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

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Scott wrote and quoted:<br>

Whatever......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David wrote:<br />"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."<br />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"><strong><em>Photographic Myths and Platitudes: Primes Make You a Better Photographer</em></strong></a><br />Dan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Note that the person to whom I responded in this very short message, primarily to thank them for their kind words, had<em> expressed a wish that my "rather complete and balanced response" could be captured somewhere for future reference</em> and lamented that <em>it might be lost because it was " far down in this thread to be 'sticky'."</em> In response to that specific interest, I put it on my blog where it will be "sticky" and shared with him a link to this <em>material that I had first posted here at PN</em>.</p>

<p>Sometimes it seems that no good deed goes unpunished... :-(</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dan_south]

Scott, your contrarian approach to the question is valued, and it has provoked me to think differently about the topic than I

did initially.

 

From your original post:

 

>> Anything that makes you think about your photography will make you grow as a photographer.

 

This idea has great merit, and I have tried to address it in my posts. For instance, when I bought my first SLR and loaded

it up with slide film, the demands of getting a proper exposure and compensating for color of light taught me a great deal

about photography. Print film processing from the drug store seemed to mask many of these details.

 

When I started shooting with a Pentax 67 body, I needed to learn more about camera support in order to manage the

vibrations from that large shutter. Those lessons are still valuable, and I use the same techniques and gear to secure

high res digital cameras.

 

Graduating from a D200 to a D700 opened up a whole new world of high ISO possibilities. I added new dimensions to my

portfolio that I would not have dared to try in the past.

 

To paraphrase my post above, as we adapt to the challenges presented by new gear, we learn more about the craft of

photography unless our efforts are entirely half hearted. I believe that this is similar to your own underlying message.

[DawsonPointers]

<p><em><strong>"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."</strong></em><br>

Dan South, I agree. Very well stated. An analogy is that non-classical musicians will frequently change their instrument, or kit to go along with it, to garner new inspiration. <br>

<em><strong> </strong></em></p>

[g dan mitchell]

Scott:

 

For the record:

 

1. Carrying on your insulting behavior in a lengthy and

angry PM post to me is entirely inappropriate harrassment

and most likely will warrant a report to forum moderators.

 

2. When someone posts to follow up on the content on a

forum discussion via PM, I will typically quote their PM in

any further response in the forum. I am refraining. For now.

 

3. If you actually believe that I violate forum policies in my

posts, as you wrote again in your PM, the appropriate

response is to report my "violations" to the moderators and

let them do their job. They are very competent and enforce

forum rules when necessary without any need for you to

attempt to do so via PM.

 

Dan

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dan South,</p>

<p>Your response to my input is greatly appreciated and was the type of discussion based reply I was hoping for.</p>

<p>G Dan Mitchell,</p>

<p>Post it, report me, I don't care, but if you do post it, and I really don't care or consider it harassment, please post it in full. Several times I have been told that I should have PM'ed people instead of posting in public, when I do people overreact like this. If you do then why not also post section 2 of the guidelines in full? Oh, and explain how it, and this nonsense, is adding to the thread.</p>

<p>As I said, I am done with forums, I am sure I won't be missed.</p>

[link]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>When I bought my 1st DSLR, I wanted to have primes for two reasons:<br>

1. I sometimes need the extra lens speed...ie. wide aperture of the primes.<br>

2. When I travel, I don't like to carry around a big, heavy zoom.</p>

<p>So, I got a 5D (primes for crop sensor were hard to find!) and 24 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4, and 100 2.0.</p>

<p>This set of lenses cost about the same as one "L" zoom. It's worked out pretty good for me. I like the full sized finder of the camera as well. And I often take just one or two lenses with me anyway.</p>

<p>Am I a better photographer because of it? No. But I'm a happier photographer!</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Richard, when I started photography in 1968, there were no real decent zooms, so primes were it.</p>

<p>Except for top of the line Nikons, etc., most secondary lenses required you to stop down to set the aperture and shoot while stoped down. </p>

<p>There were no springs to stop the lens down to a particular aperture then open it up again for viewing.</p>

<p>I took some spectacular photos with such lenses, even the non-Nikon variety; some are considered historic.</p>

<p>Better lens construction and features such as autofocus and auto stop down for aperture then auto return for viewing after shooting have just made shooting easier and less sweaty, hard work. I shot street then, though no one called it 'street' then. </p>

<p>I met Henri Cartier-Bresson, he gave me advice which I took, and I quit my job with Associated Press to shoot for pleasure (and they kept me on as a writer).</p>

<p>As equipment got better, and I resumed years later taking photos, I resumed taking 'street' but with the advent of autofocus and the use on ALL lenses of the auto aperture return to full brightness, my output becamer easier and better. I sweated less.</p>

<p>I could take more photos, but in the beginning with film captures I spent an almost inordinate time looking over my earlier captures, analyzing them. Then was time well spent; I could not afford to print so I looked at the negatives, at a specific angle, from the emulsion side which made a 'positive image' appear (faintly).</p>

<p>That helped my photography grow, though I didn't take too many images, even though I had been published in highest publications from NY TImes, Time/Life, AP, UPI, etc.</p>

<p>I learned to critique myself, and could have used a service such as Photo.net at the time. I wished for a monograph from Aperture, and that was my highest ambition, as there really was not much upside financially to continuing photography without a stafg job (HCB talked me out of keeping my new AP staff job, in his brief advice to me).</p>

<p>Life sent me down different paths.</p>

<p>Now I shoot, often a great deal of 'street' and in large volume. I find subjects everwhere because I take a camera everywhere; it almost always is around my neck and I'm almost fearless in approaching strangers or taking the shot others will shy away from.</p>

<p>As a result my photography continues in high volume; zooms are one reason for my high output.</p>

<p>I would put my early prime work with primitive lenses up against anyone's work, but would not go back to primitive primes with film; it was just not very productive; I am incredibly more productive now.</p>

<p>Zooms allow me to be far, far more productive now.</p>

<p>They mostly have excellent quality, with exceptions of course.</p>

<p>Primes also have a place, especially if one is shooting landscapes and or in a studio, and perhaps for portraits. I would happily own both high quality zooms and some primes for those special situations.</p>

<p>(Kudos to the member who wrote what kind of camera and lens Galen Rowell used. I did not know or suspect that, but my knowledge and exsperience is tending to show me that it's the photographer more than the equipment, though cheap lenses and poor sensors in dim light can harm a good capture, of course.</p>

<p>But the advantags of high priced equipment these days is getting marginally less and less as base-line digital cameras and their lenses get better and better.</p>

<p>Look at some of my early work to see what low-end equipment could produce long ago and I think you'll find that with a $28 prehistoric lens, I produced some pretty darn sharp photos (in full sunlight stopped down (Nixon, Berkley demonstrations).</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Forum Guidelines section 2:</p><p>"Don't post links to your website or online galleries. There's a field in your user profile where you can add your

website or gallery URL in case anyone is interested in finding it. All they need do is click and your name to see it. <b/>You

may link to a page on your website in a post as long as it's a page that provides additional information directly related to

the question you are asking or answering, but it's not OK to post a link just for self-promotion.</b> There shouldn't ever

be links in NW threads as no question is being asked or answered."</p>

 

<p>Now back to our regularly scheduled program...</p>

 

<p>First, John, great post. Second, I now see that the OP was listening, did check back in, and has reconsidered his plan.</p>

 

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

Scott? Yet another PM? Seriously?

 

Please stop it. Now.

 

As I wrote in response to your first PM:

 

"3. If you actually believe that I violate forum policies in my posts, as you wrote again in your PM, the appropriate response is to report my "violations" to the moderators and let them do their job. They are very competent and enforce forum rules when necessary without any need for you to attempt to do so via PM."

 

If you are convinced that I violated forum guidelines, it is a simple matter to complain to the moderators. Continuing to

spam me with angry PMs telling me how to behave in the forum is rude and uncalled for and begins to seem obsessive.

 

Knock it off.

 

Moderators, would you please step in and talk to this person about appropriate forum behavior?

 

Thanks.

[shutterbud]

<p>To answer the original post, I cannot for the life of me see the justification for switching entire systems when you can save quite a bit of money on either getting some very good, affordable primes for the D7K (the 35 f/1.8 is a steal, the 85 f/1.8 a bit more money but very sharp) or getting a good deal on a D7C, which is now discontinued, now or just after Photokina. Getting good d.o.f. on the 85mm shouldn't be much of a problem and with the 35mm, even with a DX body, it's more than achievable. I looked through 3 pages of your flicker a/c and to be honest, all the pictures looked the same! It's no wonder you're looking for something different to interest you. I suggest you get the $200 35mm f/1.8 G Nikon prime at the weekend or as soon as funds allow and get out looking for people or things from a different focal length and perspective. Get in close!</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Consider also that some photos can ONLY be created with prime lenses. I don't know of any f/1.4 zooms, so if you need the ultra-shallow depth of field effect, primes are your only choice.</p>

<p>Photographs created with movements provide another example (I'm including one of my personal favorites below). You can use a Lens Baby with a zoom to create special out-of-focus effects, but for creating IN-FOCUS effects with the Scheimpflug theorem, primes are your only option.</p>

<p>Some folks have suggested that zoom lenses are more flexible because they offer an infinite variety of focal lengths. With primes, the selection of focal lengths will always be finite. However, if you know how you work and select primes to match, you rarely find yourself seeking a focal length that you don't have in the bag. A selection of 4 to 6 prime lenses will cover almost any photographic situation, and you can get by with three primes, or even two, in many cases.</p>

<p>The one area where zooms have an undeniable advantage is when you need to change focal lengths quickly, as when shooting events or action that changes unpredictably. In these cases, zooms have no equal.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that every tool has assets and liabilities. We need to be able to apply the assets intelligently and tastefully in order to create images with impact.</p>

<div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Since this is a Canon forum, here's an image captured with the movements of a TS-E lens on a Canon body.</p><div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>That terrain looks awfully familiar! :-)</p>

 

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2397-3/PlayaTwoRocksBW_2_.jpg"></p>

 

<p>(one of my first decent shots with digital equipment, humble though it may have been: Canon Rebel XT, probably wih

17-40mm lens.)</p>

[dan_south]

An amazing location!

[g dan mitchell]

Indeed! A favorite of mine in the right season, at the right time of day, and in the right conditions. :-)

[alan_bessler]

<p>Will switching to FF make you a better photographer......NO</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Yes. Just like switching typewriters will make you a better writer!</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p>Thank you for the responses everyone, though I'd say only abut 10% of the people who jumped on answering the post really read what I had said. I had never anticipated such controversy! (My inbox is filled to the brim with comments on this post!)</p>

<p>I was not asking if upgrading technology will make me a better photographer. I was asking if I'm looking to achieve a certain look, if full frame and primes would suit me better. I was also asking if the limited range of focal lengths would help my visualization skills. It was something I was thinking one weekend day and asked on a whim, not the first shot of the revolutionary war.</p>

<p>Thank you for the thoughtful responses i did receive, and to everyone else I say you should read posts more carefully before you jump on the "equipment won't make you better" bandwagon. I'm sure the responses would've been quite different if I were to have said I'm ditching my digital equipment for a film boy and some primes.</p>

[dan_south]

Discussions have been known to diverge from the original post. The longer the discussion, the more likely the divergence.

 

If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question. Vague phrases such as 'achieve a certain look' will lead to very open ended

responses. What look? Do you have an example? I listed some cases where primes can do what zooms cannot, and I offered photos to

illustrate my point. Is that the 'certain look' that you are trying to achieve? I have no idea, because you didn't specify your objectives

clearly. Hence, the discussion sprawled out in a number of directions.

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>What look? Do you have an example?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I both specified the look I was going for and gave examples. Again, this would have been a more fruitful and helpful discussion if everyone had read the thread.</p>

[dan_south]

We did read your post Richard.

 

You said that you were thinking of switching from Nikon to Canon (always a popular forum topic), that you felt that zooms

were making you lazy (guaranteed to spark a few opinions), and that you "hope to shoot more pope in the future". (I'm

not quite sure what that last one means, but hopefully the Vatican is stepping up security.)

 

You also said that "any recommendations would be helpful". So I don't know why you're complaining now about the

recommendations that you've received.

[g dan mitchell]

I was going to also write a brief note here about how I did read the OP's question carefully, several times;

about how I took the time to write a personalized and rather lengthy response to all but the full-frame

portion of his post; how I followed up several times, including dealing with an angry forum

member who excoriated me here and PM'ing me about how I should behave in forums; and about how it looks when the OP responds to people who tried to help him with his question by coming back 120 posts later and upbraiding the "90%" of them for supposedly failing to read or respond to his

question that he now believes was a different question than what he actually wrote in his original post -

a question which is still there for him and others to see.

 

But it would likely not be a very good use of my time. So I won't. ;-)

[William Michael]

<p>IF . . . we are going to get huffy and puffy and begin comment on the quality and content of the opinions and feedback given to the OP . . . then:</p>

<p>Richard<br>

After reading BOTH of your questions and then answering both, the second in detail: <br>

Taking into account your initial reasons for wanting to change to fast primes and a FF camera . . .<br>

Your response detailing the reason why you are now NOT making that change are somewhat . . . (to put it politely) “Lacking”. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Simply put: No.</p>

<p>You are a good photographer if you can take your existing equipment to the limit.</p>