If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Because it still works. so do modern cameras. there is *nothing* that a 50 year old relic can do that a modern camera cannot do better, more accurately and more reliably and with *much* better results. I know what Ken Hart means. For some purposes the all singing-dancing modern camera can get between the photographer and the taking of the picture. nonsense. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:39:53 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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 ... properly lighting it, ... .... and making sure you have the correct exposure for the light level .... ... 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. all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure. All a camera can do is determine _a_ focus and _an_ exposure. They arn't necessarily the optimum values. Thats why cameras are now trying to rcognise faces, give you a choice of exposure points and the ability to +/- exposures. 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. 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. Louis Klemantaski seemed to be able to manage it http://tinyurl.com/nptnnqc -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
On 7/25/2015 7:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Because it still works. so do modern cameras. there is *nothing* that a 50 year old relic can do that a modern camera cannot do better, more accurately and more reliably and with *much* better results. I know what Ken Hart means. For some purposes the all singing-dancing modern camera can get between the photographer and the taking of the picture. nonsense. Typically, all you have contributed to this is putting others down. We have not heard your words of wisdom on what you consider an ideal camera. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:39:54 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Because it still works. so do modern cameras. there is *nothing* that a 50 year old relic can do that a modern camera cannot do better, more accurately and more reliably and with *much* better results. I know what Ken Hart means. For some purposes the all singing-dancing modern camera can get between the photographer and the taking of the picture. nonsense. You can of course ignore the dance band. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Eric Stevens
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. what it can't do is position the subject in the frame. properly lighting it, ... ... and making sure you have the correct exposure for the light level which the camera can easily do. what it can't do is arrange the lights for whatever effect is desired. ... 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. all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure. All a camera can do is determine _a_ focus and _an_ exposure. They arn't necessarily the optimum values. Thats why cameras are now trying to rcognise faces, give you a choice of exposure points and the ability to +/- exposures. most of the time it's optimum and likely as good or better than what the photographer would have chosen on their own, but nothing is perfect. technology is advancing and as you say, it can recognize faces and use that as focus targets (which is wonderful, especially when they move). however, what a camera *can't* do is choose the subject, get it to pose (if it's alive) and click the shutter. 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. 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. 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. anyway, let's see him track-focus a hockey game. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , PeterN
wrote: We have not heard your words of wisdom on what you consider an ideal camera. since i have a lot of nikon lenses, i would choose a nikon body with wifi (802.11ac), gps and add the exceptionally useful olympus om-4t multi-spot metering (updated to today's technology). battery life of 2000+ photos per charge with ports that include hdmi and usb type c and an optional cell radio. images would wirelessly auto-sync the moment it associates with the photographer's home network (or optionally via usb 3). in an ideal world, the infrared cut filter could be swapped in or out. what would also be nice is an sdk and custom apps, with the standard apps supporting the usual photo gallery sites, dropbox, google photos etc. custom apps could do all sorts of things, from implementing custom shooting modes to filters and much more. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Because it still works. so do modern cameras. there is *nothing* that a 50 year old relic can do that a modern camera cannot do better, more accurately and more reliably and with *much* better results. I know what Ken Hart means. For some purposes the all singing-dancing modern camera can get between the photographer and the taking of the picture. nonsense. You can of course ignore the dance band. exactly, which is why it's nonsense. set the camera to manual if you don't want the automatic stuff. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:45:07 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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. what it can't do is position the subject in the frame. Nor can it determine the subject unless (in some cases) the subject is a face. properly lighting it, ... ... and making sure you have the correct exposure for the light level which the camera can easily do. Only in relatively straightforward cases. what it can't do is arrange the lights for whatever effect is desired. ... 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. all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure. All a camera can do is determine _a_ focus and _an_ exposure. They arn't necessarily the optimum values. Thats why cameras are now trying to rcognise faces, give you a choice of exposure points and the ability to +/- exposures. most of the time it's optimum and likely as good or better than what the photographer would have chosen on their own, but nothing is perfect. But the current discussion is not about that type of photographer. technology is advancing and as you say, it can recognize faces and use that as focus targets (which is wonderful, especially when they move). however, what a camera *can't* do is choose the subject, get it to pose (if it's alive) and click the shutter. 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. You want it both ways: leave it (exposure) to the camera and leave it (exposure adjustment) to the photographer. 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. 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. OK. Try this https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=lo...IVQiqmCh0ezgY8 But as a sample, see http://www.windingroad.com/articles/...ki-collection/ anyway, let's see him track-focus a hockey game. Trying to narrow the argument, eh? Here is a photograph from the 1970s http://www.elainelchao.com/slideshow...d-hockey-m.jpg -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:45:08 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Because it still works. so do modern cameras. there is *nothing* that a 50 year old relic can do that a modern camera cannot do better, more accurately and more reliably and with *much* better results. I know what Ken Hart means. For some purposes the all singing-dancing modern camera can get between the photographer and the taking of the picture. nonsense. You can of course ignore the dance band. exactly, which is why it's nonsense. set the camera to manual if you don't want the automatic stuff. Would you then decry it, the way you do when someone says they only want a basic camera? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 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. what it can't do is position the subject in the frame. Nor can it determine the subject unless (in some cases) the subject is a face. sure it can. properly lighting it, ... ... and making sure you have the correct exposure for the light level which the camera can easily do. Only in relatively straightforward cases. nonsense. the metering systems of today's cameras are quite sophisticated and generally do as good or better than humans. there are exceptions but it's pretty hard to outperform it. all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure. All a camera can do is determine _a_ focus and _an_ exposure. They arn't necessarily the optimum values. Thats why cameras are now trying to rcognise faces, give you a choice of exposure points and the ability to +/- exposures. most of the time it's optimum and likely as good or better than what the photographer would have chosen on their own, but nothing is perfect. But the current discussion is not about that type of photographer. then the camera's choice is fine. 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. You want it both ways: leave it (exposure) to the camera and leave it (exposure adjustment) to the photographer. nope. 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. 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. OK. Try this https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=lo...0&bih=110 3&s ource=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIhqbO nr33xgIVQiqmCh0ezgY8 that's a google tracking link. you could hae just said search on louis klemantaski photos. But as a sample, see http://www.windingroad.com/articles/...taski-collecti on/ anyway, let's see him track-focus a hockey game. Trying to narrow the argument, eh? nope. there might be a few individuals who can track-focus something that isn't moving all that fast or prefocus in a particular area, but they *can't* track-focus fast action because human reaction time is too slow. there's no getting around that. Here is a photograph from the 1970s http://www.elainelchao.com/slideshow...d-hockey-m.jpg field hockey?? and running across the frame? the focus isn't going to change all that much. also keep in mind back then, most photographers prefocused in an area and then took a photo when the subject was in that spot. that's not track-focusing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What kind of camera? | Matt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | August 21st 07 07:15 PM |
Looking for a monopod - what kind of head do I choose ? | Philippe Lauwers | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 8 | June 12th 04 08:52 AM |