So...if we were actually stupid enough to accept your logic without question, then the following shot, also taken at the Cleveland Museum of Art, simply shouldn't exist...
In YOUR mind, such a shot is a "waste of time"...should I not take offense to such an insinuation?
I'm sure that with a shot like your eagle pic, yes, most people would probably want a really good autofocus,
HOWEVER, as we have seen with your comments in the past, that's simply NOT the ONLY way to shoot. After all, what about still life or studio work or even conceptual photography? You seem to have a substantially narrow view of what photography is all about...it's a shame.
Even in the case of that eagle shot (which I
seriously doubt is your own work), yes, I do believe that such an image could in fact be captured with a manual lens, assuming the photographer actually knew what he/she was doing.
You seem to completely over-look the fact that wildlife photography has been around LONG before the days of digital, let alone your precious 30+ megapixel cameras. MANY people shot some incredible images back in the days of film, using manual lenses...one only need thumb thru some old National Geographics from the 50's, 60's and 70's to see this is true.
Further, if you
really want to compare images, lemme dig back into the archives here...
The above image was in fact captured NOT with a 16 or 20 or 30+ megapixel camera with top of the line lens, it was captured back in the day with a humble little 8 mp Rebel XT and a cheap $40 Tamron lens. I'm quite sure that to you, such an image is certainly "inferior" and obviously a "waste of time".
Or wow...how about this shot also captured with the Rebel...
Yep...that one's gotta be a waste of time too. Probably should have just deleted it right after I took it. Can't imagine why I ever bothered framing that for an exhibition...what was I thinking...
Then there's this shot...
That wasn't even captured with a DSLR...that was shot with a 5 mp Sony H1. I've even sold several framed prints of that image...but again I have no doubt at all that you would simply think such a shot is of course a waste of time.
And wow...how about this one also shot with the Sony H1...
That squirrel shot has actual earned me a couple of awards...clearly a total waste of time.
Or how about this shot of a barred owl, also captured with that horribly antiquated Sony...
And wow...then we have this shot...
That shot of the pup was actually captured with my first digital camera...a simple Polaroid PDC700
-1 megapixel- point and shoot...and it's an image that I'm very proud to say is still used to this day as part of the logo for a local humane society. Clearly that was a "waste of time" huh? Again by your standards and your logic, based on your comments here and elsewhere, that image shouldn't even exit.
I'm sure that you see such images as absolutely pointless. After all, you just can't capture ANY
decent images
at all without owning the latest, most expensive gear, right? RIGHT??
Oh...and that Rebel XT was a refurb from
Ebay (the Tamron lens was used, also from
Ebay) and the Sony was an "open box special"...the camera had been purchased and returned to the store where I bought it. No clue where or how the Polaroid was purchased...it was a holiday gift from my father. Guess that must of been a waste of time too.
BTW...unlike yourself sir, I would point out that EVERY image posted here is
MY OWN WORK. If you are really going to try and debate your point, perhaps you should
USE YOUR OWN IMAGES INSTEAD OF LEACHING THE WORK OF OTHERS!
I have no doubt that you do in fact
believe that older manual lenses are a waste of time...and for you, I suspect they are. As we've seen time and again, you ONLY believe people should use the newest, bestest, coolest, fastest toys that YOUR money can afford, yadda, yadda....hell, you even believe a 16 mp camera is somehow "inferior". As we've seen from other posters here and elsewhere however, again that's just clearly NOT the case. You have once again proven yourself to be under the horribly misguided impression that it's about the gear...it's not. It's all about the person using it.
Regardless, understand this;
my post was NOT intended for gear snobs such as yourself as a means to crack on those of us who are in fact a bit more creative and open minded. It was a question to see how many others such as myself do in fact still use such lenses. Perhaps you should stop and actually consider such things before responding to people's posts.
I would apologize to the OP here for having high-jacked the thread, however since I started this thread...and started it with a fairly specific intent, I felt obligated to make a point and while I sincerely doubt Auslese is really capable of understanding that point, I do hope others will excuse the rant, I thank everyone else for their comments and support and sincerely hope that the rest of ya'll enjoy the additional pics I've posted here for what they are.
.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/37/37245-5f15b292311b21913f10cc41f40682ba.jpg?1734170036)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/37/37126-93feffeca0e9e6ad893962c03a7a341e.jpg?1734169833)
