Most over rated feature

[perkeleellinen]

I changed the focusing screen back when I had a DSLR as trying to focus with a blank screen was really hard. There's a company that makes screens with the traditional centre spot focusing aids you're used to on film SLRs. Fiddly job to change it.

 

[alexmacphee]

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.

My DSLR's a bit long in the tooth now, being a Canon 10D. Its screen has no human-orientated focussing aids like microprisms or split image. It's a camera designed for autofocussing, not manual focussing, so a test of AF vs MF capabilities is going to be biassed in favour of AF. When I mount, say, a Planar 50mm lens via the adapter, I have to look very closely in order to focus, and it's not as easy as on my film SLRs. My Contax RTS and RX, on the other hand, offer manual focussing aids so effective that you can almost hear a 'pop' as the image comes into focus.

I don't know the D700, which is why I ask about the focussing screen, but my first reaction on seeing the results Ralph describes is to wonder whether they're a consequence of a real accuracy of AF over manual, or the result of a systematic bias.

 

[Q.G.]

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.

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?"

 

[Rick A]

Sounds to me that all these "bells and whistles" is an attemt to get people to "just push the button, and we'll do the rest". I want more control over what I'm doing. Then I can look at the finished product and tell everyone "I made this" , good or bad its mine. the camera didn't contribute anything except house the film, and allow me to compose, decide how much light, and capture a fleeting moment. I dont want a machine deciding anything for me. I'll be the judge of where optimum point of focus is, how much I want in focus. I suppose that is why my OM-4 still hasn't been to the repair shop since jamming--eight years ago. I prefer to shoot my Duaflex II, Yashica D, and ancient Calumet 4x5. I only have use of a digiblah to post images of items to sell on line, and I sell on line only because there isn't enough market locally to pass gear along.
far too many people fall prey to gimicks and marketing hyperbole, "gotta have the latest and greatest" needed or (most often) not. Built in metering in a camera is aconvenience, far from fool proof, and totally unnecessary.
There are so many other conveniences on the market that it boggles the mind, rendering it unable to "see" because one is to busy fidgiting with the machinery rather than focusing on what should be simple and second nature. Look around yourself, envision what it will be on paper, and see it through the viewfinder.
I challenge each and every one here to put away ALL gizmos and gadgets, and find a plain jane simple box, folder, view, field, or whatever type of maybe set the aperture, maybe set the shutter speed, look through the finder and shoot a photograph. Judge the light for yourself (no light meter)and step out on faith that you are capable of producing a quality photo without help. Then, take a step back, and tell everyone, "I did this".
Pardon my rant, its just the musings of an old man.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...I don't know the D700, which is why I ask about the focussing screen, but my first reaction on seeing the results Ralph describes is to wonder whether they're a consequence of a real accuracy of AF over manual, or the result of a systematic bias.

The focusing screen of the D700 is a plain screen. There are no optical focusing aids, micro-prism, split-image or the like. You could consider the test to be a comparison between plain manual focus and autofocus. Adding a focusing aid could change the results, and I'm sure autofocus on one camera is not like autofocus on another camera either.

The test, like all tests, has its limitations, but the results are an indication that autofocus is a serious and useful option for modern cameras.

By the way, another limitation of the test was that an autofocus lens was used for manual focusing and autofocus. Manual lenses are typically better with manual focusing than autofocus lenses, but we wanted to use a lens of identical performance, so switching lenses was not an option. Instead, we used a fairly long focal length to minimize the differences.

 

[keithwms]

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.

I have a D700 and I almost always focus it manually, except when light is too low. But I do use the focus confirmation quite a lot, and I also have a tendency to scale focus before anything else.

There are plenty of situations when I do "beat" the AF, no question about it. Particularly when I use my manual focus lenses

Anyway, I can already tell that I will become more friendly with AF as my eyes age.

 

[Prest_400]

I believe it hasn't been mentioned. Anyone serious would forget from the beginning to use this feature, but consumers seem like they did use it quite a lot.

(Quartz) data imprinting. It leaves "a beautiful orange/red date" in the corner of your picture.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I use auto focus on my Nikons by selecting the focus spot in the viewfinder to use and placing that on what I want in focus. I am not just letting the camera pick out the object to focus on. Therefore I can pick out the subject of interest that is surrounded by closer and/or farther objects that I do not want the emphasis on. I can see an objection arising from having the wrong object in focus, but this is not rocket science nor is it an insurmountable problem.

Yes, there are times when there is not enough contrast for the auto focus to converge on, but then I switch to manual focus.

In short, the auto focus is faster and focuses sharper than I can.

The Hasselblads do not have auto focus and in spite of the fears of those that damn auto focus, I find that I am still able to focus manually. The auto focus feature on my two Nikons has not destroyed by ability to focus.

If you do not want the auto focus feature either turn it off or sell your offending camera to someone who will appreciate it and buy a manual focus camera. That would then mean you will have nothing to bitch about.

Steve

 

[alexmacphee]

The test, like all tests, has its limitations, but the results are an indication that autofocus is a serious and useful option for modern cameras.

Having invested a fair bit in an autofocus system recently, because there are situations where I now rely on it, I wouldn't be putting AF anywhere near the top of my over-rated features list. It does read, though, like the test as conducted shows no more than that the autofocus in an autofocus camera works better when it's switched on. Notionally, it seems little different from saying that a rangefinder camera works better when the rangefinder window is used than when it's not. If the AF on the D700 didn't work better than manual focussing with no MF aids, I figure you'd be asking for your money back.

Manual lenses are typically better with manual focusing than autofocus lenses

I didn't do any structured and methodical tests to the extent that you've described, but I did try manual and auto focussing on my Contax NX, so my conclusions are anecdotal rather than scientific. It's not the fastest AF around, but it's effective and reliable. The N series lens allows manual focussing without the need for an AF/MF switch, and focussing manually on the NX is adequate for purpose, though my feeling is that a series of tests in the format you described for the D700 would return similar results.

However, put the same lens on my N1 (the big brother of the NX) and it's a different story. The N1 has the same autofocus system, but also has a horizontal split image manual focussing circle in the centre, in classical style. The difference is telling. Manual focussing is an order of magnitude easier on the N1 than on the NX. At low light levels, manual focussing on the N1 is a piece of cake, and in marked contrast to using the NX in the same conditions. This suggests that autofocus is the clear winner when it's the only runner in the field.

 

[fschifano]

I believe it hasn't been mentioned. Anyone serious would forget from the beginning to use this feature, but consumers seem like they did use it quite a lot.

(Quartz) data imprinting. It leaves "a beautiful orange/red date" in the corner of your picture.

You're right, of course. The reality is that the majority of the cameras with this feature have it turned on as the default setting. People who used to use these cameras never bothered to figure out how to turn it off. So I don't know if they really liked it or just figured that it was too complicated to turn off. You know, the people who don't RTFM.

 

[Prest_400]

You're right, of course. The reality is that the majority of the cameras with this feature have it turned on as the default setting. People who used to use these cameras never bothered to figure out how to turn it off. So I don't know if they really liked it or just figured that it was too complicated to turn off. You know, the people who don't RTFM.

Indeed, I forgot about that. Many people don't bother with the manual, "who needs instructions anyways". Perhaps in some cameras not reading it is fine, like most mechanical SLRs/RF because of the simplicity.
And then we've got people who ask how shutter speed is changed in a (d)SLR... (not here, but seen this in another website).

Surprisingly, some people still use the data engraving on digi P&S. I bet they ignored the hidden info (EXIF).

I must confess, at times I enjoy going through manuals

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Alright, let's talk about useless accessories if we're done with features!

My number 1: most L-brackets and/or flash diffusing thingies. While in theory good things, in practice the difference is slight. Eventually you realize that if you really want soft flash light, you're going to setup softboxes and flash heads.

The only real benefit is the lack of red eyes. But you'll never get soft light with on-camera flash as your primary source of lighting.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

My number-one useless accessory: shoulder straps

I've taken them all off, nothing but a hassle.

 

[Existing Light]

I used to think neckstraps were too much of a hassle, so I took took my neckstrap off my Canon. Then I got a PEntax K1000 and realized that neckstraps were very useful if I was carrying around two cameras, so now I have a Canon EOS Digital strap on my K2 (Ironic, isnt it? ), and some third party neckstrap that I found on fleabay for my pentax


for me, the most overrated acessory is any type of on camera flash. I've never gotten nice results with on camera flash (red eye and ugly shadows and dark backgrounds galore), so I only use it when I have to, which is mostly family vacation snapshots. I'll use off camera flash whenever possible

 

[Vilk]

batteries

 

[BobD]

bokeh

 

[darinwc]

Alright, let's talk about useless accessories if we're done with features!

My number 1: most L-brackets and/or flash diffusing thingies. While in theory good things, in practice the difference is slight. Eventually you realize that if you really want soft flash light, you're going to setup softboxes and flash heads.

The only real benefit is the lack of red eyes. But you'll never get soft light with on-camera flash as your primary source of lighting.

Most of the flash diffusers are tiny.. about the same size as the flash head.. which it silly because the flash head itself is a diffuser! I've been pondering getting a diffuser thats about 12inch x 12inch, but I dont know if it will make much of a difference.

Regarding L-brackets.. they have their place. They move the flash off to the side and give you an added grip to accomidate the weight. I especially like them on a monopod.

What I really think is a waste is the handles that mount underneath the camera! -um, not the L bracket but the pistol-grip things with a tripod socket on top.

 

[alexmacphee]

It's quite hard to think of anything praiseworthy to say about camera bags with 'Nikon' in big letters on the side (or any other big marque). It's a bit like writing 'steal me' in luminous paint.

 

[Q.G.]

Great for stuff you want to get rid of.

 

[alexmacphee]

Great for stuff you want to get rid of.

Can't find one big enough to take the mother-in-law.

 

[lxdude]

^^^^

 

[MattKing]

The only real benefit is the lack of red eyes. But you'll never get soft light with on-camera flash as your primary source of lighting.

Michel:

Not true (L bracket mounted Olympus T-32, bounced off the ceiling, with a catch-light card):

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Michel:

Not true (L bracket mounted Olympus T-32, bounced off the ceiling, with a catch-light card):

The beer puts 'em right to sleep, doesn't it?

Seriously, though--Stroboframe Pro-RL, set as high as it goes, 12x16" softbox or similar sized octabox, angled a little bit downward, subject 6 feet away or closer, and it's not bad as on-camera butterfly lighting.

 

[lxdude]

The beer puts 'em right to sleep, doesn't it?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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.

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.... ;-)