Professional Web Applications Themes

Slow lens rant - Photography

Because many of the cameras people buy are small and to reduce cost. I have an Olympus 3040 with f1.8 at wide and f2.6 at tele, but it cost quite a bit more than other cameras at the time. The only other company that has fairly fast lenses is Sony, with the Ziess lenses. "JK" <net> wrote in message news:net... ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    Because many of the cameras people buy are small and to reduce cost. I have
    an Olympus 3040 with f1.8 at wide and f2.6 at tele, but it cost quite a bit
    more than other cameras at the time. The only other company that has fairly
    fast lenses is Sony, with the Ziess lenses.


    "JK" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 


    Guinness Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    In article <net>, JK <net>
    wrote:
     

    Because to get larger apertures than that you need a high quality, well
    designed lens. If you only use the center of a crap lens, the pictures
    don't look as bad.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    On 7/24/03 12:45 PM, in article net, "JK"
    <net> wrote:
     
    It's like my Grandfather used to say about horses and oats.
    "You gotta pay a little more for the oats that haven't yet been through the
    horse"
    GEEZ! Stop ing!!!
    If you want large glass you gotta PAY for it in $$$ AND size...


    __________________________________________________ ____________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

    George Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    JK <net> writes:
     

    Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    sunlight. So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.

    It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    camera makers don't care.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    Tiny Tim wrote: 
    >
    > You started this thread by wanting a lens that was fast at the
    > telephoto end and moaning about f4.8 being slow. Now you're talking
    > about fixed standard focal length lenses by way of comparison.
    >
    > How many 150mm f1.4 lenses do you know of for 35mm film, never mind
    > 50-150mm or 35-105mm zooms?
    >
    > Don't you think you're being a tad unrealistic? What price range did
    > you have in mind?[/ref]

    Here's a link to zoom lenses available at Calumet.

    http://www.calumetphoto.com/syrinx/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatTree&ac.cat.Ca tTree.prodIndex.param=A;Traditional+Photo;AB;Camer a+lenses;ABD;Zoom+lenses&ac.cat.CatTree.prodIndex. branch.node3=ABD-AB

    Perhaps you can find a lens that meets your expectation for focal length and
    speed as a 35mm equivalent and then let us know how much it costs. Thanks in
    eager anticipation.


    Tiny Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Slow lens rant



    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
     
    >
    > Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > sunlight.[/ref]

    I don't think that's true. I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is) until after they own
    the camera for a while. I see many posts about images taken indoors
    beeing to dark(perhaps the lens on the camera is so slow that the
    flash can't reach far enough at a sufficient intensity?), or not being
    sharp(probably due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed?)
     

    Many are not happy later.
     

    JK Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    JK wrote: 

    Cost mostly. A fast zoom lens with acceptable image quality is expensive to
    make. How many people would buy a "point and shoot" digicam if it cost 3
    times as much as it does with a slow lens? That said, the Sony line with
    Zeiss glass are fairly "fast" compared to the others (but they are not
    exactly cheap either).

    <<< Dan >>>



    W6DKN Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    JK wrote: 

    This is not just digital cameras. It's also film P&S cameras.

    I have seen some of these 35-140mm lenses that are f6.7 at the far end.
    That's horrible.

    Oh, and by the way most consumers have NO CLUE about "existing light".
    Most can't figure out why the flash won't reach the other side of a
    football stadium "cause it's so bright".

    Andrew Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    In article <net>, JK <net> wrote: 
    >>
    >> Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    >> sunlight.[/ref]
    >
    >I don't think that's true. I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    >of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is) until after they own
    >the camera for a while. I see many posts about images taken indoors
    >beeing to dark(perhaps the lens on the camera is so slow that the
    >flash can't reach far enough at a sufficient intensity?), or not being
    >sharp(probably due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed?)[/ref]

    Many SLR owners use only a single slow zoom. Many SLR owners use the weak,
    built-in flash. Why not build P&S cameras with the same features?



    Philip Homburg
    Philip Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots. What affordable ($400 to
    $800) camera would people recommend for low-light shots.

    Thanks.

    David Dyer-Bennet <net> wrote in message news:<dd-b.net>... 
    >
    > Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > sunlight. So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.
    >
    > It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    > camera makers don't care.[/ref]
    carl Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    JK writes:
     

    Even after they've owned it for years, they still won't know about the
    lens limitation. They'll just know from experience that they need lots
    of light to take nice pictures.
     

    When they find out how much it costs to get around the problem, they
    learn to live with it.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    In message <com>,
    Mxsmanic <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >Even 35mm SLRs don't come with that today. If anything, they come with
    >a really cheap zoom. Vendors know that serious photographers will just
    >buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
    >clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
    >and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't know or
    >care if it is of bad optical quality.[/ref]

    If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens is less appreciable.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    In message <google.com>,
    net (carl) wrote:
     

    f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    generally 1500 and above, and they have very little depth of field at
    2.8.

    The biggest weakness of the consumer digital in low light is the small,
    noisy sensors they use.

    For indoors, you might want to stick to the wide-angle end of your
    range; you should be able to hand-hold the camera at speeds of 1/25 or
    possibly longer, if you're steady.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    komm writes:
     

    Resolution and some aberrations are not as important, but things like
    contrast can still be obvious.

    Compare these two photos:

    http://www.mxsmanic.com/church2.jpg
    http://www.mxsmanic.com/church3.jpg

    The first was taken with a Leica lens, the second was taken with a
    disposable camera. Even at this small Web site, you can see a
    difference between the cheap plastic lens of the disposable and the
    Leica ... although it's not as big as you might expect.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
     
    > >
    > >I don't think that's true. I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    > >of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is) until after they own
    > >the camera for a while. I see many posts about images taken indoors
    > >beeing to dark(perhaps the lens on the camera is so slow that the
    > >flash can't reach far enough at a sufficient intensity?), or not being
    > >sharp(probably due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed?)[/ref]
    >
    > Many SLR owners use only a single slow zoom. Many SLR owners use the weak,
    > built-in flash. Why not build P&S cameras with the same features?[/ref]

    Actually, they were bulding P&S cameras like that before there were
    many SLRs with a built-in flash. That's relatively new, whereas slow
    lenses go back a long ways.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    komm writes:
     
    >
    > f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    > generally 1500 and above, and they have very little depth of field at
    > 2.8.[/ref]

    None of mine is over $1000 even. Some are under $400 I think.
     

    Or 1/10, or even longer. After all, you can afford 10 or 20 tries to
    get one sharp picture of something, if it's not a one-shot event.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    The lens on the S30 is f2.8-f4.9. That means it is f2.8 at its widest
    angle setting, and f4.9 at max telephoto. F2.8 is not so slow, but
    f4.9 is quite slow. f4.9 is roughly one and a half stops slower than
    f2.8. A stop slower would mean that the lens lets in half the light.
    While using a higher ISO setting can compensate for the slower
    lens and give the same exposure(for example, the shutter
    speed to be used would be the same for f2.8 100 ISO as
    the same subject at f4 200 ISO), with higher ISO settings
    comes noisier images. On this page, you can click on sample
    images for the S30 at 50, 400, and 800 ISO for the S30.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/canon_s30_samples.html

    For low light shooting, the Olympus C5050 is quite nice. It has a lens
    that is f1.8-2.6 . The lens is 35mm-105mm equivalent. The camera
    is somewhat compact(jacket pocket size?). It is under $600. It
    uses AA nimh rechargeables(spare sets are under $10). It
    uses Compact Flash, Smart Media and XD cards.
    The Sony f717 has a zoom with a longer reach 38-190mm equivalent
    (f2-f2.4) . The f717 is much bulkier than the C5050, and uses expensive
    proprietary rechargeable batteries, and expensive memory sticks.
    The Canon G5 also has a fast lens, but uses a proprietary battery
    and Compact Flash. The G5 has a nice display that rotates.
    The cameras I mentioned are all 5 megapixel.


    carl wrote:
     
    > >
    > > Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > > sunlight. So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.
    > >
    > > It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    > > camera makers don't care.[/ref][/ref]

    JK Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Slow lens rant

    David Dyer-Bennet writes:
     

    And they remain at f/2.8 at all focal lengths?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Slow lens rant



    komm wrote:
     
    >
    > f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    > generally 1500 and above[/ref]

    What? Some used ones, like a 70-210 f2.8 or 80-200 f2.8 might be as
    little as $150 or so.
     

    That is true at the telephoto end in particular.
     

    For low light shooting with the S30, try to stay at the wider angle (lower
    focal lengths) of the lens. Set the camera at ISO 400(use ISO 800 if
    you must, but it seems particularly noisy). Now you may be able
    to shoot indoors without the flash at a reasonable shutter speed(1/30th
    of a second or faster) if the room is well lit. Getting good results while
    handholding the camera at 1/30th of a second takes some experience.
    Some very experienced people manage to get good results handholding
    larger cameras even at 1/15th or 1/8th of a second. For those not so
    experienced, one should try for a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second
    or faster. Another trick for low light shooting without a tripod. If you must
    use a slow shutter speed like 1/15th or 1/8th of a second, you might get
    acceptable results if you brace your arm against a wall or table when
    taking the shot, and hold your breath while pressing the shutter release
    very slowly.
     [/ref]

    JK Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Slow lens rant



    Andrew McDonald wrote:
     
    >
    > This is not just digital cameras. It's also film P&S cameras.[/ref]

    YES!
     

    I agree!
     

    Yes! I try to tell people that their photos won't come out when they are
    shooting at a building blocks away, and their flash goes off. At least
    with digital, they can see it didn't come out, but many just look at the
    camera display and scratch their heads in confusion. When I tell them
    to turn off the flash, and brace their elbow against a lamppost or building
    to take the shot they look even more confused! At least with the digital many
    are willing to try it, and they are surprised that the results are better
    without
    the flash(especially before sunset, when there is still a decent amount
    of light).


    JK Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Popphoto rant
    By Siddhartha in forum Photography
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 18th, 05:21 PM
  2. This is my rant......
    By David in forum Photography
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 7th, 11:41 PM
  3. my bi-annual rant about png files....
    By Alexander Ross in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 12th, 02:10 PM
  4. Proprietary Battery Rant
    By Ken in forum Photography
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: July 31st, 07:05 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 04:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139