so do you mean that I wouldn't be able to get as clear a shot with a
cheaper lens, even though it covers the same range?
Are you also saying that with a cheaper lens I will be restricted to
the size I can enlarge image, due to true quality of image?
Yes and yes:
Think cars - a KIA doesn't perform the same as a Mercedes; or pans- thin
aluminum doesn't perform the same as thick copper, etc.,etc. Well,
photography can be at least as complicated as cars, more so in the sense
that so many bits can be interchanged. Yes, with better lens (more $),
fine grain film (slower), tripod for many shots ($, time, weight), and
so on, larger and/or sharper prints may be made. However, as Warren and
I pointed out, any brand name lens should provide perfectly fine results
for standard 4x6 or 5x7 prints.
Another other thing that may not be clear to you yet is that the
aperture at which the lens is used can have a considerable effect on
image quality. This 300mm lens might make pretty soft looking pictures
at f5.6 when blown up to 8x10 and nice sharp ones at f/11. Also, it will
be difficult to hold a 300mm steady without a tripod - unless you shoot
wide open, in bright light, with fast film - but then the film grain and
lens softness will compromise sharpness/detail.
That stuff on TV where they enlarge the detail on a security tape that's
been recorded 200 times from a $50 camera with 3 years of dust on the
lens until they can get a nice clear picture of the shadowed suspect's
face makes for wonderful fiction, but is really magic, the creation of
something that isn't there. Computer enhancement can improve the look of
an image, but can't create imformation that isn't there. There are
limitations to the amount of detail a given lens can resolve and limits
to the amount of detail any given film can record. Once the shot is
taken and film developed, that's it, the limit of what can be done with
the image is set.
Would I be able to tell while I was taking the photo (focusing for shot)
that it would not be clear or does it happen in the development stage of the
game?
You can't tell how sharp the picture will be in the viewfinder for a
couple of reasons. First, the magnification in the viewfinder just isn't
sufficient and the ground glass where the image is formed si too coarse
to see such detail. Second, when you are viewing and focusing, the lens
is wide open to give you enough light to see to focus. When the shutter
release is pressed, the diaphram blades are stopped down to the selected
aperture (see above about aperture and sharpness). On lenses for Olympus
OM cameras there is a little button on the lens down near the self timer
that stops the lens down to view depth of field, but it doesn't help
with evaluating the sharpness of the lens.
This is all VERY important, I never realised there were so many
variables in photography and end result quality. I thought that the
quality of image
would be about the same with all of the equipment in a range
(telephoto/etc..) and that the 'bells & whistles involved with each lens
would increased with price.
OH NO, what other 'must know' facts I am lacking? It looks like
there is a lot more to learn than I ever imagined.
Photography is a dance with light where the limitations of physics,
current technology and our pocketbooks set the tune. Maybe that's why
it's so endlessly facinating for many of us. I suppose that' why most
photographers are seldom bored, but often short of cash.
Don't despair, you can take really nice pictures with modest equipment.
You don't have to know all that much of the endless possible knowledge
about photography to take good pictures. Time spent taking pictures is a
better teacher than time taken reading about taking pictures.
Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|