Mike Johnston wrote: (my comments interspersed)
> I've been arguing for years in favor of primes, basically because I think > people who use ONLY zooms or who ASSUME zooms are inherently better can > often benefit from having their eyes opened. Shooting with a prime for a > while is a great way for people to move the quality of their shooting up a > notch or two. That's what I hope to do in my case. > > The general advantage of primes is that they're smaller, lighter, faster, > less fussy (fewer operations prior to shooting, generally), and have higher > overall image quality (generally, these days, that means less flare, and not > much else). I have not been unhappy with the image quality of the zooms (and mine are the less expensive Pentax AF models). I have been unhappy that they seem to make me point and shoot, versus think, look, think, look, think, look, point, and shoot. <snipped digital stuff> <snipped more stuff that's true> > > Now go one step further than that. I've always maintained that if you're out > shooting with a prime lens, you learn to see like the lens sees. That is, > you don't need to lift the camera up to your eye to know how the viewfinder > is going to frame a view. You already "see" with that "cropping" in mind. > And this enables you to SEE PICTURES that, without a set frame in mind, you > wouldn't see. Yes, yes, yes. And for me it is still somewhat of a conscious effort, but I then start using the lens to it's advantage. I am basically FORCED to see like the lens because that is the only option. So I start moving around seeing what the lens sees. > > The point is not so much that zooms are poor tools, or of lesser quality, or > bigger, or whatever. It's that they add confusion to the act of > photographing, by introducing too many needless variables and preventing you > from seeing acutely. As you're working a subject you'll see a THOUSAND > potential framings--tens of thousands. How do you begin to winnow all the > choices down to find twenty or thirty that work pretty well, which you'll > further refine when you edit? I think it helps greatly when you and the lens > are seeing similarly. I agree. I'll have to think more about "confusion to the act". That may be my problem when I had thought just the opposite, that zooms were simplifying the act too much. (after rereading a number of times) Yes I believe you are right. With a zoom one has many options. So maybe I'm picking one that looks GOOD and moving on, instead of looking for a composition or angle that potentially could be BEST. Let me give an example of a shot. One of my personal favorites of my PUG submissions is http://pug.komkon.org/00febr/WoodenBoats.htm. Judge the shot as you may. I (and I say I) probably would have never gotten it if I'd been using a zoom. In fact I'm absolutely positive of that. I was using a 50mm lens. There was a light breeze blowing and the boats were slowly drifting on their ropes, several feet away from the boardwalk up in the corner of the L where two boardwalks met. No matter what I did, just standing or knealing put unwanted water or distracting background into some corner of the viewfinder. I spent quite a while (to me) walking around those boats trying to figure out what to do. It's sort of at a weird angle, huh? Especially considering I was not standing directly over the boats. I didn't SEE that angle, I didn't think about taking a shot from that angle until outstretched over the water, within seconds of getting a groin pull or falling in. Then holding the camera to my face, I saw the shot. Now what might have happened had I been carrying a zoom? Well, I knew that I liked the boats as a subject or I wouldn't have stopped. I probably would have raised camera to face, twisted the zoom and snapped the shutter, maybe more than once. Maybe I would have gotten a nice shot, but I don't believe it would have been this shot. > > But then again, maybe I'm wrong about this. I've certainly had good > experiences shooting complicated subjects with zooms where the zoom didn't > distract or confuse me, and where I was able to make adjustments quickly and > intuitively. > > I guess where I come down on this is merely this: I've always preferred > primes; and I believe (operative word--believe) that using primes helps > photographers make better pictures; and it's my opinion that any student of > the art who is looking to improve his or her shooting skills should pick a > prime lens and use it for a year. > > That would help support my point, because if you pick a prime lens and shoot > with it for a year, I guarantee that it will become one of your favorite > focal lengths and will probably remain so for the rest of your life. <g> > Hmm, favorite lens? Now that is a quandary. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
