Most over rated feature

[alexmacphee]

C'mon people, how often are you going to shoot a 24mm at f1.4?

You can get an f/1.4 24mm? Where do you get those? I want one!

I rarely use very fast lenses. I'm a Zeiss user, I can't afford it for one thing ; but there are times when, even though I'm not intending to shoot at full bore, an extra stop would have helped focussing. Less of a problem, it's true, with wides like the 24.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

You can get an f/1.4 24mm? Where do you get those? I want one!

I rarely use very fast lenses. I'm a Zeiss user, I can't afford it for one thing ; but there are times when, even though I'm not intending to shoot at full bore, an extra stop would have helped focussing. Less of a problem, it's true, with wides like the 24.

Leica (fairly) recently came out with one.
Also a 21mm f/1.4...

Though those *really* are status symbols!

Actually, my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 are 2 of my very favorite lenses for their look/signature.
Not that I use them much at f/1.4 (or use them that much anyway as they're big & heavy), but they do give a nicer and more 3-D looking image than their f/2.8 brothers.
Not much of a status symbol either, as I got them used for less than most people will pay for a zoom.

 

[removed-user-1]

You can get an f/1.4 24mm? Where do you get those? I want one!

I shoot enough concerts in poorly lit clubs and other low-light events, hand held, that I need fast lenses both for focusing and exposure. At the current prices, I will likely never own a Nikon 24mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4, but I'd sure like to get the 24mm f/2 and 85mm f/2. The 55mm f/1.2 and 105mm f/2.5 I'm using at the moment were free, on long-term loan to me from my Dad. The 55mm is not particularly sharp wide open but it will give me a high enough shutter speed to capture a punk band performing in a semi-musical frenzy. I'd much rather use these lenses than an f/3.5-4.5 zoom.

 

[benjiboy]

AF has already been beat to death, so let me mention my other pet peeve: Fast Lenses. Everyone thinks they just HAVE to have the fastest version of any given lens. Why? C'mon people, how often are you going to shoot a 24mm at f1.4? :rolleyes:

That's true Greg, Kodak did a survey several years ago and found that the majority of pictures are shot at f8 and smaller apertures, and another factor is in my experience quite often aperture for aperture the slower versions when compared are sharper because the design hasn't been "stretched" to make it faster, many beginners think that faster lenses are "Better", but it's by no means the case

 

[Pumal]

+1

 

[SilverGlow]

That's true Greg, Kodak did a survey several years ago and found that the majority of pictures are shot at f8 and smaller apertures, and another factor is in my experience quite often aperture for aperture the slower versions when compared are sharper because the design hasn't been "stretched" to make it faster, many beginners think that faster lenses are "Better", but it's by no means the case

What skews that Kodak survey is that it includes mostly snappy grandma/uncle Joe types, so therefore it is not to be trusted. Also what skews that study is the fact that most lenses are slow.

Generally speaking you are wrong, because must fast glass is in fact better. Primes will always murder zooms, and slower lenses, with few exceptions.

I have several F/1.4 and a few F1.2 primes and they all are better then any zooms in regard to sharpness, color rendition, anti-glare, and of course speed.

Fast glass means better, faster, more accurate AF, and even better MF because the view finder is brighter for middle-aged and older eyes. Fast means more DOF possabilities too.

Those that poo-poo fast glass just don't understand photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What skews that Kodak survey is that it includes mostly snappy grandma/uncle Joe types, so therefore it is not to be trusted. Also what skews that study is the fact that most lenses are slow.

Generally speaking you are wrong, because must fast glass is in fact better. Primes will always murder zooms, and slower lenses, with few exceptions.

I have several F/1.4 and a few F1.2 primes and they all are better then any zooms in regard to sharpness, color rendition, anti-glare, and of course speed.

Fast glass means better, faster, more accurate AF, and even better MF because the view finder is brighter for middle-aged and older eyes. Fast means more DOF possabilities too.

Those that poo-poo fast glass just don't understand photography.

Well said!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

VR and IS are over-rated at a 'consumer' level (pros can make astute judgements as to its validity to suit their application); it also adds weight, increases power consumption and the complexity of optics. I'm waiting for the day they put VR or IS in a 17mm fisheye and trumpet that loudly. Bleugh—! Look, back in my uni days we hand-held 300mm and 400mm primes on 100 or 200iso film, or used a tripod for long exposures (IIRC, multi-exposures). Scant few of us two decades on pay any lip service to IS (in terms of being Canon users).

Yes, I agree with one-point focusing; that's my standard procedure when using TS-E lenses and the AEL button is used to start metering/AF-"confirmation" (but not fire the shutter, which is done by remote control) — the shutter button is effectively bypassed for this critical work; one of the nice custom function of the EOS 1N (and others). All focus is manual and critical (magnified) and the flashing 'in focus' signal is definitely not gospel — definitely not with TS-E and any movement applied.

I thought Canon's T90 had a double exposure prevention mode? The mention of it on the A1 prompted this query.

I'm experimenting with multi-exposures now — not with the 1N, but on pinhole! The joys of film...

 

[SilverGlow]

VR and IS are over-rated at a 'consumer' level (pros can make astute judgements as to its validity to suit their application); it also adds weight, increases power consumption and the complexity of optics. I'm waiting for the day they put VR or IS in a 17mm fisheye and trumpet that loudly. Bleugh—! Look, back in my uni days we hand-held 300mm and 400mm primes on 100 or 200iso film, or used a tripod for long exposures (IIRC, multi-exposures). Scant few of us two decades on pay any lip service to IS (in terms of being Canon users).

Yes, I agree with one-point focusing; that's my standard procedure when using TS-E lenses and the AEL button is used to start metering/AF-"confirmation" (but not fire the shutter, which is done by remote control) — the shutter button is effectively bypassed for this critical work; one of the nice custom function of the EOS 1N (and others). All focus is manual and critical (magnified) and the flashing 'in focus' signal is definitely not gospel — definitely not with TS-E and any movement applied.

I thought Canon's T90 had a double exposure prevention mode? The mention of it on the A1 prompted this query.

I'm experimenting with multi-exposures now — not with the 1N, but on pinhole! The joys of film...

VR and IS only for pros? That is ridiculous in the most extreme way. Very elitist and irrational, to be sure. Both pros and amateurs can truly benefit from IS & VR....what is there to hate about 2-4 stops of steadiness? And the extra weight and power usage is negligible worse case.

One Point Focusing? You don't want to take advantage of the awesome 45 Canon and 51 Nikon focus points that one can manually pick and choose?

One FP usage means a heck of a lot of Lock-Focus-Recomposing. Sloopy camera workflow, to be sure. This bad habit means inaccurate auto focus, AND inaccurate metering too. If you want to do this while shooting F8 or down from there AND far from your subject/s, then the ill effects may not haunt your pictures. But for anything close and fast in aperture, Lock-Focus-recompose is a huge mistake.

Best practices for modern SLR camera workflow means utilizing the 45 or 51 or more focus points judiciously and as required, without the Recomposing.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Best practices for modern SLR camera workflow means utilizing the 45 or 51 or more focus points judiciously and as required, without the Recomposing.

Sometimes I wonder how I ever manged to take a photograph without those "awesome" 45 or 51 focus points.... :confused:

 

[Alex1994]

Zoom is a fairly overrated feature, what's wrong with walking closer/further away? How many people have taken worthwhile photos with their 'superzoom' at the longest focal length?

 

[Craig Swensson]

wow, 24 pages of stuff we don`t like
Self timer in here anywhere? whats that about anyway.
regards
CW

 

[2F/2F]

One FP usage means a heck of a lot of Lock-Focus-Recomposing. Sloopy camera workflow, to be sure. This bad habit means inaccurate auto focus, AND inaccurate metering too. If you want to do this while shooting F8 or down from there AND far from your subject/s, then the ill effects may not haunt your pictures. But for anything close and fast in aperture, Lock-Focus-recompose is a huge mistake.

Best practices for modern SLR camera workflow means utilizing the 45 or 51 or more focus points judiciously and as required, without the Recomposing.

It is far more quick and simple to focus with one dot all the time than it is to pick a new focusing point for each picture.

Sloppy camera workflow??? As opposed to pressing the button and twirling the dials to pick the point that is closest to what you want to focus on, which may not even be right over what you want to focus on anyhow? Focus/compose is way neater, faster, and more efficient. I find changing points to cause "sloppy camera workflow," and to completely ruin the element of timing, which is often EVERYTHING with small format shooting.

Bad habit??? No. It is a very good habit; a habit that saves time and prevents distraction.

Inaccurate focus!!!??? I've never had it, at any distance and any aperture. Then again, I do actually LOOK at the screen to see what is in focus even when using auto focus, so maybe I am biased...

Inaccurate metering??? How is this? You meter whatever you want in either case. Besides, do you think that what an in-camera reflected meter tells you the best exposure in the first place? I never use the things anyhow. Wish they were not even there. Most overrated feature IMO, as I opined early in the thread.

If ECF actually worked flawlessly, I'd not focus with one point and then compose...but it does not. Automatic point selection is crap, for the birds. (I hope we can at least agree on this point.) In a perfect, controlled, staged world, manual point selection is theoretically best, but far from it in most small format practice. One who doesn't do that much shooting of classically-small-format-suited subjects (things in motion, fleeting things, candid things, things that cannot be replicated, most importantly) might think that it is best simply due to the fact that it is not making them miss their shots, and because of addiction to features and to the instruction manual...but actually implementing manual point election in 90% of my real-world small format shooting situations takes too long, and would not give better results even if it didn't take too long. IME, it only makes sense on a tripod, in which case I likely wouldn't have any need to use automatic focus. For any pic with which I am going to bother to fiddle that much, I am generally just going to pull out a medium format camera anyhow. One shot, one point, AF moved to AE lock button, focus/compose takes only a second or less. Choosing the point over what I want to focus on (if there is such a thing in that particular picture) takes longer, and all the fiddling messes up my composition anyhow, so I still need to recompose.

 

[Sirius Glass]

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Ugh—! That must surely be the numero-uno of over-rated features: 45 or 51 or more focus points (Hmm, any time now a camera will come out with 209+ focus points and promise Heaven on earth). Ye Gods. Makes me want to love a Hasselblad (yes Sirius, you heard right), joyously free of such superfluous, centralised aids and, oh yes of course, composition is not necessarily centralised in the viewfinder, nor should it be. And thus when it isn't, you will be focus-lock-recomposing. Ah well...

 

[Sirius Glass]

... Ye Gods. Makes me want to love a Hasselblad (yes Sirius, you heard right), joyously free of such superfluous, centralised aids and, oh yes of course, composition is not necessarily centralised in the viewfinder, nor should it be. And thus when it isn't, you will be focus-lock-recomposing. Ah well...

Should I take you siriusly about the love for a Hasselblad!

Sirius Glass

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Wait and see.
I'm tired of "modern" technology and the technophiles that trumpet it. An old Hassy is bereft of all this floss and shimmer and loses nothing because of it. A Pinhole in 6x6 and a all-seeing Sekonic have taught me how to really have fun with no automation (nor lenses!) to impinge; now it's rubbing off to something more interesting. I saw row upon row of used Hassies in my pro-dealer (I think about 18 of them). I told the guy that I thought people never offload their Hassies. "They've gone digital", sayeth he, matter-of-factly. That is a reason to dump a Hassy!?

 

[telyt]

Best practices for modern SLR camera workflow means utilizing the 45 or 51 or more focus points judiciously and as required, without the Recomposing.

Best practice is using the entire viewscreen to focus. I don't use AF, ever. I use a plain matte viewscreen in a camera designed for manual focus so my composition isn't dictated by focus points.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I'm just waiting for someone to say "Luddite!" or "Manual focus is dead!!"... :rolleyes:

 

[benjiboy]

Not me, I take better pictures without the technology, I switch it off because I find it a lot more satisfying when I have produced the picture not the machine .

 

[Lanline]

I had dumped all my film cameras by 2000. In 2007 a friend suggested I shoot a roll again. I scoffed at him and proclaimed film as dead. Then fate stepped in and I bought a Konica TC with 3 Hexanon lenses for $49. That was the beginning to my return to film. In the years that followed I've assembled several dream systems for virtually nothing. The digital started sitting around more and more. Thursday, I shot with my Sony A-100 and found it was a bad decision not to shoot film that day... great subject, mediocre results. I sold off the digital Friday. I used the cash from that to buy another Rollei.

I simply do better with film. I see light better when I shoot film. Digital does have a place, but I don't have the need for it or the expense related to it.

 

[Pumal]

Not me either. I like a fully mechanical camera best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is nothing like being out photographing with older camera equipment on a cold day in Winter and not have to worry about batteries and memory cards!

Steve

 

[fschifano]

I agree with David, autofocus is overrated. I have a little digital bridge camera and it's autofocus kinda bothers me! I geuss I'm just an oddball.

Jeff

Yeah, bit with that little bridge camera you don't have any option. It's either auto focus hokus pokus or no focus .

 

[removed account4]

i had to photograph missiles being fired off the side of a boat when i worked for a newspaper ..
i HATE autofocus, and over-rided the whole auto mechanism on the camera ...
it was worth it ... i won't say what kind of camera it was .. but it worked ( and works ) well
in every other respect ...