Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Prime shooters... do you miss shots due to incorrect lens on camera?
Yes, all the time 55.75%
Sometimes 4450.57%
Hardly ever 2832.18%
No 1011.49%
Voters: 87. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-16-2008, 03:57 PM   #31
Senior Member
Indianadinos's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: France
Posts: 128
Hello,

I use primes for almost 90% of my pictures, but most of the time i missed a shot it was because of wrong f/stop value used (read: wrong DOF on the picture wrt what i wanted), or it was because i had an f/3.5 lens in a low light situation where i should have used an f/1.8 or f/1.4 ...

Now, after two years spent wih primes, when i go out for pics, i choose the lenses to use (no more than three, including the one on the body), and then i will do with what i have on the camera ... I think it's the best way to learn to compose ...

But, of course, these are just my opinions, i'm sure there will be other different on the subject ...

Best regards

12-16-2008, 06:01 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
xs400's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,915
I have only recently started to shoot with primes, so my experience with missing shots because I am using a prime is limited. However, I mess-up shots all the time. It doesn't matter if I shot zooms or primes. Sometimes I'm a knucklehead and shoot the wrong f-stop, ISO or white balance. Man, I can't tell you how many good shots I ruined because I made one of those mistakes. I really have to learn to pay more attention to those settings.
12-16-2008, 07:06 PM   #33
Veteran Member
sawtooth235's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orange Park, Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 886
Great thread. I guess I miss the same number of images if I have primes on or zooms on the camera because I want every image (selfish I know).

I find that when I am going out to shoot for a day that I carry 2 bodies. Each has a different prime. One will have the 50mm f1.4 for those low-light requirements and one will have either a 28mm f2.8 or a 200mm f3.5 with the one not on the camera in the bag. I use zooms sparingly and usually only if I don't have a prime capable of taking the picture I envision. I just recently acquired a 17-28mm f4.0-4.5 zoom that has seen some action recently, but it is so slow it can only be used for bright days.

Ray
12-16-2008, 07:16 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: America's First Wilderness
Posts: 529
I get shots with primes (even slow primes) i wouldn't with zooms sometimes, and sometimes I lose shots.

It depends on the situation.

in theory a dual camera system with a normal to wide and a second with a short to mid tele should get you 90% of the shots the guy with a 28-105 2.8 can get.

Now where it's gonna lose shots is when you have the completely wrong lens, say you are shooting a mountaineering group on a ridge with a 21mm limited as you leap frog them. Then you come across a mountain goat that needs a 100mm+ lens to even begin to get a decent shot...guess what? You are screwed.

I've had this happen to me the opposite end. I was tracking moose and the monster crosses right in front of me. I have a longer lens on and can't get a decent shot in the time I have. Had we both not been spooked a tele might have given a nice eye portrait assuming I was far enough for my lens close focus, but the truth was I needed a 24-50 and I had a 80-200 with a 1.4X TC. No good.

Until they make a lens that covers 10mm to 300mm and is fast enough to shoot in all conditions, light enough to carry, and small enough to pack, you are always going to miss shots. For me I'd rather have 1 very good shot, with a prime, then a bunch of misses shots with a Super zoom. There are still too many tradeoffs with super zooms, and the big high quality 2.8 or faster zooms are too bulky and expensive most general photography.

The key is to be aware of what your potential shots are before hand and be prepared.

For me, I'm always set to hyperfocal when in the mountains, so no matter what my shot will be sharp, if I want to narrow the DOF I can do that on the fly, but my main goal is to be ready to quickly shoot.

Manual lenses actually lend themselves to this technique much better. Even the Limiteds come up a little short in this area, although the FAs have a much longer throw and do a bit better!

Now if I'm shooting rock or ice climbing I know where my shots are because routes are pretty specific, so there are no surprises. If I'm shooting from a cliff across the way, I will use a tele, but if it's on route, I will use a wider angle lens.

Most sports are similarly predictable. Most situations in photography are as well once you figure out the nuiances of your subject matter.

I think it's more important to be really comfortable with whatever you choose, if primes make you comfortable because you can sort of visualize the shots better as they do for me, than go with primes. If you are someone that likes to zoom in and out from a fixed location to get exact framing in the camera, and thinks the gap between 28 and 35mm is so big that it's a gaping hole in your photography, I'd go with a zoom.

12-16-2008, 07:30 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: America's First Wilderness
Posts: 529
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
I think it's a philosophical question. Are you out to "make" a photos, or "capture" what occurs.

Personally, if I want to "make" an image, I'll pick up a pencil or a paintbrush. For a certain type of photographic aesthetic, the picture is very much tied to the place and time. "Landscapes don't get up and walk away, after all." No, but the light changes, the cloud shadows move, and the only rock that gives you an unobstructed vantage is very slippery; that particular photograph exists for an instant. Zooms are invaluable in that setting because they give you the ability to instantly frame and take the shot.
I disagree in the sense that in a span of 5 minutes you might capture a moment and create an image. People do it all the time.

Galen Rowell would be a perfect example of this. He was both a photojournalist capturing the adventure, and also a fine art landscape photographer who took a great deal of time setting up his images.

Rowell used both primes and zooms, but he had reasons for pros and cons to either. He also often chose slow lenses over fast ones when the pros of a slow lens, like flare and size, outweighed the advantage of a faster lens.

You need to merely be cognizant of what you are doing, and what you want your results to be. The same lens can easily capture a scene as it can create an image.

To me primes offer better size/weight to IQ ratio. They offer more accessibility since I can keep a few primes easily accessible. Flare and distortion across the range of primes is usually better than a zoom (across the range, many zooms outperform many primes at any given FL). Primes are easier to focus, and since they only offer 1 FL there is less for me to worry about. For instance shooting panoramas with a zoom I will often bump the lens enough to alter the zoom. With a prime, this is more difficult.

Of course this is all philosophy. If your setup, and your belief in the setup works, there is no reason to change. If your setup leaves you wanting more, then that is the time to change techniques.

Truthfully, in this day and age, the prime vs. zoom debate is often less about quality, and more about shooting preference!
12-17-2008, 09:31 AM   #36
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by xs400 Quote
I have only recently started to shoot with primes, so my experience with missing shots because I am using a prime is limited. However, I mess-up shots all the time. It doesn't matter if I shot zooms or primes. Sometimes I'm a knucklehead and shoot the wrong f-stop, ISO or white balance. Man, I can't tell you how many good shots I ruined because I made one of those mistakes. I really have to learn to pay more attention to those settings.
Don't feel bad, XS. With old cameras, it's habits you just need to learn: with newer ones, sometimes you can change things and completely forget. Sometimes I wish they'd just make these digitals with a bunch of sliding levers for all these menu-driven settings. I kind of like the fact I can use the RAW button for any panic about the electronic settings that might be hiding at a crucial moment. Basics like exposure, first.
12-17-2008, 10:33 AM   #37
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
(snip)...because the 18-250 is pretty much useless in low light.
That's a little extreme. The 18-250 isn't a prime, but it's certainly not "useless" in low light. Shake reduction will give you a couple of stops, especially at the wider end.















12-17-2008, 11:28 AM   #38
PEG Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 57,760
Pre visualise the shot and then it's a case of the right tool for the job, i.e. right lens, right time.

I miss shots for heaps of other reasons, but prime usage is not one of them.
12-17-2008, 11:39 AM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 885
QuoteOriginally posted by jeremy_c Quote
Do you miss shots?

Jeremy

Yes . A lot too. But I won't regret it. This is a good case.

GBH real close up shot - Photo.net Pentax Forum

If I was shooting with a zoom I would have no problem encompassing the whole bird. Instead I had that wing and part body cut off.

I could have done better if only............ As you can see I had nowhere to back into with a fixed 200mm of a bird 15 ft away

























Daniel
12-17-2008, 12:21 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
That's a little extreme. The 18-250 isn't a prime, but it's certainly not "useless" in low light.
True. A little hyperbole on my part :-) And those were some very nice shots of your to call me on it.

QuoteQuote:
Shake reduction will give you a couple of stops, especially at the wider end.
Indeed, I should probably my main usage of the 18-55 is for its wide end, since I have no primes there, and f/3.5 at 18mm is nothing to sneeze at. Sometimes I think of my 18-55 as a DA18/3.5 prime :-)

Also, my initial impressions of these issues were formed with my DS - pre-SR.

Still, as you may recall, one of my main interests is concert photography. Here I'm usually at medium telephoto focal lengths (100mm being my favorite). And while SR helps to be sure, my main enemy is not camera shake but subject motion. If you can't get your shutter speed up to 1/30" or so, you might as well give up (OK, that's more hyperbole, but I think you get the point).

Here's a recent favorite that could not have captured nearly as well with the 18-250:


K200D, M100/2.8, ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/30"

Of course, the 50-135 would have done just fine - it's not a prime versus zoom issue but simply a speed issue. But for obvious reasons, there's no such thing as an 18-250/2.8. And one can hardly claim that one could leave the 50-135 on one's camera and not miss any shots: it's neither wide enough nor long enough. There are always compromises to be made - meaning, in effect, shots to be missed. So instead of focusing on the "missed" shots, I prefer to focus on the *made* shots - the ones I captured because I had the right lens and the eye.

Looked at in the extreme, one could say that if one is not shooting one's entire life at 30 frames per second with a holographic panoramic camera, one is *always* missing the vast majority of shots that exist in the world. Assuming that the handful you might miss because you were standing in a given spot but didn't have the right focal length mounted are more important than any of the zillions shots you didn't even think to try to take seems kind of silly...
12-17-2008, 04:21 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: America's First Wilderness
Posts: 529
Fortson,

Those are some great shots.

I hate super zooms, but my hat is off to you. They should be using that series to promote the super zoom!!

Now if they just made an internal zooming/focusing model with weather sealing, your images might have convinced me to look at one seriously. I've always felt this type of lens could be most useful with weather sealing since having an all in one would be ideal in crappy conditions!
12-17-2008, 05:43 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,133
I think some are taking the "miss shots" because of using a prime too literally.

In this situation, to me a missed shot is:
  • wanting to take a shot of the painted ceiling of a church but in order to capture it all as I envision it, I would need to be about 20 feet below floor level.
  • wanting to take a closeup of an architectural detail on the side of a 3 story 1820 home but would need to be up on a cherry picker basket truck to be able to get close enough.
  • wanting to capture a whole room from "corner to corner" but even when you back into a corner and put your camera above your head so you can have it up against the corner itself but still can't get it all.
Of course those missed shots can be made up by alternative shots and this is where the creativity comes in. Otherwise, pack a bigger bag (what I typically do, )
12-17-2008, 06:32 PM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
That's a little extreme. The 18-250 isn't a prime, but it's certainly not "useless" in low light. Shake reduction will give you a couple of stops, especially at the wider end.


...

Russ, all those shots were good, but the one above is incredible - for any lens. Good job.

As for me, if I'm going into a situation where I really want a prime, but there's
the possibility that I might miss a shot because of FL restrictions - that's what a
second body is for.

For example, the following is my ideal kit for that situation:

K20D + 12-24 or 50-135 or 28-70 or 70-200

&

K2000 + some limited, M, K or Tak


Sometimes the zoom/prime's are swapped, but that's the idea.

I've found that I miss less shots grabbing a body already wearing
a lens vs. taking off a lens, capping, putting in bag, pullling out lens, uncapping,
etc...


.
12-17-2008, 06:36 PM   #44
Veteran Member
georgweb's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,386
Jeremy (the OP),

I see you're into soaring flight, would love to hear and see more from that, too.

Regarding your original question (and a whole bunch of interesting answers), may I revert your question to asking how can I get to see those shots in the first place. Then, do I know enough about perspectives from different focal lenghts and those different DOF characteristics involved to estimate what lens I would actually try out for the shot. No gear involved up to this point, and actually it's fun to do this without a camera. Apart from a standard field of view lens you could also start off with a tele or wide angle in mind (these are much harder to see).

Then, the gear, there's horses for courses, it's all been said I think. I've got stuck with manual primes and it works great for me. So yes, I miss a lot of shots, but gain some humbleness :-)

Daniel, you started it (great 'missed frames' BTW), so here's one more,

No crop, 180mm lens (this guy just landed in front of me)

Georg (the other)
12-17-2008, 09:13 PM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
LeoTaylor's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Connecticut
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
I'm relatively new to this but I use primes when I've planned what I'm going to photograph. If I'm out looking for something to photograpgh I use zooms. When I miss shots it is more often I have the wrong ZOOM attached and the time to switch lenses is too great. The only way I could avoid that is to buy an 11:1 zoom!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, park, photography, primes
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tips for shooting lens comparison shots you like to share? cheekygeek Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-21-2010 05:55 AM
People Little Miss P Falcons Post Your Photos! 3 12-21-2009 01:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: smc Pentax M Primes, S-M-C Primes, THE Series 1 70~210 Zoom, Viv MFTC and more monochrome Sold Items 33 02-13-2009 01:29 PM
I sure miss my DA 16-45 f/4 Ed in GA Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 01-11-2008 01:11 PM
What I miss (and don't miss) about my K10D switters Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 01-06-2008 02:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top