I agree with your point.... but then again why buy an autofocus camera body and not use it?
Tom C.
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:52:45 -0400
SLR is less stable than non-SLR due to mirror movement. That's why the mirror lock up feature exists. Any if you are going to lock up mirror anyway, why bother carrying around a big heavy camera with "features" you don't want / need.
If you know you want infinity focus, why not just set it manually and eliminate the possibiliy of the dumb camera making a mistake? I would never use AF for landscapes there is no rush so why not make sure focus is correct by doing it manually?
JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when focus is at infinity...
OK - here I'll argue a point just to hear myself...
Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same reason as putting any camera on a tripod... stability... a more deliberate composition... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO.
Tom C.
>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:11:11 -0400 > >sure you CAN do landscape on a P67, but WHY? >LF is cheaper and better and lighter. Using >an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed >on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. >Of course you would use manual focus regardless >of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you >are in a hurry or cant focus fast enough to action. >That is exact opposite of landscape photography. >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:58 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > > >Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft'
>a shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all >manual >focus will help in that regard. > > >Tom C. > > > > > > >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:46 -0600 > > > >>From: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >>4x5 is a far superior image quality SYSTEM, it is not because the > >>lenses are better, actually some of them are worse than the P67 > >>lenses, it is just that the film size is so big you don't need as > >>much > > >>lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that
> >>the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs > >>and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. > >> > >>I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all > >>the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who > >>have > > >>never done any LF photography. > >> > >>JCO > > > >You are correct... I have never done LF firsthand, or MF for that > >matter. Here's the thing... let's say my personal "Keeper shots/Shots
> >taken >Ratio" > >is 1/36, or approximately one per roll (yeah, if I'm lucky). If I go >out > >and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I >were > >to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing >worth > >keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? > > > >Tom C. > > > > > >
