The *istD is the only autofocus camera I've ever used, but I have to say that it presents no compromises whatsoever when used with manual focus lenses. With MF lenses, it's a manual focus camera. Period. I agree wholeheartedly that every photographer should understand the math and physics of photography and be capable of working with manual equipment. It's a huge advantage. But armed with that knowledge, a contemporary full-featured camera can be a tremendous asset. I didn't believe that until I started using one every day. Now I know it to be a fact. Rather than "getting in the way" or causing one to think less, some features actually prompt me to think a bit more. For example, when I have a choice of aperture priority or shutter priority, my thoughts turn to which value is more important for the shot, which takes me a step beyond mere exposure. Now, I should do that with a manual camera as well, and I frequently do, but the choice of aperture or shutter priority is a remin! der. Similarily having the option to bracket automatically in 1/2 or 1/3 stops can prompt some thinking about how finely I really should be bracketing a given shot. And the availability of autofocus -- and the resulting decision as to whether or not it should be used -- leads my thoughts to inherent focus problems and solutions with any given shot. High tech cameras are embraced by most who have used them extensively. The detractors or modern gear are largely found among those who haven't used it extensively. But enough of this, I have pictures to take. Paul
> 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/2005 >
