If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On 7/27/15 11:49 AM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 7/26/2015 7:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , George Kerby
wrote:

It's called "skill": something that is not appreciated much these days,
sadly...

nonsense. there's just as much skill needed now if not more so than
there ever was in the old days because technology has opened up so many
more opportunities that were not possible before.

True


those stuck in the old school mindset don't have the skills to use the
new technology, which is why they like to bash it.


It looks to me that George is not doing any bashing. If anyone is
bashing, it's you. There is no question that the new technologies make
wildlife photography easier. But, one still need to anticipate what the
critter might do. e.g. You miss that shot of the osprey flying into his
nest. With a reasonable knowledge of osprey behavior you can anticipate
what he might do next. You see the bird flying with his catch. If its an
osprey you will wait in vain for that shot of him bringing the live fish
into his nest. If you want to shoot humming birds in the wild, you might
reasonably anticipate that species favorite plant. etc.


That line of reasoning just went "whoosh" - right over his head.

He would not know skills of which I write if it was written on his forehead.

He only sees it as "bashing" if one does not agree with his
narrow-mindedness.

On 7/26/2015 7:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

I hate to jump into this mess, but nospam is talking about focus
tracking on a moving object only. Everyone else is talking about
predictive manual focus, which isn't even related to what nospam is
talking about.

yep.

I don't understand why everyone is arguing.

because they like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Of course
manual focus can be achieved on a known moving subject with a known
path. Focus tracking deals with subjects that are unexpected, ones for
which you by definition cannot pre-focus for.

yep

If someone or something
out of the blue comes racing towards you on an erratic path, getting
that subject manually in focus is simply a matter of luck. And this
isn't some theoretical situation I'm coming up with. This sort of
thing happens all the time at an air show I usually shoot. You hear a
plane, you spin around, and you have a very short time to get the
shot. It's difficult even with AF.

air shows are a very good example.

other examples include birds in flight, children, performers on stage
and much more.

many times, there is no way to know where the action is going to be
next.

And, as I stated earlier, if you understand the species you are trying
to shoot, they may become predictible. (though not in all cases.)

--
PeterN

On 7/26/2015 7:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2015072616405786947-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Personally at air shows I don't listen for surprise targets, I acquire
the target visually. Then any aircraft making a low pass is usually
following a very predictable path, either from left to right, or right
to left, right in front of me.
With a manual focus camera, I could in days past, pan with the target
as it made its pass. Fortunately, these days I am blessed with multi-AF
points, 3D-Tracking, continuous AF, and a frame rate of 8 fps.

in other words, tracking autofocus lets you get photos you could never
have taken before.

Every photo is one that has never been taken before. Your problem is
that you are arguing a point not in dispute. Nobody has said that
tracking AF does not make taking photos easier. They are disputing your
statement implying that pictures of moving objects could not be taken
without AF.
Yet you persist in claiming that everybody but you, is arguing for the
sake of arguing.
Think about it.


--
PeterN

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure.

It can help you with that yes.

that's the whole point.

there's always the possibility that the photographer may want to
override the focus or exposure (which they obviously can), but that's
the exception. they can also bias the automatic modes for specific
situations, such as shutter priority with a fast shutter speed for
stopping motion or choosing a specific autofocus mode for subject
tracking.

good luck trying to maintain focus on a moving object without autofocus.

No luck about it skill has been used for years there's plenty of photos
of fast cars, planes bikes, trains taken with film and manual focusing.

not as many as there are with autofocus, and far more compelling ones
too.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

In photography, the goal of the amateur is better, not more.

which is exactly what autofocus and other features of modern cameras do.

in other words, you agree, yet you argue.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

The "grunt work" (metering and focusing) is a part of the actual
photo.

composition is part of the photo.

metering and focusing is not, and is something that a camera can do
better in nearly all situations.

Metering and focusing are all part of the art of composing a
photograph.

no they aren't.

composition is choosing a vantage point, choosing and/or posing the
subject, ...

... making sure you have the bits you want in focus and the bits you
don't wasn out of focus ...

which the camera can easily do.

No it can't how will it know whether yuo want to have a silhouette figure or
whether you want fill in flash. ?

it will know if you connect a flash, which can also take care of
metering *way* better than flashes of yesteryear.

what it can't do is position the subject in the frame.

yep the person taking the photo has to decide what they want on the frame.

that's the whole point.

the camera can do much of the grunt work so the person taking the photo
can concentrate on the actual photo and not worry about what can be
done by the camera.

properly lighting it, ...

... and making sure you have the correct exposure for the light level

which the camera can easily do.

no it can't as it won;t know what sort of exposure you're aiming for a sunset,
it might take a reasonable guess, but then why would you have sopt, centre
weighted, average and any other metering mode if the camera always knew what
method you wanted, they'd only be ONE setting.

scene recognition can tell if it's a sunset or a front lit portrait and
there are also overrides for specific conditions not otherwise handled.

it's not perfect but it's *quite* good.

humans aren't perfect either, which is why adjusting it later is common.

Even the most thick should realise there's differnt setting for fireworks and
sports. Are yuo really saying there's only one setting on the camera the
correct exposure setting'

whoosh.

what it can't do is arrange the lights for whatever effect is desired.

or the subject or the compesition of what style of photo you want.
Another NG I've read was talking about what happens if you use the smile
detect for taking a passport photo. The photo will be rejected that's what
will happen.

another idiotic example.

... clicking the shutter at the optimal time, etc.

a camera can't do any of that.

Mind you, camera manufacturers are trying to achieve this by giving
cameras the ability to recognise scene types. My old Nikon 801s film
camera had some considerable ability to set exposures on the basis of
automatically determined scene types, but it was by no means perfect.

nope, but it's a start.

yep next stage a camera on legs to go out and take it's own photos without
the 'photographer' leaving the pub :-)

whoosh.

there's always the possibility that the photographer may want to
override the focus or exposure (which they obviously can), but that's
the exception.

It might be an exception for you but the majority of photographs I
took with the D750 on my recent trip were deliberately under exposed.

so what? that's what exposure adjustment is for.

and that's one thing a camera can't do for itself as yet.

actually it can.

good luck trying to maintain focus on a moving object without autofocus.

Louis Klemantaski seemed to be able to manage it
http://tinyurl.com/nptnnqc

if you're going to post a link, post the actual url. do not hide it in
a url shortener. usenet s not bandwidth constrained.

putting it in a url shortener has no effect on the bandwidth.

yes it does.

in mediums such as twitter or sms, where you only have a fixed number
of characters, you have to keep the urls short.

usenet has no such limitation.

it's done to shorten long url that might wrap, and sometimes to hid what
you're clicking on.

hiding is one *major* problem with url hiding and urls that wrap makes
absolutely no difference whatsoever (unless you're using buggy
non-compliant software).

anyway, let's see him track-focus a hockey game.

Lets see a digital camera take a picure of the earth rising above the moon
then.

it has.

do you think satellites, mars probes and the pluto mission use film and
manual focus??

you really are an idiot.

I'm mbettign that peole have taken picture of hocky matches and all sorts of
sports and things long before digital camera were invented.

they did but they weren't as good as they are now because autofocus
tracks the players or whatever else.

Sure you might be able to take better pictures now, but that's not down
to the skills of the photographer but the quaility of the camera.

the capabilities of modern cameras opens up far more opportunities than
were ever possible before.

why use old technology that limits one's options? it makes no sense.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Maintaining focus means that you take a series of photos of a subject that
moves
out of the focusing distance between the shots, meaning that each photo needs
to
be re-focused for the new distance to the subject. This is what nospam
(correctly) points out is very hard with a manual focus camera.

although a series of photos is often taken, it is not required.

the photographer could wait for a specific moment without knowing
*where* the subject will be at the perfect moment while the camera
keeps the subject in focus.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

None of those photos are examples of a photographer *maintaining* focus on
a
moving subject, they are all photos of moving subjects, taken at the right
time,

That's a sign that a photographer knows what he wants and how to get it.

no it isn't.

it's a sign of working within the limitations of old technology.

fortunately, those limitations are gone.

i.e. when the subject was within the lens focusing distance. This is
usually done
with pre-focusing, and sometimes with trap focus (which is a version of pre-
focusing).

Yes that takes a bit more skill than a point and shoot camera doesn't it.

actually it doesn't.

prefocusing basically reduces the camera to point and shoot.

Maintaining focus means that you take a series of photos of a subject that
moves
out of the focusing distance between the shots, meaning that each photo
needs to
be re-focused for the new distance to the subject. This is what nospam
(correctly) points out is very hard with a manual focus camera.

but by no means impossible and has been done in the past.

not without a ****load of luck it hasn't.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It's called "skill": something that is not appreciated much these days,
sadly...

nonsense. there's just as much skill needed now if not more so than
there ever was in the old days because technology has opened up so many
more opportunities that were not possible before.

True

so you agree.

those stuck in the old school mindset don't have the skills to use the
new technology, which is why they like to bash it.

It looks to me that George is not doing any bashing.

i didn't say george bashed, however, he is being condescending to those
who have mastered the new technology.

If anyone is
bashing, it's you.

nope

There is no question that the new technologies make
wildlife photography easier.

that's the whole point.

But, one still need to anticipate what the
critter might do. e.g. You miss that shot of the osprey flying into his
nest.

nobody said otherwise.

With a reasonable knowledge of osprey behavior you can anticipate
what he might do next. You see the bird flying with his catch. If its an
osprey you will wait in vain for that shot of him bringing the live fish
into his nest. If you want to shoot humming birds in the wild, you might
reasonably anticipate that species favorite plant. etc.

and the camera's autofocus will track it.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Personally at air shows I don't listen for surprise targets, I acquire
the target visually. Then any aircraft making a low pass is usually
following a very predictable path, either from left to right, or right
to left, right in front of me.
With a manual focus camera, I could in days past, pan with the target
as it made its pass. Fortunately, these days I am blessed with multi-AF
points, 3D-Tracking, continuous AF, and a frame rate of 8 fps.

in other words, tracking autofocus lets you get photos you could never
have taken before.

Every photo is one that has never been taken before.

whoosh.

Your problem is
that you are arguing a point not in dispute.

i'm not the one who is arguing. i'm stating a fact.

Nobody has said that
tracking AF does not make taking photos easier.

in other words you agree, yet you keep on arguing.

They are disputing your
statement implying that pictures of moving objects could not be taken
without AF.

that depends if you want it in focus or not.

again, it's not possible to maintain focus on a moving object without a
****load of luck. human reaction time is too slow.

Yet you persist in claiming that everybody but you, is arguing for the
sake of arguing.
Think about it.

no need. it's obvious that others are arguing for the sake of arguing.

you're agreeing with me yet you twist to argue further.