Dont buy new stuff?

As from my previous post, i have a question. Why buy the new stuff? We all hear the advertising blurb about this lens is better than the old one etc, but in the real world......is it? Whilst we study the various charts on this site and others, zoom in to %100 look for this bit of sharpness over others we can see that technology moves on. But does it? We miss one massive variable. Who zooms in to %100. No one. The issue is, will you notice any differance on what you print. The answer is....no. Unless you print big.

I therefore make a challenge.

I will donate £100 to charity to anyone who can make a shot with Canons latest lens, 200, 300 500 do the same shot with the old lens, on the same camera,paper etc print at A3 on the same printer and can notice any differance.

Mick

Deal.
(But you supply the lens)

I typically buy new things for several reasons. Like...

1) Convenience
2) Better durability
3) Desired additional features I can get nowhere else
4) Security (backup supplies)
5) Superior image quality

That's why I buy new stuff. "Superior image quality" is probably the most subjective part of that list, but it's no less valid for it.

I think it'd be a hard challenge for most to notice the difference on an a4 size piece of paper.
This is my fourth month of not just leaving my camera on full auto. So for me I don't think it would make much difference.

I took a photography seminar/classes to better get to know my camera from a photographer who is regularly published in backpacker, men's journal, national geographic among others.

As a professional photographer his editor requires 'billboard size pictures' for submission. So I suspect that for the average consumer there is little need to buy top end latest and greatest, but for the professional... it could mean the difference of getting the shot that gets picked and published or loosing it to someone else.


Me personally - I'm happy buying used gear from someone that has upgraded to the latest.

Hi, you’re right that there will likely be no noticeable difference in such prints. However, I believe they managed to reduce weight significantly for some of the new telephoto lenses and for some people that difference alone could be a good reason to upgrade.

Although the image quality of a 100% crop is usually not essential for the typical viewing conditions (medium sized print, web-sized image etc), it can be really useful for cropping. E.g. I don’t own any lens longer than 200 mm, but my 70-200 zoom is really great and it’s no problem to make a decent print that simulates 400 mm (provided small/medium size is enough).

I think you might want to point out the fact that many of us spend far too much time and money on the technical aspects of photography gear. I.e. it’s not uncommon that all of the latest really advanced professional gear is used for taking average holiday snapshots. I believe this tool overkill is rather common, not only in photography but in many hobbies. For example I have a friend who absolutely can’t understand why I spend that much money on cameras (he prefers to think of any piece of gear as “camera” regardless if it’s a camera, a lens, a flash…). On the other hand he buys a new car every year, he talks about nothing but cars, he only reads car magazines, and he uses those very expensive cars with big motors only for transportation from point A to point B - really meaningless ;). (Actually I’ve used this fact in “purchasing negotiations” with my wife: “Compared to being a car nerd, being a photo nerd is quite cheap - one doesn’t get much car for 1000 bucks, but you can get a great lens.”)

At least I’m aware that my gear isn’t what limits the quality of my photos - I have lots to learn about the “artistic” aspects of photography and I’m working on it. I’m also aware that I’ve been infected with the gear collecting disease, though my case may not be too severe (so far). I’m actually very happy to have the opportunity of using good gear while trying to learn photography, and I believe there are many other hobby photographers in about the same situation out there.

I have to agree w/ CLS and Fast Glass.

Recently returning to what was a modest profession 30 years ago, and is now a hobby, there are some things that are bicycle like and come back pretty quick..... Then there is the whole technology thing, LOL thud - laughed at myself so hard I fell from my chair. I can remember lots of people coming into the store and expressing "professional" status just because they had a SLR and PERHAPS 2-3 lens while I was standing in front of 8x10 linhoff w/ a giant schneider on it. It still goes on.... to quote Fast Glass "I just take pictures."

While I am really impressed with what the modern camera can do, I think I have read where the positive film (slides) still has a dynamic range the electronic sensors are several steps away from. I can believe this looking at shadow detail, etc. Dave Dugdale did a nice piece on the 5d3 v d800 that highlighted the dynamic range issues pretty well. Notwithstanding the stupid destruction (think donate to a worthy cause!?!?!) the review of the ISO/Sensor performance of the 5d3/ v d800 of usable iso vs. noise in ever declining light for the video side - which hee hee is so amazing to what was around 30 years ago.

If one is going to go all the way artsy, certainly a DSLR paired to medium format or 4x5 shooting positive film with similar effective focal lengths would seem to be the upper end - the resolution and dynamic range of 4x5. (there is always the Leica medium format if you want to spend big bucks chasing better, but how much, image quality).

On the other end of this is now the cell phone camera (used to be the P&S but even that has been eclipsed). I guess all of this is to say "pick a point" that you believe is your level of interest and simply enjoy the images you make. There will always be limitations, always that next step.

Happy clicks.

You could probably see the difference but it would be really small, you would have to stay very close and pixel peep in a A3 print. But the thing that you miss is many of us still print bigger than that and the difference will be larger in a 13x19 for example. And pros frequently print much larger than that, which probably is the largest market for the lenses.

And I just take pictures!
John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Shoot me an email. I will let you know where to send the money.

---

That has me LOL, too! :D

Can i ask, why are you comparing the new lens to the old with a x2 converter? Are you trying to say that the new one is better because its sharper when using a x2 converter and thats noticable at A3 and above?

Well, why do people buy a $5000 lens? Because they want ultimate image quality and a fast lens. Why on earth would i or a pro spend that much money then spoil it buy putting a two times converter on therefore ruining the exact reason you bought it in the first place, image quality. Next, using a x2 converter looses two stops of light. The second reason you buy a fast lens is because....its a fast lens. Why would i put a two times converter on a 300, loose two stops of light and background bokeh? I wouldnt. Id use the appropriate lens/camera combination to get the required focal length for ultimate image quality. I dont know any pros who use converters for that exact reason, loss of speed and image quality. My friend who does English Premier League soccer/football pointed this loss of light and image quality when i showed him this post.Yes you could negate this a little with increased ISO but again this damages image quality.

So again, i stick with my original post. If you print at A3 with the old and new lens you wont notice any differance. If you shoot at 600mm using extenders then yes you will get an unsharp noisy picture whilst i would just pop the 300/400 or 500 on my 7D/1DMK4/IDS3 and get the focal length i require. Just like the pros.

Do you want my e-mail so you can send me the money now or later?

I'll go back to my original post and demonstrate why I buy new things. The Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo I recently purchased allows me to control DOF (during the brightest of days) while also allowing me to use a circular polarizer at the same time. It certainly wasn't cheap, but in my mind, well worth the investment.

To be honest, the polarizer didn't do much for me today when I was test shooting (the time of day and angle to the sun was less than optimal), but considering I was shooting at f/1.8 at 1/160 second in broad daylight is phenomenal to me.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7...d4ff76f3_z.jpg
Noelle in Summer by budrowilson, on Flickr

i realize that you were talking about sharpness in the beginning, but that is only one part of the image quality difference and quite frequently one of the smallest areas of difference. One of the easiest areas to see differences between versions of lenses in ANY size or resolution of image is flare followed by CA. Given the number of lenses that show substantial improvements in these areas with each successive version I can see the initial challenge could get rather costly at a $100 a pop. Covering a lot of outdoor sports events myself I can really appreciate the improvements in the coatings when at the start/finish line in the early mornings and late in the day.

True i didnt specify it had to be a naked lens as i thought anyone who wanted top quality would never use a x2 converter but use the lens appropriate for the job. Sorry, for any confusion. As for cost etc, i never mentioned cost. I never mentioned converters. I'm trying to point out that the new lens to all but the most highly critical pro in a very limited photo op isnt worth the upgrade. Just like the last post, yes it has some advantages to a very small segment of the market, highly critical pros shooting in very poor light conditions. For us mere mortals we will never tell the differance. I know my friend who covers the most watched pro soccer in the world English Premier League isnt upgrading. What does that say? Hes never experienced a problem with flare and you always shoot on a monopod/tripod with a 500 due to its length and weight. 1.5 lbs will make very little differance. If im wrong then when i watch the upcoming Olympics i expect the pros to be shooting hand held with the new 500.

My local camera shop has asked for a moderator to remove this thread, but my wife wants it printed and framed.:confused:

Steve; I had to think on this a bit but..
He only wants it removed because he wants you to buy new stuff...
and we know why the wife wants it framed :p

I have a feeling she wouldn't want you talking to me

Yes you are a bad influence....
Of course Canon don't agree with that statement.

I am finding it interesting how this thread has migrated from purely a sharpness comparison to looking at so many other things that contribute to an improvement in lenses. On the new uber telephotos there is one other new feature that is an improvement. It won't show up in the photos but it will increase the number of acceptable shots. The Mode 3 for IS is something that makes it easier to consistently get the shots framed the way you want them. Is the new 300 a must have upgrade? Probably not for many owners of the original. That was, and still is, a very nice lens. Compared to the 300 f4 that I've had for some time, well that's another story. If I had the choice today of buying the original 300 or the new version, I am quite certain I'd go with the new version. The IQ is a bit better, it plays better with TCs which matters to me, IS is improved which with the lighter weight improves handholdability immensely, and the new paint colour would just seal the deal of course.

@Steve U I must have really lucked out with my wife. She still encourages me to buy new toys!!! Of course, she seldom asks what is written on the price tag and she frequently goes shopping after nudging me off the fence of indecision. Hmmm....

Ahh bless her JRW, you're a lucky man.
I tried the, "what this old thing?" line the other day, but it didn't work on my new 15L Lowepro Flipside back pack. Mainly because it is a bright blue colour and is very hard to sneak past anyone with.
BTW, the back pack is very good, very light and very secure.
Oops and it is new stuff, so I am not following the example of OP Mickw. I'm trying but it's hard.

Steve shame on you for buying new stuff, a sack would have carried your gear just as well as that new bag. But you should remember to ask for plastic not paper when you get one from the store, the paper doesn't hold up as well in wet weather.

Or you could do like these "Pro's" do and just throw your gear on the ground when your not using it;


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5327/7...736bf0d2_z.jpg
Nascar Photog 102 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

I have a couple of questions for you guys

Can i ask you whats the best camera you have ever used, the most optically perfect lens setup?

On what basis/experience do you make the statement?

Mick

The best I have used personally would probably be my 50mm or 100mm primes, both are extremely sharp stopped down. The best that I know of is the new 300mm on a FF, check the ISO crops.

I know a lot of photographers that use 2x teleconverters, Juza is one example. I use one when I can't get close enough for a shot, it's better than cropping so I use it. I have the Minolta 600mm f/6.3 on a 60D so I know why bird photographers need 2x extenders for!

Edit.

I forgot to add, the bokeh does not change when using a teleconverter. You simply crop to acheive a longer focal length and narrower f/number, now if you get closer or used a longer lens with a faster aperture then you will be more background blur. In practice you will get less background in you image and usually a cleaner background which might appear to have more bokeh.

John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickw

I have a couple of questions for you guys

Can i ask you whats the best camera you have ever used, the most optically perfect lens setup?

On what basis/experience do you make the statement?

Mick

---

You will get a ton of different answers because there are so many ways that people use cameras and lenses. There are a myriad of goals and different ways to achieve them as well. That being said, I love bird photography the most and the best I have used is my current equipment: Canon 1D MKIV and Canon 500mm f/4L IS USM and Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS USM. The basis for that is the last 5 years I have been taking bird photos (several thousand) and for me this equipment, when used properly) produces the best images I have ever made. This system focuses fast, accurately and in low light. You can get great images with high ISO, the color, contrast and sharpness of the lenses cannot be beat. The 1DMKIV at 16 mpix is plenty for me, it will shoot more than 10 fps, holds 2 cards, shoots video, has built in vertical controls and on and on and....it's a great system.

At Joel and HD,

Stop talking like that or you will push me over the edge! Seriously!:D

John.

What is the best we have ever shot with? Wow, there's a question.

For bodies I'd have to put the 5D3 ahead of the 5D2 for the images delivered from the camera as well as AF and everything else that was improved. Am finding post-processing to be minimal. Contrast and colour rendition are quite nice. Haven't used a 1D body yet to compare myself. Have used quite a few of the cropped body range from the original Rebel through to the 7D. The 7D is at the top of that list for the AF and feature set. The old XSi I always liked as well but that may be more sentiment at this point than anything else. The cropped sensors are definitely lower on my list than the 5D2. Have sold off my 7D bodies since 5D3 came out. Only had them for the AF system for action shots not for image quality and did not want to pay for two of each of the 1D and 1Ds bodies for the broad range of items that I shoot. Am transitioning to having only two of the 5D3 bodies as they seem to be capable of doing everything I need/want in one package.

Lens wise for primes, I'd put the 300 f2.8 II up at the top. New 500 mm may bump it from top spot. Will have to wait and see on that one. The 100 mm L IS macro would also make my short list for IQ and versatility.
For zooms, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II reigns supreme. It comes close to the primes that share its range in all areas except aperture.

My choices are based on sports and event shooting, portraits, landscapes and wildlife, and macro work. For portraits I favour the 70-200 over the traditional primes. I am not the biggest fan of portraits with such a thin DOF that only the eyes and part of the eyelashes are in sharp focus. For me the versatility of the zoom to change framing rapidly more than compensates for the small IQ gain that some of the primes offer. For macro work I use the 100mm and 180mm lenses interchangeably depending on desired field of view and minimum focus distance and find that the 100 mm is sharper, but doesn't deliver the bokeh of the 180mm.

If you were able to narrow down the scope to the types of shots you normally take, I'd expect the answers you get, especially for the lenses, would become more relevant for where you are trying to get to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

What is the best we have ever shot with? Wow, there's a question.

For bodies I'd have to put the 5D3 ahead of the 5D2 for the images delivered from the camera as well as AF and everything else that was improved. Am finding post-processing to be minimal. Contrast and colour rendition are quite nice. Haven't used a 1D body yet to compare myself. Have used quite a few of the cropped body range from the original Rebel through to the 7D. The 7D is at the top of that list for the AF and feature set. The old XSi I always liked as well but that may be more sentiment at this point than anything else. The cropped sensors are definitely lower on my list than the 5D2. Have sold off my 7D bodies since 5D3 came out. Only had them for the AF system for action shots not for image quality and did not want to pay for two of each of the 1D and 1Ds bodies for the broad range of items that I shoot. Am transitioning to having only two of the 5D3 bodies as they seem to be capable of doing everything I need/want in one package.

Lens wise for primes, I'd put the 300 f2.8 II up at the top. New 500 mm may bump it from top spot. Will have to wait and see on that one. The 100 mm L IS macro would also make my short list for IQ and versatility.
For zooms, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II reigns supreme. It comes close to the primes that share its range in all areas except aperture.

My choices are based on sports and event shooting, portraits, landscapes and wildlife, and macro work. For portraits I favour the 70-200 over the traditional primes. I am not the biggest fan of portraits with such a thin DOF that only the eyes and part of the eyelashes are in sharp focus. For me the versatility of the zoom to change framing rapidly more than compensates for the small IQ gain that some of the primes offer. For macro work I use the 100mm and 180mm lenses interchangeably depending on desired field of view and minimum focus distance and find that the 100 mm is sharper, but doesn't deliver the bokeh of the 180mm.

If you were able to narrow down the scope to the types of shots you normally take, I'd expect the answers you get, especially for the lenses, would become more relevant for where you are trying to get to.

---

You left out the 135 f/2L. Stupid sharp.

Heres the best cameras ive ever used which was i think a Canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper

Tha last ones i ran experiments on produced critical dimensions down to less than 0.018 of a micron and both the Canon and Nikon cameras could move an image to less than a thousanth of a micron. The human hair is 36 microns. The last Canon stepper i used in late 20th century cost £5,000,000 and illuminated the image by laser light. The semiconductors and images i was able to produce was amazing. Technology has moved on but the ability to move a silicon wafer of 10 inches and achieve an acurate image when moving through x, y and z was amazing. Thats not to forget the orthogonality of the axis aswell. We actually thought x rays were the way to go in the future but im sure whatever they use now is way beyond what i used.

So yes, i know a little about lens's. What do i do now? Lets just say it involves human behaviour.

Next, before i post my most killer post, are you absolutly sure human eyes can tell the differance between the new lens and the old at A3 which was my original post?

Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickw

Next, before i post my most killer post, are you absolutly sure human eyes can tell the differance between the new lens and the old at A3 which was my original post?

Mick

---

Just do it Mick, just do it. And I'm absolutely not sure about anything.:confused:

Steve, the new gear is better, i absolutly agree it is. The reduction in flare, the improvements in IS noise etc, totallly amazing.

Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocco

You left out the 135 f/2L. Stupid sharp.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickw

So yes, i know a little about lens's. What do i do now? Lets just say it involves human behaviour.

Mick

---

Rocco, there could be cases made for many different lenses depending on their usage and style of the user. Have used many different lenses including some primes which are sharper than the zooms I routinely use. The reason I keep coming back to the zooms is that they are delivering sufficient image quality for my purposes while offering versatility that a prime can not. I do have and use primes as well. The ones most frequently used are specialized, like macros, or for specific focal lengths and applications that are outside of the zoom capabilities, no zoom comes close to matching the super teles for instance. While I like sharp details in my images, at some point a lens is sharp enough for its usage and further dollars spent will not make much difference in the photos captured.

Mick, is it true that cats simply enjoy playing with mice?

Nice images Mick, love the light on that landscape.

Ive deleted my images etc. Lets end our disagreements as i think i agree with %90 of what we say. Can we be friends? I must go to bed, im a bit tired. Best of luck guys.

Mick

Ohh. I thought we were.
It was nice light on that arch in the landscape.

Not sure about disagreements, but it certainly has been enlightening to learn something of the process that others use in evaluating new lens offerings.

At Mick,

Food for thought, everything in the resolution crops are in a A3 print but are much smaller in size. Now it's just a matter of how close you like to view your print and what is good enough for you. It is there it just might insignificant to you. For others it might matter. Or you might have less than average vision and can't tell at all.

Cheers,
John.