The Photo Club - Street Photography

[Joey D]

Ya I've thought about the 1.8 $100 lens but I don't know, it feels kind of cheap but then again it is cheap. I'd like to shoot with both of them and see how they are.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Ya I've thought about the 1.8 $100 lens but I don't know, it feels kind of cheap but then again it is cheap. I'd like to shoot with both of them and see how they are.

It may feel cheap, but the results are very good, especially for the price. Ask yourself if you really need half a stop extra. I have a f/1.4 30mm and 50mm and I love those, but when shooting at f/1.4, I quickly ran into the limitations of my 450D (shooting in daylight at f/1.4 and 100ISO, and you're at the 1/4000th of a second limit really quick, and it's STILL overexposed ) and my own stability (extreme shallow DOF at f/1.4 and close distance subjects, e.g. breathing will mean you're out of focus ). For low-light it is of course perfect, and in those cases, the extra half stop is definitely worth it. 👍

 

[boiltheocean]

This is something I don't get, when a lens discussion is made people hardly ever focus on anything but Canon or Nikon, is it because they haven't heard of anyone but them or something else? I'm not saying Canon or Nikon glass is rubbish as they have an absolute fortune to put into development but they don't really have experience of someone like Carl Zeiss.

Images from this Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 are mindbogglingly sharp.

Only drawback is no autofocus which I personally wouldn't find a problem on something like a 35mm but on a longer prime I couldn't do without. Sigh, if only I had the money.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

This is something I don't get, when a lens discussion is made people hardly ever focus on anything but Canon or Nikon, is it because they haven't heard of anyone but them or something else? I'm not saying Canon or Nikon glass is rubbish as they have an absolute fortune to put into development but they don't really have experience of someone like Carl Zeiss.

I think most people are likely to comment on ones that they have used or have experience of using in the past,not many people can afford zeiss lenses....well except maybe giles

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I absolutely love my 70-200 2.8 is L.

Every time i go to an event wether its a music or car or something else i always say to myself im going to use one of my other lenses but always use this.

Just something about the effect and colours that come through on the L that just seems to beat anything else i have which to be fair isnt much

Doesn't like tripods though and this was with my 450d! The tripod cant even cope with the gripped 7D and this lense

OMG, dude, you're killing the tripod head there! Loosen the tripod collar on the lens, then rotate the lens within the collar, keeping the tripod head in the landscape orientation. That way the load sits over the centre column.

This is something I don't get, when a lens discussion is made people hardly ever focus on anything but Canon or Nikon, is it because they haven't heard of anyone but them or something else? I'm not saying Canon or Nikon glass is rubbish as they have an absolute fortune to put into development but they don't really have experience of someone like Carl Zeiss.

Images from this Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 are mindbogglingly sharp.

Only drawback is no autofocus which I personally wouldn't find a problem on something like a 35mm but on a longer prime I couldn't do without. Sigh, if only I had the money.

"The only drawback is no autofocus" is usually a game-ender for most people. I think people get into the "system" aspect of buying camera gear, progressing up through the body manufacturer's lens lineup. This seems to be particularly the case with Canon owners, where it's really rare to see a Canon owner not using Canon lenses.

I think most people are likely to comment on ones that they have used or have experience of using in the past,not many people can afford zeiss lenses....well except maybe giles

Hey you: cheeky! There's a lot of repetition and hearsay in lens discussions, and a lot of people talk a lot of rubbish on the topic. I see people happy to diss a lens they've never really used. To me, each lens is a learning experience. Slapping it on the body and getting 100% keeper rates is unattainable, but a lot of photographers seem to expect that there should be a direct proportional relationship between the cost of the equipment and the quality (and the reliability of the quality) of the shots. And yet, these are often the same people who would rail at the suggestion that a photo they took wasn't up to much because of the quality of their gear.

There's no doubt in my mind that going "off piste", in buying 3rd party lenses complicates matters in terms of choosing new equipment. It's not something I've done. I'm an all-Canon guy. I also think I'm about done buying lenses.

What's interesting to me now is mapping out which lenses I'm going to use on an expedition. Balancing convenience, size, weight and quality can consume my thoughts for hours at a time. I've come to the conclusion that one should take zooms when going out with a camera, and primes when going out to take photographs. Beyond that, it's still heavy bags & guesswork.

 

[boiltheocean]

"The only drawback is no autofocus" is usually a game-ender for most people. I think people get into the "system" aspect of buying camera gear, progressing up through the body manufacturer's lens lineup. This seems to be particularly the case with Canon owners, where it's really rare to see a Canon owner not using Canon lenses.

I can see how people would find this a pain at longer focal lengths but I've never ever experienced the need for it on wide angle lenses, although that could be due to the fact that I rarely use autofocus unless I need it because it's so bad on my body.

I guess what annoys me the most is when people don't actually consider what they shoot and just buy a lens because "it's better". Seriously I've seen people ask my mate who uses an Olympus say "Why does your lens have a blue ring around it? Don't you know all the best lenses have red rings around them?", then proceed to point out their Sigma. Urgh!

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I can see how people would find this a pain at longer focal lengths but I've never ever experienced the need for it on wide angle lenses, although that could be due to the fact that I rarely use autofocus unless I need it because it's so bad on my body.

I guess what annoys me the most is when people don't actually consider what they shoot and just buy a lens because "it's better". Seriously I've seen people ask my mate who uses an Olympus say "Why does your lens have a blue ring around it? Don't you know all the best lenses have red rings around them?", then proceed to point out their Sigma. Urgh!

I've only done one lens-for-lens upgrade, my 100mm Macro. Although the 100 IS L offers a useful uplift in image quality, my main reason for the upgrade was the weathersealing and the additional IS. My non-L macro needs to get some water damage fixed before I sell it.

A lot of people (myself included) like buying lenses. But a lot of people (myself not included) don't admit that they're buying it more out of avarice than out of a desire to improve their photography. I'm very fortunate in that I'm a well-resourced amateur. I see a lot of people on photography forums asking "what lens should I buy next?" It's a fatuous question that nobody other than the one asking can answer.

Gear Acquisition Syndrome is fine, so long as the sufferer knows that that's what it is.

 

[NLxAROSA]

This is something I don't get, when a lens discussion is made people hardly ever focus on anything but Canon or Nikon, is it because they haven't heard of anyone but them or something else?

I think there are plenty of people that think a better lens will make them a better photographer or their pictures will automatically be better (which they are of course not ).

I can only speak for myself, but I am *very* happy with my Sigma primes. Perhaps the optical quality is not comparable with 'L' lenses, but then again, neither is the price. And they are certainly comparable (or even better) than the 'standard' lineup from Canon. But they have no red ring, so people leave them be.

I see people happy to diss a lens they've never really used.

In all fairness, if a lens gets mostly bad reviews from professionals and amateurs alike, I think it's safe to diss it without having tried it.

Also take into account that many amateurs simply lack the skills to properly judge a lens on CA, distortion, front/back focus, etc., so reviews or hear-say is all they can use to pass judgement. I just love the reviews accusing f/1.4 lenses of front- or backfocus when people have tested this at f/1.4, no tripod and a subject at a distance of about 50cm, totally unaware of the fact that they have only a few millimeters of depth, so a slight movement combined with a breath means you're out of focus. And of course they tested it using a cheaper body (like my 450D) which have trouble with AF at f/1.4 to begin with (I know my 450D has trouble, especially with the off-centre focus points).

Personally I rely heavily on both professional and amateur reviews as well as sample work. It's why I picked the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 over the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Haven't regretted it. 👍 The only thing I still want is a decent macro.

 

[boiltheocean]

Revival because I need some help.

I've been thrown back into college after I've missed the first couple of easy weeks as I was off with the kidney injury. I've been given an assignment on Street Photography Basically I have no idea where to begin, it's such a vague and complex area I'm feeling quite overwhelmed.

Can anyone help me out with Street? Thanks.​

 

[F1GTR]

A documentary from the photographer who introduced me to street photography - he's always full of insights, even if he can be a bit abrasive at times.

Getting good street shots isn't easy, but here are a few tips:

- Walk into an area with your camera out and get a good feel of the place, this helps in three ways: you get to pick out compositions easier, you get into the rhythm/groove of things and the people around you will relax a bit since you're not immediately jumping in and taking photos of them.

- It isn't a style suited for shy types. You're going to inevitably end up talking to people who object to you taking photos, so it helps is you're confident and appear to know what you're doing. If you can gain a psychological advantage from acting professionally then people won't bother you, so you can concentrate on photos instead of *****ing yourself. However, it doesn't mean that you can act like an arse when out taking photos (though some pros such as Bruce Gilden can get away with it, though that may be well to do with him being old).

- Know your rights as a photographer. There are loads of policmen and PCSOs on power trips who think that the mere act of carrying a camera is illegal.

- Don't use a telephoto for street. Because first of all, you lose the immersion you get from using a a normal/wide due to the perspective being flattened, and secondly you'll look like a creep.

- Old looking cameras will immediately endear you to your subjects. I've had people actually come up to me asking for a portrait (which isn't really street) when I'm walking about with my Canonet/Auto S2/F3.

It may seem very vague, but street is all about capturing moments in life that many of us won't usually notice. That's all there is to it.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Think of street photography not as capturing space, but as capturing time.

The lady in the bright blue dress crossing the grey paved street. The man sitting smoking on the park bench. The moment of disappointment as the runner realises the bus is pulling away.

All that being said, expect your "keeper" rate to be about 1/10th your normal rate.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hmm, take stuff in black and white, and try not to look like a pervert.. gotcha..

Not sure I want to walk around my town with my EOS out... A: It's a hole, B: Chav's will try and nick it, C: The only comments I'm likely to get about the camera is "oi, mate, u shud get a blackberry lik wot Iv got, wiv a camera innit, innit.."

But, it would be a challenging topic... I might give it some thought.

 

[Cano]

Street photography is always awesome. I've tried my hand at it with varied results, but in no way I can walk around this city with my DSLR. That is why I always carry my trusty, tired and old Canon S2.

I'd recommend these do-it-all cameras to everyone trying street photography. With a DSLR you have to change lenses and stuff and sometimes that lost time can mean you lost an awesome shot. But if you have an all-in-one lens with massive zoom and quick focus, plus image stabilizer, you wont loose a bit. I cannot tell how many times I've gotten a cool shot of someting that with a DSLR I would have likely missed.

Yeah, they do not have the quality of a DSLR (altough, to be fair, some are pushing 15 mpx now, which is a freaking lot) or the lens flexibility, but what they lack in those aspect they more than make up for in immediacy and ready-at-will capabilities.

I'm already eyeing a new Canon SX-line replacement for my old buddy, but it seems it still has plenty of life left on it. It's only 12x zoom and 5mpx, but it always gets the job done, and pretty well I might add. You can grab a look at my (mostly) street pictures in here:

http://s320.photobucket.com/albums/nn326/Bodecito/stuff/

I've showed some here, but there are several shots that I have not been able to even find.

 

[boiltheocean]

Having now finished my Street assignment at college I realise that many people work under the misconception that street photography happens at random.

I had a talk from Ed Swinden and he went through how he plans all his images. How he spent weeks waiting for the right weather and light conditions, then waiting some more to get the correct subject for his images.

 

[F1GTR]

I had a talk from Ed Swinden and he went through how he plans all his images. How he spent weeks waiting for the right weather and light conditions, then waiting some more to get the correct subject for his images.

But the success of the shot depends on a number of random variables anyway. The lighting will be random, the weather will be random, whatever makes it into the frame will be random. I don't see how approaching street with a sense of it being being random is a misconception; street photography serves to help order the chaos of the world into something aesthetically pleasing. I imagine that yes, he has already conceived a set conditions as to what will make for a good shot, but any photographer worth his salt does that anyway. Swinden simply has more time to play with, but having time to wait doesn't preclude that element of randomness.