Most over rated feature

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[benjiboy]

Michel:

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

+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 Hardy-Vallée]

Bounce will of course work, but I've tried a few different gizmos for when you can't bounce, and didn't find them that effective.

 

[benjiboy]

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 .

 

[Q.G.]

I think it is his money.
At least, that's what the gizmo makers have him believe. So everytime the photographers has some again, they put another must-have mongrel on the market to help him get rid of that superfluous stuff.

 

[Nikon Collector]

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?"

go back and read the post and watch the ego's expand

 

[alexmacphee]

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

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

But you carried out the test on a focussing screen /system which is optimised for AF, not manual focus. BIG difference...

How big?

Is this based on a test or just an opinion?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

Diversity Alert!
In the Irish version of the joke, it's an English video recorder.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Test/opinion is hard to quantify (though there is some experience involved)...

But IMHO (Opinion) it is a fact!

Then let's make sure, facts don't get in the way of our opinions.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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? Believe me, I have focused critically on a Canon grid matte using a magnifier and TS-E lens with swing/tilt/shift applied for 17 years now — never have found anything wanting. Be aware that most people who do not have 20/20 vision will need a magnifier for critical focus, even those who assume their focus is flawless unaided.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

An opinion and premise based on having used *lots* of cameras, of many different types and brands.

There are already huge differences between manual focus cameras. Trying to manually focus with an AF-optimised screen is an excercise in masochism.
Just because some people do it doesn't mean it's the best way...

Maybe those who think that AF screens focus well manually should try a really good MF focusing system in oder to get an idea of the difference.
(No, no magnifier needed for critical focus....)

 

[Lee L]

On what premise is it suggested that critical manual focus is not optimised on modern AF-camera screens?

Perhaps one indicator would be that Nikon sells manual focusing screens for some of their autofocus bodies.

I have used bodies from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Leica, and others over the last 40 years. There is wide variation among models and within brands in the ability to use screens for manual focus, both AF and MF models. I would never expect the Nikon 8008s, D70, or N90s (all AF cameras with stock screens) to focus manually as well as an SL or R series Leica simply because those Nikon focusing screens aren't optimized for that. The N8008s manual focus is pretty decent with the replacement center microprism manual focusing screen, but that kills spot metering.

Claiming that manual focus could be achieved optimally with the autofocus screens I've seen would be something that I'd consider specious. It's certainly not a fair or scientific test of overall AF vs MF accuracy, unless you're testing how hard it is to accurately focus manually with an AF screen.

Lee

 

[SilverGlow]

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 .

Yea, yea, those stupid very helpful features that are becoming more and more commonplace on newer cameras is so, so bad because it provides the photographer more time to compose, to fine tune the composition....right!

You obviously have it ALL backwards....the camera is just a tool and the less the photographer needs to do manual set up, the more time he can devote to the composition WHICH IS THE PRIME DIRECTIVE......

Not to anyone in particular: It's the picture, stupid! NOT fiddling with the knobs and dials! If your camera can AF the same or better then you, so what? Does that really matter if the picture was focused manually or using AF? To a photographer that is in the know, it does not matter. To the macho arrogant shooters, all this does....lots of those types here, sadly.

I once knew an old sports shooter that said that using a 10 frames/second camera to shoot football was CHEATING! I once showed him a touchdown I shot, and he loved it....until I told him that I used an 8 FPS SLR to capture it....he hated the picture after that....

I think most features are gimmicks but not all...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...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.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've owned two Canon EOS cameras of the sort that are off topic for APUG, and at least on those, I have to say that the "S" screens that are advertised as more accurate than the stock screens for manual focus are indeed more accurate for manual focus. I only use manual focus, so being able to focus on the groundglass is important to me, and I have no doubt that at least the Canon stock A screen is worthless for this purpose.

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.

Can't speak for Nikon or Hassy.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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.

There is clear and there is *clear*...
I've used "clear" screens from many different manufacturers and they are far from being equal!
Some might be better for some purposes and some for others. But equal they are not!

AF screens have no need for the user to see when something snaps into focus.
Their main goal is brightness.

Again, a good manual focus screen /system really is a work of art: Things really do snap into focus, contrasts are much higher, etc. ect...
There is no comparison with any native AF focussing screen I've ever seen.

As I said before, try a really good MF focusing system, then you might understand what I'm talking about.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...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.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Good MF focusing systems

Which one can you recommend? I've quite a few laying around here.

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!

 

[fschifano]

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.

Makes sense when you think about it. The cameras have AE and AF. Both systems need to siphon some light from the viewfinder. Now add in the fact that the ground glass is smaller than the nominal 24x36 full frame and needs more magnification at the exit pupil, further dimming the light for the operator. Oh, and lets not forget the dismally slow zoom lenses so often used with these cameras. Add it all up and without having a screen that sacrifices (arguably unnecessary) manual focus accuracy for brightness, you'd hardly have enough light to compose the image.

Seems to me that you either design an optimized solution for a manual focus system, or you design a solution for the other way around. Attempting to do both will result in compromises that may or may not be acceptable to an individual. Nikon has done it pretty well with the standard screens for the N90, F100, F4, and F5. My little bit of experience with Canon's EOS 1v indicates that they've done a good job with it too. The lesser bodies from Nikon and Canon aren't quite so good when used with manual focus lenses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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!

Which of these can also be used with autofocus?

 

[lxdude]

The thing about the Leicaflex SL is that it is not a ground glass screen. It's a fine microprism field with a coarser central microprism spot. So, it's quite bright. I took the statement about it being better for MF than AF as a little bit joking, too, as it long predated AF.

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I love canon, god bless but after the progrem mode I think eye control focusing is shitty!