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

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

sometimes but not always.

On 7/27/2015 9:41 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 7/26/15 10:14 PM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:27:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

As for the 'image sensor' in my camera, a very critical part of the
imaging chain, it has been updated frequently since 1964- every time the
film manufacturers introduce a new film, I get an updated image sensor.

and one that is nowhere near as good digital sensors.

you're living in the past.

Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements (Let's say
16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine.

be careful for what you ask for.

digital will smoke anything coming out of your 50 year old film camera.

It depends on the 50 year old camera.

Forget it. Nospam knows all - so he thinks...


It is not clear whether he is trying to convince us or himself.

His insecurity shows with each of his posts.

--
PeterN

On 7/27/2015 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Only if you know enough about the critters behavior to be positioned
correctly.



--
PeterN

On 7/27/2015 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

sometimes but not always.


You are repeating and confirming what I said. Thank you! your agreement
justifies my existence.


--
PeterN

On 7/27/2015 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


I am trying to get you to retract your assinine use of the word "never."

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.

You have just made a non-factual statement that has been disproved by
others.


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


You are confusing the means with the goal, to avoid admitting to making
a misstatement.

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.


See above.
--
PeterN

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

nospam:
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.

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

Sandman:
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.

Which is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Furthermore, that's just a guess. We don't know what happened before or after any
of those shots that could have been captured had the photographer had an
autofocus camera, that would have closer matched what "he wanted".

Sandman:
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.

Not really. It's dead easy. Point your camera at a specific point where you think
the subject will be at, focus it on that point and wait until the subject enters
the frame. It's really really easy and very very limiting.

Sandman:
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.

But extremely hard, and not reliable. As long as the scene is brightly lit and
you can use a really small aperture and thus lengthen the focusing distance, it's
easier. But photographing dancers in a dimly lit theater is not as easy.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

In article
,

Sandman:
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.

Of course not. The point is that with a manual focus camera, you get one picture,
and with an autofocus camera with tracking, you can get ten, where one of those
ten is close to identical to the one the manual camera took. But, the image you
end up picking may not be the same image, because 0.9 seconds later, the subject
was far more interesting.

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.

Indeed.


--
Sandman

In article , PeterN wrote:

nospam:
In article 2015072616405786947-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,

Savageduck:
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.

nospam:
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.

Only, he never said that. It's only you trolls that have to twist his words in
order to argue, which is all you can do.

And it's really ironic that in the preceding paragraph you correctly identify his
statement about *tracking focus*, and then in the next statement say you disagree
with a claim he never made, that has *nothing* to do with tracking focus.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Savageduck:
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.

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

PeterN:
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.

We are fortunate to have nospan an Popinjay here in this group to
explain how photographs are taken and how to best utilize our
cameras.

I agree. But it's not like you're listening, you're way too proud for that.
Peter still over-sharpens his images, and still uses a teleconverter when he
doesn't need to.

It's a wonder than any of us have ever been able to take a
clear and sharp photograph of anything less static than a tree stump
without their advice and explanations.

Well, most of Peter's photos aren't well focused, as you probably know. That's
probably why he over-sharpens them so much.

I have been extremely lucky, I guess, to have been able to
photograph children at play without engaging the continous-servo AF
(AF-C) on my Nikon if they've been moving. nospam tells me that
this is extremely difficult to do. I guess my children and
grandchildren have been so slothlike in their movements that I've
caught undeserved breaks.

Is this Andreas saying that tracking focus on a manual camera is just as easy
as with autofocus? Because if it isn't, what is your point?

I admit to never having tried to photograph a dancer; a
near-impossible feat to accomplish with success without focus
tracking according to nospam. I might be able to get slightly
blurry capture of a waltzing pair of octogenarians, but I'd be SOL
trying to snap a Morris Dancer or a piouetting ballerina.

Hey, not everyone can use their equipment correctly, it takes training and
experience.

I don't do air shows, but have managed to capture sky divers in
action. I must have just pointed my camera at the sky and waited
until the jumper entered the frame...and been lucky.

Possibly, given your ignorance about this matter. But mostly due to skydivers
not moving very rapidly compared to people standing on the ground. So, yeah,
you got lucky that you photographed someone that stayed inside your manual
camera's focusing distance long enough.

I see now that I've wasted so much time attempting to learn the
craft of photography when all that I really needed to do was to keep
upgrading my kit until the technical advances made the person behind
the camera an unnecessary adjunct.

Don't be so sure, ignorant people can use state of the art technology
incorrectly. I'm sure you'd be able to screw it up.

I think that nospam's dream camera would be made by a joint project
of Google, Apple, Adobe. Like a driverless car, it could be sent
out to take photographs without human intervention. He could just
tell Siri he wants a photograph of an osprey diving for a fish, open
the door and let the camera go out, and have the post-processed
photo sent to his iPad. He could stay in the basement during all of
this.

What you "think" is of no importance, as usual.

--
Sandman

On 7/27/15 4:42 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 7/27/2015 9:41 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 7/26/15 10:14 PM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:27:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

As for the 'image sensor' in my camera, a very critical part of the
imaging chain, it has been updated frequently since 1964- every time the
film manufacturers introduce a new film, I get an updated image sensor.

and one that is nowhere near as good digital sensors.

you're living in the past.

Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements (Let's say
16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine.

be careful for what you ask for.

digital will smoke anything coming out of your 50 year old film camera.

It depends on the 50 year old camera.

Forget it. Nospam knows all - so he thinks...


It is not clear whether he is trying to convince us or himself.

His insecurity shows with each of his posts.

He is also quite anal in his replies. Notice how they are all timestamped at
the same time? He takes himself QUITE seriously, LOL!