One thing that really changed my approach to fast lenses was about 5 years ago, when I learned that on a dslr you are literally not seeing the actual DOF through the viewfinder for anything faster than f2.8 or so. I then switched to live view for my 1.2 and 1.4 lenses and things instantly got better. Now with the mirrorless and with eye tracking, staying around f1.2 for a wedding day is much easier, but still requires vigilant focus point adjustments all day long. Another thing that made a huge change recently was realizing on my r6 that I have to disable exposure simulation during receptions while using OCF or it will hunt for focus and be slow and miss
A really well done video....I'm guilty of over-producing my photos. A couple comments: 1. Usually when I see issues regarding depth of field (DoF) creating a poor image, it's that there was too much of it, not too little of it. Distracting, in-focus backgrounds that obfuscate the subject are the worst. When a subject is out of focus, no matter how much or how little DoF is in the image, the problem is almost always the photographer's inability to acquire focus on the target...and narrow DoF only exposes the problem even more. Beginners, mainly, but also people who have been shooting for a while, who rely on the default auto focus area mode of a camera will rarely, if ever, nail the focus perfectly, and if they are shooting wide open, even on a kit lens, it really shows the problem you mentioned. I see it all the time in photography forums and they always blame their entry level gear (which, at least sometimes, masks their shortcomings) and when they upgrade to better gear with much faster glass, their problem gets even worse. When I mentor people who are struggling to improve, the very first thing I do is get them off of the default AF area mode and into single point AF area mode and their work improves instantly. 2. I used to think that kit lenses were junk and I never used them. I do a lot of close up photography of small animals (like frogs and reptiles) and I used to use macro lenses exclusively. The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro is one of my favorites, but you've really got to stop down (I normally shoot it at f/22 or f/29 with the 105 micro in that situation) if you want enough DoF to cover your whole subject in many cases. Then I started seeing the work of young people on a budget, down in Costa Rica (where I live) creating images that blew mine away...and they were using 10-year-old entry level cameras, like Nikon D3XXX series bodies or comparable Canon bodies, along with the 18-55mm kit zooms. These 18-55mm zooms usually do about 0.4x reproduction, which is way more than enough on an APS-C sensor with very small animals as your subjects, and they render an amazing amount of sharpness and detail if you have enough diffused light...and because of the wider angle lenses, you can shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 and get plenty of DoF. I still prefer pro glass but one of the biggest things I've learned is that quality of light is more important than the cost of the lens.
You’ve made some really good points here Mike. I fully agree that too much of the image being in focus is just as much of a problem. (It seems like I need a second list!) I’ll also agree that many lenses can pass as sharp when scenes are lit properly. I’ve personally noticed a massive difference in sharpness and chromatic aberration with a few Canon and Nikon kit lenses I own. I’ve noticed a cheap 50mm prime will typically shoot sharper at almost any price point.
It was quote by Robert Capa "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough” but it was about photojournalism and street photography. But I admit I sinned by worshiping wide angles, I was 35mm fan but then I bought 50mm and was like hmm thats fun, I get pictures more focused on the topic. And then I bought 85mm and was like wow it's so fun and mindfully cropping to only what I want to show on my photos. And now I bought 135mm and I'm not sure where it will take me... But knowing that there is something called background compresion and learning to include this factor when taking photos was a big step forward for me ;)
I still love my wide lenses too! There’s absolutely a time and place for them. If you’re frame is full of negative space to show the subject is alone for example, I’d still consider the frame filled :)
*white-knuckles my $250 Sony 50mm* Sir, you can pry it from my cold dead hands! 😂 In all fairness I do have some other more expensive lenses, but when I started getting into photography I used the crap out of the Nikon kit lens it came with back in 2004, and a super cheap telephoto Tamron lens. I got lots of good photos (didn't care about - or notice - edges losing sharpness) and had fun with it. I'd suggest renting a more expensive lens for a few days before buying one, especially for those new to the hobby.
@@RunNGunPhoto No worries. CAPA did alot of images and eventually got killed by stepping on a landmine... Guess that the "close enough" was followed till the end of his life huh? He got himself killed in the 50's in Vietnam
I enjoy jpeg, I believe in fuji you have uncompressed. I do see a slight difference in certain landscapes but for portraits and documentary I think it's debatable about sharpness. Create a Great photo and it deters most pixel peepers.
Did any of my *"10 Reasons Why Your Photos Suck"* resonate with you? 😶🌫
Let me know YOUR biggest rookie-mistake that you've learned from? 👇👇👇
One thing that really changed my approach to fast lenses was about 5 years ago, when I learned that on a dslr you are literally not seeing the actual DOF through the viewfinder for anything faster than f2.8 or so. I then switched to live view for my 1.2 and 1.4 lenses and things instantly got better. Now with the mirrorless and with eye tracking, staying around f1.2 for a wedding day is much easier, but still requires vigilant focus point adjustments all day long. Another thing that made a huge change recently was realizing on my r6 that I have to disable exposure simulation during receptions while using OCF or it will hunt for focus and be slow and miss
That’s some great information Jimmy, thank you for sharing! Super helpful 👍
A really well done video....I'm guilty of over-producing my photos. A couple comments:
1. Usually when I see issues regarding depth of field (DoF) creating a poor image, it's that there was too much of it, not too little of it. Distracting, in-focus backgrounds that obfuscate the subject are the worst. When a subject is out of focus, no matter how much or how little DoF is in the image, the problem is almost always the photographer's inability to acquire focus on the target...and narrow DoF only exposes the problem even more. Beginners, mainly, but also people who have been shooting for a while, who rely on the default auto focus area mode of a camera will rarely, if ever, nail the focus perfectly, and if they are shooting wide open, even on a kit lens, it really shows the problem you mentioned. I see it all the time in photography forums and they always blame their entry level gear (which, at least sometimes, masks their shortcomings) and when they upgrade to better gear with much faster glass, their problem gets even worse. When I mentor people who are struggling to improve, the very first thing I do is get them off of the default AF area mode and into single point AF area mode and their work improves instantly.
2. I used to think that kit lenses were junk and I never used them. I do a lot of close up photography of small animals (like frogs and reptiles) and I used to use macro lenses exclusively. The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro is one of my favorites, but you've really got to stop down (I normally shoot it at f/22 or f/29 with the 105 micro in that situation) if you want enough DoF to cover your whole subject in many cases. Then I started seeing the work of young people on a budget, down in Costa Rica (where I live) creating images that blew mine away...and they were using 10-year-old entry level cameras, like Nikon D3XXX series bodies or comparable Canon bodies, along with the 18-55mm kit zooms. These 18-55mm zooms usually do about 0.4x reproduction, which is way more than enough on an APS-C sensor with very small animals as your subjects, and they render an amazing amount of sharpness and detail if you have enough diffused light...and because of the wider angle lenses, you can shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 and get plenty of DoF. I still prefer pro glass but one of the biggest things I've learned is that quality of light is more important than the cost of the lens.
You’ve made some really good points here Mike.
I fully agree that too much of the image being in focus is just as much of a problem. (It seems like I need a second list!)
I’ll also agree that many lenses can pass as sharp when scenes are lit properly. I’ve personally noticed a massive difference in sharpness and chromatic aberration with a few Canon and Nikon kit lenses I own.
I’ve noticed a cheap 50mm prime will typically shoot sharper at almost any price point.
It was quote by Robert Capa "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough” but it was about photojournalism and street photography.
But I admit I sinned by worshiping wide angles, I was 35mm fan but then I bought 50mm and was like hmm thats fun, I get pictures more focused on the topic. And then I bought 85mm and was like wow it's so fun and mindfully cropping to only what I want to show on my photos. And now I bought 135mm and I'm not sure where it will take me... But knowing that there is something called background compresion and learning to include this factor when taking photos was a big step forward for me ;)
I still love my wide lenses too! There’s absolutely a time and place for them.
If you’re frame is full of negative space to show the subject is alone for example, I’d still consider the frame filled :)
Love to see a photo challenge where you photograph the same exact studio with led continuas light VS flash. Same exact placement of lights.
Great suggestion! Thank you!
*white-knuckles my $250 Sony 50mm* Sir, you can pry it from my cold dead hands! 😂
In all fairness I do have some other more expensive lenses, but when I started getting into photography I used the crap out of the Nikon kit lens it came with back in 2004, and a super cheap telephoto Tamron lens. I got lots of good photos (didn't care about - or notice - edges losing sharpness) and had fun with it. I'd suggest renting a more expensive lens for a few days before buying one, especially for those new to the hobby.
Nifty Fifties (cheap 50mm primes) are definitely the exception to the rule. Rarely do they come in the “kit” bundles though.
06:02 The phrase is from CAPA, the best well known WARTIME photographer... "If you're pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"
Thanks for that Paul. I wasn’t sure if it was Capa or Bresson. I didn’t want to wrongly attribute it. 👍
@@RunNGunPhoto No worries. CAPA did alot of images and eventually got killed by stepping on a landmine... Guess that the "close enough" was followed till the end of his life huh? He got himself killed in the 50's in Vietnam
@paulodefeyter I shouldn’t have laughed at that…. 😅
It was Cartier Bresson but you know that!
I couldn’t remember if it was Capa or Bresson. I should’ve googled it!
@@RunNGunPhoto We are equipped with a gigantic memory. Plato talked about that. Maybe, soon, Magnum will take me on.
My memory is full of useless information that’s all jumbled up haha
I enjoy jpeg, I believe in fuji you have uncompressed. I do see a slight difference in certain landscapes but for portraits and documentary I think it's debatable about sharpness. Create a Great photo and it deters most pixel peepers.
JPEG + Uncompressed RAW? JPEG by nature is a compressed, lossy format.
@@RunNGunPhoto thought they have two settings for jpeg
Too much toneh made Tony Northrop nuts lucky Camera conspiracy stepped in 😂
What are you even talking about lol 🤣