Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Mike ...
Have you read all the crap that one must consider and go through to get the
5n to work while using auto focus. Suggestions included holding the camera
at an angle, focusing on something else in a similar location, using faster
lenses because of lighting conditions quickly come to mind. With all the
MF cameras I've used, I point, I focus, I snap the shutter. I've not had
to adapt my shooting style or technique to the camera. The camera responds
as I desire, when I desire. There's a more seamless integration of
photographer and camera.
I beg to differ. Because of prior learning (how can you tell I work in
a College?) you _knew_ what to do with the manual camera. (Presumably)
because your eyesight is/was good and you bought a good machine, you
could do it reasonably easily. Just think how different it could have
been if one or all of the above were not true. You were lucky, in that
you took to it very easily. But you still adapted your style to the
camera. Unconciously, probably, but if you had bought a different
camera there would have been a difference. I know people who have been
taking pictures for as long as you who still cannot get a stationary
target in focus.
What has been interesting for me is that the more automated a cameras has
become, the more information it provides and the more features it offers,
the more it gets in the way of my seeing and photographing the scene. The
simpler, older cameras, that provide no information in the finder, and
essentially mind their own business, are, for more, easier tools to
operate. My favorite cameras have no automation, no suggestions or
information in the viewfinder, make no decisions. The Leica M2, M3, M4,
the Pentax KM (with meter inactive), and the MX (also with meter inactive)
are my favorite cameras. There is nothing that I have to adapt to. The
cameras are essentially benign, neutral, in my hands. There's no concern
about turning them on or turning them off, or if the light is right for a
shot, or of the camera deciding whether or not a shot can be taken.
I agree with some of your points but your main premise, that the simpler
mechanism is the better, is only true for you and what you want to do.
You have already adapted to them. It is like asking you to unlearn
riding a bicycle, or reading, or anything else that has been learned to
the point of reflex (groan!) to try to get you to forget the parts of
camera work (like esimating exposure) that have become second nature to you.
Whether or not a get a shot, whether it's properly exposed or focused, is
all my responsibility and a result of how I choose to set and use the
aperture, focus, and shutter speed. And for most photographic situations,
once the light is determined in an area, the rest is almost automatic
because I'm using a CPU with far more processing power than what is in any
of these whiz-bang cameras - the brain in my head.
Exactly. But that CPU is using software that has been learned. One of
the reasons robocameras sell so well is that, for a lot of the time,
they make up for the lack of learning - at least in the technical parts
of photography. Most people don't want to know about photography, they
want to press a button and get a pitcure. The camera manufacturers tell
them they can do that and , most of the time, they are right. If one or
two don't come out - well, everyone gets duds, don't they? Don't they?....
Maybe others need or want to rely more upon the modes and features and
computers in their cameras, but if I have to work to overcome the
limitations of certain features in order to use them, what's the point of
having them in the first place? Perhaps when such features are more
seamlessly integrated into the cameras, as they may be in other models, or
when, for example, auto focus will work on subjects with any contrast or in
any light, I'd find it a totally acceptable asset. But to have to go
through machinations to use it, or first decide if the light is bright
enough, or the subject has enough contrast, or to consider any of a number
of other things before pressing the shutter, well, I'd just as soon turn
off the feature and shoot manually. And if I'm gonna do that, why bother
with an auto focus camera in the first place.
Two reasons. First of all, when it works it will enable you to get a
shot that you would otherwise be not able to. Secondly, the same reason
you learned to use manual cameras. It's a tool that, used properly, is
something that can help you to get a job done. If you get the right one
and learn to use it properly, it will make the job easier.
None of the above is intended to be a blanket lauding of robocameras.
As you said somewhere near the beginning of this thread, cameras are a
tool for taking pictures. Some models are better in some situations
than others. Choose the right tool for the job.
None of the above is intended to sound as pompous as it does on a second
reading.....
Shel
[Original Message]
From: mike wilson
From your comments, and those of others, it seems that the 5n is not a
camera I'd buy except for photographing in some specific situations.
I'd
sure hope newer cameras behave better - after all, what's the point of
autofocus if you're continually having to adapt to its limitations.
Surely, that's no different to manual focus. Or any other aspect of
photography.
