it :)"<br>

In the old days, we'd say ... "spend your money on film and processing". Digital makes the "shoot more" advice a lot cheaper ... revel in it.<br>

Just shoot and improve yourself. If you can't improve, well, then you'll *really* get it ... and save yourself money.</p>