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
  #21  
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:

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  
Old July 26th 15, 12:57 AM 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 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  
Old July 26th 15, 01:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old July 26th 15, 01:06 AM 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 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  
Old July 26th 15, 01:45 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, ...


... 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  
Old July 26th 15, 01:45 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 , 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  
Old July 26th 15, 01:45 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:

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  
Old July 26th 15, 02:11 AM 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 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  
Old July 26th 15, 02:14 AM 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 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  
Old July 26th 15, 02:56 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:

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

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 02:17 PM.


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.