Darin I must admit I have two SLR s with programme mode one a Canon A1 that I have had for almost twenty years, the other a Canon T90 about two years, and I have never used programme on either.
Darin I must admit I have two SLR s with programme mode one a Canon A1 that I have had for almost twenty years, the other a Canon T90 about two years, and I have never used programme on either.I dont understand why people dont like program mode but are ok with priority auto-exposure.
There are times when I want to specify a shutter speed or aperture, but other times when I just want a good middle ground, with some depth of field and a fast enough shutter speed to use handheld.
Darin I must admit I have two SLR s with programme mode, one a Canon A1 that I have had for almost twenty years, the other a Canon T90 about two years, and I have never used programme on either.I dont understand why people dont like program mode but are ok with priority auto-exposure.
There are times when I want to specify a shutter speed or aperture, but other times when I just want a good middle ground, with some depth of field and a fast enough shutter speed to use handheld.
+1 There are many, Soft-boxes, Sto-Fen diffusers, and bounce devices made by Lumiquest, Lastolite, and the Garry Fong Light-sphere, I use these devices regularly and find them effective.Michel:
Not true (L bracket mounted Olympus T-32, bounced off the ceiling, with a catch-light card):
No, no, no!
You apparently don't get the point: most features are superfluous, no matter how good or bad you are.
That, because of the very small number of technical parameters that really are involved, and because of the simplicity of the decisions we have to make about how to use these very few parameters.
Those millions of devilishly convoluted auto-modes may suggest to the novice that using a camera is so hellishly complicated that even a 400 page manual can only cover the very basic basics, yes.
But it quite simply is not so.
A lot of features started out, not as unmissable tools, but as conveniences.
They have grown out of proportion, have become a let's-overwhelm-the-ignorant-into-spending-too-much-money marketing thing.
Some of these features still are convenient. But most are way too complicated to be that, unless you are willing to surrender control to the computer 100%, without having a clue of what is going on or what it will be doing and why.
But photographers don't need to be just someone who came along for the ride. Photography really is that darned simple that noone (note: noone) needs all that stuff that is filling multiple thick tomes that are still called User Manuals, which properly would be called "incomprehensible sacred texts designed to baffle the initiate, keeping him as clueless after reading all 2,586 pages as he was before", let alone cameras that have all those thingies these pages are supposed to guide us though.
But what do you expect from camera makers? That they say "here's a camera and lens that allow you to set shutterspeed, aperture and focus, just like all the ones made by my competitors"?
If you want to rewrite the thread's premise, it should perhaps read something like "which of the many useless features do you use? Sometimes? Accidentally?"
For some reason, this makes me think of that old joke about the Irish video recorder, which records programmes you don't want to watch, and plays them back when you're out.if the technology continues to develop at the same pace to de-skill the process , the operator will be the most superfluous feature of the camera
But you carried out the test on a focussing screen /system which is optimised for AF, not manual focus. BIG difference...
Rol_Lei Nut;990433...I'm sure that in a similar test said:Is this based on a test or just an opinion?
For some reason, this makes me think of that old joke about the Irish video recorder, which records programmes you don't want to watch, and plays them back when you're out.
How big?
Is this based on a test or just an opinion?
Test/opinion is hard to quantify (though there is some experience involved)...
But IMHO (Opinion) it is a fact!
But you carried out the test on a focussing screen /system which is optimised for AF, not manual focus. BIG difference!
I'm sure that in a similar test, my Leicaflex SL would perform far better in manual mode than in AF.... ;-)
On what premise is it suggested that critical manual focus is not optimised on modern AF-camera screens?
I've been thinking about the original question, and if the technology continues to develop at the same pace to de-skill the process , the operator will be the most superfluous feature of the camera.
...Trying to manually focus with an AF-optimised screen is an excercise in masochism...
What is an AF-optimized screen? I used a clear screen for the test with the D700. They have clear screens for the (manual) Hasselblad!
I still think the test was valuable and the conclusion were valid.
...As I said before, try a really good MF focusing system, then you might understand what I'm talking about.
Which one can you recommend? I've quite a few laying around here.
I don't know that they call them "AF-optimized," but I think the A screens are designed to be brighter than the S screens, and that seems to involve a tradeoff in accuracy.
O.k., I'll bite...
Leicaflex SL is probably the benchmark for a good MF focusing system.
Other Leicaflexes and Leica Rs are good, but not the same.
Nikon H screens give an idea of what I'm talking about (with many caveats).
I'd guess Canon has something similar.
Rolleiflex SL35-E, SL2000F & 3003 have good screen/systems.
Olympus OM 1-2 ect. should be good too (little personal experience there).
Then you might have one or more of those systems and still not be able to tell the difference... caveat emptor!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?