Interspersed
> [Original Message] > From: mike wilson > > 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. Sure ... but we were talking about MY use of a particular camera, not the general use of a variety of cameras. I'm only talking about my reaction to what has been described. > 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. You're assuming that I took to using a camera easily. That's not the case. It took a couple of years before I could REALLY use a camera, and I fall out of practice easily. However, I see no difference between using a Pentax, Nikon, or Leica, and generally use the same or similar techniques for all of them. In fact, it was only after someone showed me something on a Leica did I realize the same technique could be used on the Pentax bodies. For me it's constant practice or I have to relearn. Nothing has come easily to me, but after practice it becomes easy to use some of these cameras. > > 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. Absolutely. I'm not arguing the benefits and negatives of automatic robo cams, or what others should use - you brought that up - I just said that, based on ~what's been posted here~, it seems that the 5n would not be my camera of choice. I also noted, in more than one way, that I'm certainly going to use the camera and see how well it fares for me. > 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. As noted above, it's never readily been second nature to me. What I said is that I find having too much info in the viewfinder, like there is in an LX, is distracting, and having to think about modes and features, and turning a camera on and off, and whatever all else people sometimes have to deal with, gets in the way of the simplicity offered by cameras that have no features. I'm a simple guy, and see photography as a very simple thing - focus and exposure. Put the words "mode" or "programmable" into the equation and my head starts to hurt ;-)) I am limited in my skills. Guys like Paul, or Bruce, and Mark who does such great macro and close-up shots, are the real experts here. I just walk around and snap a few pics of whatever catches my interest and hope they turn out OK. That's really how i feel about the whole process. Sure, getting the exposure right without a meter has become relatively easy for me. But that's simple stuff - there are charts and graphs and the sunny 16 rule to fall back on, and an understanding of light that came from years of experimenting and a gazillion failures. But, now that I know such things, I don't need no light meter and automatic robo-cams to tell me what to do, or to replace that learned experience with some computer geek who's sitting in a lab half a world away who thinks s/he knows what the exposure should be when I'm about to snap the shutter. > > > > > Whether or not I 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. Learned and relearned and practiced and ... nah .. in truth, it's pretty simple. > 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. So ... I'm not arguing against that. I just said using older, simpler cameras are easier for ~me~ Why should I want to complicate what is generally a simple, pleasurable experience if there's no need to. > 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?.... What's a dud? There are no duds, just learning experiences ;-)) > > > > > 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. Will it? Maybe. When that situation comes up a few times, and if I find it upsetting, I'll consider the value of these other features, just as I decided that auto-bracketing would be worthwhile for this project. > 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. The reason I learned to use a manual camera is because I liked using a manual camera. I had no choice, actually, as that's all there were at the time. But I make photos for my pleasure, and as noted elsewhere, it's as much about the journey - the pleasure I get from using the older gear - as it is about getting the result. I like these big clunky metal cameras. It feels good to carry them and to use them. They suit me. I don't see how anything can be easier than what I do now without giving some things up. Odd, isn't it, since there's nothing, really to "give up" on these cameras, except the absolute control I have over using them and how good they feel when carried about and handled. I LOVE the tactile sensation these cameras give, and while you and others can argue until you're blue in the face that, on the new cameras, I can turn features off as desired, not have to use other features, that my life will be better with batteries, and that fancy metering is a godsend, you will not convince me that using a new camera is a better alternative to the old, beat up gear that I'm using and which I love. Maybe when I have to submit my work to some newspaper or agency, and money and results are paramount ot pleasure satisfaction, will your words have any significance. > 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. I am using the right tool for the job ... but I don't work where you work, or even do the same kind of work you do. My tools have served me well for many years, and until such time as they no longer do what i want them to do, they shall continue to serve me well.
