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

[Alan Gales]

I worked with a guy whose daughter got a scholarship to a big name school...i think it was Stanford... for softball.
Not sure she threw much faster (she was a pitcher) than 60 or 65 MPH, but she threw junk for strikes or you swore they were going to be strikes.

Well, 60-65mph for college ball isn't slow. The fastest is probably 70. I've heard of one pro player pitching 85 but that is the record. My daughter was a "junk" pitcher too. Not fast but lots of movement. She mostly threw curve balls, drop pitches, and change ups. Rarely a fastball but she had a devastating drop curve. She was working on a screw ball when she quit pitching. Unfortunately, my daughter started having a lot of health issues in high school and was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. We took her to a specialist but she couldn't figure it out. I eventually took her to my doctor and he called for a sleep study. It turned out she had sleep apnea the whole time. She wanted to go to Stanford and even toured the school when she visited her brother in California. She ended up graduating MS&T and is currently employed as an electrical engineer.

There is pro ball but little money in it. The best girls can hope for is a college scholarship. It sounds like your friend's daughter did quite well for herself!

 

[Tim Gray]

Please tell me which film is “auto-iso”.

Tri-X in Diafine?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is there anyone who prefer shutter priority like me? I’d be interested in hearing your reasons and thoughts.

Another reason I just remembered is that on some cameras it will let you control fill flash exactly. Even without TTL.

With 35mm I use shutter priority all the time. In this thread no one posts about shutter priority because they would get hung, drawn and quartered.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I buy the lens and I use the lens. Period. I will not buy a mirror lens because I do not like the out of focus rings. The moral of the story is buy the best lenses that you can afford and enjoy them. I do not care about some wet behind the ears twerp buys a lens and only uses it at the maximum aperture.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . and I usually use aperture priority or fully manual to take advantage of the narrow range of apertures that give the best sharpness. With small formats (or forgive me, digital), we need all the help we can get. Of course others are justified in choosing different shutter and lens settings, different films, different shooting locations, different subjects, and so on. Please don't hang, draw, and quarter me. Aside from preferring aperture priority, I'm a nice guy.

 

[Bill Burk]

You know, I have kind of internalized Aperture Priority... I can kind of feel what shutter speed I am going to get at a given f/stop.
I can't easily guess the f/stop I will get for a given shutter speed... Say I'm out in daylight with a 400 speed film and I have chosen EI 250 and say I want 1/1000 shutter speed.... I can't easily translate to "oh that's going to land around f/8"

 

[Helge]

With 35mm I use shutter priority all the time. In this thread no one posts about shutter priority because they would get hung, drawn and quartered.

Really? Why is that? This should/would be the perfect opportunity to “get out of the closet”. ;-)

 

[Alan Gales]

Well, my D810 certainly has many menus. Walking through them to set the camera up seems better done with the camera held in front of me than with it up to my face. But so far -- slide digitizing, aquarium photography with flash illumination -- I haven't found reason to do anything that requires using the menus after I've set the camera up for a session. And I don't really see -- haven't done it yet, could well be mistaken -- the need for using menus on the fly for the out-and-about photography I anticipate doing when the weather is better and things have opened up.

I hope to go back to shooting flowers and insects and such with flash illumination. When I did this with K'chrome I had to set aperture -- that's all -- every time I changed magnification and I expect that's all I'll have to do when I shoot digital.

But then, I'm using my old manual focus lenses and use the D810 in manual mode.

I shot a bit of S8 film with C-mount S8 Beaulieus. These are very adjustable. I always set up a shot, including setting the camera, took the shot, set up the next shot, including setting the camera, ... Never ever adjusted the camera while it was running. But then I wasn't into in-camera fades or dissolves.

I used to shoot a Nikon D200 and D300 for sports. A D810 shouldn't be bad. I've got a Fujifilm Xt3 now. I like how it has lots of external controls so I don't have to go into the menus. You just have to program the buttons when you get it and then remember which button is for what. Some cameras don't have many external controls and you have to go into the menus often. Also some menus are better than others. The Nikon menus are pretty good.

I once had a macro FA lens for a Pentax 645. I had bought it used. I ended up selling it on eBay and getting the cheaper, original non auto focus model. I found that manual focus is so much better for what you are wanting to do. At least it was for me. Have fun!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Really? Why is that? This should/would be the perfect opportunity to “get out of the closet”. ;-)

And be on the bottom floor of a five story outhouse?

 

[Helge]

And be on the bottom floor of a five story outhouse?

What does that even mean?
If you don’t like the thread, don’t post.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What does that even mean?
If you don’t like the thread, don’t post.

I am pointing out that in a thread about aperture preference, statements about shutter preference get criticized. I usually us shutter preference but I always check the depth of field. On occasion I will use aperture preference. Both are good tools to be used as the situation requires.

 

[Helge]

I am pointing out that in a thread about aperture preference, statements about shutter preference get criticized. I usually us shutter preference but I always check the depth of field. On occasion I will use aperture preference. Both are good tools to be used as the situation requires.

As the OP I can tell you this thread was not meant to be about the virtues of AP.
Rather an indirect way of asking why SP is so relatively under prioritized (which would be clear if you read the clarifying posts).

You always hear there was a “war” between the two (basically Canon against the rest).
But you never hear the arguments from the SP side of the “war”.

 

[Pieter12]

Shoot manual.

 

[wiltw]

As the OP I can tell you this thread was not meant to be about the virtues of AP.
Rather an indirect way of asking why SP is so relatively under prioritized (which would be clear if you read the clarifying posts)..

Having grown up learning photography with shutter priority automation (first, in a P&S, then in a SLR) I learned to think of shutter first, but always checking what the automation wanted to use for f/stop, and I would think if the indicated f/stop accomplised what I wanted (as well as if the section would result in 'proper exposure' for the lighting situation. In my time in photojournalism, it was so often 'I need a shutter speed I can hand hold well!" But I always used Manual on the SLR, rather than simply letting my camera always think for me. But after the first 10 years, I had 10 more (OM-1) wih zero automation, but match needle metering.

It took 20 years from those first experiences in photography, for me to finally land a camera with aperture-priority automation (OM-4 and ETRSi), so I had to change my thinking around. That was not a difficult transisition to make, even after using shutter priority automation for 20 years. And still, I always as used Manual on the SLR, rather than simply letting my camera always think for me. In that block of time, wedding and portraiture most often had me thinking about DOF control, and the cameras I used were well suited for that!

Fast forward yet another almost 20 years, with a camera that does both, and also does manual. Spending years 1-10 with shutter priority automation, and then years 20-50 with aperture-priority automation and the need for 'what DOF do I want?', I have found, in using a camera with both forms of automation during years 50-70, the need to think about 'what aperture for what DOF' is with greater frequency than for me than 'what degree of motion-stopping?'. In short, 'which way' is situationally dependent to the kind of shooting being done. I have not otherwise found a reason to always consider shutter speed first, in general...I don't shoot photojournalism now, and dSLR low light sensitivity makes handheld shutter speed hardly a consideration! Maybe if I routinely shot sporting events, that might shift the automation mode to other way! Or if I was a photo naturalist I would care more about shutter speed and its motion preservation rather than thinking about DOF.

 

[John Bragg]

I started out with a Canon AV1 which was apperture priority only. From there I went on to Canon AE1 which was shutter priority and Manual. I found myself shooting manual mode more often than not and became not so trusting of the automation to meter accurately enough. I graduated onto Olympus OM1n and Nikon FM2n.
Net result, for the last 30 years I learned to trust my intuition and rely on it. I can make a close guestimate of the settings needed in most situations and use the meter to confirm.

 

[Bill Burk]

wiltw sounds good.

I remember using a Canonet QL17 GIII that’s Shutter priority and it worked for me. Actually got a high proportion of pleasing images from it. Maybe it’s “better” statistically. Anyone here ever do a study?

 

[Helge]

Having grown up learning photography with shutter priority automation (first, in a P&S, then in a SLR) I learned to think of shutter first, but always checking what the automation wanted to use for f/stop, and I would think if the indicated f/stop accomplised what I wanted (as well as if the section would result in 'proper exposure' for the lighting situation. In my time in photojournalism, it was so often 'I need a shutter speed I can hand hold well!" But I always used Manual on the SLR, rather than simply letting my camera always think for me. But after the first 10 years, I had 10 more (OM-1) wih zero automation, but match needle metering.

It took 20 years from those first experiences in photography, for me to finally land a camera with aperture-priority automation (OM-4 and ETRSi), so I had to change my thinking around. That was not a difficult transisition to make, even after using shutter priority automation for 20 years. And still, I always as used Manual on the SLR, rather than simply letting my camera always think for me. In that block of time, wedding and portraiture most often had me thinking about DOF control, and the cameras I used were well suited for that!

Fast forward yet another almost 20 years, with a camera that does both, and also does manual. Spending years 1-10 with shutter priority automation, and then years 20-50 with aperture-priority automation and the need for 'what DOF do I want?', I have found, in using a camera with both forms of automation during years 50-70, the need to think about 'what aperture for what DOF' is with greater frequency than for me than 'what degree of motion-stopping?'. In short, 'which way' is situationally dependent to the kind of shooting being done. I have not otherwise found a reason to always consider shutter speed first, in general...I don't shoot photojournalism now, and dSLR low light sensitivity makes handheld shutter speed hardly a consideration! Maybe if I routinely shot sporting events, that might shift the automation mode to other way! Or if I was a photo naturalist I would care more about shutter speed and its motion preservation rather than thinking about DOF.

Sharpness/resolution normally being considered important, and one of the greatest robbers of sharpness being camera rotation along the x,y axis, shutter priority would seem a pretty good idea, at least on normal and tele.
You know your minimum speed, and if you want and can afford (aperture wise) less DoF, you up the speed.
Again, I have strong doubts that you or anyone, will be able to make a good assessment of how exactly the DoF will look, with any aperture setting for an arbitrary shot.

Sure, you know approximately the difference between f8 and f2.8. But between say 5.4 and 8, it’s a crapshoot.
It depends so much on subject distance, subject to background distance and the lighting conditions, that no amount of experience will let you do anything but a guess.

The second you stop down to “check”, especially with slower lenses and higher apertures, you can’t see anything but a coarse dim outline.

The moment you are in a situation where you have seconds or minutes, as opposed to a second, you will be in metered manual and can faf around with the aperture to your hearts content.

And digital is moot here since we are on a film forum. But even on digital you want your “ISO” as low as possible to avoid “grain” and to get as good dynamics as possible.
Just cranking up the amplification will make even expensive stuff look like iPhone shots.

 

[Bill Burk]

Anyone ever use DOF priority. That was funny for a while (AF camera focuses far/near, sets at hyperfocal, chooses aperture to fit then lets shutter fall where it may).

 

[wiltw]

Sharpness/resolution normally being considered important, and one of the greatest robbers of sharpness being camera rotation along the x,y axis, shutter priority would seem a pretty good idea, at least on normal and tele.
You know your minimum speed, and if you want and can afford (aperture wise) less DoF, you up the speed.
Again, I have strong doubts that you or anyone, will be able to make a good assessment of how exactly the DoF will look, with any aperture setting for an arbitrary shot.

Sure, you know approximately the difference between f8 and f2.8. But between say 5.4 and 8, it’s a crapshoot.
It depends so much on subject distance, subject to background distance and the lighting conditions, that no amount of experience will let you do anything but a guess.

The second you stop down to “check”, especially with slower lenses and higher apertures, you can’t see anything but a coarse dim outline.

The moment you are in a situation where you have seconds or minutes, as opposed to a second, you will be in metered manual and can faf around with the aperture to your hearts content.

And digital is moot here since we are on a film forum. But even on digital you want your “ISO” as low as possible to avoid “grain” and to get as good dynamics as possible.
Just cranking up the amplification will make even expensive stuff look like iPhone shots.

Helge,
I, too, argue the point about how useless the Hyperfocal Distance can be...using 200mm lens at f/5.6, how do you focus at 732' calculated Hypoerfocal Distance?!

So I easily understand your point about DOF...without calculator, does anyone inherently 'know' that DOF is 19' with 200mm f/4 setting focused at 100'? If you have 200mm prime lens, you have DOF scales to help in estimation.. Yes, it takes a calculator to know explicit depth in feet. Especially with zooms which have no DOF scale engraving!
OTOH, what I subjectively know with certainty is that f/4 20/20 vision DOF is 'somewhat shallow', while at f/8 it is 'less shallow' and at f/16 it is 'fairly deep' in relative terms. And with 20mm f/4 is really deep while f/16 is really really really deep. No calculator needed, to achieve what I want to achieve.

As someone who NEVER has used DOF Preview, I agree not only about dim display having relatively low value, but I also know that even at f/1.4 the DOF Preview of 24 x36mm image gives a pretty poor reflection of calcuated DOF Zone seen in 8x12" print!

 

[wiltw]

Anyone ever use DOF priority. That was funny for a while (AF camera focuses far/near, sets at hyperfocal, chooses aperture to fit then lets shutter fall where it may).

I never did even try it. But upon reflection the process mimics exactly what was done on advance-featured 4x5 monorail cameras!

 

[film_man]

I still don't know why this discussion is needed. The only mode you need is P, it is in the name: P for Pro. Done. Shutter is one letter away from the toilet, A is for apoplectic results and M is for monochrome, you're only supposed to use it with TriX.

 

[NB23]

It ‘s unimportant. Closing down only means that the sharpness around the focus point will increase. It also means that the lens’ sweetspot is reached, for a generally better image. Reaching the right balance is the point. No need to go further than that.

Helge,
I, too, argue the point about how useless the Hyperfocal Distance can be...using 200mm lens at f/5.6, how do you focus at 732' calculated Hypoerfocal Distance?!

So I easily understand your point about DOF...without calculator, does anyone inherently 'know' that DOF is 19' with 200mm f/4 setting focused at 100'? If you have 200mm prime lens, you have DOF scales to help in estimation.. Yes, it takes a calculator to know explicit depth in feet. Especially with zooms which have no DOF scale engraving!
OTOH, what I subjectively know with certainty is that f/4 20/20 vision DOF is 'somewhat shallow', while at f/8 it is 'less shallow' and at f/16 it is 'fairly deep' in relative terms. And with 20mm f/4 is really deep while f/16 is really really really deep. No calculator needed, to achieve what I want to achieve.

As someone who NEVER has used DOF Preview, I agree not only about dim display having relatively low value, but I also know that even at f/1.4 the DOF Preview of 24 x36mm image gives a pretty poor reflection of calcuated DOF Zone seen in 8x12" print!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have AV, TV, Auto and M EOS 300. And I have EM, Nikormat measuring light. I had FG-20, OM10, FTb, Kiev 19. Same thing, just a lightmeter.
To be honest, I'm not aware of cameras with only aperture priority. Sounds like something wierd.
Wait. I had Oly XA. But it is not camera for this sub-forum.

 

[gone]

Of course, Futurism is a quite past philosophy :] Way, way past, as in over 100 years ago. The cubist movement was from a similar time period, and while I love many of the great cubist paintings and sculptures, I have no desire to paint anything in a cubist style. Photography shares little w/ painting, sculpture, or most art movements (other than a brief flirtation w/ surrealism and dadaism).

People usually buy fast lenses so they can shoot them wide open for portraits. For that, you need a soft, non distracting background for your subject and an ability to have sharp focus on the eyes while keeping the rest of the face a little soft.

Generally, fast lenses are expensive and considered "pro" lenses because they're very well corrected and made w/ superior optical glass and coatings. So even if someone doesn't shoot portraits, a fast lens is nearly always a better tool. You can always stop a fast lens down for more sharpness, but you can't open a slower lens aperture to a fast setting that it doesn't have. What all this has to do w/ aperture priority, I don't know.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I always liked aperture priority unless I needed manual. I'd cradle the camera in my left hand and use my fingers to focus the lens or change the aperture dial. I'd keep my right index finger on the shutter. If I wanted a certain shutter speed then I would just spin the aperture dial to get what I wanted. It was a lot faster then taking one hand off the camera to adjust the shutter speed dial on top of the camera.

Of course you could buy an Olympus and have both aperture dial and shutter speed dial on the lens.

My Nikomat FT3 has the shutter ring by the lens.