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

g dan mitchell · August 22, 2012

...zoom lenses was crap!

...canon consumer wide angel primes are crap

...crapper kit zooms

...the new canon ... will proberly wipe the floor with it.

</blockquote>

OK, then! Has someone been doing too much photography in the bathroom? ;-)

desmond_kidman · August 22, 2012

Nothing is "black and white" in life.

Can equipment, sometimes, make one a better driver, or photographer? Yes. Depends on the person, to a degree. Since driving examples have been used, I'll follow that thought for a moment. Learning to race, using a less powerful car or motorcycle, during the process, absolutely does let one focus more on cornering speed, and the all important corner exit speed, to a greater degree. This is true for everyone. Too much power leads to fear in corner entry, which leads to over-breaking, which hurts the process of learning to maximize corner speed.

Back to photography: having too much gear, too many decisions about which lens, which focal length setting can get in the way of "learning to see" for many people. I won't say everyone. But certainly for some. Many very good and great photographers have forced themselves to live with, for a certain amount of time, a single lens, for this reason.

Are you one of those that would be helped? Only you can answer. But, the test is not expensive and does not mean dumping all your gear. You want to see what selective focus is like (and even the most expensive zooms are limited in this regard, that is a fact)? You want the "prime experience"? Get a 50 1.4, stick it on your camera, and don't allow yourself to use anything else for several weeks. Take portraits wide open.

Now here's an exercise that too few people do IMO. EDIT YOUR PHOTOS! Don't just glance at it, and delete it if you don't like it. Limit the photos you take as if it were film. Explore the subject from different angles and distances. Then bring each one on screen. For ones you don't like, try cropping in lots of different ways to discover what you saw that was interesting, but did not translate in the photo. Many times you'll see the "photo within the photo" that was the real picture you should have taken. This exercise will improve your vision dramatically. This process is not used much in the age of digital. It used to be that many of us, in the film days, would sit at the lightbox, or with proofs on the table, with "crop cards" (L-shaped pieces of cardboard that would allow us to try different crop options) to find "the real image". Enough practice doing this and the real image becomes easier to recognize when you look through the viewfinder. Now, with your single lens, making the real image might mean moving your feet. So move your feet, make the "real image"!

Try the above exercises (live with the single focal length, edit your images). It takes effort, dedication, focus, time. If you have the talent in you, you'll find it.

Robin Smith · August 22, 2012

So what i am saying is i don't think its big or clever any more to have a bag full of primes (apart from nice old manual focus primes as i have a lot of them)

</blockquote>

A case of do as I say, not as I do!

david_john_appleton · August 22, 2012

>>>>>OK, then! Has someone been doing too much photography in the bathroom? ;-)<<<<<

yea but they all turned out crap..................maybe i needed a prime

g dan mitchell · August 22, 2012

"You want to see what selective focus is like (and even the most expensive zooms are limited in this regard, that is a fact)? You want the "prime experience"? Get a 50 1.4, stick it on your camera, and don't allow yourself to use anything else for several weeks."

</blockquote>

Revision:

You want to see what selective focus is like (and both zooms and primes let you do this, that is a fact)? You want the "prime experience"? Get a a kit zoom, stick it on your camera, tape the zoom ring to 50mm or 30mm or whatever, and don't allow yourself to use anything else for several weeks. (But when you see a shot that will work better with a different focal length, feel free to peel up the tape - I won't tell. ;-)

JDMvW · August 22, 2012

You can get twice as much improvement in your photography if you first switch to Canon from Nikon and then in six months or so switch back to Nikon from Canon.

This way you can also become a front-line soldier in Japan's war against economic woes.

;)

desmond_kidman · August 22, 2012

The difference in selective focus (blur of background) between an inexpensive 50 1.4 and even a very expensive zoom, set at 50mm with its max aperture of 2.8, is very noticeable, really a totally different effect. If you really want to get that great effect when the main subject absolutely POPS from the background play with a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Anyone who says there is not a clear, impactful difference between these apertures and 2.8 has not done the comparisons.

This is not a war against zooms, but the OP asked about primes and blurred backgrounds. For that, the fast primes simply excel.

dan_south · August 23, 2012

Why does one have to be better than another? - Okay, I already know the answer to that question: IHS (Internet Sair-splitting Syndrome)

I have cameras that can mount prime lenses only. Zoom lenses don't exist for these models, so there's no option to use them. As long as I have a carefully selected set of primes in my bag, I rarely if every lament the inability to 'zoom' through a continuous range of focal lengths.

When I shoot small format, I like to use a MIX of primes and zooms. Probably 20-25 percent of my keepers are shot with primes primes and the rest with zooms. I've never thought of it as an either-or proposition. I enjoy using high-quality prime lenses and I enjoy using high-quality zoom lenses.

Asking whether limiting oneself to prime lenses would make one a better photographer is like a football coach asking whether his team would be better off if they stopped passing the football and stuck to a running game one-hundred percent of the time. It wouldn't do much for the football team. It doesn't do much for the photographer.

david_john_appleton · August 23, 2012

+1 ..spot on

>>>>>>>

Asking whether limiting oneself to prime lenses would make one a better photographer is like a football coach asking whether his team would be better off if they stopped passing the football and stuck to a running game one-hundred percent of the time. It wouldn't do much for the football team. It doesn't do much for the photographer.<<<<<<<<<<

Mark Keefer · August 23, 2012

I would love to say yes, switching to better gear will turn you into a top notch photographer and boost your career getting

you into the top 500 most sought after photographers but sadly the answer is no. It just isn't that easy.

Skill , talent, and experience will be 90% of making you a better photographer. A better camera is just a better tool. I have seen photographers using a 20D that are "better photographers" than some people with a 5D Mark Ii. You can't buy talent in a box.

g dan mitchell · August 23, 2012

"Why does one have to be better than another?"

</blockquote>

Actually, one is not better than the other. Both have their uses. The best answer - eventually - for many serious photographers to the "zooms or primes?" question is, "yes."

However, the issue here was not "which is best?" or even something as subtle as when one might be more useful than the other. It was, as the title of the thread reflects, "Will switching (to FF and) primes make me a better photographer?"

When it comes to that odd notion, as they say, asked and answered.

Dan

dan_south · August 24, 2012

I wasn't questioning the answer. I was questioning the question.

mike_urbanek · August 24, 2012

Here's a little different perspective. As a professional architectural photographer for 25 years, I have experienced first-hand the transformation from film to digital. And that means from 4X5 to digital DX to FX.

The focus thing is almost irrelevant. With the slight exception of needing a faster lens for low light, you can selectively place your focus with any lens or subject. As for using primes, that's not only irrelevant, but damaging to your end result. The MOST important aspect of any photograph is composition, and the decisions you make shouldn't be limited by your optics. Camera position is everything, and you can zoom in order to make it work.

To make it brief: a prime sometimes limits your choices regarding composition, and that's a negative.<div></div>

mike_urbanek · August 24, 2012

Here's a little different perspective. As a professional architectural photographer for 25 years, I have experienced first-hand the transformation from film to digital. And that means from 4X5 to digital DX to FX.

The focus thing is almost irrelevant. With the slight exception of needing a faster lens for low light, you can selectively place your focus with any lens or subject. As for using primes, that's not only irrelevant, but damaging to your end result. The MOST important aspect of any photograph is composition, and the decisions you make shouldn't be limited by your optics. Camera position is everything, and you can zoom in order to make it work.

To make it brief: a prime sometimes limits your choices regarding composition, and that's a negative.

joachim_plump · August 24, 2012

Hey Richard!

You have received that categoric "no" to your question a number of times already. Will switching from Toyota to (a larger) Honda make you a better driver? The answer is obvious to all of us......

One thing I have not really grasped from your initial post and the responses to it: You say you have an issue with your images right now. I think, that is where you might want to start. What actually is your issue? (it won't only be your current inability to get shallower depth of field, will it? If bad comes to worse, that can be fixed in Photoshop. I mean, that would not be enough cause to do such a radical switch.)

If you feel "zooms make you lazy": get some tape and fix your zoom lenses to the desired focal length (31mm, if my math serves) to obtain a natural-eye 50mm-equivalent on your Nikon. But first: Write(! yes really spell it out!) down what you want to achieve with a specific picture. What is it you want to show? Shallow depth of field is all good and well. And of course essential in any conventional portrait (read a grain of irony into this :-)) ). But you also need some interaction between the subject and the viewer, for example. Compose your picture to lead the eye of the viewer. Personally, when I find myself viewing a picture where my eyes follow a story from one place to another (eg, looking at the sharply focused eyes of a clown, then looking down his outstretched arm to the blurred (DoF!) face of a child being handed a balloon and jumping back to the face to check on the smiling expression), then I have a potentially good picture in front of me.

Other pictures, well, I look at them and then start searching for what it might mean. And don't find.

So, figure out what you want to show and get someone to look at your images and have them give you feedback.

I hope this helps a bit :-)

Greetings, Jo.

scott_ferris · August 24, 2012

Every answer that says no has totally ignored the answer I gave days and pages ago! How can a lens cover help you take more compelling images? It can I have seen it happen.

It has got nothing to do with the IQ of the lenses, or indeed any aspect of the lens in and of itself, it has everything to do with the intangible factors that make each individual tick. Liken it to using a tripod, if you always shot at fast enough shutter speeds to get sharp images would using a tripod change what you do? For the vast majority of users a tripod does so much more than hold the camera off the ground, you work "differently", now if that difference changes your output then it might have made you a "better" photographer. And lets be clear, that term "better photographer" can only mean do I like my pictures better now than I did before.

In reply to Richard's initial question, the answer has to be yes, how could such a change not affect the way you shoot and your subsequent output? And who are we to say it might not be for the better? Of course it could be for the worse too.

Richard did not ask the all too common version of this question where the direct comparison between IQ of the different lenses is the key aspect of his inquiry, he is more interested in the way different gear would encourage him to work differently. I would challenge anybody who uses both regularly to say they don't have different considerations when working with primes and zooms. I work completely differently when I have a 100mm prime on my camera than I do when I have a 70-200 of the same aperture on there.

keith reeder · August 24, 2012

how could such a change not affect the way you shoot and your subsequent output?

</blockquote>

Which is not the question.

The Question was "will a different camera/lenses make me a better photographer?", and the correct answer remains as no. "Different" is not "better".

scott_ferris · August 24, 2012

Good to see the selective quoting continues.....

Keith: "Different" is not "better"."

Scott: "now if that difference changes your output then it might have made you a "better" photographer."

Kieth:"the correct answer remains as no."

No, the true "correct" answer, without knowing Richard and the way he shoots personally, has to be it might.

g dan mitchell · August 24, 2012

"It has got nothing to do with the IQ of the lenses, or indeed any aspect of the lens in and of itself, it has everything to do with the intangible factors that make each individual tick."

</blockquote>

Scott, your "yes" answer, given the extraordinary general conditions you describe would render the same "yes" answer to virtually anything that a person might ask about about gear or even non-gear issues. While it is hard to refute the notion that any number of "intangible factors" could potentially have some positive (or negative?) effect on the possibility that a person will become "a better photographer," this leads us to an answer that is so subjective and broad as to be essentially useless as a response to our OP.

Any of the following could be substituted for the prime or FF question in that context, and your logic would apply just as well:

<ul>

<li>Will going outside more make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will buying a zoom make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will buying a new camera make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will getting rid of one of my cameras make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will eating better before going out to shoot make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will switching from Mac to Windows, or from Windows to Mac make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will getting a new camera strap make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will cleaning the outside of my camera make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will dressing better make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will adopting healthier eating habits make me a better photographer?</li>

<li>Will eating more chocolate make me a better photographer? (I'm willing to be the experimental subject... ;-)</li>

<li>... and an almost endless list of other things we might imagine...</li>

</ul>

In any or all of these circumstances it is entirely reasonable to imagine some "intangible" result that could lead to the person becoming "better" as a photographer: perhaps they are less anxious after eating chocolate, perhaps acquiring an additional camera or giving up an old one might make them think differently, perhaps by dressing "better" the person will feel more "professional," and so on.

This argument essentially reduces to "changing almost anything might have an intangible effect on you and the results might end up being better."

I don't think that is a very useful answer to the specific question about sensor format or prime lenses.

Take care,

Dan

scott_ferris · August 24, 2012

You don't think that is helpful because you are so used to seeing a similar question, phrased in a variety of ways, that you virtually switch off and give your automatic reply, with accompanying links to your blog.

I had to laugh at some of your suggestions, this one really struck a cord "Will getting a new camera strap make me a better photographer?" I know more than one person who has shot much more (and "better") since getting a Black Rapid type strap. Why would changing from a 30D to a 1D MkII make you a better photographer, why would getting a lens coat make you a better photographer, why would getting a different strap make you a better photographer? I don't know, none of them worked for me but I have seen each of them work for other people.

I am sorry but in my opinion for any keen photographer to thoughtfully change their system, format, and lenses, is so dramatic that that choice couldn't fail to change their photography, that change could easily result in an improvement, or not. A touch more relevant than diet and dress sense I am sure you would agree.

My point was Richards question was not the normal zoom vs prime argument, it was much more than that, and even if you take the intangibles out and just start discussing the tangibles the change in his gear is so dramatic I believe he couldn't avoid changing his photography to some degree. Whether that is for the better or not is the interesting intangible.

g dan mitchell · August 24, 2012

Wow. Having a bad day at the office, Scott?

You don't think that is helpful because you are so used to seeing a similar question, phrased in a variety of ways, that you virtually switch off and give your automatic reply, with accompanying links to your blog.

</blockquote>

That's a bit of a cheap shot, I think. But I have learned that if you are visible enough you have to put up with some cheap shots like this. So, I'll just let it stand and leave others to judge whether or not my advice is simpy automatic boilerplate and therefore not worthy. (The bulk of it in a post on page three of the thread, if anyone cares to see it.)

I had to laugh at some of your suggestions, this one really struck a cord "Will getting a new camera strap make me a better photographer?" I know more than one person who has shot much more (and "better") since getting a Black Rapid type strap. Why would changing from a 30D to a 1D MkII make you a better photographer, why would getting a lens coat make you a better photographer, why would getting a different strap make you a better photographer? I don't know, none of them worked for me but I have seen each of them work for other people.

</blockquote>

You do realize, I hope, that you are supporting my point precisely. Your point is, essentially, that any new gear might change your orientation to photography and a change might cause you to improve. No one can argue with that, as far as it goes.

I am sorry but in my opinion for any keen photographer to thoughtfully change their system, format, and lenses, is so dramatic that that choice couldn't fail to change their photography, that change could easily result in an improvement, or not. A touch more relevant than diet and dress sense I am sure you would agree.

</blockquote>

There are a few key things in this paragraph. First, the word "thoughtfully" is quite important. A thoughtful answer to the prime/FF question should, or so it would seem to me, go beyond "getting anything new might change your photography so, sure, get primes and full frame." I provided a very "thoughtful" answer to the poster (see page 3 of this thread) that explained my reasoning and pointed out a number of other things that are far more likely to improve the poster's "photography."

My point was Richards question was not the normal zoom vs prime argument, it was much more than that, and even if you take the intangibles out and just start discussing the tangibles the change in his gear is so dramatic I believe he couldn't avoid changing his photography to some degree. Whether that is for the better or not is the interesting intangible.

</blockquote>

I'm afraid that you aren't quite making sense here about the "normal zooms vs. prime argument." In fact the question was "will switching to [FF and] primes make me a better photographer?".

If you haven't done so, you might find it useful to review what the OP actually wrote in the post to which I replied. Since it has been over 90 posts now, here it is. I'll highlight some key text from this partial quote - I have endeavored to not remove anything directly relevant:

"I am in an equipment quandary here, and could use some help. I currently have a D7000, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 16-85mm, Sigma 30mm 1.4, and a 180mm 2.8 AIS. I am happy with all of it... "I am considering flipping my gear to full frame and all primes... 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. ..."

</blockquote>

So, in fact, the OP is asking precisely a zooms versus primes question, and the context is precisely the question of whether this (along with the format change) will make him" a better photographer" and "think more about my photography" and make him less "lazy" than he feels (or has heard) he might be when using zooms. These are, in fact, exactly the points I addressed in my post. You might enjoy reading it.

There's not a whole lot more to say about your thinking on this issue nor about your attitude toward me, but I urge anyone who thinks I'm just "virtually switch[ing] off and giv[ing my] automatic reply, with accompanying links to [my] blog" to actually go back and read my detailed post in response to the OP. It is on page 3 of this thread. There are exactly zero links to my blog or anywhere else in my post, and my reply was detailed and directed to the point of the original question.

Dan

dan_south · August 24, 2012

While a new camera and lenses probably won't make you a better photographer, it's possible that the new gear will inspire an improvement in your photography.

The excitement of having new gear might motivate you to get out and shoot more often. Or it might encourage you to take on new challenges. The additional practice that you'll receive can have a positive impact on your skills.

Unfamiliar technology (e.g. prime lenses, manual focus, live view focussing, movements, digital technology, film technology, etc.) will influence a photographer to approach their work differently. As they take on new challenges, they'll build new skills if they work diligently and stick with it.

And of course there's an obvious benefit to using better equipment. If you're pushing the limits of entry-level gear, sharper or faster lenses might open up new possibilities. I shot a couple of basketball games with a Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6D. I went out and bought a 70-200 f/2.8 VR G lens, and the photos from the very next game improved dramatically, not because I got better, but because I could shoot at a much faster shutter speed, and because the glass was superior.

Sometimes gear DOES make a difference. And even when it doesn't it can inspire a difference in the approach of the photographer. They might take on new challenges that they would have avoided with the older gear.

Every experience adds something to our personal tool kit of skills. The challenges involved in mastering new gear can be inspirational as long as we don't assume that the gear will do the work for us. The difference results from our efforts to learn to use the new gear.

scott_ferris · August 24, 2012

No I didn't have a bad day, in fact I had a very productive day so this is my good side.

There are exactly zero links to my blog or anywhere else in my post.

</blockquote>

Whatever......

David wrote:

"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."

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" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Photographic Myths and Platitudes: Primes Make You a Better Photographer</a>

Dan

</blockquote>

Dan, you should know from my posting history I have a huge respect for your comments generally, however I felt Richards original post deserved at least a counterpoint to the tidal wave of negativity that the thread has garnered.

I'd like to take this further, but the truth is my inclination for posting has very much waned, I am sure I won't be missed.

dan_south · August 24, 2012

I think I'm gonna go buy a new camera...

keith reeder · August 25, 2012

I'm not selectively quoting anything, Scott - not in any way that changes the sense of what you wrote.

I've simply addressed your attempt completely to subvert the obvious intent of the original question into something different and totally irrelevant to the initial enquiry, to God knows what purpose.

The fact is this: new gear does not and will not make you a better photographer. It might encourage you to try to up your game, but that's an entirely different matter - new kit does not, in itself, make you better, and when you said:

how could such a change not affect the way you shoot and your subsequent output?

</blockquote>

you completely ignored the the point of the original question. And yes, that's true in the context of your entire post - I don't need to quote it all to get to the point of it.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in