Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
More expensive lens means a better image.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 287936" data-attributes="member: 13090"><p>As is often the case in threads like this there are two things that can be looked at, if not confused. Those things being inherent lens quality and aesthetics.</p><p></p><p>Lens quality, to my way of thinking, means how well a specific lens can can render an image to the camera's sensor (or film). Things like contrast and resolution can be measured and plotted. How much distortion, chromatic aberration and so forth a particular lens produces can also be measured objectively. Then, data from one lens can be compared to another and, based on that data, you can objectively determine if lens X is a more capable lens than lens Y. All of this makes for a relative, but still objective, comparison that I, and I think it safe to say most, consider a valid set of data points. It's the stuff <a href="http://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts" target="_blank">MTF charts</a> are made of and I'm glad we have them. All of this is entirely separate from a photographers ability to correctly compose a shot however. </p><p></p><p>Rhythm, balance, positive and negative space, color, mood, contrast, tonal value, et al. are all tools of the brain that have nothing to do with how good your lens is but everything to do with how good a particular photograph is (or isn't). So yes, I think it's clear to most people the lens does not make the shot great, the photographer does. By the same token, I don't see Jack Cunningham using a Kodak "Brownie". While I'm sure he could turn out some amazing images with one, I still feel safe in assuming he chooses to use top-notch equipment because he knows doing so will produce technically superior images. HCB is one of my personal photographic hero's and I feel safe in saying he would have availed himself readily of any better technology that his time could have afforded him; he certainly didn't hesitate to embrace 35mm when it became available.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">...</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 287936, member: 13090"] As is often the case in threads like this there are two things that can be looked at, if not confused. Those things being inherent lens quality and aesthetics. Lens quality, to my way of thinking, means how well a specific lens can can render an image to the camera's sensor (or film). Things like contrast and resolution can be measured and plotted. How much distortion, chromatic aberration and so forth a particular lens produces can also be measured objectively. Then, data from one lens can be compared to another and, based on that data, you can objectively determine if lens X is a more capable lens than lens Y. All of this makes for a relative, but still objective, comparison that I, and I think it safe to say most, consider a valid set of data points. It's the stuff [URL="http://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts"]MTF charts[/URL] are made of and I'm glad we have them. All of this is entirely separate from a photographers ability to correctly compose a shot however. Rhythm, balance, positive and negative space, color, mood, contrast, tonal value, et al. are all tools of the brain that have nothing to do with how good your lens is but everything to do with how good a particular photograph is (or isn't). So yes, I think it's clear to most people the lens does not make the shot great, the photographer does. By the same token, I don't see Jack Cunningham using a Kodak "Brownie". While I'm sure he could turn out some amazing images with one, I still feel safe in assuming he chooses to use top-notch equipment because he knows doing so will produce technically superior images. HCB is one of my personal photographic hero's and I feel safe in saying he would have availed himself readily of any better technology that his time could have afforded him; he certainly didn't hesitate to embrace 35mm when it became available. [COLOR=#ffffff]...[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
More expensive lens means a better image.
Top