Last year, I spoke to a number of leading industry professionals and collated 29 of their combined unpopular opinions. This year, so that people can put a face to the opinion, I'm going to give 10 of my own.
1. 50mm f/1.8 Lenses Are Only so Popular Because They're so Cheap
The 50mm f/1.8 is one of the first lenses most photographers buy, and it certainly was mine. Every photographer appeared to endorse it, and unlike the other glass I had my eye on, I could keep my organs. Over the years, I've used it less and less, and while I spent some time debating a 50mm f/1.2, I didn't pull the trigger, but not because the staggering price as such, but rather the focal length.
For me, the 50mm is a half-measure, and not a good one. If I want to take wide portraits, or street shots with a narrow depth of field, I'm reaching for a 35mm. If I'm taking portraits with a little more subject separation or less of the scene involved, I'm grabbing my 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm. The 50mm doesn't fit comfortably in any camp, and if it were the same price as 35mm and 85mm lenses, I suspect far fewer people would have a 50mm in their bag.
2. Being a Great Photographer and Being an Expert on the Photography Industry and Cameras Are Not the Same Thing
This one bothers me in two ways. Firstly, I see people criticize the shots of some of the best camera reviewers in the industry because they're not taking incredible images with a review unit. Some of the best experts we have in this industry in terms of camera knowledge, industry knowledge, and historical understanding are not the best photographers in the world, nor do they have to be. You can be an expert without shooting magazine covers and high-end commercial campaigns.
Similarly, just because someone is a leading photographer creating the most beautiful images you've ever seen doesn't mean they have a clue about the industry or cameras in general. Industry knowledge and photographic prowess are not the same thing and often do not coexist. Don't discard a knowledgeable camera reviewer's opinion because they didn't take Vogue images with it, and don't presume somebody taking images for Vogue necessarily knows much about the camera industry.
3. I Don't Care If You Just Shot a Wedding or a Magazine Editorial With a Mobile Phone; It's Not Hard Anymore
I can't quite believe these videos and articles still crop up. Five years ago, if you shot a high-end editorial with a camera phone, it was noteworthy, but even then, only just. If you're doing it now, it's not remotely impressive or interesting. Modern phones have cameras so capable and jammed with tech that you can accomplish brilliant images with them in most genres. I have written a few times recently about using my Pixel 3 XL as a makeshift secondary camera body for wide-angle shots; it's not perfect, but it's damn good.
4. The Innovation in YouTube Channels Has Dropped off a Cliff
I'll caveat this point: I am fully aware of how hard it is to create consistent video content for a YouTube channel. It is a full-time job and a hard one. My grievance, however, is with the steady influx of new, fresh-faced YouTubers happy to walk in the footprints of thousands of others. They put some old cameras on a shelf behind their desk, they stick a blue LED on, and they talk about a new camera while switching between gimbal shots of the lens or body sitting somewhere reasonably nice. I can't be alone in my boredom for this, can I?
This is why I love and share the work of YouTubers who are doing something — anything — different: walking around cities in the snow taking first-person perspective video of them doing street photography, talking about taboo subjects like money, or reviewing the weirdest lenses they can find.
5. People Only Shoot Wide Open, in the Sweet Spot, or at f/22 Because They're Too Lazy to Figure out the Best Aperture for the Desired Shot
I've been sitting on this rant for a while, possibly because I was once guilty of it, but I think we all have been. The apertures that people use tend to be one of three: wide open at f/2.8 etc., the sharpest aperture, which is usually f/8 or f/9, or f/22 because they're dragging the shutter. I use all of these apertures and often. However, there are many times where those apertures between f/8 and wide open are useful. I'll give two of my most common examples.
When I shoot editorial portraiture and I'm using a tight crop on the subject's face, I want to get most of their face in focus, and while wide open might look pleasing, it doesn't do that. However, I don't want to use f/8 or f/9, because then everything (depending on my focal length and distance from subject) is tack sharp, and it looks boring. So, I will often use f/5.6 or the surrounding apertures so that the focus fall-off starts around my subject's ears.
The second example is similar. When I'm doing environmental portraiture, I want to capture all of the subject and some of the surroundings, but I don't want the surroundings to be tack sharp. But, it's a tough line to walk, because if I make the surroundings too blurry, it loses the environmental factor of the shot. I will typically work out the best aperture for getting my subject crisp and their surroundings separated enough to make the subject pop, but still discernible.
Bonus: Olympus Is Outshining Every Other Brand for Tech Innovation, but No One Seems to Care Because They’re Micro Four Thirds
I recently spent a while in Costa Rica with Olympus and their new OM-D E-M1 Mark III, and it was eye-opening in a number of ways. Firstly, Micro Four Thirds sensors aren't anywhere near as bad as people make out. That said, I admit that for some photography, they aren't a good fit. But the biggest surprise was the tech going into the E-M1 III and some of their other recent bodies. They have spectacularly good functions, like autofocus on stars, a live ND filter, live in-body image composites, and so on. Not to mention they have arguably the best IBIS system in the world. It seems to me there are a hell of a lot of people who could really benefit from these cameras that won't consider them because they're not APS-C or full-frame.
What Are Your Unpopular Opinions?
Many of the comments will be bashing me, but in-between them, make sure you leave your own unpopular opinions (about photography — don't get carried away) and share the heat that I'm about to endure!
My unpopular opinion is I would rather read a blog post like this, though I don’t agree with all of it, than sit through someone’s 8 to 10 minute youtube, the whole youtube channel obsession makes my eyes roll.
My unpopular opinion: gritty street photography is overdone. I prefer using a speedlight and care about getting good dynamic range in my street photos.
#A camera without dual card slot can't be used for professional job.
So what did pros use before these cameras were introduced?
Fail miserably if you take notice of internet forums. Or just crack on with the job using the gear they have with them if not.
I had a medium film camera that would shoot 3 rolls at once with a mirror system back in the days. Just kidding, but yes, like you say we survived single media. Problem was really more with labs that could screw up a roll. But that was part of the deal.
2 cameras
1. High resolution cameras need more resolution.
2. IBIS is overrated. very useful, but still overrated.
OIS allows me to hand hold my Fuji XT2 at 1/10th of a second or even less and get a good image. Hard to do without OIS or IBIS.
As I said, it’s very useful but it’s overrated.
The Innovation in YouTube Channels Has Dropped off a Cliff
Right on point !!!!
I am tempted to say I have a Youtube video about that, but I won't since I don't.
Following along after Mr. Sakowski, some more unpopular opinions:
#12: Websites and Youtube channels that guilt noobs and amateurs into thinking that one. more. piece. of. gear. will make them a better photographer.
#13: Websites and Youtube channels that guilt noobs and amateurs into thinking that if you aren't shooting images in Iceland, the Faroes, or Kwajalein that you're not a real landscape photographer.
#14: Websites and Youtube channels that guilt noobs and amateurs into thinking that they too could become a wedding (or food, or product, or fashion, or architectural) photographer by downloading a $300 video.
#15: Websites and Youtube channels that guilt noobs and amateurs into thinking that an image of a naked woman is 'art' because the photographer used a gel, spray paint, a fancy lens, or turned the woman into a furrie.
At least these will be unpopular at the Fstoppers workshop :-)
Yea I can get on board with all of that.
#5 For sure.
Being conversant in megapixels, corner sharpness etc. does not make somebody a photographer.
ETTR was an ok idea in 2002 when all we had was CCD sensors with 12 bit output, but today it’s almost entirely pointless and the only part of the concept that’s aged well is “don’t blow the highlights.”
“Full frame” is a marketing term that only applies to legacy DSLR systems with a lot of lenses designed for 24x36mm. On M4/3 cameras, an M4/3 sensor is full frame and in systems designed for APSC an APSC sensor is full frame.
All the sensors are good enough and have been for years, and 99% of people shouldn’t waste their money on newer or larger ones.
Agree with everything but #1. 50mm is my favorite lens to shoot with for damn near everything
#6 You have to use manual all the time
#7 You have to shoot everything RAW
#8 You have to have a full frame camera
#9 If your lens/flash/etc isn't made by the company who made your camera, you shouldn't use it
Hmmmm.... If you don't have a thick skin, don't post or exhibit your work for the multitudes to see. Somewhere along the line, you'll get a negative review.
# whateverweareupto Sometimes we are lazy with zoom lenses and change focal length only to frame a photo. Don't just stand in one spot. Pick the focal that best fits the subject and get closer or farther from the subject.
Oh..no no no no..pick the DISTANCE that best suits the subject..then find the lens that will work from there
My unpopular opinion is that film is irrelevant today because we have digital.
As to the 50mm f1.8, I will stick with my Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron, thank you (try buying one it ain't cheap); though I do like wider lenses for many shots, and do not find a lot of use for longer lenses currently. But is is all about what you shoot. Everyone has different needs. My Zeiss Opton 50mm f2 Sonnar is also very nice, but I just got a Carl Zeiss 35mm f2.8 Biogon, so I will be playing with that too.
A little history. Most 35mm camera's years ago came with one lens. 50mm. So many of us used this lens exclusively.
We concentrated on the story or graphic imagery we saw in the streets or the pretty girl visiting your apartment.
The next reach would be a 135mm. The drive for wide made the 35mm the go to much later. I took pix of events
the Poor People's March in NY etc. The 50mm was my lens. the emotion was oblivious to the lens type.
I had my first a7s a few years ago. And a wonderful lens the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8. At a family get together
I was with the cousins kids in a large room with only natural light. And the lens was just terrific. And the bokeh
was terrific with the a7s's low light ability and the photos were great to look at. Their excitement was my payoff.
Some of the best lenses ever produced were 50-55mm because this was the main lens and lens makers put a lot of effort into the. Additionally, the drive to faster leneses in the first half of the 1900s concentrated on "normal" lenses, which for 35mm film is traditionally 50-55mm (45-58mm if you want to be more inclusive).
I couldn't help but chuckle at this: "I can't quite believe these videos and articles still crop up. Five years ago, if you shot a high-end editorial with a camera phone, it was noteworthy, but even then, only just... I have written a few times recently about using my Pixel 3 XL..."
Off the top of my head:
1. The ever-faster lens craze has gotten out of control. How many people actually need f1.0, and can really justify the weight and expense? I'd rather see manufacturers working on making cheaper lenses sharper, and reasonably fast lenses lighter.
2. Going along with that, I think super shallow dof has become cliche and unoriginal in many cases. Black and white close-in face portraits that are only really sharp on the eyes were cool 5-10 years ago, but do we really have to keep doing it?
3. I don't care how many frames per second newer cameras can shoot. The money I make in photography these days comes from shooting fast-paced action sports (mostly ski/snowboard), and I've never set my camera higher than 11fps. I couldn't care less about 20 or 30fps. A deep buffer is a much bigger deal.
4. Landscape photography has gone from helping protect the environment to, in many cases at least, harming the environment by driving masses of photographers and sightseers to the same areas. Don't get me wrong; I love landscape photography. But I'd like to see people getting further off the beaten path, and not tagging their locations.
Good 100%
Agrees on 1 an 3 for sure. f1.8 lenses started in the 1920s (Ernamann), and are fast enough. f1.4 and 1.2 are nice, but beyond that it is often overkill.
The pursuit of faster lenses is crazy. Fujifilm is coming out with a 50mm f1 lens. Not sure who will buy that.
I actually went the other way with one of their lenses. Had a XF 35mm f1.4 and sold it to buy a XF 35mm f2 and could not be happier.
here's one: photography IS NOT art and should 'get over it'...here's another: the two best uses for photography are #1 mug shots & #2 crime scene documentation
12 MP and Photoshop CS2 are good enough.
A great photographer will excel with any focal length.
Photographers are quick to throw other photographers under the bus depending on brands of gear they use and not the quality of Photography
So which one is the unpopular one?
Live ND is amazing. I have it one my phone and I want it on my sony so bad.
Another unpopular opinion: Most DSLRs' "Autofocus Fine Tune" feature is primarlily a firmware solution to a psychological problem. The primary motivation for implementing this feature was to give pixel-peeping amateurs an alternative to constantly returning "soft copies" of already finely calibrated bodies and lenses whenever their photos of brick walls and lens charts weren't all that they'd dreamt of...
You should definitely reshare my video on values in landscape photography, not sure anyone else has done anything like it - seems my post was mostly ignored xD
Number 2 is not an opinion. It's an objective and demonstrable fact.
In my opinion.
"...50mm f/1.8 Lenses Are Only so Popular Because They're so Cheap..."
And we keep it....and keep using it, because it's very good.
Photography is a lot of fun. Let's go take some pictures and think about them later on our computer.
The nifty fifty might be so popular because exquisite art photographers like say, Ralph Gibson, use almost nothing else, and the results are consistently excellent.
My unpopular opinion; Microcontrast only exists in the minds of people who rarely take photos and are just gear obsessed. And even if microcontrast exists it makes no difference in a photo. It is measurebation at its finest.
How do you define microcontrast?
Well it depends. I posted this unpopular opinion on DPR and I could never see what people were talking about when they showed examples of it.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62654485
Oh that hoo-ha about 'contrasty' lenses. I never bought it either.
How did the great photographers of the past manage to take any photos at all with lenses that did not have great microcontrast, were contrasty and had superior bokeh? The horror.
Haha yes I’m buying into this, hate all that spec sheet crap
So you don't look at the MTF charts before you buy a lens? You are not a great consumer. How can you even think about shooting without knowing all the specs?
Haha, the only 2 specs I look at are focal length and aperture, if both suit my needs I buy the lens:)
I look at weight now too. As I get older I don't want to carry a lot of heavy crap around.
Yeah definitely.. although I bought the fujifilm 16-55 so didn’t take too much notice that time haha.
My whole landscape kit is 7kg though and I’d like to keep it what way.
Microcontrast is literally high frequency high contrast MTF.
See:
https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-MTF-2008-EN...
https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en...
Granted, I don't know how often Dr. Hubert Nasse took photographs, but I do know that he helped produce many of the most popular Zeiss lenses that we use and enjoy. But sure, we can call him a measurabator, if you want.