Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

On 11/24/19 7:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I worked with photographers and they rarely get one picture correct out
of fifty. Do you think that sport or wildlife photographers keep 30 out
of 36?

I don't do sports or wildlife, and I agree that 80% is very, very high
for those genres. Recently at a WWII re-enactment, there was a fighter
plane involved. Screwed my average all to hell trying to get a good shot
of the plane strafing the battle. I think I printed two out of ten.

it would have been much higher with a camera that has predictive
tracking autofocus, and not just for sports or wildlife, but also kids,
theatre and many others.


Any type of autofocus would have been useless in the case of the fighter
airplane, as it was at hyperfocal distance with my 300mm lens. My
difficulty was in framing the plane, and getting a shot where the flame
could be seen coming from the machine guns firing. I grant that a motor
drive and rapid fire would have been helpful. I think Canon introduced
both in the early 1970's, maybe the FTb?

As for "kids, theater, and many others", I choose to not photograph
those events. I'm retired; I can now pick what I want to photograph.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I don't do sports or wildlife, and I agree that 80% is very, very high
for those genres. Recently at a WWII re-enactment, there was a fighter
plane involved. Screwed my average all to hell trying to get a good shot
of the plane strafing the battle. I think I printed two out of ten.

it would have been much higher with a camera that has predictive
tracking autofocus, and not just for sports or wildlife, but also kids,
theatre and many others.

Any type of autofocus would have been useless in the case of the fighter
airplane, as it was at hyperfocal distance with my 300mm lens.

false.

My
difficulty was in framing the plane, and getting a shot where the flame
could be seen coming from the machine guns firing.

use a stabilized zoom.

I grant that a motor
drive and rapid fire would have been helpful.

that too.

I think Canon introduced
both in the early 1970's, maybe the FTb?

not the ftb:
https://flynngraphics.ca/wp-content/...Q-1080x720.jpg
https://flynngraphics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Top-1-1080x720.jpg
https://flynngraphics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bottom-1080x720.jpg

looks like it was mid-70s, for the a-series:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...sources/shared
/windera/index.htm
The Canon Power Winder A was originally introduced with the Canon
AE-1 camera in 1975 but it also can be used with all the A series
models (in fact, it is applicable to use the Winder A with the
professional class Canon F-1(n) system SLR camera but without
power rewind feature).

meanwhile, nikon had it much earlier:
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history_e/index.htm
Further, in 1957, the Motor Drive for the Nikon S2 which made film
winding and shutter charging automatic and had a wide range of use
for news and science photography was added (it was a drive unit
incorporating a micro motor and was called the Motor Winder at that
time).

As for "kids, theater, and many others", I choose to not photograph
those events.

your loss.

I'm retired; I can now pick what I want to photograph.

i've always picked what i photographed.

the point is that fast moving subjects exist in far more than just
sports & wildlife.

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 20:12:07 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 11/24/19 7:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I worked with photographers and they rarely get one picture correct out
of fifty. Do you think that sport or wildlife photographers keep 30 out
of 36?

I don't do sports or wildlife, and I agree that 80% is very, very high
for those genres. Recently at a WWII re-enactment, there was a fighter
plane involved. Screwed my average all to hell trying to get a good shot
of the plane strafing the battle. I think I printed two out of ten.

it would have been much higher with a camera that has predictive
tracking autofocus, and not just for sports or wildlife, but also kids,
theatre and many others.


Any type of autofocus would have been useless in the case of the fighter
airplane, as it was at hyperfocal distance with my 300mm lens. My
difficulty was in framing the plane, and getting a shot where the flame
could be seen coming from the machine guns firing. I grant that a motor
drive and rapid fire would have been helpful. I think Canon introduced
both in the early 1970's, maybe the FTb?

https://external-content.duckduckgo....JPG&f=1&nofb=1
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_drive

As for "kids, theater, and many others", I choose to not photograph
those events. I'm retired; I can now pick what I want to photograph.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...
Until you print it. If you care enough to create a photo, you should
care enough to display it. That requires a print.

Or an LCD screen.

And I guess you don't hang on your walls everything you print,
right? The other prints end up in some storage place?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site