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

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 07/25/2015 07:39 PM, 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, properly lighting it, clicking the shutter at the optimal
time, etc.

a camera can't do any of that.

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

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.

So all the sports photos pre-autofocus are out of focus?

A good photographer knows his subject and attempts to predict which way
his moving subject will go. He then either (a) pre-focuses and waits for
the subject to enter the 'good focus zone', or (b) selects his exposure
(possibly by metering and grunting) and provides sufficient depth of field.

Focusing, and selecting what will be in focus or out of focus is part of
the art of creating a photograph.
Metering, so that the desired image is best captured by the film, is
part of the art of creating a photograph.

"all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure.", based on
averages and concepts selected by the camera designer, which work in the
majority of situations. Woe unto the photographer who wants to create
his own image, focused on what he wants, and exposed the way he wants it.

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. I don't understand why everyone is 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. 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.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:10:49 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 07/25/2015 07:39 PM, 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, properly lighting it, clicking the shutter at the optimal
time, etc.

a camera can't do any of that.

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

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.

So all the sports photos pre-autofocus are out of focus?

A good photographer knows his subject and attempts to predict which way
his moving subject will go. He then either (a) pre-focuses and waits for
the subject to enter the 'good focus zone', or (b) selects his exposure
(possibly by metering and grunting) and provides sufficient depth of field.

Focusing, and selecting what will be in focus or out of focus is part of
the art of creating a photograph.
Metering, so that the desired image is best captured by the film, is
part of the art of creating a photograph.

"all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure.", based on
averages and concepts selected by the camera designer, which work in the
majority of situations. Woe unto the photographer who wants to create
his own image, focused on what he wants, and exposed the way he wants it.

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.

I think we all know that. nospam is trying to narrow the argument to
one he hopes he has a chance of winning. This has already been pointed
out to him.

It all started when Charles wrote:

"SLR with mechanical shutter speed and aperature controls, along
with ASA setting (ISO I believe is a newer term.) Match needle
metering with option to switch from full screen or spot."

.... and nospam replied:

"you could have any camera at all and you'd choose one with 50 year
old technology???"

It never was just about focus tracking.

I don't understand why everyone is 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. 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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-26 23:10:49 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:
On 07/25/2015 07:39 PM, 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, properly lighting it, clicking the shutter at the optimal
time, etc.

a camera can't do any of that.

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

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.

So all the sports photos pre-autofocus are out of focus?

A good photographer knows his subject and attempts to predict which way
his moving subject will go. He then either (a) pre-focuses and waits for
the subject to enter the 'good focus zone', or (b) selects his exposure
(possibly by metering and grunting) and provides sufficient depth of field.

Focusing, and selecting what will be in focus or out of focus is part of
the art of creating a photograph.
Metering, so that the desired image is best captured by the film, is
part of the art of creating a photograph.

"all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure.", based on
averages and concepts selected by the camera designer, which work in the
majority of situations. Woe unto the photographer who wants to create
his own image, focused on what he wants, and exposed the way he wants it.

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. I don't understand why everyone is arguing.

Yup! Two completely different things.

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. 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.

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.

With a fast, low pass I can capture 4 to 6 frames the majority of which
would be in focus.
https://db.tt/AJjo6VB0
https://db.tt/Lg43IZf9

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

What started all this was you questioning Charles' preference for a
camera which leaves all the choosing to the photographer. Charles'
preferred camera would make no choices at all.

all cameras can do that. just set it to fully manual. done.

meanwhile, you get the benefits from a modern camera, including much
more accurate shutter/aperture mechanisms, digital imaging, better
ergonomics, lighter and smaller body, much better lenses (which won't
work on the older bodies), just to name a few.




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

Trying to narrow the argument, eh?

nope.

Yep. The discussion was not about just track-focusing.

yes it was

As you wrote
(see above) it was about "trying to maintain focus on a moving object
without autofocus."

human reaction time is simply too slow to maintain focus on a moving
subject.

the example of pre-focusing to a particular spot proves that. you're
not tracking the focus, you're *waiting* for the subject to appear at a
known location.

try photographing stunt planes, birds in flight, wildlife in their
natural habitat, dancers on stage, all moving entirely unpredictably.

while you *can* get *some* photos, you won't get anywhere near as many
keepers if you let the camera handle the focus.

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.

Which is why you don't absolutely have to have track focusing.

nobody said you had to have track focus in all situations.

for instance, still life photography does not need it.

Charles
was not crippling his camera by leaving out autofocus.

like hell he wasn't.

there's a whole world of opportunities not possible without it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The more important point is that photographers were able to accomplish
things like in-focus shots of rapidly moving objects before autofocus.

actually they weren't.

Photographers were not able to photograph rapidly moving objects
before autofocus?

they can't. human reaction time is too slow, which is why they had to
resort to techniques such as pre-focus of a specific spot.

I grew up in Indianapolis, and attended the Indianapolis 500 mile race
many times in the 1950s. Photographers were photographing race cars
speeding around the track then. Horse races were photographed then.
Track meets were photographed. All kinds of sports photos were taken.

situations such as race cars and track meets are on a constrained track
where movement can be accurately predicted.

try wildlife, birds in flight, stunt planes, dancers on stage, etc.,
where you don't know what the subject is going to do next. good luck.
you might get a few shots but it's a lot harder and you'll miss more
than if you had the camera focusing for you.

what they were able to do was wait for the subject to be in a
particular spot and then take a photo, hoping it will be a good one.

Sure...we do that today. Most of my better baseball shots are because
I anticipated where the action would be. When I get the ball in the
photo when the catcher snags a pop-up or when the ball is just in
front of the mitt of the first baseman on a put-out, it isn't because
I track the ball.

Anticipating the action is what any good sports action photographer
does. They don't track. You might follow an eligible receiver in
football and hope to get that shot of him catching the ball, but you
don't track the ball. You can follow the player with manual focus.

bull**** you can. human reaction time is too slow to follow it unless
they're moving relatively slowly or laterally where the distance isn't
changing much.

but hey you know better.

nikon and canon should have called you before wasting huge amounts of
money developing highly sophisticated autofocus systems that can
identify and track moving objects and professional sports photographers
should also have called you before wasting their money buying those
cameras when manual focus would have sufficed.

If you want a photograph of a slide into home plate, you don't track
the runner from third. You anticipate by focusing on the catcher
before ball is pitched if there's a runner on third.

what if something happens elsewhere on the ball field?

don't you see how limiting manual focus is?

if something happened at a different spot, then they were out of luck.

We still are. You don't track a football, baseball, tennis ball or
hockey puck. You prepare the shot in anticipation of where the object
will be. Sometimes it doesn't work out right.

you can't always know where the subject will be.

taking photos of rapidly moving subjects with tracking focus is very
different and something that was not possible back then.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever really photograph anything. You
obviously don't understand how action photos are taken if you think
tracking is the only way it's possible to get a good photo that
involves a rapidly moving person or object.

it's not the only way, but it's the most effective way.

but again, you know better. go tell nikon and canon, who have developed
incredibly capable autofocus systems, that it's not needed.

It's easier today to get the ball or the race car in the picture, but
it's ignorant to say that photographers weren't able to before
autofocus.

it's not ignorant at all. it's a limitation of human physiology. human
reaction time is too slow to track focus of a moving object.

a modern autofocus system can do *much* better than any human ever
could.

what you're describing is predicting where something will be and
pre-focusing. that's very different.

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.

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.

In article , George Kerby
wrote:

taking photos of rapidly moving subjects with tracking focus is very
different and something that was not possible back then.

Particularly when the "photographer" doesn't have to worry about being
skillful because of the budget.

nonsense. of course they do.

Hell, just set the damn thing in video mode @ 60 fps and, like the monkeys,
you are bound to find ONE good shot among the thirty thousand or so frames
you have captured, eh?!?

that won't work for several reasons.

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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

So all the sports photos pre-autofocus are out of focus?

i never said that, but it's a lot harder to get in focus shots without
autofocus.

A good photographer knows his subject and attempts to predict which way
his moving subject will go.

you can't always do that.

He then either (a) pre-focuses and waits for
the subject to enter the 'good focus zone', or (b) selects his exposure
(possibly by metering and grunting) and provides sufficient depth of field.

old school limitations.

fortunately, technology has removed those limitations.

Focusing, and selecting what will be in focus or out of focus is part of
the art of creating a photograph.

now the camera can do the focus part so you can do the selecting part.

Metering, so that the desired image is best captured by the film, is
part of the art of creating a photograph.

metering is another thing the camera can do so you can do the selecting
part.

"all a camera can do is determine the focus and exposure.", based on
averages and concepts selected by the camera designer, which work in the
majority of situations. Woe unto the photographer who wants to create
his own image, focused on what he wants, and exposed the way he wants it.

they can override it if they want, but in the vast majority of cases,
the camera is going to do as good or better than humans.

this is particularly true with the wider latitude of modern digital
cameras, where a minor exposure error is trivially fixed.

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.

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Mr Cooper correctly points out the "romance" of using what nospam calls
a "50 year old relic", but I respectfully would point out another
advantage of the 50 year old relic: it STILL works.

so what?

modern camera still work.

nobody is going to try to use a camera that's broken.

that's one of the dumbest reasons *ever*.

Every year, Nikon, Canon, and others come up with the latest whizz-bang
grand slam super fantastic camera that is supposed to be better than
anything from last month.

and it generally is better, sometimes by a little and sometimes by a
lot.

it's called progress.

My Canon FX was the flagship camera for Canon from 1964-66, and
manufacture continued into 1969 (based on date codes). A five year run
of an essentially unchanged camera design- let's see that in this
wonderful digital age. (The placement of the serial number was changed
in 1968.)

that's because there wasn't much innovation back then.

why would anyone want to stagnate for 5 years??

technology moves at a very rapid pace and people like you want to
squelch it.

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.