People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[Bungle73]

Right. After endlessly searching the internet for some kind of poll about this. I found this:

Question: Will Mobile Phones Eventually Replace DSLRs Completely?

Result: 93.03% NO
6.97% YES

http://www.diyphotography.net/previous-polls/

There you have it.

Chap's got a problem.

Consistently starts a thread about a fairly innocuous subject and makes a mild questionable statement about it. Amazon, the red hanky people, disabled access to trains, et al. Again & again.

When questioned he retreats to a you-all-have-an-urban-hive-mind position; entrenches his position; exclaims massive disbelief that no-one can see the bleeding obvious; resorts to exaggeration, generalizing from the particular, cries wolf, and a whole bunch of other highly disingenuous tactics to extend the thread's life.

He likes the attention, he likes the persecution

I'm fucking sick of it; it's disruptive, ill-mannered, tedious, and adds nothing to the site. editor - i petition for a ban.

Who exactly are you? Because I've never heard of you. Do you spend all of your time entering into threads for the pure reason of posting an off-topic pointless and illogical rant?

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...to-insight-with-david-ward-iphone-photography


He clearly hasn't got a clue

I fail to see how that in any way invalidates anything I have said.

 

[neonwilderness]

Right. After endlessly searching the internet for some kind of poll about this. I found this:

By endless you mean until you found something that suited your argument? No one has said that phones will completely replace SLRs.

 

[fractionMan]

science

 

[Bungle73]

By endless you mean until you found something that suited your argument?

Funny how a source that backs me up is "wrong". How typical. OK, wise guy, go and find another poll......if you can.

 

[fractionMan]

Funny how a source that backs me up is "wrong". How typical. OK, wise guy, got and find another poll......if you can.

nobody on this thread has said "Mobile Phones Eventually Replace DSLRs Completely"

 

[DotCommunist]

quality bugle once more

 

[neonwilderness]

Funny how a source that backs me up is "wrong". How typical. OK, wise guy, go and find another poll......if you can.

I'm not the one making ridiculous claims, but here you go:
http://digital-photography-school.com/77-of-dps-readers-take-a-camera-everywhere-poll-results

According to that amateur photographers carrying a camera phone all the time is on the increase, but DSLRs are on the decrease. It might be bollocks, I'm sure if I searched endlessly I could find something completely different.

 

[neonwilderness]

quality bugle once more

You've been Bungled.

 

[Corax]

I thought it was time for a new inflammatory statement.

Mine got better results

 

[existentialist]

Right. After endlessly searching the internet for some kind of poll about this. I found this:

Question: Will Mobile Phones Eventually Replace DSLRs Completely?

Result: 93.03% NO
6.97% YES

http://www.diyphotography.net/previous-polls/

There you have it.


Who exactly are you? Because I've never heard of you. Do you spend all of your time entering into threads for the pure reason of posting an off-topic pointless and illogical rant?

I fail to see how that in any way invalidates anything I have said.

So you now recruit some random internet poll in support of an objective claim.

Are you really this superficial, or are you just playing at being like that for a laugh? (I really hope it is the latter...)

 

[Pickman's model]

So you now recruit some random internet poll in support of an objective claim.

Are you really this superficial, or are you just playing at being like that for a laugh? (I really hope it is the latter...)

he is that superficial

 

[existentialist]

he is that superficial

We're giving him far too much attention, then

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not the one making ridiculous claims, but here you go:
http://digital-photography-school.com/77-of-dps-readers-take-a-camera-everywhere-poll-results

According to that amateur photographers carrying a camera phone all the time is on the increase, but DSLRs are on the decrease. It might be bollocks, I'm sure if I searched endlessly I could find something completely different.

tbh no one is going to carry a dslr all the time. if i'm going out to take pictures i'll often take a bridge camera, i save my dslr for things i want really good pictures of. but i always carry a little lumix with me on the off-chance i'll see something.

 

[existentialist]

tbh no one is going to carry a dslr all the time. if i'm going out to take pictures i'll often take a bridge camera, i save my dslr for things i want really good pictures of. but i always carry a little lumix with me on the off-chance i'll see something.

I've got a DSLR-a-like (Fuji S7000). I like it, it takes very good pictures despite the twit behind it (and it doesn't have a lens cover, although I'd put it on backwards after reading this thread if it had, just to reduce Bungle to a frothing rage).

But it eats batteries, which means that I really need to have a couple of sets of AAs on permanent charge, and it's bulky.

Meanwhile, I have a Galaxy S4 in my pocket pretty much all the time. I can charge it up in the car, I have a battery pack for it that lasts forever, and if I see something I want to take a picture of, I can have it out of my pocket, switched on, and in camera mode in seconds, rather than having to unzip the "proper" camera from its bag, switch it on, find out the batteries are on their last legs, swap for a spare set, and put the camera to my eye, only to find the the wildebeest is now in the next county.

And then, when I get home, I have to find my card reader, pull the memory card from the camera, put it into the card reader, copy the files onto the PC, and get them into a directory somewhere before I even think about tagging my friends in them on Facebook.

Meanwhile, as my car arrived outside the house, my mobile has spotted the home WiFi, logged into Dropbox, and is uploading the photos I've taken before I've even got the DSLR out of the boot again.

The photos that the Fuji takes would have to be a lot better than anything I could get from the Samsung in order to minimise the inconvenience of using it.

Guess which one tends to get used to take the most photos?

 

[Belushi]

Excellent, 10 solid pages of Bungle making a tit of himself again

 

[existentialist]

Excellent, 10 solid pages of Bungle making a tit of himself again

TBF, people have helped him, albeit mostly by providing him with a sufficiency of rope.

 

[Bungle73]

I'm not the one making ridiculous claims, but here you go:
http://digital-photography-school.com/77-of-dps-readers-take-a-camera-everywhere-poll-results

According to that amateur photographers carrying a camera phone all the time is on the increase, but DSLRs are on the decrease. It might be bollocks, I'm sure if I searched endlessly I could find something completely different.

Exactly how does that disprove what I said, that DSLRs are the better cameras?? It doesn't. In fact if you actually looked at that poll, which you obivously haven't, it shows that far the most carried camera is a DSLR.

But no one....or at least most people....don't carry a DSLR with them 100% of the time anyway. I suggest you go away and find a poll that says something of relevance.

So you now recruit some random internet poll in support of an objective claim.

Are you really this superficial, or are you just playing at being like that for a laugh? (I really hope it is the latter...)

It's not an "objective" claim. You know nothing about cameras. A DSLR is a superior camera to a phone. This is a fact. The fact that you people keep arguing about it shows that you know nothing about it.

You know it's funny: I quote experts of some standing to back my case, and they "don't count". I quote a poll on a photography website to back up another of my points and it's "wrong". And then you have good old Ed, who keeps trying to wriggle his way out of the argument by brining up completely spurious points. What ever I do or say, or not matter what evidence I bring to the table I'm always going to be "wrong". It's pathetic.

I've got a DSLR-a-like (Fuji S7000). I like it, it takes very good pictures despite the twit behind it (and it doesn't have a lens cover, although I'd put it on backwards after reading this thread if it had, just to reduce Bungle to a frothing rage).

But it eats batteries, which means that I really need to have a couple of sets of AAs on permanent charge, and it's bulky.

Meanwhile, I have a Galaxy S4 in my pocket pretty much all the time. I can charge it up in the car, I have a battery pack for it that lasts forever, and if I see something I want to take a picture of, I can have it out of my pocket, switched on, and in camera mode in seconds, rather than having to unzip the "proper" camera from its bag, switch it on, find out the batteries are on their last legs, swap for a spare set, and put the camera to my eye, only to find the the wildebeest is now in the next county.

And then, when I get home, I have to find my card reader, pull the memory card from the camera, put it into the card reader, copy the files onto the PC, and get them into a directory somewhere before I even think about tagging my friends in them on Facebook.

Meanwhile, as my car arrived outside the house, my mobile has spotted the home WiFi, logged into Dropbox, and is uploading the photos I've taken before I've even got the DSLR out of the boot again.

The photos that the Fuji takes would have to be a lot better than anything I could get from the Samsung in order to minimise the inconvenience of using it.

Guess which one tends to get used to take the most photos?

That's a bridge camera, it's no better than an advanced point-and-shoot. The sensor size is tiny

 

[twentythreedom]

..
.

 

[Bungle73]

You probably don't need us to tell you that a proper DSLR camera is better than the camera on your smartphone. But if you're curious how much better it is, the folks at Bammo have a (slightly NSFW) video that explains everything you need to know.

The video's a little over a year old, and uses the iPhone 5 for comparison, but the general points remain true even today. A DSLR can take much better photos in low light, can take much better action shots, and can produce RAW images that are much better for manipulation. The iPhone doesn't suck if you use it right (and the Lumia cameras are even better), but a DSLR still produces noticeably better shots. If you haven't tried out a good DSLR or mirrorless camera before, it's worth knowing that the differences can be huge.

http://lifehacker.com/the-differences-between-a-dslr-and-smartphone-camera-i-1540339341

 

[Bungle73]

Although the DSLR market remains vibrant, we must acknowledge that smartphone cameras offer two advantages: if you already carry a phone, the built-in camera adds no extra weight and it is always at hand. Given the size and weight of DSLRs and lenses, those are big convenience factors.

Nonetheless, today’s smartphones cannot approach the quality of a DSLR and decent lens. For example, there is simply no way a smartphone could take this photo:

Aside from image clarity and sharpness, notice that distance in the photo seems compressed. The cross streets look like they are close together, especially in the distance, because I used a telephoto lens to create this optical effect. Try that with the phone in your camera! Actually, don't bother because it will not work. The camera geeks may be interested that I took this photo with a Nikon D800 DSLR camera and 400mm lens.

Here is another example of a real camera, meaning a DSLR, in action:

The dog's face is in sharp focus, while the back of his head and the background are completely blurred out, emphasizing only the important part of this image. Again, a mobile phone cannot take this kind of photo. I switched to an 85mm 1.4 portrait lens for this one.

In summary, smartphone cameras are ideal for casual snapshots and pictures of friends as you walk around. However, serious photography requires greater camera horsepower than even the best smartphone.

http://www.zdnet.com/great-debate-have-smartphone-cameras-killed-the-dslr-7000017972/

 

[5t3IIa]

science

Are you on drugs?!

 

[Corax]

I've got a DSLR-a-like (Fuji S7000). I like it, it takes very good pictures despite the twit behind it (and it doesn't have a lens cover, although I'd put it on backwards after reading this thread if it had, just to reduce Bungle to a frothing rage).

But it eats batteries, which means that I really need to have a couple of sets of AAs on permanent charge, and it's bulky.

Meanwhile, I have a Galaxy S4 in my pocket pretty much all the time. I can charge it up in the car, I have a battery pack for it that lasts forever, and if I see something I want to take a picture of, I can have it out of my pocket, switched on, and in camera mode in seconds, rather than having to unzip the "proper" camera from its bag, switch it on, find out the batteries are on their last legs, swap for a spare set, and put the camera to my eye, only to find the the wildebeest is now in the next county.

And then, when I get home, I have to find my card reader, pull the memory card from the camera, put it into the card reader, copy the files onto the PC, and get them into a directory somewhere before I even think about tagging my friends in them on Facebook.

Meanwhile, as my car arrived outside the house, my mobile has spotted the home WiFi, logged into Dropbox, and is uploading the photos I've taken before I've even got the DSLR out of the boot again.

The photos that the Fuji takes would have to be a lot better than anything I could get from the Samsung in order to minimise the inconvenience of using it.

Guess which one tends to get used to take the most photos?

What do you use to take photos with the S4? Since I got mine I've found it hard to take anything that's not blurry with the native app. Is there one with a bit of image stabilisation?

 

[Bungle73]

What do you use to take photos with the S4? Since I got mine I've found it hard to take anything that's not blurry with the native app. Is there one with a bit of image stabilisation?

It's probably camera shake if you're taking them in low light. The trouble with phone cameras....or at least in my experience with mine (ie the iPhone) is that that they don't let you know (or choose) what shutter speed you're using. Shutter speed is key to eliminating camera shake.

 

[neonwilderness]

Exactly how does that disprove what I said, that DSLRs are the better cameras?? It doesn't.

No one is disputing that that

 

[Corax]

It's pathetic.

What's pathetic is your utter inability to recognise WHY you're receiving the responses you are. It's got stuff all to do with *what* you've been posting and everything to do with *how* you've been posting. Your smug know-it-all narcissistic arrogance reminds me of a spoilt teenage brat; it's depressing to see it in a fully grown adult

Although it has its comical side as well tbh, so do keep going.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A lens hood isn't doing anything if it's on backwards.



Notice what he says about leaving the hood on the lens all time. He also makes a good point that with the hood on backwards you can't access the lens's controls properly.

TBF, with most coated lenses (except really cheap crap) made in the last 30 years, lens hoods are only necessary for about 5% of outdoor shots.

The point about control access also depends entirely on the physical size of lens and lens hood. If I leave the lens hood of my Tamron 28-70mm on backwards, it doesn't impinge on any camera controls, although the lens hood on my Tamron 24mm f2.5 would.

 

[Bungle73]

What's pathetic is your utter inability to recognise WHY you're receiving the responses you are. It's got stuff all to do with *what* you've been posting and everything to do with *how* you've been posting. Your smug know-it-all narcissistic arrogance reminds me of a spoilt teenage brat; it's depressing to see it in a fully grown adult

Although it has its comical side as well tbh, so do keep going.

You must be reading a different thread from me. I'm putting forward logical coherent arguments backed up with evidence, and all I'm seeing in return is "Wah! Wah! You're wrong! Your experts are no good because I've never heard of them. Wah!"

 

[Bungle73]

TBF, with most coated lenses (except really cheap crap) made in the last 30 years, lens hoods are only necessary for about 5% of outdoor shots.

The point about control access also depends entirely on the physical size of lens and lens hood. If I leave the lens hood of my Tamron 28-70mm on backwards, it doesn't impinge on any camera controls, although the lens hood on my Tamron 24mm f2.5 would.

Most..all...of the people I'm talking about are using what looks like a standard 18-55 kit lens, or something similar. Which brings me back to what someone said earlier about extreme wide angle lenses with huge apertures. That's not the kind of lens these people are using. If you're using that kind of lens you obviously know what you're doing....or should do.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Rubbish.

On a very wide angle, large aperture no lens hood would have any good effect.

Yep. Most manufacturers base their designs on optimum functionality around f5.6-f8, and vignetting and impingement are possible when the lens is wide-open.

The lens hoods which come with a lens are designed for the lens. However, they are always designed to be reversible for a very good reason. You think the manufacturers do that just for a laugh?

Nope, because it generally makes sense storage-wise, as we both know.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why do yo need to "save space" if your camera is out in the open?

If you've got 40-50mm of lens hood on the end of 120-150mm of lens, some people will be more prone to bumping their camera into stuff with the lens hood on, rather than off.

Because it leave the lens exposed to damage and dirt. Not to mention one can get stray light at any time.

Like I said, coated lenses rarely have trouble with stray light (how many pictures have you seen, even snapped by people using film or digi point & shoots, that have lens flare evident? I haven't seen any, except from so-called "lomographers").

Also, lack of a lens hood doesn't leave the lens exposed to dirt. Lack of a "sacrificial" filter might leave the lens surface prone to dirt,, but a lens hood is only there for one reason - to cut stray light in the tiny minority of shooting situations where you might need it.