Is this too much technology?

[pdeeh]

Is this too much technology?

Too much for what?

 

[removed account4]

i think it is great that there is a way for the end user to calibrate and modify a lens the way they want to.
i don't think it is too much technology at all. its like getting a FREE CLA, whenever you want.

i think all these " look at what digital-people are doing now " or " toy cameras suck" threads are getting rather annoying. :munch:

i wonder if there is an all digital site where users post links to apug
and roll their eyes about everything posted here ...

 

[Existing Light]

I've got a record player. On that record player, I can flip a switch from 33 to 45 rpm. There's also a dial where I can fine-tune the pitch by making the record spin slightly faster or slower. That's how I see the firmware crap on lenses. If you don't need to adjust it, that's fine, but, if you know what you're doing, you can tweak it however you want/need. I personally don't have any auto-focus lenses because I don't shoot anything where autofocus has a distinctive advantage over manual focusing, other than being a bit faster. I don't hate technology in my stuff, generally, unless it starts interfering with what I want or telling me "No, this is what you want"

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've got a record player. On that record player, I can flip a switch from 33 to 45 rpm.

Guess what? Some young 20 somethings love and collect vinyl. They love the organic and warm sound of old records with hiss, clicks and pops.

I love technology and it's made my life much more fun and easier. I've also been lucky to make a living off of people's technology problems by being a tech monkey. One thing I don't care for is the blind faith that technology will make things better. I think as technology progresses, it takes away the art of life. The randomness and the music of chance is lessoned with over use of technology. I prefer a portrait photographed on collodion and printed on silver gelatin paper over a digital portrait that's over-retouched and printed on inkjet. Technology can be soulless. I pick and choose carefully how I buy and use technology. Right now, I love the internet where I can share and enjoy opinions on APUG.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Sounds like a whole lot of work for me.

Jeff

 

[Existing Light]

Guess what? Some young 20 somethings love and collect vinyl. They love the organic and warm sound of old records with hiss, clicks and pops.

I love technology and it's made my life much more fun and easier. I've also been lucky to make a living off of people's technology problems by being a tech monkey. One thing I don't care for is the blind faith that technology will make things better. I think as technology progresses, it takes away the art of life. The randomness and the music of chance is lessoned with over use of technology. I prefer a portrait photographed on collodion and printed on silver gelatin paper over a digital portrait that's over-retouched and printed on inkjet. Technology can be soulless. I pick and choose carefully how I buy and use technology. Right now, I love the internet where I can share and enjoy opinions on APUG.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I think I might have came over abrasive and ignorant comparing record players to camera computers. I think, in reality, I'm kinda neutral on the whole technology issue; I think if it's something you need, then use it. But if it's not necessary, then it might be best to live without it. But then, I think it's human nature to have the newest and the best and the fastest, and people in the marketing business will use that to their advantage

 

[DWThomas]

Hey! The need for a "USB Dock" generates another item to sell -- that's what it's all about! I believe the latest Canon gear can do micro adjustments also, but in the camera body. The latter might be better if the lenses are shared between multiple cameras, as who says it's the lens that's off!

I often use autofocus on my cameras that have it; like all technology there are trade-offs. (And my 72 YO eyes are developing cataracts!) It also requires understanding what a specific system will or won't do and possibly integrating some tricks into using the stuff (which admittedly negates some of the utility).

I will say that the latest generation of cameras and lenses (Canon EOS, etc.) does not appear targeted for manual focus use. For starters, normally supplied focus screens don't seem to be optimum for manual use, although in some cases other screens are available. And as mentioned up thread, the rotation to cover the full focus range is way shorter than many older lenses. (I get cheap thrills from my FD gear. )

As a culture we do appear obsessed with technology (and complexity) for its own sake, regardless of what it gains us, not just in camera gear.

 

[Worker 11811]

As a culture we do appear obsessed with technology (and complexity) for its own sake, regardless of what it gains us, not just in camera gear.

Absolutely! It's not about the use of a technology toward a particular purpose. It is about the use of technology because we CAN.

If I didn't want technology I'd join the Amish.

My problem with autofocus is because I don't like machines that override human decisions and make it more difficult to use manually. Sigma's autofocus firmware is great but I would rather have the option to enable or disable autofocus at a moment's notice. How about a system where, when the shutter button is pressed half way, the autofocus takes effect but, if the stepping motor that controls the lens detects the user turning the focus ring, the autofocus disengages? What if it stayed off until you double clicked the shutter button?

Why use a touch screen or a computer menu when a button would do?
When these things are used, why don't the designers use standardized designs?

Apple spent lots of time and money developing the mothballed Xerox Star into a useable, marketable system. Now, the GUI is a virtual worldwide standard. Why? Because somebody thought about technology and how to apply it to a purpose.

Why are people being labelled "Luddite" because they demand that technology be applied in a thoughtful manner?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Absolutely! It's not about the use of a technology toward a particular purpose. It is about the use of technology because we CAN.

If I didn't want technology I'd join the Amish.

My problem with autofocus is because I don't like machines that override human decisions and make it more difficult to use manually. Sigma's autofocus firmware is great but I would rather have the option to enable or disable autofocus at a moment's notice. How about a system where, when the shutter button is pressed half way, the autofocus takes effect but, if the stepping motor that controls the lens detects the user turning the focus ring, the autofocus disengages? What if it stayed off until you double clicked the shutter button?

Why use a touch screen or a computer menu when a button would do?
When these things are used, why don't the designers use standardized designs?

Apple spent lots of time and money developing the mothballed Xerox Star into a useable, marketable system. Now, the GUI is a virtual worldwide standard. Why? Because somebody thought about technology and how to apply it to a purpose.

Why are people being labelled "Luddite" because they demand that technology be applied in a thoughtful manner?

Because, one reason why some are drawn to technology is insecurity. Point that out, and they snap back.

 

[Worker 11811]

Damn straight!

 

[ColdEye]

How about a system where, when the shutter button is pressed half way, the autofocus takes effect but, if the stepping motor that controls the lens detects the user turning the focus ring, the autofocus disengages? What if it stayed off until you double clicked the shutter button?

I think the canon USM and their counterpart from Nikon does that.

 

[Worker 11811]

If I'm ever in the market for a new digicam I'll have to check that out.

Maybe in another life.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is auto focus? Is that like when you set your tripod up on the roof of your car and then look under
the darkcloth? ... heck, I wouldn't buy even a Nikon that requires a battery to operate (and mine don't!)

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There is Otto focus. That's when a German manually focuses his Leica. There also Manuel focus where a Mexican photographer shoots his Leica also.

 

[filmamigo]

No need to be negative about an idea or product just because it includes electronics/computers. Get past the "firmware update" jargon and consider this:

All complex optical systems, like cameras, need careful alignment to tight tolerances. Sometimes they go out of alignment. Sometimes different components are each within tolerance but together are not optimal. This isn't new. It's happened since the first rangefinder. Every SLR system relies on perfect correlation between the distance to focussing screen via mirror, and the distance to the film plane. Ctein and Mike Johnston have written about the challenges of getting/keeping manual focus SLRs aligned. Add autofocus to the mix, and it's more components and optical paths to keep aligned. As a result, picky photographers for decades have done one of two things --- exchanged lenses and bodies until they got two that worked perfectly together, or sent their cameras AND lenses in to the factory to ensure they all worked perfectly together. Of course manual focus cameras can't be tweaked electronically like this, but they still may need to be tweaked. Instead of adjusting an electronic number +/-, someone has to get in there and start shimming and bending and filing.

Now, thanks to this USB-firmware-coaster-thingy, you have another choice. Keep your camera and lens, and have a play at being your own service centre with this device. Of course it doesn't appeal to everybody -- and if it doesn't appeal to you, don't use it. But I like the idea that I can optimize my gear without sending it away somewhere, or relying on somebody else, or wondering how often I need to send it back. I like to tinker, and if I can plug in my lens to do so, that's great!

Camera makers have recently come to the same conclusion. The top-tier cameras now allow the user to tweak the camera side of autofocus. This is a good tool, one that would have been useful in the autofocus film days too! Sigma have simply closed the loop, and provided the one missing tool for self-calibration -- the lens side. I'm not sure why it's so contentious to be given more control over your tools?

I'll also point out that Sigma have a public-relations reason for providing this tool. I like and shoot Sigma lenses, but often get told by other photographers that they would "never" shoot Sigma, because they "aren't compatible" with their (Nikon/Canon/whatever) cameras, or often need to be sent back to Sigma to make them compatible. This is an over-exaggerated idea, but it has convinced people to avoid Sigma lenses. This "firmware update" tool directly deals with that complaint... it says you won't be stuck with an incompatible lens and you won't have to send it in to the factory if you buy a new camera.

 

[cliveh]

Photography is a huge subject and I can understand how autofocus and auto systems can be useful in certain situations/applications. What I object to is when a computer is dictating aesthetic decisions for those who wish to use a camera and film as a creative medium.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are also reliability issues. You could probably design a fancy expensive robot to follow and kill a rattlesnake, but an ordinary shovel would be a lot more reliable.

 

[HTF III]

There are also reliability issues. You could probably design a fancy expensive robot to follow and kill a rattlesnake, but an ordinary shovel would be a lot more reliable.

Damn--you just stole my idea. I was just sitting here thinking of making a prototype of a digital shovel. I'm still working on a digital gun that doesn't need bullets. Haven't got the kinks ironed out yet.

 

[Truzi]

Wow.

What a bunch of Luddite whingeing and ignorance, the lot of you (except hoffy. hoffy is cool )

Damn, I can't find my big old dictionary

 

[Worker 11811]

That's because we don't use dictionaries anymore. We look things up on Google, now.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's faster to use the dictionary, and you don't have to worry about the DSL running slow. But's it all
doomed anyway.... kids texting of cell phones have eliminated the need for vowels. Case in point, one
pothead to another : HDDDDDD .... translation: "Hey, Doooooood"

 

[richard ide]

I heard an ad on the radio today. The company is selling digital pianos.
And here I thought that they were digital from day one.

 

[LiamG]

Generally:

Not everyone that uses film uses it for slow moving or still subjects. Perhaps that is your idea of what film photography is, don't assume that it's universal.

Maybe you don't need or want autofocus, good for you. What prerogative does that give you to judge what others want or need?

 

[OzJohn]

Know what you mean. My day job is tech support at a university. I'm burned out on technology. I've seen too many tech solutions looking for a problem.

What's the problem with a digital device (most modern AF lenses are) having a digital maintenance facility like firmware upgrades? If you choose not to use them either use a MF lens or an old AF on your film cameras. BTW one can still be a Luddite and work in a tech field. You could be maintaining old Cobol code for all I know or care. What one does for a living is a popular but mostly irrelevant reinforcement of personal opinion on internet forums generally. OzJohn

 

[ME Super]

I have a roll of Rollei IR 400 in my camera right now (my first IR roll ever). I hope the IR filter I use, which is labeled as a digital filter, doesn't block all the analog IR, otherwise I'm screwed. Oh wait, electromagnetic radiation also exists as discrete photons, which means digital.