Sir Xsarus wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
The fact that zooming in or out means my aperture changes which means my sharp depth changes and my lighting changes.
The first is just really annoying since your sharp depth is such a massive part of your photo and the second is infuriating if you're in low light situations where you're pushing the limits of your camera (Which I happen to be in relatively often).
And I know neither of the lenses I listed is as flexible as the 18-200, but I find the quality loss that comes with high flexibility to be too big to be worth it. I'll take a few steps forwards or backwards instead.
The bigger the zoom range of a lens the more movement of glass. More movement equals more errors.
All excellent points, which I agree with, and which the majority of amateur photographers won't notice, because they're not paying attention to them in the first place. I use my 18-200 in candid unplanned photo situations when there is good light, or I don't mind using a flash. Most of the time I put at least some of the settings on automatic, although I very rarely go full auto. The flexibility given by the 18-200 in these kinds of situations is amazing and completely worth it for me. When I want to take nicer more planned out shots I'll switch to a prime lens, or a fixed aperture lens, as you suggest.
The majority of amateur photographers won't be using a DSLR though and a micro 3/4th camera (or whatever it's called exactly) is less hassle, loads of zoom, no interchangeable lenses and is much cheaper.
I'm assuming that most people who buy a DSLR care about how the photo looks and not just what's on the photo and thus will sooner or later will notice and care about these things. May as well make that sooner imo.
The other downside to a large zoom is that it makes people lazy and just stand still and zoom in instead of taking a few steps forward while in 9 out of 10 cases, taking a few steps forward will make for a better photo because tele means you lose depth in the photo. Having to move also makes people more conscious of how they're framing their images which again improves their photos.
Also never ever go full auto. There isn't a single reason or situation to ever even consider putting your camera on full auto if you have any idea of what aperture, ISO and shutter speed mean. Fully manual or Aperture priority (Only letting the camera set shutter speed) are all you'll ever need and all a camera is ever to be trusted with.
In the case of the photo this all started with, manual or aperture priority would have taken the image at, say ISO 100, f4 and at 1/200th (Or f2.8 and 1/300th). Plenty of speed to capture it without movement blur, no unnecessary stuff sharp which means a less cluttered background and no noise. (Then all that's left is the **** poor composition)
EDIT: This is what it comes down to, pretty much.
Edited, Mar 29th 2012 1:14am by Aethien 
