[Guest]

[quote name='nsandersen' timestamp='1317071784' post='11878']...if the 100-300mm review goes all right).[/quote]



Which review are you waiting for?

[nandadevieast]

I don't agree that compact cameras can only produce snapshots, just because they give a huge DOF.

What if huge DOF is exactly the thing someone is looking for?

And creative work doesn't depend on DOF or the absence of it.





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1308398196' post='9326']

If you like the snapshot look from big DOF compact cameras, a compact will be fine. But no substitute for more creative work with a DSLR.



Slide film has a more dynamic feel, because of the special tonal curve. Also, you never viewed slide film photos in the same manner...



And "noise" with film is of a totally different character than the ugly noise from sensors... You are not being fair to slide film!

[/quote]

[Guest]

[quote name='nandadevieast' timestamp='1317217986' post='11930']And creative work doesn't depend on DOF or the absence of it.[/quote]



This crude simplification (shallow DOF equals creativity or creative potential) has been pushed here a couple of times. I prefer to assign the "creative potential" (or its absence) strictly to the photographer, while the cam is merely is a tool, which serves the photographer to obtain the images he/she wants. Besides, one should not forget the ever more important role of post processing in the creative process.

[Guest]

> Which review are you waiting for?



Panasonic 100-300mm.

[Guest]

[quote name='nsandersen' timestamp='1317242000' post='11941']Panasonic 100-300mm.[/quote]



Here is a review from a German site, which has however a fairly dodgy reputation:



http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/lumix_100_300_4_56/overview.php



According to this the lens performs poorly towards the long end. I don´t think it´s that bad. Here are some samples (all handheld) taken with a GF1.

[miro]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1317228127' post='11934']

This crude simplification (shallow DOF equals creativity or creative potential) has been pushed here a couple of times. I prefer to assign the "creative potential" (or its absence) strictly to the photographer, while the cam is merely is a tool, which serves the photographer to obtain the images he/she wants. Besides, one should not forget the ever more important role of post processing in the creative process.

[/quote]





Fully agreed with you and "nandadevieast"

[mst]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1317284181' post='11965']

Fully agreed with you and "nandadevieast"

[/quote]



Me, too, however I still think that a fast lens/thin DOF adds a few valuable options to the creative potential of a photographer.



Of course it's not a substitute. I've seen many images shot with fast lenses wide open which perfectly prove that thin DOF by itself is no warrant for a nice looking image. In fact, quite a few of those images were shot by myself during the early days of my fast lens disease <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Maybe that's another unavoidable step, one that's missing in the "evolution of a photographer" diagram...



-- Markus

[finaldesignrb]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1317286864' post='11968']

Me, too, however I still think that a fast lens/thin DOF adds a few valuable options to the creative potential of a photographer. Of course ... thin DOF by itself is no warrant for a nice looking image. In fact, quite a few of those images were shot by myself during the early days of my fast lens disease

[/quote]

Will go a bit further and observe that folks are usually paying me for images that are [url="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15387676/iso200nex5demo.jpg"]clearer than what they could make on their own[/url], not blurrier. E.g. most of my APS-C commercial work is done at F8 or smaller.

[miro]

[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1317303525' post='11978']

Will go a bit further and observe that folks are usually paying me for images that are [url="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15387676/iso200nex5demo.jpg"]clearer than what they could make on their own[/url], not blurrier. E.g. most of my APS-C commercial work is done at F8 or smaller.

[/quote]



I have similar experience. It seems that people prefers everywhere sharp images instead with selected DOF.

Or maybe we are re-discovering Ansel Adams and Group F=64 again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64

[finaldesignrb]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1317326197' post='11981']

I have similar experience. It seems that people prefers everywhere sharp images instead with selected DOF.

Or maybe we are re-discovering Ansel Adams and Group F=64 again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64

[/quote]

Well my own quite mediocre and predictable fee-for-service work would be quite embarassed to be described as being in the same solar system with the accomplishments of the F64 contributors in the early 20th century. But it is at least fair to say that the first priority most people have for their cameras is not "how few things can this camera focus on at once?"?