kit lens really isnt bad, but it isnt a lens your probably want to keep on the body 90% of the time, it has its limitations. Not a bad macro but compared to the 100mm 2.8 there is a big difference. I rarly use it since i have L now. Oh, by the way,,, this pic isnt tooo bad, better than some i took when I first got my camera, but it is a bit soft.
Hey, I'm with whitejohn...if we slam people, then, they'll never post, then nothing new will happen on the boards because nobody will get better.
As to the shot, I like the 1st one a LOT better. It could EASILY be a shot that is emphasizing the stone over the setting (think "our yearly sapphire sale")...its true, it needed a TINY amount more DOF to get all of the stone in focus.
No matter how you technically slice it, I like the 1st shot just peachy, and, its a tremendous ability for the money. People have poo-poo'd me for having a 2MP "dino-cam" as one guy put it, and "would you please stop posting, because your posts are not relevant to anyone here"...yeah, I notice that dude doesn't post anymore.
Its a community, and communities have all different folks doing all diff things, vive la diff-raunch.
I always tell people about this photography forum I participate in where people are friendly, almost never rude, and always gracious with newbies. This is one of the only forums (on any subject) I know of that is so civil.
Okay, heres the thing guys, a good portion of the long time members of this board are some pretty talented photographers, alot of longtime industry pro's, well published PJ's etc.
Id go as far as to that on the average FM probably has some of the most talented members of any of the general photo forums on the net. As a result, the standards for images are generally very high, and additionally the typical members gear list is pretty extensive and expensive.
What do some of you who think members think the correct responce to a shot thats simply average at best, that doesnt show any special ability of a lens, nor any real brillance in composition ?
Fake it and saw "wow, thats amazing"
FM quite simply is not a forum where you post just because you want to hear how great you are. DP Review is great for that. You can post any old crap and you'll get a ton of repsonces all saying, "great shot" "what lens" "its so sharp" etc etc
Post something such as a sports photo at FM and your going to get a group of people who shoot professionally giving you their honest opinion and using the same high standards they have for their work. Why ? Because most all of the members who are posting are trying to improve and thats how you improve.
I hope that everyone is happy with whatever gear they own and enjoy using. I dont judge anyone based upon what they own, simply on the results they get.
This guy could of used a $1100 Canon 180 L macro lens and produced a similar shot and I wouldnt of been any more impressed and I certainly hope no one else would be either.
If you make a post with a claim such as "look how great this is" your opening yourself up to critique.
For all the newer members, we are all adults here and we dont need hero's to jump in and defend us. If you want to be a helpful contributor simply state your opinion on the shot. This is a PHOTOGRAPHY forum, not one for personal debates about who's arrogant and such.
If someone post a shot that doesnt impress you, explain why it doesnt, offer suggestions to make it better. Thats whats going to really help people.
Thats the problem with DPR after all, for every one post that has a helpful suggestion theres 9 post of debate over the "tone" the person gave the advice.
WhiteJon, perhaps you confuse truth and objectivity with arrogance? It seems he was trying to use a mediocre picture as an example of how good the 20D kit is, and because he created this thread, he was asking for commentary and he got it.
Otherwise, unless one writes "gees, nice picture!!!!!!!", one is said to be arrogant?!?
Another good bit of advice for doing a product type shot like this is make sure you check for pieces of lint in the stones mount. Its quite obvious in the upper left mount of the heart shaped stone. Last thing you would want to do is setup and do an entire shot and then realize that you had that lint in there, you cant clone that out and if it was for a client you'd really be in trouble.
Remember that with any macro or near macro shooting you need to triple check every surface for dust, hairs, fingerprints, watersports and reflections and then check it again.
no one wants a jewerly shot where you can see the photog's camera reflected etc
Your right, its "average at best" but from the general review of the 18>55 lens you'd think that you need to be the worlds best photographer to get anything even remotly acceptable out of it.
Fact is 95% of the board members I see posting are NOT working @ SI or doing 20X30 prints for the MMOMA but are amateur owners who have limited budgets.
I don't use this lens, I however got it from dell for LESS then the body only, so I said "hey why not" worst case I'll sell the kit lens if it's truly that bad. Every review I read, every person I've talked to has had the same response "don't waste your money on the kit lens its a worthless peice of crap" and having used truly worthless crap I thought the first picture was pretty neat for "worthless crap." I wasn't looking for a review, was just pointing to good color, small DOF and pretty decent overall 100% crop.
The angle sucks, the lighting sucks, it was standing up in the gift box shot handheld just for sake of showing that the "Worthless lens you should skip" imho isn't so "worthless." That was the whole point, not to show the be all and end all sell the 85 1.2 L lens and buy this NOW.
It's probably my fault for not putting a disclaimer in the first post indicating this was meant to show relative quality of the lens NOT the technique and value of the photo.
chrisutley wrote:
I always tell people about this photography forum I participate in where people are friendly, almost never rude, and always gracious with newbies. This is one of the only forums (on any subject) I know of that is so civil.
Keep it that way!
I'd also hope that you'd add being honest to that list.
It takes alot more time to point out what all is wrong and how to fix it than it does to simply say "nice shot". Thats a true measure of being friendly, telling it how it is.
Tim, Im active on this forum nearly every day and I hardly ever see anyone say anything bad about the 18-55, yes its not the best lens made and I think everyone realizes that, but generally speaking once its stopped down a little it produces some very nice wide angle shots. Ive seen tons of great images taken with that lens, some really really fine work.
I think you should of picked a "better" shot to use if you really wanted to try to make a point. You yourself admit that the angle of the shot sucks, the lighting sucks and most amazingly of all it was shot handheld ?
People simply dont judge a lens like that. No one looks at an action photo where the main subject is out of focus and says " well the shot sucks but look at how sharp the people in the background are" Or do they look at a wildlife image with bad subject blur and say " well the subject moved during the shot but boy, the color is fantastic"
It could additionally be said that I dont see your need to "defend" a lens that you stated you dont even use yourself. I know lots of people say the d30 and d60 are "worthless" for sports due to the AF, but is that a reason that I should go out and try to produce a good shot just to prove people wrong ?
Im sure that for every piece of gear I own someone somewhere has said its not good, isnt sharp,bad color, poor performance etc but thats the internet.
For every good review you'll find a bad one. The only consistant thing you can find in lens reviews is mixed opinions
I really think that any decent photographer can produce a decent shot from any lens today.
Heck, I offer a challenge to anyone that things any lens is so useless that it cant produce a usable photo. Send me that lens and I will produce a usable shot with it as judged by our peers on this forum.
This isnt to claim that im some amazing photographer with talent on loan from God, but simply that even the "worst" lens made today can produce some fine shots if used correclty and in a manner that suits them
I also initially thought that it was a bad example of the capabilities of the lens. But as good photographers, I'm sure you can all separate the technical errors of the photographer from the raw capabilities of the glass, can't you? With all the instant trashing of this kind of inexpensive gear, you'd almost think that geometry would be distorted beyond all recognition and white would look orange and people would sprout little devil horns. I think, as far as the novice making purchase decisions is concerned, this thread helps illustrate that this is not the case. It's pretty easy, reading this forum, to believe you have to spend about $25,000 to even think about taking good photographs. While this photo isn't exactly the best example to the contrary, I think you can use it to get a simple impression of what you could do with a little more care.
There are also the sample photos for some of the canon cameras in the dreaded dpreview.com reviews area, where you can see that these kit lenses actually perform really well in the right hands.
