I think I'm bored with audio now.

[lmf22]

Great to find people talking about photography here. I've been interested in photography since high school, but never serious about it until now. Currently my audio system is at a point where I'm very satisfied with it, and would take a large amount of money to upgrade, so I went back to photography. Several months ago I bought a Sony A7II. Several weeks after that, I got the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8. Now I'm experimenting with manual lenses, starting with the Minolta MC Rokkor PF 55mm f1.7. I'm saving up for a Zeiss Loxia 35mm f2.0. Fun!

[Paul R]

Absolutely awesome!

 

Me? Not in a million years, even in 4 Low with hill descent! I'm crazy yes, but I am not insane. (grin)

[semente]

I have a handful of Canon L lenses I use regularly with a 7D camera. The results please me, and a phone camera doesn't get close. That's enough for me.

You're the one who knows if you "need" them all.

It's easy to fall for a wide-reaching set of primes but while some may get used often others may not and one can have a fast zoom that can cover the focal length of those.

As an example, I owned a Contax 1,4/85 for a few months but soon found out that it had been an expensive mistake...

I'm talking as an amateur here.

 

I have disciplined myself to avoid collecting gear (of any kind), although one could argue that I collect the images that I capture with my camera.

 

R

[r_w]

I'm a 100% novice, but I thought Leica was supposed to be the top glass?

 

I've got 2 of them 25mm f1.4 and 45mm/macro f2.8, totally wasted on me... yet another case of all the gear no idea.

 

 

 

Since my first L lens, I've bought nothing else. They're a different league from the rest.

 

I have no experience with Nikon, so I won't disparage them.

[semente]

I'm a 100% novice, but I thought Leica was supposed to be the top glass?

 

I've got 2 of them 25mm f1.4 and 45mm/macro f2.8, totally wasted on me... yet another case of all the gear no idea.

Are those Leica or Panasonic?

 

In any case, if you mean top performance you might like to learn about lens performance measurements.

Forget what the loyalists and the BBFs say...

 

R

[gmgraves]

Every Canon EF mount (introduced in '87) lens will work with any current body. That's better than Nikon can claim. Many of their older high-end lenses lose auto-focus on cheaper bodies. That said, both make terrific camera systems.

 

That's nice, but entirely irrelevant to my point. I bought an F4 in '89, and not only were all the lenses autofocus, but you could and can still use non-autofocus lenses going back to 1959! And any autofocus Nikkor can be successfully used with any current Nikon interchangeable lens digital camera today that take 35mm format lenses. I fail to see your point. Both Canon and Nikon make fine cameras and lenses as do Fuji and Leica and Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, etc.

[semente]

There are several sites performing lens measurements.

Here's one:

 

http://www.photozone.de

[r_w]

I think they are Leica glass in Panasonic housing. They are very highly rated and IMHO they take incredible shots, but I don't really know what I'm doing with them, in both contexts of that phrase.

 

It seems to me as a complete photographic novice/dimwit that a decent lens like the two I have on a modern £500 body takes shots that 15 years ago would have needed £10k+ worth of kit?

[Musicophile]

What I find particularly interesting about digital photography is the ability to develop your own photos from the RAW file (the photographic equivalent of a WAV). I use a tool called Capture One Pro 9 and the abilities to improve on your pictures are just mind boggling.

 

And unlike Hifi where all you do is try to reproduce whatever somebody else has captured, here you're not obliged to follow some form of hypothetical "absolute sound", you have created the whole thing and only you decide what the "truth" should look like.

 

Unfortunately yet another hobby where you can "lose" a lot of time. At least the picture taking part obliges you to get out, and on the digital workflow part I often combine it with listening via my HD800.

[witchdoctor]

Or, how about a nice bicycle? You can buy one of these for under $17,000:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29130[/ATTACH]

 

No radio?

[Paul R]

You're the one who knows if you "need" them all.

It's easy to fall for a wide-reaching set of primes but while some may get used often others may not and one can have a fast zoom that can cover the focal length of those.

As an example, I owned a Contax 1,4/85 for a few months but soon found out that it had been an expensive mistake...

I'm talking as an amateur here.

 

I have disciplined myself to avoid collecting gear (of any kind), although one could argue that I collect the images that I capture with my camera.

 

R

 

Just like in audio, there is this tendancy in photography to want to have "the best." I totally get that.

 

On the other hand, similar to audio, the camera I use the most is the one I always have with me. Certainly not the best camera in my iPhone, but I do get a lot of my favorite shots with it. Simply because it is right there in my shirt pocket when I happen upon something interesting.

 

Even if I spent a quarter of a million dollars on photography gear, my iPhone would probably still continue to be the camera that gets used the most.

 

When I put the passion aside, that is also true of audio, at least for me.

[Paul R]

No radio?

 

Also, I tend to get in trouble with two wheels still. I have an older cruiser that I am seriously learning with. Upgrade in the future.

 

(Eh, okay okay - as soon as I loose another 25 pounds and do not look like Foghorn Leghorn on a bike.... Less conspicuous bike rides for now, and four wheels into interesting places. Streaming my music of course...)

[witchdoctor]

I mean, really, what are we getting all worked up over?

 

FWIW the best upgrade I have done since staring this hobby was immersive audio using an auro3d setup.

Fire up concertvault.com or qello.com with the auromatic upmixer engaged and it is as close to a live concert you are going to get in your listening room.

[wwaldmanfan]

No radio?

 

No built-in radio. Carry an iPod in your back pocket, and wear earbuds to obliterate irritating wind noise at speed, and block the distracting sound of cars and trucks coming up behind you.

[Ajax]

I mean, really, what are we getting all worked up over?

 

Exactly. There is so much bullshit and time wasting on forums lately that I now get my kicks from frequenting pawn shops and purchasing 5-10 year old gear to see how good a sound I can get at ridiculously low prices using the knowledge I have gained over the years.

 

My latest "bargain" system for my office is a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC (demo model from Graham HiFi) into a Parasound A21 power amp, with a pair of Tannoy reveal monitors in conjunction with an AR Sub. The front end is either Audirvana+ or Roon streaming Tidal. Combined price for DAC, AMP, speakers + sub was around $US600 and the sound is absolutely fantastic.

[mansr]

You're the one who knows if you "need" them all.

It's easy to fall for a wide-reaching set of primes but while some may get used often others may not and one can have a fast zoom that can cover the focal length of those.

As an example, I owned a Contax 1,4/85 for a few months but soon found out that it had been an expensive mistake...

I'm talking as an amateur here.

 

I have disciplined myself to avoid collecting gear (of any kind), although one could argue that I collect the images that I capture with my camera.

 

R

 

I have 16-35/2.8, 24-105/4, 70-200/4, and 50/1.2 (so none of the really expensive ones). These cover a lot of situations nicely. Do I strictly need them? Of course not, it's all just for fun anyway.

[witchdoctor]

Exactly. There is so much bullshit and time wasting on forums lately that I now get my kicks from frequenting pawn shops and purchasing 5-10 year old gear to see how good a sound I can get at ridiculously low prices using the knowledge I have gained over the years.

 

My latest "bargain" system for my office is a Meridian Explorer 2 DAC (demo model from Graham HiFi) into a Parasound A21 power amp, with a pair of Tannoy reveal monitors in conjunction with an AR Sub. The front end is either Audirvana+ or Roon streaming Tidal. Combined price for DAC, AMP, speakers + sub was around $US600 and the sound is absolutely fantastic.

 

Thats a great $600 system. My latest binge was a Carver AV 505 amp via CL for $130 and it sounds fantastic. The I find the A series of carver amps in the absolute sound list of the 10 most important amps of all time!! What a bargain.

 

I picked up a paif of paradigm reference studio monitors v2 for $100. It feels like winning the lotto almost.

[Allan W.]

Quick fix for audio blues, turn on your TV and watch the news, any news! You will feel better fast.

[jabbr]

Just like in audio, there is this tendancy in photography to want to have "the best." I totally get that.

 

On the other hand, similar to audio, the camera I use the most is the one I always have with me. Certainly not the best camera in my iPhone, but I do get a lot of my favorite shots with it. Simply because it is right there in my shirt pocket when I happen upon something interesting.

 

Even if I spent a quarter of a million dollars on photography gear, my iPhone would probably still continue to be the camera that gets used the most.

 

When I put the passion aside, that is also true of audio, at least for me.

 

+1 Having a few Deardorff etc 8x10 sitting in my basement does nothing for capturing pictures. I used to enjoy listening to the radio while in the darkroom but those days are long gone. I've had Canon FTb, F1 and now EOS-1, 5D mk2 but they are really heavy. My favorite cameras of all time were the Leica M3/M6 with those little lenses that I could carry around all the time. Probably need a Sony A7ish because the 5D is just too heavy to carry around ... in the meantime the iPhone!

[mansr]

+1 Having a few Deardorff etc 8x10 sitting in my basement does nothing for capturing pictures. I used to enjoy listening to the radio while in the darkroom but those days are long gone. I've had Canon FTb, F1 and now EOS-1, 5D mk2 but they are really heavy. My favorite cameras of all time were the Leica M3/M6 with those little lenses that I could carry around all the time. Probably need a Sony A7ish because the 5D is just too heavy to carry around ... in the meantime the iPhone!

Carrying the 7D and a couple of lenses for a whole day can indeed get a bit tiring, but it's either that or be limited to a compact or even phone camera. Here's a photo that would be very hard or impossible to capture on a phone:

 

[wwaldmanfan]

Since I spend an inordinate amount of time sitting in front of my computer (while listening to headphones), I decided to do something productive to help other people, so I am now contributing info to the Dynamic Range Database.

[JohnSwenson]

Or, how about a nice bicycle? You can buy one of these for under $17,000:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29130[/ATTACH]

 

But it is hard to put a 24 inch scope on that.

 

John S.

[Paul R]

Carrying the 7D and a couple of lenses for a whole day can indeed get a bit tiring, but it's either that or be limited to a compact or even phone camera. Here's a photo that would be very hard or impossible to capture on a phone:

 

 

That is a nice picture indeed. Still, an iPhone doesn't do too bad for the snap of the moment kind of thing. (i.e. - I think your photo is quite superior, but I bet it wasn't a totally spur of the moment pic. )

 

[mansr]

Carrying the 7D and a couple of lenses for a whole day can indeed get a bit tiring, but it's either that or be limited to a compact or even phone camera. Here's a photo that would be very hard or impossible to capture on a phone:

 

Here's a higher resolution version of that photo. I was posting from my phone and couldn't convince the Google apps to give me a link to the full-size image (as uploaded to the web album).

 

For some reason this doesn't zoom, but right-click and "view image" gives the full size.

[mansr]

That is a nice picture indeed. Still, an iPhone doesn't do too bad for the snap of the moment kind of thing. (i.e. - I think your photo is quite superior, but I bet it wasn't a totally spur of the moment pic. )

 

There was no advance planning involved beyond brining the camera. That said, I obviously spent a few minutes finding the right spot and waiting for the right wave.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29164[/ATTACH]

 

That's not bad at all. However, compared to my photo, everything is rather static and there's not as much contrast. It took a bit of curve tweaking to get both bright and dark areas to display well as an 8-bit JPEG.

 

Here's another one that couldn't have been shot on a phone:

That's a hand-held (with stabiliser) 1/6 s exposure tracking the moving boat.