A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 25th 15, 03:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 07/24/2015 07:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.


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

Of course.
Because it still works.

But I'd leave off the match needle metering; just takes up real estate
in the viewfinder.

--
Still shooting the Canon FX... and proud of it!
Ken Hart

  #12  
Old July 25th 15, 03:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 07/24/2015 09:00 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.

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


Something my way-more-than-50-year-old brain can handle. I don't use
my newer cameras often enough to remember all the new bells and
whistles.


so turn them off.

you do realize that modern cameras can be used in manual mode, but with
the advances of the past 50 years, right?

or put it in full auto and give your brain a rest. let the camera do
the grunt work like metering and focusing so you can concentrate on the
actual photo.


The "grunt work" (metering and focusing) is a part of the actual photo.

--
Ken Hart

  #13  
Old July 25th 15, 03:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article , Ken Hart
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.


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


Of course.


what on earth for?

do you choose manual typewriters over computers?

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.

not only that, but this thread is about having any kind of camera, one
which would obviously work. why would someone's dream camera be a
camera that is broken?

But I'd leave off the match needle metering; just takes up real estate
in the viewfinder.


not really.
  #14  
Old July 25th 15, 03:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article , Ken Hart
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.

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

Something my way-more-than-50-year-old brain can handle. I don't use
my newer cameras often enough to remember all the new bells and
whistles.


so turn them off.

you do realize that modern cameras can be used in manual mode, but with
the advances of the past 50 years, right?

or put it in full auto and give your brain a rest. let the camera do
the grunt work like metering and focusing so you can concentrate on the
actual photo.


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.
  #15  
Old July 25th 15, 06:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

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

Of course.


what on earth for?

do you choose manual typewriters over computers?

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.

not only that, but this thread is about having any kind of camera, one
which would obviously work. why would someone's dream camera be a
camera that is broken?


You have never understood that other people have interests different
from your own, and that their interests may be more important to them
than yours.


nobody said otherwise.

While the photograph is the end result, and modern cameras can make
that end result better, more simple to achieve, and less time
consuming to finalize, the "hunt" is more satisfying to some than the
head mounted on the wall.

It was more of a challenge to get the right results with the cameras
we used to use. Meeting that challenge can be the objective of the
photographer.

There was a satisfaction to doing everything right when using the
older cameras that is not really present with today's cameras. The
camera is doing so much of the work that the photographer can only
claim to have seen what to point it at and when to push the button
That's not enough for everyone.


modern cameras can be operated in fully manual mode just as if it was
1965, but still benefiting from all of the advancements that have taken
place in the past 50 years, such as more accurate shutter mechanisms
and aperture mechanisms, far better ergonomics, digital imaging, focus
confirmation, etc.

While you deprecate the Luddites who like to try their skill the old
way, your obsessive worship of the modern "let the camera do the work"
is distasteful to some.


what's distasteful is your incessant need to bash.
  #16  
Old July 25th 15, 10:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?




On 7/25/15 11:52 AM, in article ,
"Tony Cooper" wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:59:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
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.

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

Of course.


what on earth for?

do you choose manual typewriters over computers?

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.

not only that, but this thread is about having any kind of camera, one
which would obviously work. why would someone's dream camera be a
camera that is broken?


You have never understood that other people have interests different
from your own, and that their interests may be more important to them
than yours.

While the photograph is the end result, and modern cameras can make
that end result better, more simple to achieve, and less time
consuming to finalize, the "hunt" is more satisfying to some than the
head mounted on the wall.

It was more of a challenge to get the right results with the cameras
we used to use. Meeting that challenge can be the objective of the
photographer.

There was a satisfaction to doing everything right when using the
older cameras that is not really present with today's cameras. The
camera is doing so much of the work that the photographer can only
claim to have seen what to point it at and when to push the button
That's not enough for everyone.

While you deprecate the Luddites who like to try their skill the old
way, your obsessive worship of the modern "let the camera do the work"
is distasteful to some.


Tony, I could not have put it better.

To nospam, NOTHING is better than what is the next around the corner
wiz-bang gadget. That is typical of the know-it-all mentallity who wants to
be the first adaptor, followed by declaring that their way is the only
logical way to do things.

Some of us actually like backlit composition, zone metering, "pushing" film
speeds, and, the 'horrors' of an actulal wet darkroom experience of seeing
their image materilize from a plain white paper, lit only by the amber
light.

That is what pros did as recent as ten or so years ago. Now, when you get
all fool-proof cameras that accoplish what the brain would be charged with
doing in the past, the "1000 monkeys at a 1000 typewriters" effect comes to
play. Nospam is probably too young to know of what I am referring, tho.

Today, we have masses who use their phone for cameras and expect nothing
could be possibly wrong with learning just how to orient the framing of what
they are shooting. That is what goes for photography these days.

I found it interesting in a book that I just finished today. Ron Wiggins
"Florida Authentica". One of the 52 interesting adventures mentioned
concerning your state is Cypress Gardens at Winteraven. You may have
visited, since you are close. But, what caught my eye is that the owner, in
trying to keep people interested, kept professional photographers on the
grounds to help otherwise awful tourist pictures from ruining the beauty of
the place, with their help and suggestions, because he wanted them taking
home nothing but magnificent photographs. These photographs, he believed,
were the best form of advertising that he could ever have. He even LOANED
cameras so the tourists could produce better pictures. And, for decades,
Cypress Gardens was the WORLD'S largest retailer of Kodak film.

My .02...

  #17  
Old July 25th 15, 11:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:59:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
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.

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

Something my way-more-than-50-year-old brain can handle. I don't use
my newer cameras often enough to remember all the new bells and
whistles.

so turn them off.

you do realize that modern cameras can be used in manual mode, but with
the advances of the past 50 years, right?

or put it in full auto and give your brain a rest. let the camera do
the grunt work like metering and focusing so you can concentrate on the
actual photo.


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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #18  
Old July 25th 15, 11:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:59:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
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.

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


Of course.


what on earth for?

do you choose manual typewriters over computers?

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.

not only that, but this thread is about having any kind of camera, one
which would obviously work. why would someone's dream camera be a
camera that is broken?

But I'd leave off the match needle metering; just takes up real estate
in the viewfinder.


not really.


http://scruss.com/enterprise.net/weston/weston06a.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old July 25th 15, 11:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:52:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:59:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
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.

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

Of course.


what on earth for?

do you choose manual typewriters over computers?

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.

not only that, but this thread is about having any kind of camera, one
which would obviously work. why would someone's dream camera be a
camera that is broken?


You have never understood that other people have interests different
from your own, and that their interests may be more important to them
than yours.

While the photograph is the end result, and modern cameras can make
that end result better, more simple to achieve, and less time
consuming to finalize, the "hunt" is more satisfying to some than the
head mounted on the wall.

It was more of a challenge to get the right results with the cameras
we used to use. Meeting that challenge can be the objective of the
photographer.

There was a satisfaction to doing everything right when using the
older cameras that is not really present with today's cameras. The
camera is doing so much of the work that the photographer can only
claim to have seen what to point it at and when to push the button
That's not enough for everyone.

While you deprecate the Luddites who like to try their skill the old
way, your obsessive worship of the modern "let the camera do the work"
is distasteful to some.


I've still got something similar to this tucked away
http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/ima...eld-Camera.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #20  
Old July 26th 15, 12:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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, 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.