G.A.S.

[Black Pearl]

Todays sermon, read by Rev. B Pearl comes from the Book of Aquisitions.

GAS thats Gear Acquisitions Syndrome, or one of its many peculiar forms such as NAS (Nikon Acquisitions Syndrome) or CAS (Canon Acquisitions Syndrome) can afflict even the most level headed among us. How many of us, right at this moment, could list a bit of gear that they 'want' neigh 'need' to get more from their photography? Probably everyone one of us. I'd bet we all have a mental list of 'things we'd buy if we had the spare cash'

Its a particularly odd affliction and one that can be put to bed very easily by asking another simple question. "How many of us know how to get the very best from the gear we have?" When I say the very best I mean that. To be honest what I'm referring to today is lenses, or at least I'm going to narrow GAS down to a slightly more manageable problem to deal with. There is much said about lenses and there is much to read online about performance, capabilities and a whole host of other variables plus a whole lot of old cobblers too.

Lets start with the much maligned 'Kit Lens' That evil of modern photography, that bit of glass that the vast majority of us buy with our cameras that gets such a bad press. There are whole forums worth of talk about how they are rubbish, how you need to 'upgrade' before you can take a decent photograph and how they are almost the Devil incarnate. Its all cobblers (I like that word) because if we stop and think for a minute its not really the optical performance of the lens that makes a great photograph.

How many people's immediate thoughts when they look at a photograph will be 'That's not as sharp as it could be' or 'Look at the chromatic aberrations on that' Probably less than 1% and probably much, much less than that in reality. What people look for in a picture is emotional grab, the light that was captured, the colours, the expression on a face or very often a memory triggered. Absolute optical quality will be so far down the list that it becomes irrelevant but as 'enthusiasts' it often becomes the most important thing. We obsess over pixel level detail, we get all antsy about colour fringing and perish the though that we might have a line that isn't straight whether it be a horizon out of kilter or a building with a bulge. We obsess over it and spend so much time thinking that we 'need' another 'better' lens that we don't spend the time to get the very best from what we have.

Who can, hand on heart, say that they have pushed their basic lens to its absolute limits. That they have worn it smooth by going out and shooting everything in sight with it. Can we all walk along, see an image in our minds and know with absolute certainty that we could get it into a stream of digital one's and zero's without the need for a wider, longer, brighter, sharper lens on the front of our cameras?

Do we need another lens or do we actually need to learn how to get the very best from what we have?

Go out today and take some pictures.

Go out today and open your eyes to what is all around you and shoot, shoot and shoot some more. Really concentrate on what you are looking at and don't think 'I wish I had' instead think "what is the very best way I can capture the feeling I am getting from this scene with what I have'

I guaranty the results will be better than you have ever achieved.

Here endeth the sermon.

Prasie the lord of Acquisitions!

[FUJI]

Here Speaketh an expert from on high..................take heed ....... absorb the word..........then act accordingly.............and..........Your rewards will be great:

FUJI

[Guest]

and the response from the retail quarter was, there will be a lot less camera shops if you all do that :)

[Black Pearl]

Yeah, I am sort of shooting myself in the foot.

[colinb]

Yeah, I am sort of shooting myself in the foot.

do we assume you are using the kit lens to shoot with? :D

[Black Pearl]

Kind of - I use a 16-85mm which is the 'standard' zoom for the D300s.

[Phil]

Blimey, someone got out of bed in a strop!

You do make a very good point, unfortunately a 12 hour shift has put pay to giving it a whirl today.

[Black Pearl]

It came about from a discussion on another forum where there was talk about kit lenses and the assumption that they were rubbish and therefor no one could take a decent picture with one.

I tried arguing that there is more to the quality of an image than the optical performance of the lens but I was shot down by the 'enthusiasts' who insisted there is no point in taking a picture unless you use the very best gear you can afford, use the lowest iso and only ever take pictures when you're camera is bolted to a sturdy tripod.

It got me thinking about how we approach our hobby and what the gear we have to hand is actually capable of if we make the effort to learn its every quirks and features.

[Guest]

I have the argument about good image vs technically good image so often its unreal, hey we even had that very argument on here about a picture of the week because it was picked for the emotion it had captured not for its technical merit. Thats why I wont join a camera club as the one around here is full of people that want technically perfect images above all else

[Guest DaveW]

I suppose it was the odd poor kit lens that got them all a bad name. It is a fact of life that the camera makers often cannot compete with the independents on entry level lens price so in the past quite a few have put their kit lenses out for manufacture to the very same independents and then just had them badged with their name. Not in the case of all kit lenses of course, some are made by the camera makers, but true for some in the past. However not all the kit lenses made by the independents were average, some were very good, but as with all things one bad example can destroy the reputation of the rest.

http://digital-photography-school.com/why-your-kit-lens-is-better-than-you-think

You can only really compare like with like. As this article below points out it depends what the lens manufacture is trying to do. A long range zoom by a top camera maker may be a wonder of optical engineering but it may not match a cheap and easy to make 50mm fixed focal length standard lens by an independent for resolution. Plus all tests are often based on one lens of a type therefore don't reflect the degree of variation lens to lens. Look for a different reviewers set of tests and the order they rate manufacturers lenses in may be reversed.

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/bestcameralensbrand.html

Lenses like human beings are individuals though they all may come off the same production line. Because somebody describes the Leica/Canon/Nikon 105mm as a wonder lens does not mean you may not get a dud one. Plus, as raised in the past, if the degree focus tolerance between your camera and lens are the wrong way you will consider it a dud, whereas if they are complimentary your lens will be the best since sliced bread. Your "dud" lens may be superb if used on another camera where the tolerances of lens and camera are complementary:-

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts

This is the problem with all lens reviews when a reviewer only tests one lens because few ever consider a bad result may be just that the camera and lens used have tolerances that are not complementary, but may be so on another camera. The fact is you will never get the best out of your lens hand holding since humans are not a steady enough support. The only way you can compensate for this is to use higher shutter speeds or flash. They don't eliminate shake, just reduce how much of the movement is recorded on the image meaning too little for the human eye to register.

G.A.S. is usually designed to impress others as to either how professional a photographer we are, or how wealthy. In the case of photography it is often used by males to impress other males with how much gear they have and can afford. Cars are similarly used by males to impress both females and other males as to their earning power. We are not the only creatures to do this as acquisitions are used by many creatures to impress both other males as to their superiority and potential mates:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/dec/16/male-bowerbird-decorate-nest-ritual

DaveW

Edited January 6, 2013 by DaveW

[Phil]

I know I've been griping recently about wanting a 'fast' lens but I feel for the purpose it is needed, for everything else my old 18-55 kit served me very well. I remember being blown away with the quality when I first got my 350D 6 years ago.

I currently own the Canon 17-40L and an on loan Sigma 18-200 and to be honest apart from the obvious reach I'm struggling to find a noticable difference between the 2. I don't print above 8x5, in fact I rarely print at all so the argument comes down in favour of the subject matter rather than actual image quality.

[Guest DaveW]

An interesting quote from my link on camera and lens variation:-

"As an aside, I think this is probably going to put the last nail in the Megapixel war’s coffin. The 4/3 companies have already said 12 Mpix is as far as they intend to go. I suspect the full-frame manufacturers are going to call a halt at 30 Mpix or so, just because there’s no sense in it: they’re already out-resolving the quality control of their best lenses."

Will cameras then be changed as infrequently as we used to change film cameras?

DaveW

[Black Pearl]

I do think things could slow down a little.

Nikon currently run about a 4 year upgrade path on their better bodies and this is probably about right.

Its the lower level bodies that get chaged on a very fast cycle and recently they have been changed for more pixels and not more real world features.

The thing is its easy to sell a consumer a camera on its pixel count. That is why a D3200 has 25mp while an enthusiasts camera like a D7000 has 16mp. It drives me insane that this is happening because its not gaining anyone anything. You end up with limited iso ranges, slow processing of the resulting enormous files and a clogged up hard drive. I can't think of a single situation where my 12mp D300s has ran out of pixels, it just gets on with the job of producing fantastic images almost regardless of what I throw at it...or throw it at.

[Denis]

A fascinating set of articles for which i for one thank you.

I am 'in the market' for either a secondhand 35 0r 50mm prime lens for my D3000, I understand there are one or two different ones to obtain.Although, I am quite happy with my 18-55 kit lens for the Nikon, being this is my first dslr type camera, it will probably have to do me for quite a few years as cash is tight all round. I would like a 50mm for general work though,and the bonus of it being a tad faster,

[Guest DaveW]

Here is their first article Denis then if you missed it:-

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

DaveW