Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Non IS or IS Lens???

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
June 11, 2005 1:24:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that will cope
while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS version.
I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with, as IS is new to
the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I really need IS? I use a
monopod. Handheld aswell.
I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying non IS
versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2 quicker.
Regards
Mike.
(e-mail me direct if you wish)
www.mikezite.co.uk

More about : lens

Anonymous
June 11, 2005 1:24:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"mike" <mike.greenslade45@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vynqe.10439$jS3.5207@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that will
> cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with, as IS
> is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I really need
> IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying non IS
> versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2 quicker.
> Regards
> Mike.
> (e-mail me direct if you wish)
> www.mikezite.co.uk
>
I, for one, will not buy another long lens, zoom or otherwise, without IS,
if such is available. If you did all of your shooting from a tripod, then
IS is probably not necessary, but handheld, or on a monopod, it is a must,
in my opinion. You really will notice the difference. I don't have the
70-200 IS, I do have the 100-400. The 70-200 is on the buy list, but after
a 24-70 f2.8.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mike wrote:
> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
> will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
> as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
> really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
> non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
> quicker. Regards
> Mike.
> (e-mail me direct if you wish)
> www.mikezite.co.uk

IS is not that new in the market. It's used, for instance over a year in
non-SLR PowerShot S1, which i owned untuil recently and, as Skip, i also
won't buy another camera without IS. I'll get S2 soon now...
even if i use compact and you SLR cameras, IS principle is the same. It
would be pointless only if you plan to shoot only on tripod. But, when
you'll shoot your first picture from hand in low light, you'll see and
appreciate that you bought IS.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 10 June 2005 14:24, mike wrote:

> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that will
> cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
> as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
> really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying non
> IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2 quicker.

You'll want a lens that is as fast as you can afford for night time
illuminated sports, at least f4 or faster. And even then you'll need
an ISO of 800 oo more for fast shutter speeds to freeze the action.

You don't need IS. Photographers have been shooting sports for years
without it and getting excellent, sharp photos. A good, sturdy, heavy
monopod like the Gitzos will do, and it will stabilize ALL your lenses.

The 70-200 is NOT a good choice of focal lengths for football/sports, in
general, even taking into account the 1D Mk2's 1.3 image factor.
You'll be doing almost all your shooting at the 200 setting and it
still won't be long enough to fill the frame with the action. I
suggest you abandon the zoom and get a single long, fast "prime" lens
for the sports (I'd suggest the 300 f2.8 with a 1.4 extender as a good
compromise between focal length, speed and cost.), and a super-wide to
normal zoom (16 to 35 f2.8 or 17-40 f4) as a general purpose lens and
for shooting that after game action when everyone is in a tight bunch,
jumping up and down, screaming and yelling, or in the locker room
screaming, yelling and spewing champagne everywhere, and you have to
switch from long lens sports photographer to extreme wide-angle
photojournalist. Later fill the gap with a moderate tele like the 85
or 100, then you'll have a good 3 lens system + extender that will work
well either with digital or film.


--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 6:36:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:31:51 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>mike wrote:
>> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
>> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
>> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
>> will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
>> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
>> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
>> as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
>> really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
>> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
>> non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
>> quicker. Regards
>> Mike.
>> (e-mail me direct if you wish)
>> www.mikezite.co.uk
>
>IS is not that new in the market. It's used, for instance over a year in
>non-SLR PowerShot S1, which i owned untuil recently and, as Skip, i also
>won't buy another camera without IS. I'll get S2 soon now...
>even if i use compact and you SLR cameras, IS principle is the same. It
>would be pointless only if you plan to shoot only on tripod. But, when
>you'll shoot your first picture from hand in low light, you'll see and
>appreciate that you bought IS.
>
>
This is somewhat off topic, but maybe someone can point me to a source
that I read recently and can no longer find. It had to do with IS
binoculars, and may have been in some bird watching pub. The drift
was that by using a pair "with IS" in a handheld manner, you can
visually see details that would require much higher magnification
binocs. At the time it made sense to me, and I think it listed some
suggested candidates to choose from. Anyone out there see that
article and where was it? Thanks.

Just for info, I definitely use tripods for my digiscoping and many
other camera uses. But following birds in motion is really not
practical with binocs on a tripod.

Olin McDaniel
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:05:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:36:27 GMT, omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com (Olin
K. McDaniel) wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:31:51 +0200, "SleeperMan"
><SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>>mike wrote:
>>> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
>>> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
>>> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
>>> will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
>>> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
>>> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
>>> as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
>>> really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
>>> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
>>> non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
>>> quicker. Regards
>>> Mike.
>>> (e-mail me direct if you wish)
>>> www.mikezite.co.uk
>>
>>IS is not that new in the market. It's used, for instance over a year in
>>non-SLR PowerShot S1, which i owned untuil recently and, as Skip, i also
>>won't buy another camera without IS. I'll get S2 soon now...
>>even if i use compact and you SLR cameras, IS principle is the same. It
>>would be pointless only if you plan to shoot only on tripod. But, when
>>you'll shoot your first picture from hand in low light, you'll see and
>>appreciate that you bought IS.
>>
>>
>This is somewhat off topic, but maybe someone can point me to a source
>that I read recently and can no longer find. It had to do with IS
>binoculars, and may have been in some bird watching pub. The drift
>was that by using a pair "with IS" in a handheld manner, you can
>visually see details that would require much higher magnification
>binocs. At the time it made sense to me, and I think it listed some
>suggested candidates to choose from. Anyone out there see that
>article and where was it? Thanks.
>
>Just for info, I definitely use tripods for my digiscoping and many
>other camera uses. But following birds in motion is really not
>practical with binocs on a tripod.
>
>Olin McDaniel
>

Just to let this matter rest, I actually found the reference I
remembered seeing some time ago. It was in a letter to the editor of
the "Living Bird" magazine published by Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology. The letter, which appeared in the Spring edition, was in
response to an article in the Winter edition in which 70 some
binoculars were evaluated. According to the letter writer, the IS
feature did offer the advantage recalled above.

Olin
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Friday 10 June 2005 14:24, mike wrote:
>
>> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
>> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
>> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
>> will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
>> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
>> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
>> as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
>> really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
>> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
>> non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
>> quicker.
>
> You'll want a lens that is as fast as you can afford for night time
> illuminated sports, at least f4 or faster. And even then you'll need
> an ISO of 800 oo more for fast shutter speeds to freeze the action.
>
> You don't need IS. Photographers have been shooting sports for years
> without it and getting excellent, sharp photos. A good, sturdy, heavy
> monopod like the Gitzos will do, and it will stabilize ALL your
> lenses.
>
Yep, i agree with that part. I guess this IS is more like stuff for amateurs
(like me :-)), or to make you lazy, in short, to make good photos easier.
Sure, it's not usefull in fast moving objects, it's more usefull when
shooting still ones in long distance with big zoom, as big zoom always
results in some degree of shaking if not on tripod. I guess shooting birds
or similar needs IS more, but then again, in that case you also probably
have tripod. So, again, maybe it is only stuff for amateurs.


But, as i read your suggestions...gee....i guess i'll stick with compact
ones for now...you almost need a truck to carry all this stuff with you, not
to mention that you need to rob a bank in order to buy all this stuff :-))
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:02:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>
>>On Friday 10 June 2005 14:24, mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
>>>I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
>>>I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
>>>will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
>>>I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
>>>version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
>>>as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
>>>really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
>>>I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
>>>non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
>>>quicker.
>>
>>You'll want a lens that is as fast as you can afford for night time
>>illuminated sports, at least f4 or faster. And even then you'll need
>>an ISO of 800 oo more for fast shutter speeds to freeze the action.
>>
>>You don't need IS. Photographers have been shooting sports for years
>>without it and getting excellent, sharp photos. A good, sturdy, heavy
>>monopod like the Gitzos will do, and it will stabilize ALL your
>>lenses.
>>
>
> Yep, i agree with that part. I guess this IS is more like stuff for amateurs
> (like me :-)), or to make you lazy, in short, to make good photos easier.
> Sure, it's not usefull in fast moving objects, it's more usefull when
> shooting still ones in long distance with big zoom, as big zoom always
> results in some degree of shaking if not on tripod. I guess shooting birds
> or similar needs IS more, but then again, in that case you also probably
> have tripod. So, again, maybe it is only stuff for amateurs.
>
>
> But, as i read your suggestions...gee....i guess i'll stick with compact
> ones for now...you almost need a truck to carry all this stuff with you, not
> to mention that you need to rob a bank in order to buy all this stuff :-))
>
>
No, you have it wrong. Pros use IS a lot, and depend on it in
many situations. IS is critical for sharp wildlife action and sports
photography in many situations. Check out these birds in action
and Alaskan brown bears in action:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

Every photo on the above pages were done with IS on and on a tripod,
except one image and it is not as sharp being done with a hand held
non IS lens (second to last image on the bird page, an eagle).

Check out Art Morris's site birdsasart.com, where he recommends
IS strongly. He does like a 400mm f/5.6 non IS lens because of
its fast focus, but if the same fast autofocus came out in IS,
I would get it, and I'm sure Art would too.

I would not buy another lens unless it is IS, with an exception of
the lens is critical and not available in IS. (Example, I recently
bought a 180 mm macro non IS.)

Roger
Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:05:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Friday 10 June 2005 14:24, mike wrote:
>>
>>> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
>>> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
>>> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
>>> will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
>>> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
>>> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot with,
>>> as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes wrong. Do I
>>> really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
>>> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
>>> non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
>>> quicker.
>>
>> You'll want a lens that is as fast as you can afford for night time
>> illuminated sports, at least f4 or faster. And even then you'll need
>> an ISO of 800 oo more for fast shutter speeds to freeze the action.
>>
>> You don't need IS. Photographers have been shooting sports for years
>> without it and getting excellent, sharp photos. A good, sturdy,
>> heavy monopod like the Gitzos will do, and it will stabilize ALL your
>> lenses.
>>
> Yep, i agree with that part. I guess this IS is more like stuff for
> amateurs (like me :-)), or to make you lazy, in short, to make good
> photos easier. Sure, it's not usefull in fast moving objects, it's
> more usefull when shooting still ones in long distance with big zoom,
> as big zoom always results in some degree of shaking if not on tripod.
> I guess shooting birds or similar needs IS more, but then again, in
> that case you also probably have tripod. So, again, maybe it is only
> stuff for amateurs.

Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very long
lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are impossible or a
hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would still
just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
savings on more training.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:30:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Stefan Patric wrote:
>>> On Friday 10 June 2005 14:24, mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is aimed more or less at Sports Photographers...
>>>> I understand I need f2.8L Lens' to shoot under floodlights.
>>>> I am weighing the odds on price difference as I need a lens that
>>>> will cope while shooting football matches under 'Floodlights'.
>>>> I am debateing whether to go for the Canon 70-200mmL f2.8 or the IS
>>>> version. I need to know from experienced users what they shoot
>>>> with, as IS is new to the Market and costly to fix when goes
>>>> wrong. Do I really need IS? I use a monopod. Handheld aswell.
>>>> I plan on getting a 1D Mk2 as well and think what I save by buying
>>>> non IS versions of F2.8 Lenses I could afford to buy the 1D Mk2
>>>> quicker.
>>>
>>> You'll want a lens that is as fast as you can afford for night time
>>> illuminated sports, at least f4 or faster. And even then you'll
>>> need an ISO of 800 oo more for fast shutter speeds to freeze the
>>> action.
>>>
>>> You don't need IS. Photographers have been shooting sports for years
>>> without it and getting excellent, sharp photos. A good, sturdy,
>>> heavy monopod like the Gitzos will do, and it will stabilize ALL
>>> your lenses.
>>>
>> Yep, i agree with that part. I guess this IS is more like stuff for
>> amateurs (like me :-)), or to make you lazy, in short, to make good
>> photos easier. Sure, it's not usefull in fast moving objects, it's
>> more usefull when shooting still ones in long distance with big zoom,
>> as big zoom always results in some degree of shaking if not on
>> tripod. I guess shooting birds or similar needs IS more, but then
>> again, in that case you also probably have tripod. So, again, maybe
>> it is only stuff for amateurs.
>
> Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very long
> lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are impossible or a
> hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
> reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
> difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would still
> just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
> savings on more training.

Hm...i agree that first and major part is training, or knowledge of photo
science. That's first reason i even bought S1...since it has all manual
settings, but if needed for quick shot, also full auto mode. In this one
year of owing S1 i did learn quite a bit, although i'm still a big amateur.
But, bit by bit...and surely one day i will have a good SLR camera in my
hand....sooner or later (although later, i fear ).
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 4:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
>
> On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:
>
<snip>
> Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very long
> lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are impossible or a
> hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
> reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
> difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would still
> just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
> savings on more training.
>
Actually, I think you are wrong, and maybe just a little condescending
in that statement. Most 'amateur shooters' don't use slr's, they use
compact P&S's, or zlr's.

By the time most amateurs acquire a true slr, capable of mounting an IS
or VR lens, their skill level will be enough, and it is a mildly
insulting generalization to say that their shots will be just blur-free
snapshots.

Coln
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 4:28:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sunday 12 June 2005 17:28, Colin D wrote:

>
>
> Stefan Patric wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>> Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very
>> long lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are impossible
>> or a
>> hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
>> reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
>> difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would still
>> just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
>> savings on more training.
>>
> Actually, I think you are wrong, and maybe just a little condescending
> in that statement. Most 'amateur shooters' don't use slr's, they use
> compact P&S's, or zlr's.
>
> By the time most amateurs acquire a true slr, capable of mounting an
> IS or VR lens, their skill level will be enough, and it is a mildly
> insulting generalization to say that their shots will be just
> blur-free snapshots.

I could have put "...shooting with SLRs..." in "The vast majority..."
sentence, but since the thread was about interchangeable lenses, which
fit only on SLRs and not on P&Ss, wasn't necessary. Everyone else
understood exactly what I was saying.

And you are wrong regarding amateur skill level. Most amateurs buy an
SLR long before they are really ready for it, believing that an
expensive camera will make them a better photographer. A belief, of
course, which was started and is constantly promoted by manufacturers
and retailers, to sell cameras. I hear it all the time: "What camera
do I need to be a good photographer?" So, my statement was not
condescending or insulting. It was the truth. And with 30 years
experience as a pro, and 15 before that as an amateur, I know what I'm
talking about.


--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:29:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

pt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have shot pro sports without IS for the last 5 years (not by choice,
> ...can't afford). Take a look at my two sites to get an idea of what
> you can expect.
>
> http://tuohy.smugmug.com
>
> http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-BrowseUser.cfm?user_...

quite decent photos. Maybe some of them (mostly hockey ones) have a bit too
much of a noise present, which could be made less with using IS and shorter
shutter speed. But, you can't have it all, can you...
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 8:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
>
> On Sunday 12 June 2005 17:28, Colin D wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stefan Patric wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:
> >>
> > <snip>
> >> Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very
> >> long lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are impossible
> >> or a
> >> hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
> >> reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
> >> difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would still
> >> just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
> >> savings on more training.
> >>
> > Actually, I think you are wrong, and maybe just a little condescending
> > in that statement. Most 'amateur shooters' don't use slr's, they use
> > compact P&S's, or zlr's.
> >
> > By the time most amateurs acquire a true slr, capable of mounting an
> > IS or VR lens, their skill level will be enough, and it is a mildly
> > insulting generalization to say that their shots will be just
> > blur-free snapshots.
>
> I could have put "...shooting with SLRs..." in "The vast majority..."
> sentence, but since the thread was about interchangeable lenses, which
> fit only on SLRs and not on P&Ss, wasn't necessary. Everyone else
> understood exactly what I was saying.

Did they? or is that a guess?
>
> And you are wrong regarding amateur skill level. Most amateurs buy an
> SLR long before they are really ready for it, believing that an
> expensive camera will make them a better photographer. A belief, of
> course, which was started and is constantly promoted by manufacturers
> and retailers, to sell cameras. I hear it all the time: "What camera
> do I need to be a good photographer?" So, my statement was not
> condescending or insulting. It was the truth. And with 30 years
> experience as a pro, and 15 before that as an amateur, I know what I'm
> talking about.

You are not alone in your experience, as I also have been involved in
photography for about 50 years, over 20 as pro, until my eyes decided to
develop cataracts, which effectively ended my ability to shoot
professionally. I now have lens implants, and can see well again, but
am a bit long in the tooth now to pick it up full-time, though I do some
part-time work now and again.

It's been my experience that some pro photogs are disdainful of
amateurs, and you come across as being in that camp. I have known - and
still know - amateurs who could give the average pro a run for his
money. There are some, I admit, who have more money than brains or
talent, who buy top-line gear, and three months later sell it, having
taken only snapshots, but they aren't the norm.

IMO, the amateur who buys an slr has been through the compact P&S stage,
and his appreciation of photography has grown to where he wants better
results. He may very well ask, maybe should ask, what camera to buy,
and he will get experience with an slr as he uses it, and he will in
time be a better photog. He will never learn about slr's until he has
one, and asking a pro will seem to him to be the best source of
information. Except that some pro's I have known, particularly wedding
photogs, consider amateurs to be a PITA at weddings.

I used to go the opposite way. I would suss out the uncles etc. with
cameras, and have a little talk with them, along the lines of 'I am the
pro photog, engaged by the bridal couple to guarantee first-class shots
of their wedding, and that is what am going to do. I realize that you
want to get some shots of your own and that's ok, but I ask that you let
me go first, set up the shots and take what I want, with no muscling
in. Then I will step back and you can have a go. But I don't want the
subjects to be confused about which camera to look at. Keep your camera
down until I have finished. OK?' I relied on my shots to be better than
theirs, which was generally the case, since I used fill flash or
reflectors to augment the lighting, and of course those weren't
available to the uncles/aunts/whoever.

Since the contract specified the approximate number of shots, number of
framable enlargements, and an album, it didn't really matter to me how
many shots the relatives took, what really mattered was that I got clear
access to and attention from the subjects, without competing cameras
wielded by relatives. And I frequently got print orders from the
amateurs as well, when they saw my shots, and it was all the better for
there being no aggro.

YMMV, but that's my take.

Colin.

PS: I have seen pro photogs say to the bride "Either they take the
photo, or I do. Take your pick', laying it on the bride to handle the
rellies. How to win friends.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:41:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Monday 13 June 2005 21:26, Colin D wrote:

>
>
> Stefan Patric wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday 12 June 2005 17:28, Colin D wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Stefan Patric wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> >> Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very
>> >> long lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are
>> >> impossible or a
>> >> hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
>> >> reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
>> >> difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would
>> >> still
>> >> just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
>> >> savings on more training.
>> >>
>> > Actually, I think you are wrong, and maybe just a little
>> > condescending
>> > in that statement. Most 'amateur shooters' don't use slr's, they
>> > use compact P&S's, or zlr's.
>> >
>> > By the time most amateurs acquire a true slr, capable of mounting
>> > an IS or VR lens, their skill level will be enough, and it is a
>> > mildly insulting generalization to say that their shots will be
>> > just blur-free snapshots.
>>
>> I could have put "...shooting with SLRs..." in "The vast majority..."
>> sentence, but since the thread was about interchangeable lenses,
>> which
>> fit only on SLRs and not on P&Ss, wasn't necessary. Everyone else
>> understood exactly what I was saying.
>
> Did they? or is that a guess?

A conclusion... No one else asked for clarification. And in this
forum, if someone doesn't understand, they sound off.

>>
>> And you are wrong regarding amateur skill level. Most amateurs buy
>> an SLR long before they are really ready for it, believing that an
>> expensive camera will make them a better photographer. A belief, of
>> course, which was started and is constantly promoted by manufacturers
>> and retailers, to sell cameras. I hear it all the time: "What
>> camera
>> do I need to be a good photographer?" So, my statement was not
>> condescending or insulting. It was the truth. And with 30 years
>> experience as a pro, and 15 before that as an amateur, I know what
>> I'm talking about.
>
> You are not alone in your experience, as I also have been involved in
> photography for about 50 years, over 20 as pro, until my eyes decided
> to develop cataracts, which effectively ended my ability to shoot
> professionally. I now have lens implants, and can see well again, but
> am a bit long in the tooth now to pick it up full-time, though I do
> some part-time work now and again.

I hope you charge more for your parttime work, than the average, less
experienced, fulltimer does.

> It's been my experience that some pro photogs are disdainful of
> amateurs, and you come across as being in that camp. I have known -
> and still know - amateurs who could give the average pro a run for his
> money. There are some, I admit, who have more money than brains or
> talent, who buy top-line gear, and three months later sell it, having
> taken only snapshots, but they aren't the norm.

I am a very honest person, brutally so, at times. (And you're not the
first person, who has noted my lack of certain "proper" social
skills. :-) ) If your photo/work is bad, I'll tell you so, and if you
really want to improve your photography, I'll also tell you what is
good with it and how you can make it better. Over the 30 years I've
been a pro, I've answered thousands of questions, offered advice,
juried shows, taught classes, seminars, and run field trips for the
local photos clubs all without charge. If you truly want to be a
better photographer, and are willing to work at it, you'll have my
unconditional help and support.

I really like those wannabee photographers with lots of money. I got
most of my equipment, at a big discount, of course, from them when they
found some other new, bright, shiny toy to play with.

> IMO, the amateur who buys an slr has been through the compact P&S
> stage, and his appreciation of photography has grown to where he wants
> better
> results. He may very well ask, maybe should ask, what camera to buy,
> and he will get experience with an slr as he uses it, and he will in
> time be a better photog. He will never learn about slr's until he has
> one, and asking a pro will seem to him to be the best source of
> information. Except that some pro's I have known, particularly
> wedding photogs, consider amateurs to be a PITA at weddings.

My experience with the first time SLR purchaser has been the opposite:
They may want better results, but it's their lack of skill that is the
limiting factor, not the camera. And buying a "better" camera to
produce "better" photos just won't succeed. My philosophy (about
cameras and when to upgrade) is and always has been: Never upgrade
until your current equipment begins to limit you. It has served me
well over the years, and saved me from making many stupid, costly
mistakes. Not all, mind you, but many.

> I used to go the opposite way. I would suss out the uncles etc. with
> cameras, and have a little talk with them, along the lines of 'I am
> the pro photog, engaged by the bridal couple to guarantee first-class
> shots
> of their wedding, and that is what am going to do. I realize that you
> want to get some shots of your own and that's ok, but I ask that you
> let me go first, set up the shots and take what I want, with no
> muscling
> in. Then I will step back and you can have a go. But I don't want the
> subjects to be confused about which camera to look at. Keep your
> [snip]

During my wedding period, early in my career, this was the way I worked
it, too. And everybody was happy.

>
> PS: I have seen pro photogs say to the bride "Either they take the
> photo, or I do. Take your pick', laying it on the bride to handle the
> rellies. How to win friends.

Truly, bad business marketing.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:56:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
>
> On Monday 13 June 2005 21:26, Colin D wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stefan Patric wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday 12 June 2005 17:28, Colin D wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sunday 12 June 2005 01:02, SleeperMan wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > <snip>
> >> >> Actually, IS is more for the pro. Particularly, one who uses very
> >> >> long lenses in situations where tripods and monopods are
> >> >> impossible or a
> >> >> hinderance. The vast majority of amateur shooters haven't really
> >> >> reached the skill level needed where IS would make much of a
> >> >> difference. Yes, you would have sharper images, but they would
> >> >> still
> >> >> just be really sharp, blurr-free snapshots. Better to spend the
> >> >> savings on more training.
> >> >>
> >> > Actually, I think you are wrong, and maybe just a little
> >> > condescending
> >> > in that statement. Most 'amateur shooters' don't use slr's, they
> >> > use compact P&S's, or zlr's.
> >> >
> >> > By the time most amateurs acquire a true slr, capable of mounting
> >> > an IS or VR lens, their skill level will be enough, and it is a
> >> > mildly insulting generalization to say that their shots will be
> >> > just blur-free snapshots.
> >>
> >> I could have put "...shooting with SLRs..." in "The vast majority..."
> >> sentence, but since the thread was about interchangeable lenses,
> >> which
> >> fit only on SLRs and not on P&Ss, wasn't necessary. Everyone else
> >> understood exactly what I was saying.
> >
> > Did they? or is that a guess?
>
> A conclusion... No one else asked for clarification. And in this
> forum, if someone doesn't understand, they sound off.
>
> >>
> >> And you are wrong regarding amateur skill level. Most amateurs buy
> >> an SLR long before they are really ready for it, believing that an
> >> expensive camera will make them a better photographer. A belief, of
> >> course, which was started and is constantly promoted by manufacturers
> >> and retailers, to sell cameras. I hear it all the time: "What
> >> camera
> >> do I need to be a good photographer?" So, my statement was not
> >> condescending or insulting. It was the truth. And with 30 years
> >> experience as a pro, and 15 before that as an amateur, I know what
> >> I'm talking about.
> >
> > You are not alone in your experience, as I also have been involved in
> > photography for about 50 years, over 20 as pro, until my eyes decided
> > to develop cataracts, which effectively ended my ability to shoot
> > professionally. I now have lens implants, and can see well again, but
> > am a bit long in the tooth now to pick it up full-time, though I do
> > some part-time work now and again.
>
> I hope you charge more for your parttime work, than the average, less
> experienced, fulltimer does.
>
> > It's been my experience that some pro photogs are disdainful of
> > amateurs, and you come across as being in that camp. I have known -
> > and still know - amateurs who could give the average pro a run for his
> > money. There are some, I admit, who have more money than brains or
> > talent, who buy top-line gear, and three months later sell it, having
> > taken only snapshots, but they aren't the norm.
>
> I am a very honest person, brutally so, at times. (And you're not the
> first person, who has noted my lack of certain "proper" social
> skills. :-) ) If your photo/work is bad, I'll tell you so, and if you
> really want to improve your photography, I'll also tell you what is
> good with it and how you can make it better. Over the 30 years I've
> been a pro, I've answered thousands of questions, offered advice,
> juried shows, taught classes, seminars, and run field trips for the
> local photos clubs all without charge. If you truly want to be a
> better photographer, and are willing to work at it, you'll have my
> unconditional help and support.
>
> I really like those wannabee photographers with lots of money. I got
> most of my equipment, at a big discount, of course, from them when they
> found some other new, bright, shiny toy to play with.
>
> > IMO, the amateur who buys an slr has been through the compact P&S
> > stage, and his appreciation of photography has grown to where he wants
> > better
> > results. He may very well ask, maybe should ask, what camera to buy,
> > and he will get experience with an slr as he uses it, and he will in
> > time be a better photog. He will never learn about slr's until he has
> > one, and asking a pro will seem to him to be the best source of
> > information. Except that some pro's I have known, particularly
> > wedding photogs, consider amateurs to be a PITA at weddings.
>
> My experience with the first time SLR purchaser has been the opposite:
> They may want better results, but it's their lack of skill that is the
> limiting factor, not the camera. And buying a "better" camera to
> produce "better" photos just won't succeed. My philosophy (about
> cameras and when to upgrade) is and always has been: Never upgrade
> until your current equipment begins to limit you. It has served me
> well over the years, and saved me from making many stupid, costly
> mistakes. Not all, mind you, but many.
>
> > I used to go the opposite way. I would suss out the uncles etc. with
> > cameras, and have a little talk with them, along the lines of 'I am
> > the pro photog, engaged by the bridal couple to guarantee first-class
> > shots
> > of their wedding, and that is what am going to do. I realize that you
> > want to get some shots of your own and that's ok, but I ask that you
> > let me go first, set up the shots and take what I want, with no
> > muscling
> > in. Then I will step back and you can have a go. But I don't want the
> > subjects to be confused about which camera to look at. Keep your
> > [snip]
>
> During my wedding period, early in my career, this was the way I worked
> it, too. And everybody was happy.
>
> >
> > PS: I have seen pro photogs say to the bride "Either they take the
> > photo, or I do. Take your pick', laying it on the bride to handle the
> > rellies. How to win friends.
>
> Truly, bad business marketing.
>
Fine, Stefan. We basically agree. Good discussion

Colin
!