A good copy . . .

[bwana]

Why do I hear this phrase so often on forums?

True, it is more prevalent on occasionally nauseating photographic-centric forums where the worst of the pixel peepers tend to congregate but still, are people under the impression that getting a good copy is somewhat of a rarity?

Scott Bourne, who can be as self opinionated as Ken Rockwell, has a mantra that 99% of all lenses are better than 98% of the people using them, and I've yet to experience a "bad copy" of any lens, filter, camera body, but I'd love to hear experiences from those who have.

 

[BigAl-sa]

I'm with you Bwana, I bought my Bigma from someone who felt the IQ was below par (who decided what the par was I don't know). I think some of the pics I've taken with it prove otherwise

In hindsight, my original kit lens was below par, even though I did get some really nice pics with it.



One should rather learn the shortcomings of a lens and work inside those???

 

[stix]

Agreed.

I still shoot load with my 18-55 350D canon kit lens - and it still gives me results.

Complicated Equipment doesn't make a photographer good or better - it just gives him more chance to get it wrong

 

[bwana]

In hindsight, my original kit lens was below par, even though I did get some really nice pics with it.

When you say below par do you mean it was "a bad copy" of that particular lens or was it the same as any of the kit lenses?

 

[koffiejunkie]

bwana and Big-Al, I'm with you.

Complicated Equipment doesn't make a photographer good or better - it just gives him more chance to get it wrong

Nice That probably explains why I still have a better "hit rate" with my K1000

 

[koffiejunkie]

BTW, here's a useful article on the phenomenon of "soft copies" written by one of the lensrentals.com guys:

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

 

[synapseZA]

I agree with you Bwana. I think a bad copy (in terms of optics) is more likely inadequate technique...

 

[vash87]

well these days you have people that know very little buying super expensive L grade lenses and then complaining they got a bad copy. mean while 99% of the time, its either to slow a shutter speed, or auto focus is turned off. Im all for buying really good quality equipment but you are right, half the time the gear is better than the man behind it.

 

[undesign]

BTW, here's a useful article on the phenomenon of "soft copies" written by one of the lensrentals.com guys:

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

According to the article "soft copies" are not so uncommon then. 3-7% with real defects plus the unknown percentage of "within tolerance" differences that on aggregate (e.g. -2 on camera and -2 on lens) gives you noticeable front/back focus. Assuming that most people only comment on forums when there's a problem the prevalence of these type discussion are maybe expected?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Assuming that most people only comment on forums when there's a problem the prevalence of these type discussion are maybe expected?

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I've seen a fair number of example shots posted on forums to show how bad their copy of whatever lens was, and honestly couldn't tell what the hell they were on a bout. And sometimes I could, like often happens with the 24-105L, where people complain it's so terribly soft. And when you look at the image, it's clear they took a picture of something half a meter away, at 105mm and f/4, hand held in poor light at 1/4 shutter. Really?

On the web, I treat the majority of "my kit doesn't work right" posts on-line (be it photography kit, music instruments, linux software, whatever) as user error.

 

[synapseZA]

And when you look at the image, it's clear they took a picture of something half a meter away, at 105mm and f/4, hand held in poor light at 1/4 shutter. Really?

Agree (hence my comment about inadequate technique earlier). I recently saw a shot taken at 1/10 with a 85mm (on crop) at f/22 with no VR/IS ...

I guess front/back focus could be a legitimate problem, but so often people test it on a ruler (or something similar). In practical situations where AF is used that 1 or 2mm is rarely going to make a difference. I have sometimes wondered if people like looking for problems with their gear as an excuse for if someone crits their work. Or maybe they just like to send their gear to Nikon/Canon for adjustment

 

[BigAl-sa]

When you say below par do you mean it was "a bad copy" of that particular lens or was it the same as any of the kit lenses?

It's prolly the same as any kit lens (I did do comparison shots and all seemed the same). My feeling is that one is allowed to gripe about a kit lens, but you can still get decent shots with it!

 

[bwana]

It's prolly the same as any kit lens (I did do comparison shots and all seemed the same). My feeling is that one is allowed to gripe about a kit lens, but you can still get decent shots with it!

True - for many the kit lens is perfectly adequate . . . just don't try tell them that though after they've been brainwashed by photography forums into believing that they simply must invest in glass forsaking everything else.

 

[MadMailMan]

The only part of my kit that could be described as a "bad copy" is actually me. The one doing the composition, mucking with the settings and eventually pulling the trigger to produce yet another cr@p shot. I agree with the coments above and most people do look for a reason why their shots don't turn out quite as they thought but 9 times out of 10 it's user error and not the lens back/front focusing or a bad sensor.

Just mz 2c worth. Happy snapping!

 

[undesign]

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I've seen a fair number of example shots posted on forums to show how bad their copy of whatever lens was, and honestly couldn't tell what the hell they were on a bout. And sometimes I could, like often happens with the 24-105L, where people complain it's so terribly soft. And when you look at the image, it's clear they took a picture of something half a meter away, at 105mm and f/4, hand held in poor light at 1/4 shutter. Really?

On the web, I treat the majority of "my kit doesn't work right" posts on-line (be it photography kit, music instruments, linux software, whatever) as user error.

Sorry, I was away for a few days so I couldn't give a decent reply. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment about user error (what Bwana also said). It is interesting though that according to the article posted 3-7% of lenses actually are faulty (according to their empirical evidence at least). If you add the tolerance factor of lens/camera calibration, which is difficult to quantify, it could easily be that 10-15% of lenses are either faulty or substantially mis-calibrated. That's quite a big number isn't it?

 

[Albereth]

In the good old days of film we would bracket shots if we had to have them. And the expense of film also meant that we were a lot more particular about getting those shots.

Nowadays we can just blaze away and look for the shot on our computers. This may have an influence on why we get soft shots.

The biggest difference that the camera body has is in its auto focus capabilities. Other than that it is just a box that captures light. Yes - there are those boxes that have more features than other boxes but it comes down to a way of getting light onto the capture medium.

The number of pixels is not as important as the piece of glass. That piece of glass is the means to get the image into the box. And after that everything is just physics. The quicker you can capture the light the better - less chance to mess up the physics. Yes, the box (only because it is also the medium) plays a role - the higher the ISO setting the better (BOCTMBOE).

That being said, there can be faults in the equipment. The autofocus may be manxed - the Canon 10D supposedly had a batch that had focus issues. The lens may have problems - there are a number of elements inside a lens and something might fail.

But all of these manufacturers - whether the real deal like Canon or the other deal like Sigma all have stringent QA processes. Stringent, not 100% guaranteed - the warranty covers that.

While it may be possible that stuff is faulty, or that stuff will fail (or develop a flaw) it is more likely that the problem is in applying the camera - especially as we have now became accustomed to digital and think we don't need to be as diligent.