lionel_rafferty

<blockquote>

<p>Some photographers have specific things they need to accomplish, and they need the right tools for the job.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That has nothing to do with the Nikon post. That's not what they were trying to say in their advertising message, which is the topic of this thread from what I can tell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry if I misread, but it seemed to me that that was what the thread had devolved into.</p>

<p>No one disputes the fact that a photographer with skill and vision can produce great art with anything. The point so many people seem to miss (or ignore) is that the <em>intent </em>must be taken into account. The analogies about race cars, music equipment and fisheye lenses are all just trying to illustrate the fact that if you have a <em>specific task </em>in mind, there are some tools that can handle it and some that just can't, no matter how artistic the result. Not all photography is art for art's sake. Some photographers have specific things they need to accomplish, and they need the right tools for the job.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The best camera and lens to use is the one you have in your hand when the moment strikes. Camera's are dumb recording tools, some better than others, but only record the image the photographer has already formed in his mind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if you're a wildlife photographer and you spot a tiny little hummingbird and the lens you happen to have in your hand is an 8mm fisheye, that's the best lens to use? I don't think so.</p>

 

<p>Just to throw in my 2 cents, if you go with primes, what about the Canon 14mm? I got a used Mark I years ago for $1300. I like it. Nice ultrawide on my EOS 3 and a great 22mm equivalent on my 60D.</p>

<p>Thanks Paul. I may do that after all.</p>

<p>Thanks JDM!</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen!</p>

<p>I have an AE-1 Program which has pretty much become a shelf queen since I upgraded to autofocus and then to digital. I recently ran a roll of film through it for the first time in several years, and I noticed the dreaded shutter squeal. It needs a CLA. The problem is that the area I live in is pretty light on camera shops, so I'd like to find a place online that will do it. I checked the Canon USA website and they don't show any support for FD equipment anymore. So can anyone suggest a good reliable online shop that will do it for me?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The images that I created are consistent with my style and approach to photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After looking at said images, I think that statement about sums it up.</p>

<p>Fred G., well said. A photo of an out-of-place animal may be perfectly acceptable in someone's personal gallery or a commercial advertisement, but it has no place in such media as wildlife/nature magazines.</p>

<p>Richard: It's called work ethic. Judging from your photos, which I admire by the way, I would venture to say that you have a work ethic. National Geographic, and most other magazines I would assume, expect their employees to have a certain work ethic. If an employer tells you they expect a certain standard, then you're free to accept that standard and meet it, or seek employment elsewhere. It is "do as we say because we say do it", as you put it. But that's any employer's prerogative in any business. And yes I say that's OK for National Geographic because their mission is to portray the world as it really is, not as some freelance photographer looking to impress wants to portray it.</p>

<p>Richard: I think your argument is a little extreme. Of course, when I open National Geographic, I don't expect to see photos that are completely true to what the eye sees. I even know they photoshop out distracting elements sometimes. But I also don't expect to see polar bears in the African rain forest. Anyone who opens up a wildlife or nature magazine expects to see images that reflect reality. Other types of magazines do not necessarily carry the same expectations. If a National Geographic photographer like Nick Nichols or Joel Sartore doctored an image to the point where it no longer met the expectations of readers, they would probably be fired. That form of ethics has nothing to do with religion or mythology and is not fiction.</p>

<p>Nobody said anything about making photoshopping illegal. As Eric said, it's a question of ethics.</p>

<p>If you read the full article at <a href="http://www.thelocal.se/35964/20110905/">this link</a>, it clearly states that the photographer initially denied having doctored the photos, and that this incurred unnecessary expense and concern on the public. This is obviously not a case of artistic license, it is fraud.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone explain me what you need the focal lengths for inbetween medium wide and medium tele?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's just another focal length and another perspective. If you feel you don't need it, that's your prerogative. Personally, I quite often use a normal focal length. It's a natural perspective when you're looking for realism.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Btw, the zoom goes to 35mm, that is hardly ultra wide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it zooms <em>out </em>to 16mm. That is considered ultra-wide on a full frame.</p>

<p>Laura, the 60D retails for $999.99 (just so they can say "less than $1000!"). I don't want to rush you into a decision, but you can get $100 off if you buy it now. The instant rebate expires tomorrow.</p>

<p>I just compared it to my EOS 3 and it (the 60D) is dramatically quieter. But it doesn't sound flimsy or hollow to me. I would agree with Puppy Face—it's a muffled metallic sound.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> canon 35/2 is subpar</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Au contraire, my friend. I have one and it is an underappreciated gem. Read the reviews. For a 21 year old design that cost just a little over $300, it's hard to beat. It may not be L quality, but "subpar" it certainly is not.</p>

<p>I answered all 10 with WTF.</p>

<p>Museeb,<br>

As Alan Zinn said, you can't tell much difference looking at computer images. I would add to that the fact that you are comparing 21st century digital cameras. How about comparing images from a Canon 5D against those from a 19th century field camera? And a variety of subjects and situations, including movement? And no Photoshopping! It seems that some people on this thread have lost sight of the OP's original statement:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Recently I came across an article on kenrockwell.com which says that photography is purely a from of art and that it doesn't actually matters which equipment you use. In other words, it went on convincing that your camera doesn't matter. <strong>I cannot accept this fact simply bcz I cannot capture motion or photograph shallow dof with my compact camera</strong>. I think the equipment plays a pivotal role in photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly the OP is saying that he cannot make a specific type of image with the equipment he has. In this case (though not in <em>all </em>cases, of course, such as the two sample images you showed) equipment is important.</p>

<p>Thanks all for the advice. I got a mint condition Mark I for just under $200. I tried it out this past weekend and I'm very pleased with the results so far.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the info. Thanks Jim and JDM for the link to the articles---interesting reading. I have several filters in need of replacement. Now I think I have enough ammo to make an informed decision.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The debate was too broad you say...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I didn't say that. I said the statement "Equipment doesn't matter" is too broad. I said nothing regarding the scope of the debate about that statement.</p>

<p>But the issue is, if you were entering the Tour de France, could you do so with just any old bike? I'm no expert in bike racing, but my guess is, you could try, but you'd fail miserably.</p>

<p>You're not the first to mention that they're hard to clean. I've been reading the reviews at B&H and it seems to be a common complaint. Thanks for the info.</p>