Zoom with your feet - Question

[gearoido]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read many times that before zoom lenses came along photographers simply moved closer (or further away - depending on what the photographer wanted to capture). My question is:

 

Is there any difference in the picture I capture if I move closer or further away vs. changing the lens? I would certainly capture the same angle of view in either case.

 

GaryO

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Wolfgang Chuck]

Wide angle lenses exaggerate space while zoom lenses compress it. Depends on the final image you want to achieve as to whether your feet can do it or if you will need the glass to do it.

[Wolfgang Chuck]

Probably should have mentioned that compressing space with Leica M cameras is not as common as expanding it because the longest focal length has been 135mm. This should change with the new M and the ability to use longer lenses!

[Lindolfi]

Your position determines what perspective you get. Your focal length determines the view angle.

 

They are not the same.

 

Try this: Take a picture from the same position of a street with a wide angle lens (like 21 mm) and with a short tele lens (like 90 mm). Now cut out the part from the 21 mm lens photo that is covered by the short tele lens and magnify it so that that part becomes as large as the whole picture of the short tele lens. You will see that you get the same picture with the same perspective, although the focal lengths were very different.

 

Now do the same but move closer with the 21 mm lens until you cover the same area of the street as with the 90 mm lens.

 

Now the pictures look very different, because your position has changed.

[gearoido]

Lindolfi, and Wolfgang,

 

Thank you for your help. Sounds like I need to experiment.

 

GaryO

[dwbell]

 

Is there any difference in the picture I capture if I move closer or further away vs. changing the lens? I would certainly capture the same angle of view in either case.

 

GaryO

 

Yes, I huge difference. Zooming is (not thinking) cropping the given view. Moving with your feet is composing an image. Arrogantly stated, but my opinion none the less.

 

I think the route to great composition goes;

 

1) Zoom lenses (beginner wants "do everything lens")

2) Fixed focal (advanced likes the look of large aperture and creative constraint of focal length, learns to compose the elements in the scene by placing them through moving)

3) Fast zoom. Combination of applying 2 together with a variable field of view. Good experienced PJ's can be seen doing this, bobbing around, up, down, on one knee, racking the lens in and out. That's not standing there and just zooming in to fill the frame (see 1), that's working a composition.

 

Massive +1 to Lindolfi too

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I huge difference. Zooming is (not thinking) cropping the given view. Moving with your feet is composing an image. Arrogantly stated, but my opinion none the less.

 

 

Actually, I think you express a somewhat different view on it than I would. I choose my perspective first, with my feet. Then I choose my field of view either by zooming or by changing lenses. The amount of thinking required is the same regardless of the lens being fixed or a zoom. It is just that a zoom is faster and more convenient than changing lenses. And I can shoot a variety of "crops" quickly with one. (It is important for ad shooters to shoot a variety for the art director with space for type in various places.) Sometimes a zoom gives me more exact cropping too as it is infinitely variable across its range and often my location must be fixed in order to get the perspective and juxtaposition I want.

Edited October 13, 2012 by AlanG

[giordano]

Actually, I think you express a somewhat different view on it than I would. I choose my perspective first, with my feet. Then I choose my field of view either by zooming or by changing lenses. The amount of thinking required is the same regardless of the lens being fixed or a zoom. It is just that a zoom is faster and more convenient than changing lenses. And I can shoot a variety of "crops" quickly with one. (It is important for ad shooters to shoot a variety for the art director with space for type in various places.) Sometimes a zoom gives me more exact cropping too as it is infinitely variable across its range and often my location must be fixed in order to get the perspective and juxtaposition I want.

+1

[dwbell]

Actually, I think you express a somewhat different view on it than I would. I choose my perspective first, with my feet. Then I choose my field of view either by zooming or by changing lenses. The amount of thinking required is the same regardless of the lens being fixed or a zoom. It is just that a zoom is faster and more convenient than changing lenses. And I can shoot a variety of "crops" quickly with one. (It is important for ad shooters to shoot a variety for the art director with space for type in various places.) Sometimes a zoom gives me more exact cropping too as it is infinitely variable across its range and often my location must be fixed in order to get the perspective and juxtaposition I want.

 

Yes, you're right. My opening statement related to the 3 types model listed afterwards. Number 1 being the lazy (even if unknowingly) composition. I would imagine you're more number 3.

 

Poorly worded post on reflection.

[Peter H]

Whilst I entirely agree with Alan, I did find in the old days when I used zooms that they could on occasion make me lazy.

 

Because I'm not a pro, and photography is for enjoyment, I prefer having fixed focal length lenses only and having to think and compose more carefully. This is not because of any fault with zoom lenses, but with me.

 

I'd have no hesitation in using zoom lenses if I relied on photography for my living.

[250swb]

I agree with Alan and John, a photographer knows where to stand, and after your feet have taken you there you can change lenses or alter the focal length of the zoom to suit the image you had in mind.

 

Standing in one spot with a wide to telephoto zoom isn't the same thing, many things change, such as perspective, human interaction, and creating your own space to be comfortable. So in a landscape you can move to where you get some interesting foreground in the picture, rather than stand at the tourist viewpoint, in a crowd you move to where nobody can stand in front of you, and ideally with all other photographers behind you.

 

Steve

[dwbell]

Steve hit upon what I was getting at.

 

The beginner will see something they like visually. Raise the camera and use the zoom to crop in camera. My point is that *that* shot is highly unlikely to be the best view you can achieve, yet that's kind of what the zoom lens encourages in people not familiar with compositional "language".

 

A fixed lens will certainly encourage using your feet first. If it's a 35 or 50, say, you bring it to your eye on impulse and suddenly *can't* rack out to 200mm and crop the view in front of you. You then have to move to a different position, which I feel encourages concious compositional awareness.

 

When you're aware of your composition more, you behave more like Alan and the others. You see something interesting, move to a good compositional view point then select focal length either fixed or zoom, doesn't matter at that stage really.

 

Hope that's clarified my above a little.

[otto.f]

You can't zoom with your feet and you can't feet with your zoom because zooming in with your zoomlens means a smaller angle and less environment around the subject while coming closer with your feet still holds a wide angle at your subject with more environment.

[Tietje]

You also have the remember increasing the focal length of a lens alters the perspective of the image. Long focal length brings the background forward and perspective becomes flatter. A short focal length sends the background back again with a deeper perspective. This can be illustrated by taking a portrait with 35mm wide angle lens. A big nose will look even bigger, with a 90mm it will look shorter and a lot more flattering portrait will result. That is of course if you want a flattering picture.

[Lindolfi]

You also have the remember increasing the focal length of a lens alters the perspective of the image..

 

This is not true as I wrote earlier in this thread (click). Below you see a link to an image in which I used 24 mm focal length and 48 mm focal length. As you can see the perspective is the same in the top two panels with different focal lengths. And it is the same in the bottom two panels with different focal lengths.

 

Conclusion: perspective depends on distance (or relative position), not on focal length.

 

 

 

If you change both focal length and position, you get the following change:

 

Edited October 14, 2012 by Lindolfi

[LucisPictor]

I usually prefer primes.

 

But in some situations a zoom lens is priceless!

Just today when I was taking pictures at the side of the football pitch where my little son was playing, I needed a tele zoom lens to get that FoV that I wanted. No chance to run onto the field to get closer.

[giordano]

No chance to run onto the field to get closer.

 

I dunno. If Robert Capa wasn't afraid of land-mines, the rest of us shouldn't be afraid of school referees.

[AlanG]

The beginner will see something they like visually. Raise the camera and use the zoom to crop in camera. My point is that *that* shot is highly unlikely to be the best view you can achieve, yet that's kind of what the zoom lens encourages in people not familiar with compositional "language".

 

People working that way may not be capable of seeing what "could be" if they moved some and really looked more carefully.

 

Today I was a guest at a casual photo group to look over work, criticize, and suggest. We discussed various approaches to composition, subject choice, seeing light, technical stuff, etc. Basic photography.

 

Some of the members were very new at photography and one really surprised me when he said he didn't want to shoot very tightly organized compositions as I was suggesting. Instead he said he prefers to shoot a wide scene with the hope he may later see something good in it and can crop to that. I bet most here have never thought of that approach. I told him if he shoots thousands of images that way he likely could find something in at least a few. But he really wasn't seeing and making decisions while shooting and to me that is a big part of being a photographer.

 

By contrast there was a really good photographer and one image he posted was of beautiful colored light reflecting in the street and a graphic silhouette of a man's legs walking through it at the top. He said he waited in Times Square for 3 hours for the light to look that way, and then waited for someone to walk by in the perfect spot.

Edited October 16, 2012 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LucisPictor]

I dunno. If Robert Capa wasn't afraid of land-mines, the rest of us shouldn't be afraid of school referees.

 

Well, he died because he wasn't afraid!

[Messsucherkamera]

I'd be willing to try my luck with referees.

 

Land mines? Not so much...