Is getting maximum OoF areas/bokeh the reason people overwhelmingly prefer aperture priority bodies?

[Helge]

Let’s be honest: Isn’t the main reason most people almost to a fault prefer aperture priority, so they can set the aperture ring at max hole and shoot away, getting all that “bokey” they paid for?

It’s almost impossible to visualize how slightly different apertures will look, even (especially, perhaps) when stopping down, while it’s quite easy imagining what different shutter speeds will do at a given focal length.
Most often people will just either want as much DoF as possible or as little as possible.
And that is actually easier to control by adjusting the shutter to as little as you dare/can manage to stabilize, to have it as open as possible. Or selecting the highest possible speed to get as much depth as possible.
And of course just a medium speed for something you can hold still, enough or the appropriate amount of motion blur.

I feel myself learning to appreciate shutter priority more and more, to the point that I will avoid a body if it only offers aperture, and no manual and/or shutter priority.

Of course it does happen that I want exactly the DoF that I imagine f8 or f5.6 will give in a given situation. But those occasions are rare and often I’m forced to chose something else due to the lighting conditions.

Also, knowing about futurism and photographers such as Ernst Haas aren’t we kind of missing out on “temporal bokeh” as more than an occasional gimmick for silky water and light trails of cars?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Stuff and nonsense. 'Way back when I got an aperture preferred autoexposure body -- Nikon EM -- to hang behind a fixed aperture lens (in this case, 700/8 Questar).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've never seen a camera that offered aperture priority but not shutter priority, manual and auto mode as well.

 

[sterioma]

I've never seen a camera that offered aperture priority but not shutter priority, manual and auto mode as well.

My first camera, a Nikon FG-20, has only aperture priority (or manual) but not shutter priority. I believe the Nikon FE is similar, and so is the FM3 which combines FE and FM2 features into a single camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If I was shooting sports or flying birds, I'd use shutter priority. Since I shoot landscapes mainly, I'll use aperture especially because I'm shooting a tripod although since I use film, that's on my metering. The lens and cameras are all manual settings for aperture and shitters. When I travel or just running around in the street, I leave my digital camera on P which is modified Auto. I let the camera do the thinking for me. It's smarter than I am most of the time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My first camera, a Nikon FG-20, has only aperture priority (or manual) but not shutter priority. I believe the Nikon FE is similar, and so is the FM3 which combines FE and FM2 features into a single camera.

My first Nikon I bought in 1965. It was a Nikon F Photomic T. Both the aperture and shutters were connected to the metering, but they weren't auto if I recall correctly. You lined up the meter pointer to the null position. Ditto with my Nikormat FT3. My Nikon N6006 film camera was the first that was all auto. It had the aforementioned four normal modes of Aperture priority, shutter priority, auto, and manual. It also had auto-bracketing. My handheld Minolta Autometer III meter only meters in shutter priority which I find annoying since I shoot a lot of landscapes. I'd prefer aperture priority. Newer meters have a choice.

 

[Helge]

I've never seen a camera that offered aperture priority but not shutter priority, manual and auto mode as well.

EM (and the two siblings), ME and several other both RF and SLR.
But that was not really my main point.
More like, why does some people use shutter priority only as a detractor, and even a reason not to own a camera?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

EM (and the two siblings), ME and several other both RF and SLR.
But that was not really my main point.
More like, why does some people use shutter priority only as a detractor, and even a reason not own a camera?

What does it mean people use shutter priority as a detractor? Have I been missing something important?

 

[Dan Fromm]

I've never seen a camera that offered aperture priority but not shutter priority, manual and auto mode as well.

As I mentioned in post #2 above, Nikon EM. Where've you been?

 

[sterioma]

More like, why does some people use shutter priority only as a detractor, and even a reason not own a camera?

It's a feature that I seldom use; I think that, as of now, only my DSLR has it and when I use it it's mostly when I try to get a decent shot of my two dogs chasing each other.
I am neutral to the feature, it's certainly not something I would not buy a camera because it has that feature. For the kind of photography that I do I believe controlling the aperture is more important then letting the camera choose it for me but I can see situations where shutter would be more important (e.g. sport).

 

[film_man]

Let’s be honest: Isn’t the main reason most people almost to a fault prefer aperture priority, so they can set the aperture ring at max hole and shoot away, getting all that “bokey” they paid for?

It’s almost impossible to visualize how slightly different apertures will look, even (especially, perhaps) when stopping down, while it’s quite easy imagining what different shutter speeds will do at a given focal length.
Most often people will just either want as much DoF as possible or as little as possible.
And that is actually easier to control by adjusting the shutter to as little as you dare/can manage to stabilize, to have it as open as possible. Or selecting the highest possible speed to get as much depth as possible.
And of course just a medium speed for something you can hold still, enough or the appropriate amount of motion blur.

I feel myself learning to appreciate shutter priority more and more, to the point that I will avoid a body if it only offers aperture, and no manual and/or shutter priority.

Of course it does happen that I want exactly the DoF that I imagine f8 or f5.6 will give in a given situation. But those occasions are rare and often I’m forced to chose something else due to the lighting conditions.

Also, knowing about futurism and photographers such as Ernst Haas aren’t we kind of missing out on “temporal bokeh” as more than an occasional gimmick for silky water and light trails of cars?

...or maybe, just saying maybe, people like aperture priority because they control what the picture will look like? Most of the time I care about what is in focus or not, ie do I want f/1.4 or f/2 or f/5.6. If the light is there the shutter speed can fall wherever it needs. If the shutter speed is too slow I can then decide on the tradeoff between camera shake vs depth of field. But most of the time I don't have to do a thing.

On the other hand shutter priority gives me shots without camera shake where the depth of field is anything and everything, as you say. I suppose you do not care about depth of field. That doesn't mean others do not.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As I mentioned in post #2 above, Nikon EM. Where've you been?

Well, I've never seen an EM.

 

[NB23]

There is much bigger artistic play with aperture than with speed.
For the kind of photography we all do, there is almost no difference in using 1/125 versus 1/1000.

Besides, when using slow film, let’s say Pan-F, it is preferable to work with the aperture and the the speed fall where it may, thus always keeping a proper exposure.
If you shoot speed priority with slow film, you will rapidly end up with badly exposed shots: setting the speed to 1/250 could require an aperture of 1.4 but what if your lens opens up to max f2? You end with underexposure.

Also, playing with the aperture gives you much more visual control over the final look than speed. Two images shot with different apertures will look much different versus two images shot with different speeds (125 vs 500, for example)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Even with landscape photography, you may want shutter priority like when you're shooting waterfalls or streams. So the answer to the question "Which is better?" is, it depends.

 

[NB23]

Even with landscape photography, you may want shutter priority like when you're shooting waterfalls or streams. So the answer to the question "Which is better?" is, it depends.

Sure, and doing so only requires to close down the aperture until the desired speed.

Aperture priority is a much more intuitive approach, imo.

 

[Chan Tran]

Let’s be honest: Isn’t the main reason most people almost to a fault prefer aperture priority, so they can set the aperture ring at max hole and shoot away, getting all that “bokey” they paid for?

It’s almost impossible to visualize how slightly different apertures will look, even (especially, perhaps) when stopping down, while it’s quite easy imagining what different shutter speeds will do at a given focal length.
Most often people will just either want as much DoF as possible or as little as possible.
And that is actually easier to control by adjusting the shutter to as little as you dare/can manage to stabilize, to have it as open as possible. Or selecting the highest possible speed to get as much depth as possible.
And of course just a medium speed for something you can hold still, enough or the appropriate amount of motion blur.

I feel myself learning to appreciate shutter priority more and more, to the point that I will avoid a body if it only offers aperture, and no manual and/or shutter priority.

Of course it does happen that I want exactly the DoF that I imagine f8 or f5.6 will give in a given situation. But those occasions are rare and often I’m forced to chose something else due to the lighting conditions.

Also, knowing about futurism and photographers such as Ernst Haas aren’t we kind of missing out on “temporal bokeh” as more than an occasional gimmick for silky water and light trails of cars?

I don't know about others but for me I never use the maximum aperture even in low light but I do use aperture priority mode often. Besides from manual I use aperture priority because there are many more shutter speeds for the camera to use. In shutter priority the camera only has about 5 or 6 stops the most. For me shutter speed from highest shutter speed of 1/8000 or 1/1000 down to 1/125 or so is irrelevant in most cases. So in aperture priority the camera can adjust the exposure without changing my pictures.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sure, and doing so only requires to close down the aperture until the desired speed.

Aperture priority is a much more intuitive approach, imo.

How is that more intuitive? If you want to shoot waterfalls at 1/2 second, you set the shutter at 1/2 sec directly. That seems more intuitive and direct. But if using the aperture first gets you there, fine. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't know about others but for me I never use the maximum aperture even in low light but I do use aperture priority mode often. Besides from manual I use aperture priority because there are many more shutter speeds for the camera to use. In shutter priority the camera only has about 5 or 6 stops the most. For me shutter speed from highest shutter speed of 1/8000 or 1/1000 down to 1/125 or so is irrelevant in most cases. So in aperture priority the camera can adjust the exposure without changing my pictures.

Isn't that with digital cameras? Hmmm. That brings up an interesting question. When shooting a typical film camera where you're adjusting against a pointer in a built-in meter, what settings are available for shutter and aperture? Do you in-between stop settings?

 

[Tim Gray]

I have several cameras that only have aperture priority and not shutter (RFs and digital when shooting with modern manual lenses that do not have aperture linkage). I find it much more intuitive like NB23 to shoot this way. Most of these cameras have feedback on the shutter speed in the view finder, so I can quickly meter at the set aperture and decide if the shutter speed is enough. I find for most of my pictures, shutter speed is not overly important as long as it won't lead to motion blur of the subject or from hand holding. If I take a picture that I'm I need either a slow or fast shutter speed (the waterfall example), I just set the shutter speed directly and then adjust the aperture manually... which I have to do anyway because of the lenses I use. If I did have a camera with shutter priority, I might still have to do that because a waterfall shot, I'd probably want to control DOF anyway.

While I do shoot wide open, I also often shoot stopped down, and still use aperture priority.

Now, if I shot sports or something similar, I would probably lock the shutter on 1/250 or 1/500s and let the aperture/ISO fall to what it needed to be. I do not shoot sports.

 

[ciniframe]

Don’t think it is easy to assume why others handle exposure the way they prefer. Aperture priority is fast and simple to understand and content will determine what combo of aperture/shutter speed you select.
Personally I’m more often faced with not enough DoF than too much. If possible sometime you just have to haul out the tripod. (And, the sharpest lens is a tripod.)

 

[Paul Howell]

My first 35mm SLR was a Spotmatic, when I upgraded I bought a Konica T as I wanted auto shutter speed. My thinking at the time, I was in college my minor was photojournalism and I was freelancing for couple of local colleges, keeping up with action my first priority, BOKA did not enter the equation. When I could to I upgraded to a full system camera the Nikon F later F2 and 3, never used the 3 in auto mode, for matter I had a FG never used in auto mode. In terms of manufacturing, with machinal shutters it seemed to me that it was easier to put a extra pin to set the lens Fstop than it was control the shutter speed. With electronic shutters the other way around.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Don’t think it is easy to assume why others handle exposure the way they prefer. Aperture priority is fast and simple to understand and content will determine what combo of aperture/shutter speed you select.
Personally I’m more often faced with not enough DoF than too much. If possible sometime you just have to haul out the tripod. (And, the sharpest lens is a tripod.)

When I shoot film, I always use a tripod. SO I never worry about speed. Also, since I shoot Velvia 50 often, the low speed of the film means I'm shooting one second or slower many times, especially during magic hour. The main issue is my shutter will only shoot in whole stops, unlike aperture setting where you can set half stops. How do you deal with that?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I'm only familiar with Nikons so that's all I can really speak to.

Early (er, early 1980's) automatic exposure was all shutter priority. Lenses at the time could let the body sense the aperture but not set it. If a camera had an electronic shutter then adding aperture priority auto-exposure was a no-brainer.

Starting in the late 70's through the early 80's Nikon introduced aperture priority bodies with electronic shutters such as the FE & F3. Their only mechanical camera at the time was the FM. Nikon offered program and shutter priority on some bodies such as the FG & FA but the customer had to buy new AIS lenses to take advantage of it.

Nikon owners with a lot of AI & AI'ed lenses stuck with aperture priority (if they used autoexposure at all) without thinking about it. Older lenses can not be converted to AIS.

I rarely use automatic exposure, but when I do, it is usually program (snapshot) mode.

I'm such a Luddite that I like stop-down metering - it forces me to be cognizant of depth of field issues.

 

[4season]

I've come to appreciate how lenses generally have a particular aperture or range of aperture where the lens performs best, and unless I have some specific need to manipulate depth of field, I'll generally set-and-forget the aperture. There are exceptions of course, like when using high-grade lenses where performance may already be terrific by f/1.2 or f/1.4, but for practical reasons (running out of shutter speeds, don't need such shallow DoF) may wind up stopping down the lens a bit further.

A favorite of mine is a late Canon 50/2.8 FD macro lens, and when used as a macro lens, it sings at f/5.6, and to a slightly lesser degree, at f/6.3, so those tend to be my most-used apertures for that lens. At smaller apertures, the lens seems to lose resolving power due to diffraction.

58mm Helios-44? A real chameleon of a lens with plenty of swirly boke at larger apertures, becoming quite sharp by around f/6.3.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've never seen a camera that offered aperture priority but not shutter priority, manual and auto mode as well.

Example: Nikonos V depth of field is important in underwater photography