NO - AE wasn't developed just for high frame rate "burst" photograhy, its for high changing lighting condtions photography. I even specifically said AE isnt needed much for sports/ACTION. But you are now somehow deducing that mean anything not sports or action means AE isnt needed at all. Don't confuse a non active slow subjects with quick changing photographic conditions mainly quick changing LIGHTING.
jco -----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) J. C. O'Connell wrote: > ON a rare occasion I agree with you. Get out > the champange! And put this in the record books. Sports/ACTION is one > area where AF is indispensable, DSLR is almost indispensable and AE > helps somewhat but not nearly as much as digital and AF. > I don't do sports but someone would have to be > brain dead to attempt sports/ACTION now without > DSLR and AF. I couldn't find if I.S was used > but with long lenses and action I would consider > that as mandatory as AF and DSLR too. > > Disclaimer: Sports/ACTION is only a very narrow portion > of the entire photographic realm. These things are > not needed or even desireable for a whole bunch of other types of > photography... > And there is one other caveat to be aware of and that > is we are talking STILL photography. If you carry Yup, and thats precisely why the green button solution is ok. We are talking STILL photography. You have time to compose, press the green button, and shoot. rg > Sports/Action still photography too far with frame > rates and such you end up being a cinemaphotographer > in essence which is ok with me but there might > be better techniques/equipment for that beyond the realm > of PENTAX and still cameras... > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > > > >>I dont agree with you in that the content of the images depend on the >>technology. In my view the lack of content is just more evident when >>the technology is better. > > > You haven't tried to shoot sports in the way it is being done these > days. > It's completely technology dependant now. > Or: > http://www.pbase.com/sjbousson/the_steal > > Is a pretty technology dependant set of pictures. I doubt if a manual > focus, > > manual exposure, manual film advance camera would be capable of > getting this > > series. > > William Robb > > >
