Most over rated feature

Over-rated: symbols.
I hate trying to remember what the is the difference between dot, dot in circle, dot in square, green dot, lightning-dot, etc..

darinwc said:

Photography itself is as complicated as you want it to be. Modern cameras pack in more features so you dont have to buy as many accessories.

Click to expand...

Photography is extremely simple.
There are only three (!) technical parameters: shutterspeed, aperture and focus.
No more.

The thing with all-singing all-dancing cameras i that we really do not need them to help us master those three parameters.
They're just getting in the way a lot.

And that they apparently make it difficult for many to understand that photography is an extremely simple thing, with only three easy to master technical parameters involved.

Why, most have a multiple of that number in choices of exposure mode alone!
A perfect example, those symbols.
But don't think the symbols are the problem. It are not the symbols that are overrated. It's what they indicate that is.

darinwc said:

Thats a pretty bad comparison. Modern cameras do much more than older cameras. So of course if there are more features, it will take much more time to learn them all and the interface for those features will be much more complicated.

With older cameras, you need to buy an accessory for anything you do. Focus closer than 1 meter? Buy an extention tube or +1 diopter. Motor drive? Buy the 1.5 fps or the 5 fps accessory. Intervalometer? Buy the accessory. Spot meter? Buy the accessory. Shooting in tungsten? Buy special film.

Photography itself is as complicated as you want it to be. Modern cameras pack in more features so you dont have to buy as many accessories.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. How can I say it better?

Whether you bought a Pentax, a Nikon or whatever brand of 35mm film camera you can be pretty sure that there is a good degree of standardization on the controls. The shutter release is on the right. The focus ring is in front. The aperture ring is behind that. You can probably take the camera out of the box, load it and shoot it without reading the manual unless you want to know the finer points.

Yes, the Canon digicam that I use at work has many more features so it is more complex to learn. However there is often little standardization from model to model, let alone between different manufacturers. Virtually everything is software driven. If I want to change the ISO setting on the Canon, I have to press the menu button, roll the selector dial until the right setting shows on the display then press "Enter." On most every 35mm film cameras I have seen the ISO setting is on the left side, near the rewinding knob. If it is not, it is probably in a place that is easy to find.

I like all the things that electronic equipment can do, these days but the way the equipment is operated varies almost randomly. A good example would be to go to the electronics store and look at the remote controls for all the different TVs. Some of them can not be fully understood without reading the manual. Many years ago, Sony used to have the best remote controls out of any manufacturer. You could operate them in the dark. Nowadays, it seems like the keys are laid out in random order.

They call manual cameras just that, because you don't need a manual to be able to operate them.

The more pages its user manual has, the less a camera is suited for its job.

Q.G. said:

Photography is extremely simple.
There are only three (!) technical parameters: shutterspeed, aperture and focus.
No more.

The thing with all-singing all-dancing cameras i that we really do not need them to help us master those three parameters.
They're just getting in the way a lot.

And that they apparently make it difficult for many to understand that photography is an extremely simple thing, with only three easy to master technical parameters involved.

Why, most have a multiple of that number in choices of exposure mode alone!
A perfect example, those symbols.
But don't think the symbols are the problem. It are not the symbols that are overrated. It's what they indicate that is.

Click to expand...

I guess you've never shot a fast paced wedding, sports, fast changing light scenes................you over simplify profoundly! And yet there are thousands, no millions of pros world wide that use those "useless gimmicks" features and would prove you wrong.

The man that influenced me the most photographically used to use a 2-1/4x 3-1/4 Crown Graphic to shoot weddings. I used to shoot them with Yashica D and Olympus FTL, then graduated to a pair of Kowa Super-66's. Everything fully manual, no TTL flash, or auto focus, or AE program, or anything other than good solid photographic basics and common sense.

SilverGlow said:

[...] you over simplify profoundly! And yet there are thousands, no millions of pros world wide that use those "useless gimmicks" features and would prove you wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't oversimplify.
Modern machines grossly overcomplicate.

Even in situations that could benefit from AE, things are simply. As were the many cameras that were used to great effect to do all those things you mention. Until recently none of them came with a manual counting more than, what? 15 pages.
The things being sold today even to people only using idiot-mode (AF and program mode) all come with manuals that are at least 200 pages thick.

And (and that is the thing) each one of these pages is absolutely necessary, because they put soooo much unnecessary stuff between the photographer and the photo he wants to create.
You need to read at least 100 of those pages just to be able to switch the camera on and find and engage idiot mode.

No wonder many photographers of today do not know that as far as using cameras is concerned, there are only three (!) technical parameters to set.
Are you one of them?

SilverGlow said:

I guess you've never shot a fast paced wedding, sports, fast changing light scenes................you over simplify profoundly! And yet there are thousands, no millions of pros world wide that use those "useless gimmicks" features and would prove you wrong.

Click to expand...

I shoot an average of two weddings (about 800 - 1,000 pix) a month, and I never even so much as glance at my in-camera light meter or LCD, nor do I use anything but M mode, one shot AF with the center point only, and the AF command moved to the AE lock button. I get the thing as close to an old F1 as is possible, because anything else leads to worse results. I learned on fully manual film cameras, and there is absolutely no difference in working methods when using digital and/or electronic cameras. I used to shoot sports four to five games a week on average. Again, same settings, a bit more AF for action shots (single point often moved off center, and sometimes AI servo mode). However, the best of the best sports shots are not even action shots. They are simply feature, news, or fine art shots. You have to shoot some action at every sporting event, but 80% of the time you spend shooting other things, which you can do perfectly well without any fancy features, if you know what the #@$& you are doing. No auto point selection, no TTL metering, not AI servo, no nothing. Knowing what the #@$& you are doing goes a long way. If you do, you will find that automatic features just give you worse results.

Where did I learn that shooting this way was the way that leads to the best results? From PROS; working, experienced, news and sports journalists, who had to be technically perfect, because they were in a rush and using film. Real PROS, not just pros. There are "pros", and then there are "PROS". Pros, meaning those who simply make money with photography, use the gimmicks to carry them through. PROS, meaning those who really know what the #@$& they are doing with photography, AND make money at it, do not. It is the difference between a local newspaper hack, who just gets his/her shots good enough to make a living, and an SI staffer, who is a monster artist and technician. They use whatever features they want to use, but rely on nothing, need nothing from their cameras but for the cameras to simply do what they tell the cameras to do. You will find far more pros than PROS. Don't let what the pros do make an impression on you. Just because they make money does mean mean that they know what they are doing on a technical level.

All these features were invented to open high-quality photography to more people, people not as skilled as others. Ask any photo editor who used to work with film and manual cameras, and they will let you know in no uncertain terms that the quality of photographers has gone down as the number of automatic features on cameras has gone up. They will tell you the following: That all the features have done is to make it easier to get passable results from someone who doesn't really know what they are doing. If you need all this stuff to get what you need, then use it...but don't tell us that we need it just because you do.

2F/2F said:

Just because they make money does mean mean that they know what they are doing on a technical level.

Click to expand...

That doesnt just apply to photographers. One time I was at Wal-Mart buying some oil and an oil filter for my car. While I was looking for my oil filter, I overheard a man fussing at one of the wal-mart mechanics. I found my filter, but kept "looking" for other stuff just to overhear the argument. The man came in for a tire rotation. When he got home, he noticed that his tired had been taken off and put back in the same spot. I'm not quite sure how you attempt to rotate tires but end up putting them back where you took them off. I'm not a mechanic, but I know how to rotate tires and change oil

guess that mechanic was sick during tire rotation day at the Wal-Mart Mechanical College

Greg Davis said:

I've had that happen. Somehow we trust these young kids to drive and vote.

Click to expand...

I know the feeling. I live just outside of Decatur, Alabama, and none of these people know how to drive.... or vote for that matter

Shoot film and vote Libertarian!

I must be an exception. I'm 20 and shoot all of art photography with film. The other work has to be digital.
Speaking of features though, I find it funny when people in my camera club complain about just having digital point and shoots and not being able to compete. Almost every camera I use is simpler than any of theirs. For me, the digital point and shoots are far too difficult to use.

The simpler the camera the easier it becomes to focus on composition.

????

It seems that a thread about "I don't use this feature, so it's useless" has changed to "I'm so good I don't need any features" thread.

I think there is a subtlety in the OP's wording that has been lost in the evolution of this thread;

overated has now morphed into useless, and that is not the intent of the discussion. Overated could have given us an insight into the marketing of cameras and the motivations of manufacturers and their PR firms, especially after they transitioned from being photographic technicians and engineers to run-of-the-mill MBA and bean counter run conglomerates. The value of features is now more about what seems like a good idea (but usually of minor benefi) but it is then transformed into the next 'must have' by overating it with advertising. viz. face detection.....

An so a bit of history about the evolution of electronic AE that became a 'must have' when I suspect it was really about cutting production costs - microchips and electromagnets are cheaper in volume production than gear trains and spprings...

CRM-114 said:

...I suspect it was really about cutting production costs - microchips and electromagnets are cheaper in volume production than gear trains and spprings...

Click to expand...

I would take that further and say it's about developing economies of scale such that you can produce and sell more product, THEREBY making things cheaper.

I could make and sell "wooden widgets" in the workshop in my basement. Properly done I could turn a profit without much outlay in the way of tools or materials. I could build a "wooden widget factory" if I had ten million dollars but that is too expensive. Certainly, building an assembly line for wooden widgets is far more costly than making them by hand but, if I did, I could make thousands of them every day instead of the dozen or so that I could build by hand. Overall costs go up but cost per unit goes down. Economies of scale allow me to do that.

In order to make economies of scale pay off I need to be able to sell a million wooden widgets per year. In order to sell a million wooden widgets I will need to market them. And, to market them, I need hype.

The problem we have is that, in so doing, we create a culture which values consumerism over the value of the individual or his work.

A well done photograph preserved in a photo album is something which will last for generations but only a relative few people are able to produce them. Economies of scale to the public, at large, are not good. But, by promoting digital photos which virtually anybody can make, economies of scale are increased. That is what drives business.

Unfortunately, this means that the value of any individual photograph is likely to decrease.... Until 100 years in the future when hard drives start crashing and people lose all their family photos. Then traditional photos will increase in value again

... At least a guy can hope... Right?

2F/2F said:

I shoot an average of two weddings (about 800 - 1,000 pix) a month, and I never even so much as glance at my in-camera light meter or LCD, nor do I use anything but M mode,

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can call yourself a pro if you don't have a camera that can recognise smiley faces, like mine does.

If my Oly 35RC had face recognition technology it wouldn't be going on eBay next week, I can tell you.

alexmacphee said:

I don't know how you can call yourself a pro if you don't have a camera that can recognise smiley faces, like mine does.

If my Oly 35RC had face recognition technology it wouldn't be going on eBay next week, I can tell you.

Click to expand...

Where did I call myself a pro? I make some "gear money" on the side by shooting on weekends, but I don't consider myself a pro. It used to be my day job (products, all digital), but that company could no longer afford to pay a photographer 40 hours per week, so I had to look for something else!

No matter what gimmicks and features are added to in-camera light meters, they are still, and always will be, in-camera reflected meters that base their readings on composition, so will never be ideal. If you can take your time and use tonal placement with them, you can get ideal exposures, but with auto operation, almost never ideal.

2F/2F said:

Where did I call myself a pro? I make some "gear money" on the side by shooting on weekends, but I don't consider myself a pro.

Click to expand...

Perhaps my irony was too subtle when alluding to face recognition technology as another example of an over-rated feature. (My Oly 35RC does have face recognition technology -- it's called me.)

It was tongue in cheek mode...

Sorry. I looked at your cheek in your headshot, and saw no tongue!

David A. Goldfarb said:

Autofocus.

Program mode.

High frame rates (except in very few specialized situations).

Click to expand...

I did a test once with three age groups (20, 40, 60) and 6 photographers in each group. I gave them a USAF 1951 test target and asked them to focus manually and with autofocus, 3 times each, using a Nikon D700 and a 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. The result:

1. the youngest age group had the smallest average manual-focus error
2. the oldest group's average manual-focus error did not exceed depth of field
3. no age group was able to consistently beat the autofocus
4. as with manual focus, the youngest group had better auto-focus results

My conclusion, I wish my old Hasselblad had autofocus.

Anything electronic, except autofocus is overrated in MF or larger cameras, but I like to have a build-in lightmeter in 35mm cameras.

2F/2F said:

Sorry. I looked at your cheek in your headshot, and saw no tongue!

Click to expand...

Aye, well, that only shows the cheeks on my face!

RalphLambrecht said:

I gave them a USAF 1951 test target and asked them to focus manually and with autofocus, 3 times each, using a Nikon D700 and a 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens.

Click to expand...

What kind of focussing screen was fitted to the D700?

RalphLambrecht said:

I did a test once with three age groups (20, 40, 60) and 6 photographers in each group. I gave them a USAF 1951 test target and asked them to focus manually and with autofocus, 3 times each, using a Nikon D700 and a 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. The result:

1. the youngest age group had the smallest average manual-focus error
2. the oldest group's average manual-focus error did not exceed depth of field
3. no age group was able to consistently beat the autofocus
4. as with manual focus, the youngest group had better auto-focus results

My conclusion, I wish my old Hasselblad had autofocus.

Click to expand...

First, it is very easy for an autofocus system to pick the right thing on which to focus if it is a flat test target. Then, automatic point selection (in other words artificial intelligence) is the gripe, not simply the motorized focusing of a lens or or inaccuracy once the proper point of focus is selected. The latter two items are good features to have at ones disposal. Artificial intelligence is just that, however.

alexmacphee said:

What kind of focussing screen was fitted to the D700?

Click to expand...

Like all standard AF screens, one that only shows the D of F at f/2.8, even if you have a faster lens mounted.

alexmacphee said:

What kind of focussing screen was fitted to the D700?

Click to expand...

The one it comes with. I didn't even know that you can change them.