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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
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 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?
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! |
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 |