Is using the camera in manual that difficult.

[blockend]

The analogy of writing a novel using a laptop is quite a good one. Just like camera automation it may change the speed at which you complete the task and the volume of the outcome, but makes no difference to the creative input.

The association you make between creative writing and speed is most revealing.

 

[cliveh]

The association you make between creative writing and speed is most revealing.

I am not making an association between creative writing and speed, but a laptop and speed.

 

[BrianShaw]

You may, or may not be missing my point. If you can do everything you need to do with a simple, well made manual camera, what was the last twenty years of camera 'innovation' except a huge marketing exercise? Leica users (of whom I'm not a member) always insisted it was all a side show to the business of making pictures.

I don't think I am missing your point. I think you are being narrow-minded and not accepting the fact that the last 20 years (more, actually) of camera innovation is much more than a huge marketing exercise. Sure, you and others have no need for such innovation but that does not make it either evil or useless or market manipulation.

 

[blockend]

I don't think I am missing your point. I think you are being narrow-minded and not accepting the fact that the last 20 years (more, actually) of camera innovation is much more than a huge marketing exercise. Sure, you and others have no need for such innovation but that does not make it either evil or useless or market manipulation.

I don't believe it is evil, I think it's irrelevant to the business of making interesting photographs. I own such 'seminal' SLRs as the Canon T90 and other technical marvels, and while they have great historical novelty value and are capable of taking fine photos, they don't take 'better' photographs than my full manual Nikon F, Canon FTb, Zeiss Ikons, OM1, etc. The term straw man is a ridiculously overused term of internet abuse, but it's hard to see my appraisal of camera developments as evil in any other way. Marketing, spin and hype, I'd definitely concur with.

 

[benjiboy]

You may, or may not be missing my point. If you can do everything you need to do with a simple, well made manual camera, what was the last twenty years of camera 'innovation' except a huge marketing exercise? Leica users (of whom I'm not a member) always insisted it was all a side show to the business of making pictures.

Camera manufacturers, like all consumer products marketers have to convince that that this years all singing, all dancing product is better than the last years, and make them so dissatisfied with what they have they want to replace it with the new one. Digital photography pulled off the greatest marketing coup of all time by re-inventing the wheel and selling millions of cameras all around the World to people who had perfect good ones already.

 

[BrianShaw]

Camera manufacturers, like all consumer products marketers have to convince that that this years all singing, all dancing product is better than the last years, and make them so dissatisfied with what they have they want to replace it with the new one. Digital photography pulled off the greatest marketing coup of all time by re-inventing the wheel and selling millions of cameras all around the World to people who had perfect good ones already.

Ya... same goes for talkies. Talk about re-inventing wheels. Who needs sound. Silent movies were enough to understand what the story was about. In fact, those crazy subtitles were a waste of time too. EVERYBODY knows what is going on so why do they think they have to tell us?

 

[Chris Lange]

I don't believe it is evil, I think it's irrelevant to the business of making interesting photographs. I own such 'seminal' SLRs as the Canon T90 and other technical marvels, and while they have great historical novelty value and are capable of taking fine photos, they don't take 'better' photographs than my full manual Nikon F, Canon FTb, Zeiss Ikons, OM1, etc. The term straw man is a ridiculously overused term of internet abuse, but it's hard to see my appraisal of camera developments as evil in any other way. Marketing, spin and hype, I'd definitely concur with.

Conversely, you do seem to be implying that your Nikon F, Canon FTb and Zeiss Ikons, et al. are capable of taking "better" photographs than the T90 and friends.

This is a really pedantic discussion guys, every camera with a selectable aperture, shutter speed, and (if applicable) asa/iso setting for a meter is capable of making the same photos. 35mm technical advancement was driven by the consumer (ease of use, automation) and professional journalism (ruggedness, speed, automation) sectors. Medium format slowly gained the same benefits in a few cameras (auto exp., AF, motor drives), but at prohibitive expense and reduced efficacy.

 

[blockend]

Conversely, you do seem to be implying that your Nikon F, Canon FTb and Zeiss Ikons, et al. are capable of taking "better" photographs than the T90 and friends.

No, that's in your own head. I'm saying you don't need a huge brick with a dozen buttons and a menu to take great photos. If toting the brick around is your idea of fun, go for it (as I said way back in the thread).

 

[blockend]

Ya... same goes for talkies. Talk about re-inventing wheels. Who needs sound. Silent movies were enough to understand what the story was about. In fact, those crazy subtitles were a waste of time too. EVERYBODY knows what is going on so why do they think they have to tell us?

Benjiboy made an excellent point and you've flagged up another straw man. He and I have both worked in camera sales (me many years ago) so are able to tell facts from fancy.

I once knew a camera salesman who could wax lyrical about the latest thing and sell fridges to Eskimos. What camera did he use? The same Nikon rangefinder he used for ever.

 

[blockend]

35mm technical advancement was driven by the consumer

 

[benjiboy]

In my experience of more than 20 years of selling cameras the general public tend to use technology as a crutch for lack of knowledge , so they can take "good" pictures, without actually thinking.

 

[blockend]

In my experience of more than 20 years of selling cameras the general public tend to use technology as a crutch for lack of knowledge , so they can take "good" pictures, without actually thinking.

I agree. It used to be the case that SLRs were the camera to be seen with, but a substantial minority, perhaps even a majority of purchasers, didn't know how to use one. So when Program mode and other auto settings came along they could be seen with a 'professional' camera, and have pictures that 'came out' to impress their family, without troubling with all those dials. I bet a large number never moved off P mode for their entire lives, and as long as a majority of their photographs were okay, they were happy. Nothing wrong with that, but the shots they took were indistinguishable from a point and shoot which would have fit in their purse/pocket.

Most innovations were obstacles for people who knew what they were doing, or at least added cost, weight and complexity. It took years for autofocus to work as people imagined it originally should, and the first couple of generations were risible. Slow kit zooms - another fashion people thought they needed over a standard prime - and dull conditions must have been an exercise in frustration, when excellent fresnel screens that would focus in a moment had been available for years. And so it went on, and still does.

Each to their own and all that, but most camera technology from the eighties until digital came along was a solution in search of a problem.

 

[miha]

I agree. It used to be the case that SLRs were the camera to be seen with, but a substantial minority, perhaps even a majority of purchasers, didn't know how to use one. So when Program mode and other auto settings came along they could be seen with a 'professional' camera, and have pictures that 'came out' to impress their family, without troubling with all those dials. I bet a large number never moved off P mode for their entire lives, and as long as a majority of their photographs were okay, they were happy. Nothing wrong with that, but the shots they took were indistinguishable from a point and shoot which would have fit in their purse/pocket.

Most innovations were obstacles for people who knew what they were doing, or at least added cost, weight and complexity. It took years for autofocus to work as people imagined it originally should, and the first couple of generations were risible. Slow kit zooms - another fashion people thought they needed over a standard prime - and dull conditions must have been an exercise in frustration, when excellent fresnel screens that would focus in a moment had been available for years. And so it went on, and still does.

Each to their own and all that, but most camera technology from the eighties until digital came along was a solution in search of a problem.

I hope you understand and accept that not everyone shares your opinion.

 

[MDR]

Blockend correct metering can be done with an AF and a fully manual camera that's what an AE Lock is there for. In both cases manual and Auto the user is the problem not the camera correctly used both can create superb results. And the fastest focussing is done with a fix focus camera

 

[blockend]

I hope you understand and accept that not everyone shares your opinion.

I hope you understand and accept that I'm allowed my opinion, and I back it up with examples. The OPs asks whether using a camera in manual is difficult. The answer is no. So long as you know what you're doing it's easy. If you don't know what you're doing technology won't fix it for you (unless you want someone else's idea of average).

 

[blockend]

Blockend correct metering can be done with an AF and a fully manual camera that's what an AE Lock is there for. In both cases manual and Auto the user is the problem not the camera correctly used both can create superb results. And the fastest focussing is done with a fix focus camera

Good example MDR. Is AE lock quicker than metering a scene? It's arguable, depends on the conditions. AE lock is certainly useful, probably essential, if the controls that allowed you to meter manually are tucked away somewhere. Put the aperture and shutter speed in dedicated dials and manual metering and override is no problem and as instant as anything you'll find on a camera. Then there was the great disappearing aperture ring ruse. That was a consumer benefit how exactly?

AF is another good example. AF lenses allowed you to focus manually to keep curmudgeons and nay-sayers happy (or anyone else who tired of their AF hunting between the lens hood and Saturn), but instead of a nice helicoid and grip you got a vestigial ring of plastic on a shaky mount that was next to unusable. That's not an option, it's a premature invitation to a brave new world of under-developed technology for beta testers with conspicuous consumption. All IMHO, as ever.

There were high points of course, spot metering among them. To use spot metering you need at least a passing acquaintance with the zone system. Without any knowledge spot metering is a receipe for badly exposed images. Metering became more reliable generally in the 80s, moving away from CdS cells but few serious photographers relied unquestioningly on their meters, and most brought into play a lot of experience. Weather sealing was also useful, but tended to be available on professional cameras with pro price tags, etc, etc. Most of the era was dumbing down and novelty so far as 35mm SLRs go.

 

[MattKing]

I'm quite fond of the eye controlled focus/exposure feature on a couple of my Canon film cameras.

The feature has some problems, as it doesn't work for everyone, but I think that it is an example of a technological addition that has real value for some - both experienced photographers and casual shooters.

It isn't necessary, but it is attractive and useful for many people. Just as the brilliant viewfinder in my Olympus OM cameras is attractive and useful - especially when paired with the right lenses.

blockend is right in that some of the extra features on some cameras are implemented in ways that are less than ideal. But when the implementation is done well .....

 

[benjiboy]

Benjiboy made an excellent point and you've flagged up another straw man. He and I have both worked in camera sales (me many years ago) so are able to tell facts from fancy.

I once knew a camera salesman who could wax lyrical about the latest thing and sell fridges to Eskimos. What camera did he use? The same Nikon rangefinder he used for ever.

I've known many camera sales people who knew every technical detail of every high- tech camera on the market who knew nothing about taking pictures, whose work was like amateur snaps, all their knowledge was theoretical, gleaned from camera specifications on sales brochures, they were like car salesman who couldn't drive .

 

[BrianShaw]

That describes every camera shop employee I have ever met... except the ones who knew nothing at all. I suppose if they were good photographers they wouldn't be working in a camera shop.

 

[MattKing]

I resemble that (or I would have when I did sell cameras) !)
Some camera salespeople tograph for the joy of it, and sell cameras for the pay cheque. There is nothing necessarily inconsistent with that.
EDIT: the smiley face didn't come out in my initial post, so I'll add it here

and "photograph" rather than "tograph"

 

[BrianShaw]

I hear ya, Matt. I did not mean that to be a slur against an entire population... just making a comment. But in hindsight I see hwo someone may take offense. I'm sure that you, Ben and blockend are fine photographers.

... and for me... I suppose there is a reason why I am neither a professional photographer nor a camera salesman.

 

[blockend]

I agree that camera salesmen are not synonymous with great photography, although there are exceptions. B&H put some excellent tutorials on video, including aesthetics and history as well as gear, and their guys seem to know their stuff. My time was at head office, not customer facing, to use the current euphemism, and mercifully brief. I was then, as now, cynical about rampant consumerism with regards to photography, and even then trading down to meterless 1960s cameras while everyone was going auto. A square peg, even thirty years ago.

I do recall one chap who ran his own shop and dedicated nearly all his spare time to photography, and he was very talented and extremely knowledgeable.

 

[benjiboy]

That describes every camera shop employee I have ever met... except the ones who knew nothing at all. I suppose if they were good photographers they wouldn't be working in a camera shop.

My remarks don't apply to everyone that I have worked with in camera stores, and I don't agree with the mistaken logic of your assertion that "if people were good photographers they would't work in camera shops" erroneous,I have known many committed and excellent photographers who didn't want to do it for a living and needed the security of a regular job because they had wives and children, like many members of this site.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sure, Ben, as I said, I wrote with too broad of a brush.

 

[slackercrurster]

Manual is used where auto does not work well. Manual is used where you want the exposure to stay the same and not goof up. In my case I shoot manual about 90% of the time. For P&S it is auto for me.