# Zoomed vs up-close details



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

I would like to talk about zooming versus standing closer to the subject of interest. Lets say there is a leaf on the ground and you are about to take a picture of it with two lenses that are optically identical quality wise. The fixed lens is up-close to the leaf to where the leaf occupies most of the shot and The zoom lens stands farther but it is zoomed to look like it stands just as close as the fixed lens. Now will the leaf on both images contain the same amount of detail as each other?


I guess what my question boils down to: is it better to zoom or is it better to stand closer if you can?


----------



## Juga (Nov 20, 2013)

I think you already had this discussion in another thread started by you talking about full frame vs crop. However, do a search on 'PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION.' Different lenses can and will cause different effects regardless of distance to your main subject.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

That was about zooming with crop i think? But this isn't about distortion. My only question is in regards to detail on the leaf like its veins. Now if they are distorted or not is irrelevant.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 20, 2013)

Once again, you can't arbitrarily decide whether certain factors are irrelevant or pertinent because they ARE pertinent.  Lens distortion is going to affect the rendering of the detail so what Joe stated is most assuredly not irrelevant.  You can't just say "A" prime lens and "A" zoom lens because all lenses are not created equal.  Specifically WHICH prime lens and WHICH zoom lens?

That said, with ALL factors being equal (which is a virtual impossibility) the prime lens will have SLIGHTLY better sharpness than the zoom lens because of the compromises involved in lens design.  Modern lenses have dramatically limited those issues, that decades ago were significant, to the point that it is hardly noticeable with high-quality lenses.

You also have to take into consideration the circumstances.  What if that leaf was 10' out in a lake?  How are you going to get closer?

I don't even own any prime lenses for my DSLR bodies, they are all zoom lenses.  The flexibility of a zoom lens, for me, outweighs the difference in resolution.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

My questions are most of the time hypotheticals that i'm trying to seal up as much as i can from any other factors. But if it weren't for the flaws in the design of the zoom lens, the pictures would look identical detail wise. Is that right SCraig?


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2013)

The problem with getting too much isolated theory is that you'll overload yourself with theories that work in isolation and when you come to actually take a photo you'll muddle yourself. Too many theories each one important and each one that won't work exactly as it should.

You can't ignore perspective distortion in this kind of question because its a key part of the fundamentals of the optical quality difference. 
Just like you can't ignore the depth of field changes  and background blurring that will take place. With the difference in distance from the subject you'd be using different apertures if you want the same depth of field, which will change how the rendered photos look and the quality of the shot from the lens. Furthermore if you don't keep the depth of field the same and instead keep the apertures the same you'll see a shift in the overall depth of field between the two. 

It's complicated and in the end most photographers would just take a shot with each lens and compare them or compare the specific lenses from other peoples viewpoints. It's almost impossible to give an accurate answer without specific lenses because lenses perform differently and there is no standard to theory build off easily.


----------



## Juga (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> My questions are most of the time hypotheticals that i'm trying to seal up as much as i can from any other factors. But if it weren't for the flaws in the design of the zoom lens, the pictures would look identical detail wise. Is that right SCraig?



No, because as Scott has also said that no two lenses are created equal. Each lens WILL render a different image both in perspective and quality. I think what you are asking has more to do with megapixel count and the overall resolution of an image. Again no two lenses are created equal and that is how they get away with charging so much for higher quality...because they know we will pay a premium for quality and how the image is rendered.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

I think i understand now. My questions don't really make any sense now that i look at it from this light.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 20, 2013)

Do you take any photographs?


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.



I am not exactly sure what you mean but generally a fixed prime lens is considered better than a zoom. Zoom lenses perform better or worse at different focal lengths but a lot of this is only applicable in the "lab" so to speak. If you look for faults you will find faults. Take nice photos and enjoy


----------



## Braineack (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I guess what my question boils down to: is it better to zoom or is it better to stand closer if you can?



yes.


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.



How do you mess up bokeh in Lightroom? Bokeh is a characteristic of lens design, not something that you can really mess up in Lightroom.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

I'm trying to figure this out. I'm messing around in lightroom a lot, but i don't like any of my work. Its very frustrating.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I'm trying to figure this out. I'm messing around in lightroom a lot, but i don't like any of my work. Its very frustrating.



Playing around in lightroom isn't going to help.  Taking better pictures will (e.g. learning how to focus).


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

I don't understand how that i related to my situation?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I don't understand how that i related to my situation?



Because you mentioned it and thus we are discussing it.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 20, 2013)

Maybe you should not shoot in RAW
Shoot in Fine large JPEG
take post processing out of the equation to improve your photographic skills

and then

Practice,
practice
practice



if you are having problems left and right then you DO NOT know the ISO / Shutter / Aperture well enough yet.

thus

Practice,
practice
practice


you are focusing too much on irrelevant theory.  Lens design - straight vs curved AND quantity of aperture blades (and the lens elements themselves) help define the bokeh.

But if you must
Bokeh basics and intuition from lens equations: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Also, since you only have the kit lens 15-55 and 55-200
buy a 50mm f/1.8 lens    this will teach you alot



now where is that blue pill ?


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

@brain

Thank you for your concern, but perhaps you should elaborate? I still don't understand?


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> My questions are most of the time hypotheticals that i'm trying to seal up as much as i can from any other factors. But if it weren't for the flaws in the design of the zoom lens, the pictures would look identical detail wise. Is that right SCraig?



Can you provide picture examples from your tests and what you are seeing as issues ?

Examples will give you more concrete answers/solutions


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Maybe you should not shoot in RAW
> Shoot in Fine large JPEG
> take post processing out of the equation to improve your photographic skills
> 
> ...



Thank you astro, but you have things not in the right places. As great as this advice is, these are problems that haven't been relevant to me for some time now. My technical abilities with the camera aren't in question here. Things have moved on since last. But thank you for your concern.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 20, 2013)

rofl.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 20, 2013)

Read this. Same principle. 

Wide-angle lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Thank you astro, but you have things not in the right places. As great as this advice is, these are problems that haven't been relevant to me for some time now.* My technical abilities with the camera aren't in question here.* Things have moved on since last. But thank you for your concern.



versus



hamlet said:


> I realize that. *An iphone user on this site posted pictures far beyond my capabilities*. It was humbling. I finally understand the phrase: "the best camera is the one you have with you"




Okay,
Good luck


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you astro, but you have things not in the right places. As great as this advice is, these are problems that haven't been relevant to me for some time now.* My technical abilities with the camera aren't in question here.* Things have moved on since last. But thank you for your concern.
> ...



Now i see why you misunderstood me. I was merely saying that he/she knew instinctively what a good shot was unlike myself. A bland and boring shot will still be bland and boring even with the perfect exposure and composition.


----------



## Juga (Nov 20, 2013)

I am convinced that hamlet is a troll. He keeps starting threads that he argues against with contradictions...I mean poor Braineck is ROFLing and no one seems to get through to him...troll makes sense.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 20, 2013)

keep practicing and stop worrying at bokeh in lightroom, and coatings on lens, and giving advice to others when you don't have a clue yourself.

I was convinced he was a troll long ago.  I'd ignore him expect for all the bad advice he gives to others that are really in need of help.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

Juga said:


> I am convinced that hamlet is a troll. He keeps starting threads that he argues against with contradictions...I mean poor Braineck is ROFLing and no one seems to get through to him...troll makes sense.



I'm sorry if my responses seem convoluted. Please point out my contradictions so i can better explain it to you.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 20, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I'd ignore him expect for all the bad advice he gives to others that are really in need of help.



What? I have not observed hamlet to give any advice at all. This sounds like a lame excuse for continuing to hound someone you don't like. I suggest that you grow up.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.



You cannot change bokeh in post processing or anywhere else.  It is a function of the design of the lens and cannot be changed.  You are likely confusing the out-of-focus area caused by depth of field with bokeh which is the pattern in which the out of focus area is rendered.  They are NOT the same thing.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 20, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I'd ignore him expect for all the bad advice he gives to others that are really in need of help.
> ...



really? when he's not busy asking troll questions that he doesn't actually want an answer to, he's busy giving out lens recommendations.

He's been whoring the 50mm 1.8D a lot lately (not a bad thing necessarily), regardless of application (bad thing), which I find humorous as he's stated he'll never buy it himself because it's "inferior glass".


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

SCraig said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.
> ...



I'm sorry, that is it. I got the terms confused.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 20, 2013)

Lets keep things on topic please, and leave personal attacks out before this thread gets ugly. 
If i have to start cleaning up posts after this im not going to be happy.


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2013)

And you don't want a grumpy medic!! 

If you're having trouble with specific photos then try posting them up for critique - mention what you did, show what you have and say what you wanted and what went wrong. Then you can start to put together and get input on where you might have made changes and on how the theories apply in the real world

At the moment you're chasing theories - technical ones in an attempt to salvage photos. However without context many of the questions become meaningless unless you go well into the maths side of things and they also totally ignore the creative and compositional side of things.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 20, 2013)

My OP was answered on page one by you good folks. I have many idle  curiosities from the technical side of things almost completely  unrelated to photography from time to time and this one put a whole lot  of things into perspective for me. My OP doesn't make a whole lot of  sense when you explained it to me in a proper fashion.


----------

