Is this too much technology?

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 25, 2013

I find a lens with firmware that you can tweak is pointless. I rarely use autofocus . I'm just an old cat that's too habituated to manual focus. It's like breathing for me.

http://vimeo.com/64665246

Eric Rose · Apr 25, 2013

Different strokes for different folks.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I find a lens with firmware that you can tweak is pointless. I rarely use autofocus . I'm just an old cat that's too habituated to manual focus. It's like breathing for me.

http://vimeo.com/64665246

I won't even watch the link.

HTF III · Apr 25, 2013

Never had an auto-focus lens in my life.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 25, 2013

You don't know what your missing..

HTF III said:
Never had an auto-focus lens in my life.

Not!

benjiboy · Apr 25, 2013

It's too much for me.

Worker 11811 · Apr 25, 2013

Although I "like" autofocus lenses, I'm just not comfortable with them.

They don't always focus the way I want. They don't always focus at the same thing I am looking at. They don't always decide on what is in focus or out of focus the way I decide.

Much of the time an autofocus lens can be helpful but I find that, just as much of the time, I have to figure out some way to trick the lens into focusing the way I want it to. This programmable lens seems like a neat idea but, to be honest, it just seems like another thing I'd have to learn how to trick into working the way I want it to. A lot more expensive and time consuming, too.

To be honest, I'd rather just turn a dial or twist a ring until I get things to look the way I want them to. :|

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
I won't even watch the link.

I don't even like things that use batteries. If it has a built in chip, I won't use it - unless it's a calculator.

anikin · Apr 25, 2013

One thing to realize is that this is not an improvement. In this case the firmware is used to correct for less strict quality control in production (or potentially even worse - engineering). You see, before all this focus micro-adjustments, the manufacturers were forced to calibrate their devices to much tighter tolerances before the device got shipped, otherwise they would have to deal with it as a warranty repair. Now - no big deal, the customer can do calibration themselves if they are so picky. In other words, they just made a bad product quality into a feature for which the customer can pay extra. Pure marketing genius!

bobwysiwyg · Apr 25, 2013

To all that hate auto-focus, I just hope your eyesight holds up. If not, you will come to accept/love it or give up photography all together.. says Bob knocking on the door to 70 with a developing cataract in his right eye.

BradleyK · Apr 25, 2013

Worker 11811 said:
Although I "like" autofocus lenses, I'm just not comfortable with them.

They don't always focus the way I want. They don't always focus at the same thing I am looking at. They don't always decide on what is in focus or out of focus the way I decide.

Much of the time an autofocus lens can be helpful but I find that, just as much of the time, I have to figure out some way to trick the lens into focusing the way I want it to. This programmable lens seems like a neat idea but, to be honest, it just seems like another thing I'd have to learn how to trick into working the way I want it to. A lot more expensive and time consuming, too.

To be honest, I'd rather just turn a dial or twist a ring until I get things to look the way I want them to. :|

+1. On far too many occasions, I, too, have found myself second guessing/over-riding my AF lenses (28-70 and 80-200 ED Nikkors), most recently when shooting the candids at my nephew's wedding. Several times during the evening, I got so p****d off when the lenses would change focus (often when folks would move from well-lit areas to those with somewhat less lighting) that I found myself repeatedly switching from auto focus to manual. While I like the lenses for their fast speed (both are F2.8s), I find the "convenience/accuracy arguments" unconvincing; one has to be well aware of their limitations in order to use them successfully.

hoffy · Apr 25, 2013

Meh.... All in all, its just another tool in a photographers arsenal. Also, comparing modern AF to AF that most of you would have seen in film cameras is like comparing that old 2 speed slush box auto transmission to a modern 6 (or dare I say 8) speed transmission.

Just one other thing - funny how now that photographers can easily pixel peep, all those lenses that were more then adequate are now back or front focussing...

2bits · Apr 25, 2013

Too much technology? YES........

Sirius Glass · Apr 25, 2013

I rarely have to correct auto focus, but when I do it is because it chose to focus on the wrong object. I do not use auto focus for MF and LF, but that may be an artifact of not having auto focus on those cameras/lenses.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

hoffy said:
Meh.... All in all, its just another tool in a photographers arsenal. Also, comparing modern AF to AF that most of you would have seen in film cameras is like comparing that old 2 speed slush box auto transmission to a modern 6 (or dare I say 8) speed transmission.

Just one other thing - funny how now that photographers can easily pixel peep, all those lenses that were more then adequate are now back or front focussing...

I haven't heard that term in quite a long time.

I don't buy cars with automatic transmissions, either. In fact, I'm still suspicious of synchromesh.

hoffy · Apr 25, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
I haven't heard that term in quite a long time.
I don't buy cars with automatic transmissions, either. In fact, I'm still suspicious of synchromesh.

If you're not double clutching on the downshift AND the upshift, you're not doing it right?

HTF III · Apr 25, 2013

hoffy said:
Meh.... All in all, its just another tool in a photographers arsenal. Also, comparing modern AF to AF that most of you would have seen in film cameras is like comparing that old 2 speed slush box auto transmission to a modern 6 (or dare I say 8) speed transmission.

Just one other thing - funny how now that photographers can easily pixel peep, all those lenses that were more then adequate are now back or front focussing...

Sure am happy with the Aluminum Powerglide on my 68 Camaro Convertible. Works nice, easy to rebuild. Dependable. A trans job on a later model car can cost you 6 or 8 thousand.

Worker 11811 · Apr 25, 2013

Most of the times when autofocus fails for me is when there is too much sky in the picture or when there is foreground clutter. I would have to either use the camera's menus/controls to change the focus point or push the button and hold it while reframing the shot so that the camera focuses where I want. If I was shooting a sunset or a similar scene where most of the image was sky that autofocus won't track, I'd change to manual focus.

Then, I'd have other problems to deal with. I would have to restore the settings or reactivate autofocus before the next shot. If I forgot to do that, my next couple of shots would be out of focus until I remembered to put the camera back to its normal settings. If I used the "push and hold" trick, I take the chance that my exposure would be wrong because automatic cameras often lock focus and read the exposure at the same time. If I reframe the shot while holding focus, the scene is likely to be lighter or darker.

This could all be circumvented by putting the camera into manual exposure mode but, why the heck would I want to buy an expensive, automatic camera only to have to put it in manual mode all the time?

Yes, I like automatic cameras... SOMETIMES... but I want to be able to use them manually just as easily as I can use them in automatic mode.

I would much rather have a mostly manual camera that has some automatic features that can be activated when you want them instead of an automatic camera that needs to be defeated when it doesn't behave the way you want it to.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

hoffy said:
If you're not double clutching on the downshift AND the upshift, you're not doing it right?

Wait wait on the upshift, double clutch on the downshift. If you have a gentle touch and a good ear, you need the clutch only to start off from a full stop.

Some have a clutch brake or clutch stop, when you depress the clutch pedal fully it brakes the driven plate and can be shifted up very rapidly.

one90guy · Apr 25, 2013

I agree with Worker about autofocus, but I love the VR lens. My shaky hands kill me on slow shutter speeds, with film I usually carry a tripod for low light.

cliveh · Apr 25, 2013

I hate autofocus and any technical bullshit like this. Even when given a DSLR, I immediately set it to manual function and manual focus. Firmware??????????? The way the technology is going, photographers will soon be only concerned with introspective aspects within the camera. What you see through the viewfinder, if they bother to still include one will be entirely irrelevant.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

cliveh said:
I hate autofocus and any technical @#!*% like this. Even when given a DSLR, I immediately set it to manual function and manual focus. Firmware??????????? The way the technology is going, photographers will soon be only concerned with introspective aspects within the camera. What you see through the viewfinder, if they bother to still include one will be entirely irrelevant.

I give it back.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

HTF III said:
Sure am happy with the Aluminum Powerglide on my 68 Camaro Convertible. Works nice, easy to rebuild. Dependable. A trans job on a later model car can cost you 6 or 8 thousand.

Classic slushbox! I sold an iron one a few years ago.
I've never had to rebuild a manual transmission...

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 25, 2013

My questions is will there be computers with USB ports and a current software to up date it 20 years from now? Will the firmware stick or it will get erased over time and you have a useless chunk of glass?

E. von Hoegh · Apr 25, 2013

Mainecoonmaniac said:
My questions is will there be computers with USB ports and a current software to up date it 20 years from now? Will the firmware stick or it will get erased over time and you have a useless chunk of glass?

Dunno. My 45 year old Nikon works just fine. So does my 63 year old Deardorff.

Is this too much technology?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency