Nine Photographers'Criticism Requirements
- Nov 28, 2019
- 0 Comment(s)
With the development of modern digital photography technology, a new generation of digital cameras has more advanced functions, which make us have different photographic experience. Nevertheless, nowadays no camera can satisfy all people's demands. It's understandable that photographers have some pursuits, but it seems that some requirements have risen to the point of being critical. Do you think the requirements of the nine photographers listed below are too much?
It's strange that when you buy new or second-hand mirrors, you're all in Virgo. You really care if there's any dust in the lens. You'll examine the lens very carefully. It seems that there's a grain of dust that will cause problems. Sure, if you buy second-hand lenses, you should be careful, but what about new lenses? You may not know that the lens can not be "dirty" in the process of production to packaging. Want to be spotless? It's more psychological, because there's a lot of light dust you can't see.
Of course, it's understandable that buying new mirrors requires dust-free, but second-hand also requires dust-free. Is it a bit difficult to get along with yourself?
"Full picture" is a myth. Some photographers are quite persistent in pursuing full picture. I believe there are some photographers around you. Why on earth? Pursuing the quality of painting? Pursue shallow depth of field? So 135 is definitely not your ultimate choice. Don't forget, if you think bigger is better, we still have 120 pictures larger than 135. In fact, the right choice of equipment is the most important, rather than focusing only on the size of the picture. Now the gap between the residual and the full is getting smaller and smaller. It should not be an obstacle to our choice of tools.
In terms of performance, D500 is definitely higher than D750, but D750 is a full picture! What should I do? Judging from the evaluation, the quality of the D500 is even better! Does the bigger the bottom you admire, the better it still exists?
Similar to the pursuit of pictures, some photographers will persist in the camera pixels are not high enough, endless pursuit of which number of pixels? Indeed, the higher the pixel, the more delicate the magnified image will be. But do you really need to put that big, little bit by bit? If you just PO your work on the Internet and add compression algorithm, then even if there are 30 or 50 million pixels, it is not very meaningful. What's the use of giving you 100 million pixels? If you just look at the screen, even if it's a 4K screen, 9MP is enough. There are many 12MP old cameras. 16MP cameras can be cut in half. 24MP is equal to 3 times of 4K. Is it necessary to reach more than 24MP pixels?
What about the exhibition? The 24MP image is enough to print 24 x 36 inches (exhibition level!) for the exhibition. Even bigger photos, and general exhibitions only use more standard frames, only high-end commercial photographers will use super-high pixels, okay __________.
Many novice photographers do not understand the concept of "image field inequality", so they often misunderstand or do not understand why the edge resolution of the image is always not as sharp as that of the center. They think that the lens is out of order, or that the optical quality of the lens is too poor. Then they think that it will be OK to change a higher lens, but the result is wrong. Still.
In fact, as long as we understand the so-called "image field unevenness" problem, we know that when light enters the photosensitive element, the angle and distance of light entry are different. The larger the angle and distance, the greater the difference. So we will see that the performance of the four sides of the image is not as sharp as the central position, so that the whole picture is as sharp and solid. It's a bit "hard for a strong man". However, there is one way to increase the depth of field by shrinking the aperture, which can bring the resolution of the image closer to the center.
In recent years, digital SLR manufacturers often emphasize that the camera's ability of continuous shooting and focusing is very strong, shooting sports, birds and other topics are first-class, in fact, it is easy for users to misunderstand. In a series of 20 or 30 photos, several failed because the camera has problems, questioning whether the camera is too old, focusing system can not keep up with, and so on.
To understand, most of these users are just a gimmick. Digital SLR's continuous shooting can basically meet the requirements. However, in the aspect of focusing, it may not be 100% accurate. The reason is that when focusing, the camera does not predict the position or focal length of the subject at the next moment, but depends on the results of prediction and calculation. Because it is only a prediction, there must be an opportunity to make mistakes, which will lead to inaccurate tracking, especially in the face of the subject with great changes in speed and motion, it is more difficult to predict in calculation. Don't expect this function to happen every time.
The latest generation of digital cameras should have almost all WiFi/NFC wireless remote control or GPS functions. It seems that an advanced camera has these functions to qualify. Is that the case? Although these additional functions will surely become the basic features of the camera in the future, just like the previous Live View functions, are you sure they are all useful? Is it worth giving up on a good camera because you don't have one of these features?
High ISO is a breakthrough point for camera manufacturers. In the middle of the trap, some photographers will pursue image quality to slip through milk and hate the noise of high ISO. In fact, digital noise or film particles really can not exist? Sometimes, these coarse grains can also be a taste. Let's look at the works of PALACE-LEVEL photographers such as David Hamilton or Moriyama Avenue. Those rough performances become their style. Who says that every picture must be as silky as milk?
Many photographers buy SLRs with battery handles, in addition to being more professional? Is there such a real demand? We feel that most of them are unnecessary. There are two main uses of the handle. One is to lengthen the endurance of the shot, because two batteries can usually be put in, but do you really need to shoot for such a long time? Another purpose is to facilitate vertical shooting, such as portrait shooting, some people feel that shooting with straightness handle will be more comfortable, in fact, there are different opinions, because the camera will be significantly heavier after adding straightness handle, long-term use will be very tired, if the time is short, there is no difference?
In addition, many film cameras also use similar handles, but the main function is to drive a motor, which can improve the camera's continuous shooting speed.
The lens blindly pursues the big aperture, which is also one of several classic myths in the digital photography era. If it is in the film age, we can say "yes" with great certainty. Especially when using long focal lenses, because of the limitation of film sensitivity, it is more dependent on increasing the safe shutter speed to maintain the stability of shooting. Therefore, large aperture is necessary, or even without more light assistance. This is almost the only way. Law. But what about the digital age? In fact, many people are aware that our dependence on large aperture has been significantly reduced, because we have better ISO performance, and the biggest role of large aperture lens is to provide shallow depth of field effect. Do you really deserve to spend so much money to pursue a large aperture? Is it possible to make the lens smaller, easier to carry and use?