01-10-2012, 06:56 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1326216107' post='14680']
I want simple solutions for simple tasks and, frankly, photography is a simple task. Looking at my results in the recent years - and I don't mean the sample images for the reviews - I've to admit that I just got worse photography-wise so I can only conclude that I just don't need all this IS or high ISO stuff. I need to slow down again. I need to stop taking pictures in all situations. I need to "focus". I need to get better again without all this unnecessary overhead.
Fell free to think of this as esoteric bullshit but that's my opinion.
[/quote]
Thats not esoteric, its pretty practical. To be honest ultra high iso and IS are only useful in ver specific circumstances which in my area (travel photograph) dont occur very often.
For once IS does not carry any advantage at shor focal length . I can hold 1/6 of a second at 24mm with my 24-105. IS gives practically zero improvement here and anything longer than 1/6 sec comes out blurred whether I use IS or not. In addition I quite often need much longer times than 1/6s to blur movements. Actually, only since I own IS lenses I started carrying a tripod.
Things are much different at the tele end if course.But since IS only works for static subjects and I mostly shoot people with my 70-200, I have to get sufficently short shutter speeds anyway. IS does help a lot in keeping the viewfinder steady and allows for quicker composition with tele lenses though.
Regarding ISO, somehing in the range of 800-3200 coupled with a fast prime lens gives much more pleasing results during street shooting than a slower lens and higher ISO. I think anything over iso 3200 is only needed by people who desperatly need very fast shutterspeeds in low light eg. sports and wildlife photographers. For everybody else the current technologies is already overkill.
I want simple solutions for simple tasks and, frankly, photography is a simple task. Looking at my results in the recent years - and I don't mean the sample images for the reviews - I've to admit that I just got worse photography-wise so I can only conclude that I just don't need all this IS or high ISO stuff. I need to slow down again. I need to stop taking pictures in all situations. I need to "focus". I need to get better again without all this unnecessary overhead.
Fell free to think of this as esoteric bullshit but that's my opinion.
[/quote]
Thats not esoteric, its pretty practical. To be honest ultra high iso and IS are only useful in ver specific circumstances which in my area (travel photograph) dont occur very often.
For once IS does not carry any advantage at shor focal length . I can hold 1/6 of a second at 24mm with my 24-105. IS gives practically zero improvement here and anything longer than 1/6 sec comes out blurred whether I use IS or not. In addition I quite often need much longer times than 1/6s to blur movements. Actually, only since I own IS lenses I started carrying a tripod.
Things are much different at the tele end if course.But since IS only works for static subjects and I mostly shoot people with my 70-200, I have to get sufficently short shutter speeds anyway. IS does help a lot in keeping the viewfinder steady and allows for quicker composition with tele lenses though.
Regarding ISO, somehing in the range of 800-3200 coupled with a fast prime lens gives much more pleasing results during street shooting than a slower lens and higher ISO. I think anything over iso 3200 is only needed by people who desperatly need very fast shutterspeeds in low light eg. sports and wildlife photographers. For everybody else the current technologies is already overkill.