|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2005 09:23:13 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Zed Pobre:
Well, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is over $600 |
Actually, it's less than $600 at B&H, $580 with a $25 rebate.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2005 09:25:35 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by nicklevy:
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I'd probably notice the difference on a 4x6, but I can't say anything about non-photographers with their uneducated eyes. I'm just saying I appreciate the detail, clarity, native saturation and contrast, and so much more about the 70-200, but by no means does that mean you can't be content with a cheap 75-300. |
Well I don't think you have a very positive and constructive attitude by the way you answer people. I just wonder, your signature say that you have a300D with a 50mm f1.4 (I want one too) and yu're dreaming about a 24-70 L but sure you wouldn't go for a lesser quality lens and that's good for you. Some other people will take shot with their 200$ and 300$ 300mm lens while you're dreaming of perfect high end lens and that's good for them. As for "uneducated eyes" like you said I personnally have a stronger problem with uneducated people that insult others. |
I didn't think he was very nice either....then I checked his profile...he's just a little boy. 99% doesn't have something nice or constructive to say...go look at his comments. Chalk it up to bad parenting...better to ignore than debate. :) |
|
|
|
|
05/22/2005 09:47:30 PM · #53 |
Boy am I lost. Don't mean to carry this too far, but there must be some misunderstandings...
Originally posted by nicklevy:
I don't think you have a very positive and constructive attitude by the way you answer people |
Yeah, I'm not always "happy" sounding in forums I admit, but I always try my hardest to be constructive. So far in this thread I've avidly defended the better lens. "The 70-200 and 75-300 are as different as good and bad. Sharpness, color saturation, build, constant aperture, the list goes on" and so forth.
Originally posted by nicklevy:
As for "uneducated eyes" like you said I personnally have a stronger problem with uneducated people that insult others. |
I wasn't insulting anyone, I was refering to nonphotographers. My father often reminds me that most people don't see photos the way I do. I notice composition, contrast, sharpness, saturation, subject matter interest, lighting and so much that other people don't care about. No insult to anyone.
Originally posted by colyla:
I didn't think he was very nice either....then I checked his profile...he's just a little boy. |
Age discrimination--do you seriously think that just because I'm less than half your age means I can't have twice as much knowlegde of photography as you? By no means am I saying I do, but age is not an issue.
Originally posted by colyla:
better to ignore than debate. |
Ignore the facts I give in support of the 70-200? Go ahead, it's not anything someone else can disagree with, though.
*slaps self for continuing a futile argument*
|
|
|
|
05/22/2005 11:12:39 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Boy am I lost. Don't mean to carry this too far, but there must be some misunderstandings... |
If you make an effort not to take it the wrong way, I'll see if I can clear some of it up for you.
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Yeah, I'm not always "happy" sounding in forums I admit, but I always try my hardest to be constructive. So far in this thread I've avidly defended the better lens. "The 70-200 and 75-300 are as different as good and bad. Sharpness, color saturation, build, constant aperture, the list goes on" and so forth. |
... stabilization, weight, size, cost, visibility, range. You've avidly defended a lens based upon a limited set of criteria, and ignored the others in which it is weaker. On top of that, you implicitly denigrated those that made some points about when the advantages aren't as strong as they might seem. There are politer ways of doing what you were trying to do.
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Originally posted by nicklevy:
As for "uneducated eyes" like you said I personnally have a stronger problem with uneducated people that insult others. |
I wasn't insulting anyone, I was refering to nonphotographers. My father often reminds me that most people don't see photos the way I do. I notice composition, contrast, sharpness, saturation, subject matter interest, lighting and so much that other people don't care about. No insult to anyone. |
Congratulations... you just insulted nonphotgraphers again directly, and indirectly, also the photographers disagreeing with you. A couple tips: you don't have to be a photographer to tell the difference between bad, good, and great photos, even if you don't understand why (and if you disagree with this, avoid saying so on a site practically built around this assumption). Also, by claiming in the same breath that you can see the quality difference in a given size of print, but the person you're talking to can't, is tantamount to calling that person a non-photographer... which makes you look really silly when he's carrying the same model of camera that you are. Implying that you're better than some other group in general is also always a good way to honk off people in your general vicinity... even if you're right, by the way. People like to naturally separate other people into "us" versus "them". Try hard not to put yourself in the "them" camp, and you'll get along much better. (I'll grant that doing this, particularly when you're frustrated, can be difficult.)
Let me give an example of how you might have phrased that argument in such a way that it wouldn't have half the people in this thread fuming at you:
"I can probably tell the difference in a 4x6 print, if I look closely enough, though I'll grant that it might be subtle enough not to bother a casual viewer. I think it would be visible to most people at 8x10, though, and definitely anything larger. Also, even at 4x6, do you really want to run the risk of going over your old prints and regretting how much better it could have been? Money comes and goes, but your memories are forever."
(I'm going to take an aside to note that I disagree strongly with this sentiment, as I'm in the camp that says that the less-than-perfect shot you took is always better than the would-have-been-perfect shot you didn't take because it was too inconvenient or too far away. But if I were arguing your position, that's how I would have done it.)
The big differences are that this version doesn't insult anyone, doesn't claim any superiority over anyone else, and acknowledges points that others are making, all while still supporting your position.
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Originally posted by colyla:
I didn't think he was very nice either....then I checked his profile...he's just a little boy. |
Age discrimination--do you seriously think that just because I'm less than half your age means I can't have twice as much knowlegde of photography as you? By no means am I saying I do, but age is not an issue. |
Actually, you just implied that you do, and it's putting you in the "them" camp again (and emphasizing someone else's advancing age is often a bad idea unless you know they're old enough to have learned to enjoy it; try "... just because I'm not yet in college I can't have a decent grasp of the quality of lenses?"). In any case, you missed the point -- this isn't about how much you know about photography; it's about how you treat people in a discussion. You could have run DxO tests on every piece of glass in existence and memorized the results... and your credibility would still be shot because of the way you write.
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Originally posted by colyla:
better to ignore than debate. |
Ignore the facts I give in support of the 70-200? Go ahead, it's not anything someone else can disagree with, though. |
This kind of answer is the reason why people like Colyla are tuning you out. It's utterly unconstructive. It doesn't address anything that the people disagreeing with you have brought up. It misses the fact that half a dozen other photographers in this very thread have already disagreed with you. I can grant you every point you've brought up in support of L glass and still recommend the opposite with a clean conscience (assuming the situation calls for it) because it's not the sum total of what's important.
In any case, those are my thoughts on the misunderstandings. I hope you aren't offended. |
|
|
|
05/22/2005 11:21:24 PM · #55 |
|
|
|
05/22/2005 11:32:00 PM · #56 |
Back to the topic of lenses, though, Bob Atkins did a comparison (update: whoops, realized upon re-reading the thread that this link had already been posted) of the 75-300 against the 300 f/4 L prime on a full frame camera, which is about as extreme an example as you can get (the quality of that prime is practically unbeatable, and the test shows the absolute worst-case behaviour of the 75-300 lens). It gives some examples of how close you can get from one to the other with post-processing, and shows just how much of a difference there is in sharpness.
One thing to note is that the 75-300 is noticeably sharper at 200mm than at 300mm - enough so that you could actually think of it as a moderately decent, if slow, 75-200 (or if you're feeling generous, 240 or so, the point at which it really starts getting soft), with a free teleconverter mode built in.
There's no question that the 70-200 f/4 L is sharper (though it also won't be as sharp as a prime). You have to decide whether that's important enough to get around the other factors.
Message edited by author 2005-05-23 00:12:26. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 10:40:28 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 10:40:28 AM EDT.
|
