...manual? who reads the manual...
Graywolf wrote:
Yet, Doug, I find exactly the same thing Shel does. The compromises I
have to put up with to have those features is annoying as hell. If
their non-use was transparent it would not be a problem, but it is not
transparent, you have to fight the camera. It is not as simple as just
turning off AF, for instance, every AF camera I have ever tried to us
has had its manual focus use compromised by the changes made to the
design for the AF to work at all.
But then I can understand where you guys think that manual mode is
something that is only used sometimes. What Shel and I are saying is
that if folks will take the time and effort to learn basic camera
skills they will find that they have more control without even having
to think about it once those skills are automatic. Yes it takes more
effort up front, but after awhile it is automatic and that big fucking
computer between our ears is far more capable than any microchip yet
made.
As you say everyone gets to make their own choice about these things,
but without guys like Shel and I telling the youngsters our way, they
do not get to make a choice, they only know what their camera manual
says and that has become something that is written by feature
copywriters not by photographers.
So, yes, eveyone gets to make their own choice, but they do need to
understand what their choices are, and what they cost.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Doug Brewer wrote:
Shel, comments inline...
On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:46 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not quite. I didn't ~need~ auto bracketing, nor did I need bracketed
shots. I decided to try it because the project at hand was boring and
repetitive and I didn't want to waste time on something I really
didn't
want to do. I'd have done just as well with a manual camera, just
not as
fast. Nor did I have to go find such a camera. It was offered to me
without my having to ask. While these may seem like small
differences, to
me they are significant.
Nevertheless, it was more effort than just having to turn on the
feature.
That said, having used the 5n today I found it to be a reasonably nice
camera, but very annoying in many ways. Maybe more experience will
assuage
some of the annoyances, but I also no some will remain as long as I
use the
camera. Nothing will change the cheesy shutter release operation, for
example.
I'm not following you here. You push the button, the shutter fires,
right? How is that cheesy?
The slow autofocus, and the limited ability for autofocus to work
on certain subjects or in certain light, means that I'd rarely, if
ever,
use that function. The AF confirmation light does not always
accurately
confirm when the point on the subject that I want to focus upon is,
indeed,
in focus.
I'm not reliant on the little focus confirmation light, rarely
notice it. I am too busy looking at the viewfinder image. Don't
notice the beep, either. I'll have to check when I get to work
tomorrow if I even have that turned on.
Yes, there are workarounds to some of these things, but having to
first
decide if a function is appropriate for a shot, and then argue with
it to
some degree, is not my idea of photography. The simplicity of a
manual
camera - which has no functions (even a meter is a PITA at times)
allows me
to think only of making the photograph. There's no need to
"prepare" the
camera for this or that situation (just remembering to turn the
camera on
or off is a distraction), nothing in the viewfinder to distract me,
and
ultimately nothing to make taking the photograph "easier" causing
me to
become reliant upon such a function, and to perhaps lose or lessen my
reflexes and the spontaneity with which I like to shoot. But
that's just
me ... others will say that all this new stuff can be learned and
can be
beneficial ... OK, but a rejoinder is that maybe those who have become
dependent on using a plethora of features may want to try using a
fully
manual camera. You may find it freeing, and you can certainly learn
to work
around its limitations ;-))
I don't know of anyone here using modern cameras who is "dependent"
on any features. I'm certainly not. There are certainly some
features that are nice to have, but I took many thousands of photos
without them when I didn't have them. I could do it again if I
wanted to. I've never been distracted by anything in a viewfinder,
don't care what a shutter sounds like, and I pay absolutely no
attention to which way a given lens turns to focus. If what I'm
looking at through the viewfinder goes out of focus when I turn the
lens one way, I turn it back the other way. It's simply not a big
deal to me.
I have carried in my pocket one form of knife or another since I was
a kid. Back then it was a "manual" knife, one or two blades. Now I
have a Swiss Army with a couple of blades and 64MB of flash memory.
I've used the memory a couple of times when I needed to transfer
some documents from one computer to another. It was a gift, not
something I really would have gone out and purchased for myself. But
it's been useful when I found a use for it. Cameras are like that
for me. I'm not sure I would design a camera with all the features
available on those I use, but when I've come upon a use, I've been
glad to have them. It's as simple as that.
You can use whatever camera you want. I've been saying that since I
first joined this list, back in '96, and I'll keep saying it. I just
want to see the photos you took, if you feel like sharing them. Just
don't try to convince me I am somehow deficient because I use the
camera I use. It's the PDML Golden Rule, as far as I'm concerned; If
want me to respect your choice of gear, you must respect mine.
Now, go out and take some damn pictures.
Doug
Shel
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
