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

[mike dixon]

"My goal here is to become a better photographer. I feel zooms make me lazy, and that primes would make me think more about my photography."<p>

 

You can easily solve the problem of "zooms <b>making</b> you lazy" for less than a dollar. Tape the zoom rings on your lenses so you'll have to use each a single focal length.

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Will switching to FF and primes make me a better photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It could encourage you to try new things like using narrow depth of field, wider angles, taking photographs in lower light or making larger prints. It could make you feel more confident. If it broaden your horizons, makes you more creative or more likely to use your camera, it can actually improve your photography. <br>

If you have the budget and feel you want a change, try it. You can always sell the equipment if it does not do anything for you.</p>

[matthew_lee6]

<p>Firstly, I can't see the point in responding "No" without an explanation.<br /><br />People will swear by the adage: "Gear won't make you a better photographer", referring to greats such as Cartier-Bresson and saying "look what he could produce with a 50mm prime".<br /><br />However, anyone must be capable of taking better photographs with better gear. Consider the comparison of an iPhone with a full frame camera capable of shallow depth of field in low light. Add a tripod and artificial lighting and even the most die-hard camera aficionados must agree.<br /><br />That won't give you a better eye or train you how to use these tools. This comes with practice combined with your natural abilities.<br /><br />If you are taking landscapes, the gear is probably less important. You don't need a fast lens (IE low f-number) because you should be using a tripod. Without speed primes and zooms become almost equal. In that case, get a decent zoom to cover the range you need.<br /><br />If you require shallow depth of field then full frame and fast lenses are more important. Your gear should give you better results.<br /><br />Practice and continual education. That is the way to go.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>Will switching to FF and primes make me a better photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and no.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Interesting thread.</p>

<p>I'm in the "yes" camp.</p>

<p>Provided...</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The new camera helps you see. (to me a bigger brighter viewfinder is very important, especially when shooting wide)</li>

<li>You take the time to experiment with the new gear. (And you would not take that time using your current gear.)</li>

<li>Changing gear is an artistic inspiration for you.</li>

<li>Changing gear wil probably force you to rethink exposure, framing etcetera.</li>

</ol>

<p>So apart from #1 you could also go micro 4/3's...</p>

[michael_josefsson]

<p>Make some statistics on your current photos. What focal length do you use most often? Get that as a prime. I did just that (got a Voigtlander Ultron 40/2) and it has been interesting. I have to think more and move around more to get what I want. This lens is manual focus but also very small, making the camera more used, it is with me most of the time. The big problem is learning to visualize the end result - and that is mostly me and not my camera:)</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You'll take the same imagination-limited photographs that you do now, as we all would. Some of them will be technically a little bit better, some will be technically a little bit worse, because you can't get the focal length quite right or you might have to crop. If you want to take better photographs, challenge your imagination rather than your equipment manufacturer or your bank balance.</p>

<p>I could argue, more cogently I think, that new equipment should be a<strong><em> reward</em></strong> for better photographs, not a prerequisite. That way there might be a purpose in having the ability to make larger, sharper prints with better dof control.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, nobody said it had to be cheap or Chinese! ;-) If you want some fun playing around with fast glass, try picking up an old manual focus Nikkor, if it will fit your camera. (One big irony in the camera world is that the old MF Nikkors will fit modern Canons better than modern Nikons, and I don't know enough about Nikon to tell you what will and won't work). I have, for instance, a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor that I adapt to my 5D. It's a truly wonderful portrait lens, but it might be a bit long for your crop camera. </p>

<p>Instead, if you want to experiment with large apertures, you might pick up one of those obscenely fast "normal" primes that we were using back in the 70's. There's probably a 50mm f/1.4 MF Nikkor out there with your name on it, which would work great as a short portrait-length lens on your crop camera. Some manufacturers (e.g. Canon) even made 50mm f/1.2 lenses. The most obscene of all are Leica's Noctilux lenses, at f/1 and f/0.95. Exotic stuff!</p>

<p>If you really get into the shallow DoF stuff, then consider changing formats to FF. You will instantly get approx about a 1 stop (faster) upgrade in the DoF capabilities of all of your FX (?) lenses. (In a weird sense, FF can be very cost effective for people champing at the shallow DoF bit.) However, I wouldn't make that expensive move until you know it will be an important part of your shooting repertoire.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you go to Canon, I'd suggest the 5D MkIII and Canon L-series zooms, in general. Then use software, such as Digital Photo Professional which ships with Canons, to correct for distortion errors, vignetting, chromatic aberration, edge softness, etc. at every focal length and at every aperture. Two great starter lenses are the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. If you want a great, small lens for street shooting, then the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is hard to beat.</p>

<p>I shoot Canon, but I wonder why you'd switch from Nikon to Canon when Nikon makes the excellent D800. You haven't invested in high end lenses from either make, but I'd think that you're more accustomed to Nikon's control layout. If you were going to shoot birds and nature and needed super-tele lenses, then Canon might make more sense, since they seem to support this area more, but for just about everything else, both make great lenses. (Nikon makes some great super-teles, but they're harder to find and actually buy than the Canons).</p>

<p>Of course, much has been said about "will it make me better?" Ignore all that crap and shoot. Things like shooting in manual mode and using particular lenses, generally are less important than your eye for composition and a good understanding of how to operate your equipment. Superb results can be had in Manual, Aperture, Shutter and even P-modes, but the operator must understand how things work.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For the moment I'll leave the full-frame question aside - not that there isn't a lot to say about it in the context of your hope to become a better photographer - and just respond to the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"My goal here is to become a better photographer. I feel zooms make me lazy, and that primes would make me think more about my photography."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to say, but that is simply nonsense, plain and simple.<br /> <br /> This notion that somehow primes are more "serious" than zooms comes up from time to time, and certain folks who post about photography (though not so often people who actually do a ton of photography) encourage this odd and unfounded line of thinking. I've speculated about where it comes from at times, and some of the following come to mind:</p>

<ul>

<li>There is a certain shallow mindset among folks who desire to be viewed as artists that holds that being "different" is the most important characteristic of artists. (It isn't, by the way.) And by doing something odd, like using only primes, they have established their different-ness from a world in which most others use zooms most often.</li>

<li>There is another notion that modern is not as good as "classic," and therefore sticking to older equipment types is better. While there can be a risk of being too infatuated with new stuff just because it is new (sort of the opposite from the extreme of automatically dismissing the new) it just doesn't make sense to automatically assume that, for example, because Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with primes that I should, too.</li>

<li>There is also an odd notion holding that there is an almost moral imperative to do things the hard way, and that those who do things in an easier way must not be as serious as artists, hence if shooting with zooms is "too easy," shooting with primes must be better. This is often expressed with the derisive advice to "zoom with your feet" or your fear that "zooms will make me lazy."</li>

<li>Finally - for now - there is the unfortunate notion, not unique to photography, that being "better" is largely the result of having the best or the "right" equipment - e.g., if I use this sort of camera or this sort of lens I will be less of an artist than if I use that camera/lens.</li>

</ul>

<p>The zooms will make me lazy business completely baffles me. Yes, folks doing point and shoot photography often may use a zoom that way, just zooming to get the shoot of their daughter or the waterfall that most fills the frame without moving. But that fact that casual amateurs can use a zoom lens on their point and shoot cameras that way does not mean that the use of a zoom always means that this is the way one shoots.</p>

<p>To the contrary, in most situations a photographer carefully working out a sophisticated composition will have more, not fewer, decisions to make when using a zoom. I happen to shoot both, and I actually own more primes than zooms. There are situations in which prime is the best choice for realizing the photograph I'm working on and there are situations in which the zoom is the best choice for the same reasons. One of the reasons that I may choose to shoot a prime - for example, where doing some types of street photography - is because I will be shooting <em>more quickly and with less time to carefully consider all of the possibilities</em>, not because "zooming with my feet" is more ethical or otherwise better or because it "makes me a better photographer."</p>

<p>If you were to watch me shooting with a prime or a zoom, you would often see me thinking and considering quite a bit before making a shot - even in some cases when the shot needs to be made with some degree of speed before the opportunity disappears. However, you would almost (though nothing is absolute) see me thinking and considering <em>more carefully and for a longer period</em> when shooting with a zoom. The zoom provides one important additional variable to work with when composing, namely focal length. Contrary to the simplistic notions of some, the zoom does not merely let me "shoot from one spot without thinking." Rather, it gives me a range of choices over the compositional relationships among subject, foreground, and background elements that would otherwise be fixed if I chose to use a prime. Select a longer focal length and include certain elements between my position and that of the subject, narrow the angle of view to restrict and better control the background behind the subject, more thoroughly blur that background, flatter the perspective of the subject, and so on. Or, select a shorter focal length and move forward ("zoom with my lens <em>and</em> my feet!") so the primary subject fills the frame the same way, but eliminate some of the previous foreground elements (that are now behind me), enlarge the area of background included in the frame, deepen the perspective effect, allow more elements to be in focus, and much more.</p>

<p>Basically the notion that a prime makes you better at composition is nonsense.</p>

<p>So, where did this "primes only" idea come from?</p>

<p>It probably came from several sources. First, the availability of affordable and high quality zooms is a relatively recent thing in photography, measured in the range of a few decades. I started long enough ago that my first cameras were not 35mm film cameras, but rangefinder cameras using 120 or 220 film and then twin-lens reflex cameras. By definition, these cameras (virtually always) had only a single focal length - not because this made them "better," but because there was no other option for most photographers.</p>

<p>When I got my first 35mm film SLR (decades ago, as a teenager) it came with a single 50mm prime, which was typical at the time. The advice was "shoot that 50mm prime a lot before you go out and buy more lenses." By some strange set of circumstances, that advice - which actually meant "don't go out and buy a bunch of lenses before you get some experience under your belt" - morphed or was perverted by some into, essentially, "you must start with a prime and learn composition before you think about zooms." The only problem is that <em>this was never the point of that advice - it had nothing whatsoever to do with the relative value of primes and zooms.</em></p>

<p>Today we have a circumstance that we did not have back then. In the same way that 50mm (or thereabouts) "starter" primes were widely available and built with decent quality "back in the day," today we have fine, inexpensive "kit zooms" and similar. These work very well, provide valuable flexibility, are more fun to use (and what is wrong with fun in a new camera?), and can work at 50mm or 35mm or whatever if you want to try restricting yourself to a single focal length. Better yet, they allow us to learn the critical effect of focal length variation on composition.</p>

<p>The best ways to become a better photographer have almost nothing at all to do with your equipment choices, though eventually <em>as you become better and recognize your own needs more clearly</em> you will begin to make more intelligent choices about gear. Some things that can make a difference in the quality of your work may include some of the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>Look at and read about a lot of great photography and read about the people who made this work. Make sure to look at a wide range of work, including quite a bit that is different from what you think you want to shoot.</li>

<li>Especially, visit museums and galleries to the greatest extent possible and look at beautiful photographic prints.</li>

<li>Make a lot of photographs - it is actually not necessarily a bad thing to become obsessive in some ways about photographing. Certainly shoot the things you are most passionate about, but also see what you can do with things that might not appeal so much.</li>

<li>Embrace your bad work and your mistakes and learn from them. Do not fear making poor photographs even as you aspire to make good ones. Almost any photographer will tell you that he or she has made <em>far</em> more bad photographs than good. It is all part of the process.</li>

<li>Avoid - like the plague! - the ever tempting distractions of letting your interest in photography be corrupted into an obsession with gear rather than an obsession with <em>photographs</em>.</li>

<li>Find a mentor or mentors if possible, people who will see your passion and be wiling to share with you, yet understand that you are not going to be them - this could be a variety of different sorts of people: a teacher, a parent, another photographer, etc.</li>

</ul>

<p>Gear is not unimportant in photography, but cameras and lenses are merely tools - <em>they</em> are not photography and they only have value to the extent that they let you produce photographs. Today's gear is, by and large, excellent - whether you use a good small-sensor rangefinder, an APS-C cropped sensor body, or something else. One of the fortunate things about this current time in photography is that gear choices, in many ways, become less critical and less difficult. And that leads me to all that I'll say for now about the other question, the full-frame versus cropped sensor question: There are types of photography in which either one could be the better choice, and there is no connection in a general or universal way between a choice to use crop or FF and how good you will be as a photographer. So, no.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jim_service]

<p>Richard<br>

What WILL make someone a better photographer is to put in a meaningful increase of effort.. whether to get up and start moving a few hours before sunrise, to work against feelings of shyness when doing street photography, to put out the bucks to get to places where it's happening, or to put a great amount of thought into your photography, both your overall direction and each shot as it's taken.<br>

BTW, I liked your Flickr stuff.</p>

[andy_hs]

In my opinion, prime lens wins because they

are faster lens than zoom lens.

But prime lens only suitable if you have

time for composition, otherwise you could

loose the moment.

For fast moving event (or moment) such as

travelling (holiday), party, candid, etc, I

would prefer zoom lens, since you could

capture a moment faster in good

composition, as you don't have to step

front/back, or worse, keep changing lens.

But for situation where you have time to

arrange the composition, prime lens are

better, but I only see 'better in bokeh due

larger apperture', since in term of image

quality, a good zoom lens delivers really

good images too.

My two cents :)

[dan_south]

If you want to simulate the use of a prime lens set your zoom to a particular focal length and don't change it.

 

If you're looking for a "certain look" and you're not getting it, don't blame the gear. The D7000 is an excellent camera. It

would be difficult to imagine a photo assignment that it couldn't handle. Question instead your lighting and compositioinal

choices, your selection of subjects, your exposure technique and your post processing workflow.

[carbon_dragon]

Here is what I think. All things being equal (which is rare) the full frame sensor will probably beat an APS-C sensor of

rough similar resolution but the difference isn't all that visible. My own experience was my Sony A350 (14MP) and the

Minolta 50/2.8 Macro beat my 5D with the 24-105/4L but when I used the Canon 50/1.4 (very good but inferior to the

Minolta macro) the Canon 5D still beat the A350 soundly even though the Canon was 12MP FF. But so what? The difference is probably not going to be visible to you.

 

 

That said, in 35mm, with a decent lens you could hope to pull in the same image the professional did with his Nikon F5

(the "sensor" was after all the same). With modern cameras that is not true by any means. Trying to shoot with my old

Konica Minolta 5D (6.1MP) would be an incredible disadvantage which would hold you back every day. But if you're using

just about any modern DSLR (or DRF) you should be fine. Probably anything 10MP and up. Some cameras punch above

their weight (the Leica M8 with it's lack of a moire filter is a very sharp high quality 10.1MP).

 

 

So an expensive camera CAN make you better, but there's no rush.

[richard_bach1]

<p>Jeez, AFTER I make my decision now all the fun happens!</p>

<p>Thanks for the many many solid opinions I've gotten.</p>

<p>I'm still thinking I'm going to keep my current gear. Coincidentally, someone offered me a trade for my beat up old 180mm 2.8 AIS (I really have never been a telephoto person…) for a 50mm f1.4D. Sounds like a perfect way to keep what I have and expand my horizons a little bit.</p>

<p>I'm very comfortable and happy with the D7000 and my current setup (and selling it doesn't sound like too much fun…). I'm pretty sure now it's challenging ME, not the other way.</p>

<p>Full frame will be in my future some day. But in the mean time, I can spend more time with my images and hope that Nikon will come out with those fast wide angle DX primes so many people have asked for. I'll give them plenty of my money once they do.</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br>

- Richard</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Dan, thanks for investing all that time in a rather complete and balanced response. It's too far down in this thread to be a "sticky", but it'd be nice somewhere in the forum.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Sometimes I click on one of the photos that appear at the top or the bottom of these pages. Some of the best ones that I've seen were taken with a Canon 20D. Your D7000 blows this camera out of the water spec for spec.</p>

<p>Keep one thought clear: it ain't the gear.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Concur with Dan. Pretty much says it all.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>When you can't have the lenses you love, love the lenses you have.</p>

[dan_south]

+1 Howard - excellent advice (and catchy, too) :-)

[g dan mitchell]

<p>David wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Dan, thanks for investing all that time in a rather complete and balanced response. It's too far down in this thread to be a "sticky", but it'd be nice somewhere in the forum."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your comment, David. I posted a slightly modified and updated version of this commentary at my blog today: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2012/08/21/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-primes-make-you-a-better-photographer"><strong><em>Photographic Myths and Platitudes: Primes Make You a Better Photographer</em></strong></a></p>

<p>Dan</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

i am not a Nikon shooter but dont the Nikon FF cameras have a DX mode? if so will your dx lenses still work? if they did you can keep Nikon and change your lenses over slowly <br>

to prove its the photog and not the kit have a look on you-tube digitalrev tv<br>

pro photographer cheap camera challenge.very entertaining </p>

[jim gtz]

<p>I went through the same questioning as you. I had a Canon 20D and zooms and switched to the 5D and primes. I never looked back. I love shooting landscapes and scenics, I’m not a “street shooter”. And when shooting with zooms I usually was at one end or the other of the lens.<br>

I felt that with primes I would concentrate on framing a certain way, “learning the focal length”. I thought it would be a good learning experience to go out with just 1 or 2 lenses. I reasoned: use the 24mm, know the 24mm, my signature the 24mm. It doesn’t always work out that way, and it would be nice to just carry a 17-40mm. But I'm happy with what I'm doing.<br>

I say do it. Go FF. Get primes. Damn all the psychology. I look at the world now as: is that 24mm?…35mm?…50mm?…maybe 135mm.<br>

I’m sure one of these days I’ll get the 24-70 and 80-200, but for now I’ve enjoyed my choice in photography.<br>

Jim G.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Jim wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I look at the world now as: is that 24mm?…35mm?…50mm?…maybe 135mm."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So do I. And then I <em>zoom</em> to one of those focal lengths or some other FL that works just right for my shot. :-)<br>

<br>

Dan</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>IT ALL IN YOUR MIND<br>

yes 30 years ago zoom lenses was crap!<br>

but as 95% of development costs have been aimed at zooms so the best are very good now <br>

i dont know what primes folk are referring to but the canon consumer wide angel primes are crap...maybe the 35mmf2 is ok,ish. maybe you are comparing the crap consumer primes with crapper kit zooms <br>

The L wide primes are very fast like F1.4 etc it is very hard to make a very fast lens sharp,<br>

but they do a good job of getting very fast glass pretty good<br>

my stranded zoom is the Tokina AT-X F2.6-2.8 28-70mm<br>

if you look at the mtf cherts on photozone you will see the my zoom is very close to the Canon 35mm L (at 40mm) in fact at F5.6 they are a match<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/276-tokina-af-28-70mm-f28-26-at-x-pro-ii-lab-test-report--review?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/276-tokina-af-28-70mm-f28-26-at-x-pro-ii-lab-test-report--review?start=1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/336-canon-ef-35mm-f14-test-report--review?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/336-canon-ef-35mm-f14-test-report--review?start=1</a><br>

and remember my Tokina is a ten year old lens, the new canon 24-70 F2.8L mk2 will proberly wipe the floor with it. <br>

Which means it will proberly wipe the floor with the L primes in that focal range <br>

OK its £2200 but i bet primes in 24,35,50,85 will cost 2-3 times that and what do you get apart from backache.slow AF missing shots changing lenses,a dusty censer and a empty wallet <br>

Well you get the F1.4 which is the big selling point but you are giving up a lot to get that<br>

I am not anti prime .but when i was talking to a guy about the legendary 135 F2L which was on top of my most wanted list, tells me he has almost stopped using his as his 70-200 F2.8is mk2 is as sharp or sharper <br>

Today if you are looking at a prime it will be because you like the colour it renders or boker or the speed but dont buy a prime for the biggest reason folk get them, <strong>sharpness</strong> because they hardly have that advantage any more<br>

So what i am saying is i don't think its big or clever any more to have a bag full of primes <br>

(apart from nice old manual focus primes as i have a lot of them)</p>