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

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.

On 07/26/2015 07:44 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


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

--
Ken Hart

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.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:40:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Yes, and we all know that UFO's are bull****, but what if?... Let's
say you're in the middle of nowhere, and there it is - a once in a
lifetime encounter with a magnificent UFO, but all you have is MF. So
you fire away, and end up with just another batch of OoF shots of a
"UFO", that everyone knows are fake? What then, huh? Your life is
ruined, just because you insisted on MF only. It's not worth it.

Anyway, I like those photos. One of these days I'll go back through my
air show photos, do some actual post on them for once, and maybe post
some links here. None of them are anything special, they're mostly
recent military craft, and the IQ isn't so great either. I'll try
again this year with a better lens, and with more knowledge of the
correct setup for the camera. I might even head to an air race here in
town in October. Never been to one of those.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:44:39 -0400, 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.

Blame Charles. He started the argument. :-(


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 catching it with basic equipment is half the fun.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Bill W wrote:
Let's say you're in the middle of nowhere, and there it is - a once in a
lifetime encounter with a magnificent UFO, but all you have is MF. So
you fire away, and end up with just another batch of OoF shots of a
"UFO", that everyone knows are fake? What then, huh? Your life is
ruined, just because you insisted on MF only. It's not worth it.

Assuming that the UFO is the size of a small manned aircraft, and your
distance and focal length is such that the whole craft fits into
your field of view, then you will be fine with hyperfocal focussing
even as wide as f/4.

UFO shots are blurry because a sharp picture would be of an identifiable
flying object - not because of any difficulty in using manual focus.

Autofocus is really useful for close up action pictures where the
field of view at the focal distance is only a few feet wide, but for
greater reductions hyperfocal technique works just fine.

Peter.
--

On 2015-07-27 00:52:49 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:40:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Yes, and we all know that UFO's are bull****, but what if?... Let's
say you're in the middle of nowhere, and there it is - a once in a
lifetime encounter with a magnificent UFO, but all you have is MF. So
you fire away, and end up with just another batch of OoF shots of a
"UFO", that everyone knows are fake? What then, huh? Your life is
ruined, just because you insisted on MF only. It's not worth it.

;-)

Anyway, I like those photos. One of these days I'll go back through my
air show photos, do some actual post on them for once, and maybe post
some links here. None of them are anything special, they're mostly
recent military craft, and the IQ isn't so great either.

So what, post away.

I'll try again this year with a better lens, and with more knowledge of the
correct setup for the camera.

What camera? What are your current lenses?
As far as correct setup goes, just ask.

You can if need be, rent glass for a show.

I might even head to an air race here in
town in October. Never been to one of those.

So you are in Reno, or at least nearby.

Those air races are September 16 to 20 this year.
http://airrace.org

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:07:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-27 00:52:49 +0000, Bill W said:
I'll try again this year with a better lens, and with more knowledge of the
correct setup for the camera.

What camera? What are your current lenses?

Remember, I'm married to Pentax after all these years. I'm not
interested in the expense of switching at this stage. Anyway, it's a
K3, 24 MP, so I can do more cropping now, too. I was using Pentax kit
lenses, and a Sigma walk-around 18-250 more recently. I finally had my
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 repaired for focus issues, so I plan to try that,
and maybe add the Pentax teleconverter.

As far as correct setup goes, just ask.

This very issue came up here a few months ago, and I ran over to my
camera to set everything, and then saved it in one of the user slots.

I might even head to an air race here in
town in October. Never been to one of those.

So you are in Reno, or at least nearby.

Las Vegas: http://www.redbullairrace.com/en_US/...las-vegas-2015

I'm also just a few miles down the road from Nellis AFB, and the Red
Flag exercises are going on now. I was hoping for some shots there,
but I haven't heard anything taking off. It seems it's mostly
classroom training for now. If I hear activity, I can race over there
in 10 or 15 minutes.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:40:57 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

Bill W wrote:
Let's say you're in the middle of nowhere, and there it is - a once in a
lifetime encounter with a magnificent UFO, but all you have is MF. So
you fire away, and end up with just another batch of OoF shots of a
"UFO", that everyone knows are fake? What then, huh? Your life is
ruined, just because you insisted on MF only. It's not worth it.

Assuming that the UFO is the size of a small manned aircraft, and your
distance and focal length is such that the whole craft fits into
your field of view, then you will be fine with hyperfocal focussing
even as wide as f/4.

I'm surprised to see this. I'll assume that you are correct, but how
is it determined when this is true? Is it simply the fact that
something that size fits into the field of view, or is there a more
accurate way to determine this?

UFO shots are blurry because a sharp picture would be of an identifiable
flying object - not because of any difficulty in using manual focus.

Heh - this is why I love usenet. But realistically, a sharp photo of
an unrecognized craft would still be a UFO, just not the Twilight Zone
version of the term.

Autofocus is really useful for close up action pictures where the
field of view at the focal distance is only a few feet wide, but for
greater reductions hyperfocal technique works just fine.

Peter.