![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/DSC04339-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a>Guess how much water I had on both lens and camera here \ud83d\ude42<\/p><\/div>\n
It also means being able to shoot into the sun with the lens without flare ruining the shot. That\u2019s what I mean by fragility, or lack thereof. A fragile lens will work great when everything is perfect, and fall apart when conditions are not ideal. I like working in non-ideal conditions; that\u2019s usually where the best pictures are. If I have to baby the camera or the lens and use them only where they are comfortable, I will get rid of them in short order. Sometimes I will walk in strong sunlight and the camera will get very hot; or I will shoot in frosty conditions, or I\u2019ll get caught by persistent rain. I\u2019ll have sunlight that causes flare, chromatic aberrations and all kinds of nonsense in lesser optics. I\u2019ll take pictures hand-held in deep dark, with stars visible in the sky. I want the equipment to follow me there and not crack under pressure. When I need to crank up the ISO, I want the image to still look great after I process it. When I need to open the aperture, I want the corners to still be sharp. If the lens is f\/1.4, I want it to be great at f\/1.4. I hate having to have mental markers, such as \u201cdon\u2019t use this lens at these settings because it\u2019s shit wide open and it\u2019s shit at the longer end\u201d. Thanks, but no thanks. A lens that has those caveats is fragile. A tripod or a tripod head that loses rigidity with my heaviest lens on my heaviest camera is fragile. A camera that can\u2019t do really long exposures because the image falls apart from noise, or I can\u2019t shoot in strong sunlight because it doesn\u2019t have a viewfinder and I don\u2019t see anything on the LCD in those conditions \u2013 thanks, but no thanks. If I want some function that I rarely use, I want the camera to have it, if it\u2019s something reasonable like long exposure noise reduction (in other words, dark frame subtraction). Entry-level cameras are notorious for omitting such features, which is why I don\u2019t like entry level cameras. It\u2019s not snobbery; it\u2019s the fact that some things will be omitted from those models because it\u2019s expected that the expected user base won\u2019t need them. It\u2019s not that I think that those cameras can\u2019t make great pictures.<\/p>\n
<\/a>Olympus E-PL1<\/p><\/div>\n
I made great pictures with Olympus E-PL1, which is the entriest-level of all the entry-level plasticky thingies. That\u2019s how I learned that I don\u2019t like fragile cameras, because that one was fragile. I would need something, and it wouldn\u2019t have it. I would use some function like ISO 1600, and it would fall apart. There was no viewfinder, and I challenge anyone to try taking pictures without one at noon on the southern side of Hvar in broad daylight. If you can\u2019t compose the image because you see nothing on the screen, let alone focus precisely, then what is the point? Aim in the general direction of the island and hope it works? I swore I\u2019ll never buy such a camera again, and I didn\u2019t. It annoyed me so much that I almost gave up photography. That\u2019s why I roll my eyes when people show that entry level cameras can make great photos. I know. Been there, done that. The problem is, they make great photos when all the stars align just right \u2013 you can see on the screen, you can use base ISO, there\u2019s enough light but not too much, or you can use a tripod\u2026 how about making great photos when I want to make them, not when the camera is happy?<\/p>\n
<\/a>Hand-held at blue hour, wide open.<\/p><\/div>\n
Fragility means a macro lens that\u2019s soft and terrible when focused on infinity, and a landscape lens that has terrible minimum focusing distance, and it\u2019s terrible at those conditions. It\u2019s the opposite of robustness. Robustness doesn\u2019t mean the lens will be able to do everything, but if it\u2019s rated as f\/4, you can shoot it at f\/4 and get good results, not blurry mess. If it\u2019s 24-105mm, you can shoot at both ends and get good results. I don\u2019t expect it to be as good at closeup as a macro lens, but it needs to do well enough for me to pull off a shot in a pinch and not throw it away in frustration at home, when I see what it actually looks like.<\/p>\n
<\/a>Shot with what I had, wide open.<\/p><\/div>\n
I expect a landscape lens to pull off a portrait when my wife steps into the frame. I know it won\u2019t match the 85mm f\/1.4, but it needs to do well enough. If it\u2019s rated at a certain aperture and a certain focal length range, and if it focuses from 30cm to infinity, you can bet I will use it at all those extremes, and I expect it to do a good job. That\u2019s the kind of lens I like.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I was just thinking about what kind of equipment I like. After all, I had all kinds of cameras, lenses and other gear, and I do have my preferences. It\u2019s just hard to put in a single statement, but if … Continue reading