Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: nicholask on March 14, 2012, 08:02:43 pm
-
I seem to have completely lost interest in the all the new rounds of cameras.
Having come through film in the 80's, and shooting on Leicas, Blads, Mamiyas, Nikons, Canons, Sinars, and more, then migrating to digital in 2000, and shooting digital Canons, and medium format with digital backs, I reckon I have new camera fatigue.
The last camera I bought was the 5D Mk2. Seems pretty good. Clients are happy. Would buy more of 'em, and they would get the job done. Been using Broncolor Monoblocks from the 80's that are rock solid, and I prefer them over my Profoto Acutes for accuracy, although they weigh a tonne.
Anyone else experiencing camera fatigue like me? Share your story.javascript:void(0);
-
I hear you brother! The cameras that did it for me are the 5D, IQ180 and K5
The 5DII is just lackluster and the noise in the shadows and sky has always bothered me
I'm hoping the 800E brings back the enthusiasm
Marc
-
I hear you brother! The cameras that did it for me are the 5D, IQ180 and K5
The 5DII is just lackluster and the noise in the shadows and sky has always bothered me
Marc
Yeah, I preferred the 5D. Liked the contrast better. Mk2 has always been too hyped contrast wise for me.
-
I have found the Nikon J1 to deliver this kind of refreshing experience.
Point and shoot... 100% silent, 99% sharp, 99% perfectly exposed... + one click DxO conversion to get highly printable results with zero time spent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm sorry, but I don't have camera fatigue. Quite the opposite. I'm still excited with the results of my Canon 1ds MKii, but look forward to the day of upgrading to any of the newer cameras. Additionally, I sill love shooting with all of my old film cameras, whether it's a Holga, a Contax 645 or a large format 4x5 or 8x10. As long as I'm making images, I'm happy!
-
I seem to have completely lost interest in the all the new rounds of cameras.
The last camera I bought was the 5D Mk2. Seems pretty good. Clients are happy. Would buy more of 'em, and they would get the job done.....
Anyone else experiencing camera fatigue like me? .
You haven't got 'camera fatigue' you've got forum fatigue.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that once you've got something that does the job properly, why should you get excited about new versions if they don't offer you any significant advantage ?
Too many people seem taken in by the whole new=better marketing hype and fail to see that many mature products do the job very well and will continue to do it for a long time yet.
I'm sure we'd all end up happier if the cycle of product development slowed down a lot. We'd have time to learn how to get the best out of things, we wouldn't be wasting so much money on stuff loosing it's value so quickly, the manufacturers would have more time to get their products better and probably be able to charge more for them, so it doesn't need to mean less profit, just less waste.
-
You haven't got 'camera fatigue' you've got forum fatigue.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that once you've got something that does the job properly, why should you get excited about new versions if they don't offer you any significant advantage ?
Too many people seem taken in by the whole new=better marketing hype and fail to see that many mature products do the job very well and will continue to do it for a long time yet.
I'm sure we'd all end up happier if the cycle of product development slowed down a lot. We'd have time to learn how to get the best out of things, we wouldn't be wasting so much money on stuff loosing it's value so quickly, the manufacturers would have more time to get their products better and probably be able to charge more for them, so it doesn't need to mean less profit, just less waste.
Probably one of the most sensible and realistic observations on the matter to date.
Had my D200 been blessed with the sensor of my D700 I would have the D700 alone, instead of having the D200 as a seldom-if-ever-used appendage that has lost me a stack of money I most certainly did not expect to lose so rapidly. That alone is sufficient to save me from the charms of the D800 etc. that now smile prettily from the glossy sites; that, and the fact that the D700 is as good as my current and probable needs will ever require. I am not a charitable institution; I doubt I am charitable at all and most certainly never when it comes to my money. I always felt it took too much effort to find it to promote easy disposal of same.
Rob C
-
I awoke this morning to Sunshine and mist, so I decided to take a couple off hours from the computer keywording sorting and uploading. I picked my favourite camera and trotted off to see what I could shoot for fun. Just some corny old images, but I like doing it, the camera I pick up for fun is a Rolleiflex 3.5F, one lens no batteries and pocket full of film. The other fun thing about the Rollei, I paid £650. for it last year, it's dam near mint condition I could sell it tomorrow for double or treble if I wanted to. I can't say that about my 1Ds's II's and IIIs.
I get zero pleasure from using a digital anything, the pleasure comes when the invoice gets paid for the work. I'm looking for a tele Rolleiflex at a good price, I'm in no hurry, I have others on my list also.
One other thing each new digital camera to me just makes film look even nicer, the latest McDigital holds no excitement other than a means to pay the bills. Canon seam hell bent on giving you not quite what you think you should be getting for a lot more money. To me a Rolleiflex gives you exactly what you expect, brilliantly done.
Kevin.
-
Fatigue? No way!
I've recently aquired a NEX 7 and I am thrilled. My last DSLR was the 5D and a good assortment of L glass. While the NEX 7 is not a perfect camera it is a most refreshing departure from the limitations imposed by the mirrored design of the SLR's of the past. The NEX is a preview of what is coming. It's small and light wieght, image quality is superb and the interface is very usable. It still needs refinement but it's a great start.
My DSLR has been sold and I eagerly anticipate the next round of innovation in the mirrorless camera line.
P.S. I shoot for fun, not for profit.
-
Anyone else experiencing camera fatigue like me? Share your story.javascript:void(0);
Nope ... quite the contrary.
36MP DSLRs? Mirrorless wunderkids? Precisely machined tech cameras with removable 180MP backs?
Are you kidding? This is the Golden Age ...
-
I'm sure we'd all end up happier if the cycle of product development slowed down a lot. We'd have time to learn how to get the best out of things, we wouldn't be wasting so much money on stuff loosing it's value so quickly, the manufacturers would have more time to get their products better and probably be able to charge more for them, so it doesn't need to mean less profit, just less waste.
No matter how fast the cycle of product development spins, we ourselves are to blame for our use of time+money and our purchase decisions. If we choose to dump our gear every year for the seemingly next big thing instead of learning to master it until it falls apart, then that's not really the camera companies' fault, is it? ;)
-
It was a few years ago that Andy Summers did a presentation at the closing night for the Palm Springs Photo Festival. Lead guitarist for the "Police" his avocation was photography and has published books of his work which is stellar. He professed that at one point he moved away from his Leica to the newer digital. But it equated with his loss of interest in shooting. Moving back to Leica and film revitalized his photography.
Personally I think digital moves us more into paying attention to the technical as compared to the art of photography. Shoot film!
-
You haven't got 'camera fatigue' you've got forum fatigue.
So true.
If you pick up a camera and shoot instead of reading about it you'd be amazed how much better you get a photography.
Nothing fatiguing about that.
-
I don't think you've really grasped the idea behind what I've written in that paragraph.
If we choose to dump our gear every year for the seemingly next big thing instead of learning to master it until it falls apart, then that's not really the camera companies' fault, is it?
It is their fault, if they're releasing products too soon without proper development. Plus, don't underestimate the effect of big advertising budgets on how much people spend.
Bernard's article D100 - D800 is quite pertinent in this discussion. Since the digital revolution swept film off the shelves, there's actually not been a lot of advance in the technology. Resolution has roughly doubled, software has become slicker, printers are a little better, but the prints hanging on the wall haven't improved that much.
-
It was a few years ago that Andy Summers did a presentation at the closing night for the Palm Springs Photo Festival. Lead guitarist for the "Police" his avocation was photography and has published books of his work which is stellar. He professed that at one point he moved away from his Leica to the newer digital. But it equated with his loss of interest in shooting. Moving back to Leica and film revitalized his photography.
Personally I think digital moves us more into paying attention to the technical as compared to the art of photography. Shoot film!
[/b]
So right. And it mirrors my own oft-stated stance, that had digital been the only game in town all those years ago, then it's unlikely I'd have even thought about becoming a photographer. Film is visceral where digital is not.
I'd really like to know just how many people that took up photography in the 50s would have been interested if film hadn't been around. I'm not claiming any wonderful claim about film; no, it's all about the fact that cameras were user-friendly, so easy and simple to learn and to use. Master one and you'd mastered them all, except for LF, which was another game out on its own.
Rob C
-
"Personally I think digital moves us more into paying attention to the technical as compared to the art of photography."
What bunk people tell themselves. Fortunately some of us are old enough and wise enough to know better.
What digital photographic technology has done is open up the possibility of more easily manipulating the process. A lot of tech oriented people embrace that. You can still be just as "straight" of non-obviously process manipulating photographer as you choose to be.
For me, photography is about noticing details and concentrating my (and by extention, my audience's) gaze and attention on them. I have always used photographic techniques and technologies to achieve that end.
-
it's all about the fact that cameras were user-friendly, so easy and simple to learn and to use.
I'll bet you never worked in a camera shop trying to explain to people how to load film into cameras, how to set exposure, how to focus, why they might need to use a different type of film at night, why their colour photos were yellow indoors, how to use that calculator on the back of a flashgun to work out what f-stop was needed or........................
You think film photography was user friendly ? or easy and simple to learn ? Take off those rose tinted glasses and be objective.
Rob you often go on about how difficult it is for modern photographers to make a living now, just remember that one of the key reasons why photography was a well paid profession then was because it wasn't easy or simple.
-
[/b]
So right And it mirrors my own oft-stated stance, that had digital been the only game in town all those years ago, then it's unlikely I'd have even thought about becoming a photographer. Film is visceral where digital is not.
I'd really like to know just how many people that took up photography in the 50s would have been interested if film hadn't been around. I'm not claiming any wonderful claim about film; no, it's all about the fact that cameras were user-friendly, so easy and simple to learn and to use. Master one and you'd mastered them all, except for LF, which was another game out on its own.
Rob C
---------
Well I started shooting 35 mm B&W and some K ll (ASA 12) in 1957. The camera was simple to set (f stop and shutter speed) and focus was set by guess and I used a light meter. I had fun and am finally in the process of digitalizing many of my slide shots.
But I am delighted to be shooting digital today and enjoy photography as much if not more than I did then. But again, I am still focused on the images and do as little post processing as possible for the great majority. It is just fun to grab the camera and go out and take pictures. (and not have to worry about the cost of each individual shot too!)
Dave S
-
(http://www.feldhaim.com/wp-content/gallery/casual-images-2011/img_1408.jpg)
Fatigue? Not a bit!
-
I do have camera fatigue.
Physically tired from hauling my Canon DSLR and L lenses around.
The tools are willing but the body is weak.
I've pre-ordered a Fuji Xpro-1. Yearning for rangefinder style shooting and something in the avoirdupois realm akin to my old Nikormat.
I grew up in a combo home/portrait studio. I have no nostalgia for film. Love digital tools. Don't miss wet darkrooms or maintaining chemistry
for color film/print processing.
Now, the fact that digital camera are in their souls, computers, that's a whole other conversation. ::)
-rasterdogs
-
Holgas and Cell Phones, that is where it is at...
-
You think film photography was user friendly ? or easy and simple to learn ? Take off those rose tinted glasses and be objective.
Rob you often go on about how difficult it is for modern photographers to make a living now, just remember that one of the key reasons why photography was a well paid profession then was because it wasn't easy or simple.
Yes, I repeat: I do think it was easy.
Hell, even I was able to learn it more or less by myself, with the gloss put on over a few years in industry. Yes, I did have to go to night school too (not my choice), but left in disgust with the crap I was being sold by teachers for whom I could scrape no respect.
The reason it (the business) used to be great was that, post-WW2, the world’s economy went into overdrive. There was a huge volume of work available, more than could be easily met by the infrastructure that was already there; there was room for expansion, and boy, did it expand after a few golden years! Post Blow Up, every goddamn guy who’d heard of the Shrimp or Vogue suddenly became infatuated with the idea of holding a camera and watching girls peel. Right, in your well-paid dreams, perhaps, but in your wedding and passport studio, possibly not. All at once, there was far more supply than demand and the market ruled, even then. This growth-cum-gradual financial decline came about decades prior to digital, I might add. It had nothing to do with the job being difficult or not; it was all about supply and demand, as I said.
The other, economy-related problem that came along, was the change in the stock industry, that imaginary 'pension' we were all building up. Poor investment, it turned out - not for widows, orphans or photographers!
“ 'Personally I think digital moves us more into paying attention to the technical as compared to the art of photography.'
What bunk people tell themselves. Fortunately some of us are old enough and wise enough to know better.“
Yep, and I’m probably a hell of a lot older than you, and remember it all very well indeed. And I confirm that I did and do indeed see it that way, that film photography was all about photography and digi is far more techno-centric in its appeal to the general public; as I have often suggested, it attracts a different mindset.
Rob C
-
With the benefit of hindsight, if film was the only game in town, I simply wouldn't bother playing.
That astounds me; and you a Hasselblad Master at that!
It must be the pills - I know what they can do to a guy.
;-)
Rob C
-
Holgas and Cell Phones, that is where it is at...
You may not be far wrong, joshing or not.
Here are my digital bookends; they seldom do much - the cellphone gets more air.
Rob C
-
Yes, I repeat: I do think it was easy.
Hell, even I was able to learn it more or less by myself,
I can only assume you've forgotten how difficult film based photography was when you started (and probably didn't have much experience of dealing with beginners to it to realise how tricky it was(is)).
Then you go on to imply that never really expected to be able to learn it by yourself which in turn implies you thought it difficult at the time anyway.
Now people expect all sorts of technology to be easy, including photography, and by and large it usually is. It's now easier to get acceptable results without needing any detailed knowledge than it's ever been before. Squeezing the absolute quality out of photographic systems, wet or dry, is and always was, the preserve of those enthusiastic enough to fully engage with the process.
And I confirm that I did and do indeed see it that way, that film photography was all about photography and digi is far more techno-centric in its appeal to the general public;
Photography has always had it's share of people fascinated and obsessed by the technicalities of the technology and has sold it's products on the merits of their specifications, nothing's really changed.
Back before the digital revolution they bought camera magazines, bought books, went to camera club meetings and expected their local camera shop to be experts that could answer all their problems.
Time has moved on; now they read the internet and don't have a local camera shop. What they do have is forums like this where they can obsess or seek help on their their hobby/passion/business at any time of the day or night with similarly minded people around the world. Look around and you'll find people obsessing about wet processes in huge detail, there's just far fewer of them than the digital mass market.
Which gets back to the OP's point; he's bored of that sort of continual discussion about the latest models. Sorry, but that's just what goes happens in forums like this. If you want something different there are other sites to follow.
-
I never get enough from Photography. It's my work, my hobbie, my passion.. I read a lot at the forums, I read books related to idea, concept, psychology, all to learn more and to make my photography better.
In my spare time I play with cameras and lenses, to learn more about them. I change cameras every now and then.. I like digital and new technologies. I like software and computers..
In the old film days I used to do the same, shoot through the window and check different lenses and stuff.
Since digital came out, I fill I'm more interested in color and quality because is more palpable, it's at your hands.
Alongside that, there's my loved family and time for them. How about that :D
-
I can only assume you've forgotten how difficult film based photography was when you started (and probably didn't have much experience of dealing with beginners to it to realise how tricky it was(is)).
Then you go on to imply that never really expected to be able to learn it by yourself which in turn implies you thought it difficult at the time anyway.
This is a strange reasoning/interpretation/argument you pose.
On the contrary, I've implied over and over that I did NOT find it difficult; that I DID more or less teach myself; that the 'expert' bit came from working at the thing full-time. I'm not sure why you infer as you do.
As for dealing with beginners, wasn't I exactly that? Why would I want to mess with other beginners, I'm not interested and never was interested in teaching. No, I didn't ever feel it difficult; I felt and found it fascinating, and that removed any fear of it or of my abity to do it. It's the way you pick up anything: you just do it. I'd never shot a fashion shot prior to the day I opened my studio; I never, for a moment, felt it was beyond me or difficult. On the contrary, I believed it was what I'd been born to do. And as it turned out, I was right. Or at least, for as long as the clothing industry survived in my area.
Maybe you should re-read my posts without the colour of preconceptions?
Rob C
-
As for dealing with beginners, wasn't I exactly that? Why would I want to mess with other beginners,
You're making a fundamental error in assessing the difficulty of the technology here.
"I was a beginner once, I didn't find it difficult" you've equated to "It's easy"
It may have been easy for you, you're presumably the sort of person that finds technical subjects accessible, logical, understands them easily and has sufficient dexterity and mechanical sympathy to learn them with relative ease. Not everyone's brains work that way.
Not having 'messed with other beginners' you're demonstrating that you've little experience of understanding how other people might find the technical challenge of learning photographic practice. You can be assured that the vast majority of people found the technical challenges of photography difficult, not only the intellectual challenge of understanding the basics of exposure, focusing etc, but sometimes even the manual dexterity needed of loading a film was beyond a lot of folk.
The other side of not regularly dealing with novices is that is too easy to forget how difficult tasks were when you first attempted them.
-
Rob, I agree with Rhossydd, it's much easier for your average clueless technophobe to get half decent results from modern cameras than it ever was with film.
And very, very importantly you get instant feedback if you screw up.
-
I do have camera fatigue.
Physically tired from hauling my Canon DSLR and L lenses around.
Yup, modern DSLRs/lenses are bulky and heavy things in comparison to my old film gear.
-
Nope ... quite the contrary.
36MP DSLRs? Mirrorless wunderkids? Precisely machined tech cameras with removable 180MP backs?
Are you kidding? This is the Golden Age ...
If you are a (rich) camera collector (a.k.a. hipster). If you are a photographer, any age is golden.
-
Ref digital v film... I resisted going digital but over a period of weeks I just snapped and went digital and the deciding factor for me was that the quality of the shots I was getting back from the processor nosedived. I assume they'd cut costs but whatever the reason that nose dive in quality drove me to digital and I'm now in control of my image quality (I never attempted to process film at home.)
Digital has massive advantages, IMVHO. Changing the ISO from shot to shot and being able to review shots instantly spring to mind as being two massive plus points.
Fatigue... I've just sold a 20D after using it for 7 years and I now have a 5D as my only SLR. If it wasn't for the new small form cameras I doubt I'd be buying any new gear. I have MFT and very rarely used compacts and I would like to sell my GF1 as I don't like shooting without a VF and perhaps get something a little better than my G1.
-
With the amount of gear being churned on all of the buy/sell forums it does not seem like camera fatigue exists. For me it is more like wallet fatigue.
As to the simplicity of film, really? I was one of those guys working at Ritz Camera in the late 60s teaching customers how to load film, what film to choose, etc. Later, as a pro shooting architecture I would have to deal with color balance of different light sources. That meant putting gels on windows, filters on lenses or multiple exposures with different light sources on 4X5 sheet film. This is much easier dealt with digitally. What was that about the simplicity of film?
Photography like every other art form evolves with technology. It is neither good or bad, it just is and even a geezer like myself can adapt and make good use of it.
-
I can only assume you've forgotten how difficult film based photography was when you started (and probably didn't have much experience of dealing with beginners to it to realise how tricky it was(is)).
Then you go on to imply that never really expected to be able to learn it by yourself which in turn implies you thought it difficult at the time anyway.
Now people expect all sorts of technology to be easy, including photography, and by and large it usually is. It's now easier to get acceptable results without needing any detailed knowledge than it's ever been before. Squeezing the absolute quality out of photographic systems, wet or dry, is and always was, the preserve of those enthusiastic enough to fully engage with the process.Photography has always had it's share of people fascinated and obsessed by the technicalities of the technology and has sold it's products on the merits of their specifications, nothing's really changed.
Back before the digital revolution they bought camera magazines, bought books, went to camera club meetings and expected their local camera shop to be experts that could answer all their problems.
Time has moved on; now they read the internet and don't have a local camera shop. What they do have is forums like this where they can obsess or seek help on their their hobby/passion/business at any time of the day or night with similarly minded people around the world. Look around and you'll find people obsessing about wet processes in huge detail, there's just far fewer of them than the digital mass market.
Which gets back to the OP's point; he's bored of that sort of continual discussion about the latest models. Sorry, but that's just what goes happens in forums like this. If you want something different there are other sites to follow.
I think if you know the basics the cameras are easier to use with film. Because digital is so adaptable it's easy to overlook a setting or knock a switch from say AF to MF. Something like a Hasselblad you loaded the film set your meter then adjusted exposure/focus as required and you expected to do it for each shot, you constantly checked.
I was loading cameras with film from about age 8, so it can't of been that difficult, a lot easier than learning a new TV recorder.
I'm sure the public find a digital P&S easier than film, they just set and go.
I would not want to explain jpg quality settings, sensor size advantage or raw v jpg to them, how to use the software for editing, sending the files to get printed, why everything taken at night has coloured blobs on, which card to buy, why less megapixels might be better for them, why they need to backup treasured files to another HD. That would make explaining how a film fits a camera quite simple.
Posting a Kodachrome to Box 14 Hemel Hempstead, I thought quite easy.
Kevin.
Kevin.
-
I think if you know the basics the cameras are easier to use with film. Because digital is so adaptable it's easy to overlook a setting or knock a switch from say AF to MF. Something like a Hasselblad you loaded the film set your meter then adjusted exposure/focus as required and you expected to do it for each shot, you constantly checked.
I was loading cameras with film from about age 8, so it can't of been that difficult, a lot easier than learning a new TV recorder.
I'm sure the public find a digital P&S easier than film, they just set and go.
I would not want to explain jpg quality settings, sensor size advantage or raw v jpg to them, how to use the software for editing, sending the files to get printed, why everything taken at night has coloured blobs on, which card to buy, why less megapixels might be better for them, why they need to backup treasured files to another HD. That would make explaining how a film fits a camera quite simple.
So true. I hardly ever had out of focus shots till I started using auto-focus cameras. Nowadays, I am forever discovering that the WB should be reset because I walked into shade, oops got to remove the compensation now too, what ISO am I using, is it on auto?, what? forgot to set back to single not continuous shutter, etc.
I still occasionally reach up to twist the aperture ring, how lame is that?
We gained a lot, but it means learning what all those user-friendly "universal" icons in the viewfinder mean. I spend so much time worrying about these things that I get many more out-of-horizon shots than I used to, mainly because I think I am not looking at the scene. If I had the camera in my hand every day, I am sure I would get better at managing all the variables, you just instinctively learn to. In the old days, you had other stuff to worry about, but I find myself mentally busier now at the time of picture-taking. New paradigm.
-
Because digital is so adaptable it's easy to overlook a setting or knock a switch from say AF to MF.
An AF/MF switch has nothing to do with digital. Cameras had this switch long before digital. Feature-itis is the problem, not the capture medium.
-
Nowadays, I am forever discovering that the WB should be reset because I walked into shade, ...
With so many of these new options, there are also simple options of ignoring them with a "good old days mode" if and when that is what you want. On the example of WB, the film approach was to choose a "WB setting" by choosing a film (a choice of two, daylight or tungsten), with not much more to be done unless you fiddle with color correction filters. With digital, you can likewise set a color temperature, turn off auto WB, and be back in the good old days ... with the difference that if you record raw or raw+JPEG, you have the option of changing your mind later.
About the only new feature that I have seen causing anything to be lost is one that predates digital: AF, where support for manual focus has been mostly lost both in lens design and in viewfinders. Even then, I see a technological fix:
- the much-maligned focus-by-wire, which allows variable speed so that slow focus ring movements give slow, fine focus adjustments
- zoomable electronic viewfinder images, preferably with zoomed view around the AF point but with the full view around the edges of the frame. This allows precise MF on an off-center point without repointing the camera, so a clear win over film cameras.
-
For all it's faults and allowing for the few instances when manual focus is better I thought that everyone had accepted that AF was in most situations faster and better than manual? I thought that this had been pretty much proved decades ago.
I'm sure that if camera makers cared to they could make even fly by wire systems much more manual friendly and more zone and infinity shooting friendly too but for most people most of the time I'm still of the opinion that AF is more accurate, quicker and more reliable.
-
For all it's faults and allowing for the few instances when manual focus is better I thought that everyone had accepted that AF was in most situations faster and better than manual? I thought that this had been pretty much proved decades ago.
AF's acceptance is not universal. There are many for whom "pretty good focus, at a limited number of points, really quick" isn't good enough.
-
On the subject of easiness, digital is similar to English: many people speak it, few well.
-
AF's acceptance is not universal. There are many for whom "pretty good focus, at a limited number of points, really quick" isn't good enough.
And I'm sure that I've been one of the ones complaining about fly by wire systems... a good percentage of my shots are manual focus but I have no doubt at all that in most situations AF is faster, quicker and more reliable. All of those things have pretty much been proved long ago. That's the reason I complain about the latest crop of lenses, if they could be easily used as many of us use manual lenses they'd be pretty much perfect. I mostly use a manual lens on my MFT but if I had the choice between a manual lens and an AF lens that could be used with ease manually I'd pick the AF lens every single time.
-
And I'm sure that I've been one of the ones complaining about fly by wire systems... a good percentage of my shots are manual focus but I have no doubt at all that in most situations AF is faster, quicker and more reliable. All of those things have pretty much been proved long ago.
Proof is an elusive concept but there's good evidence it's easier for camera makers to sell AF than manual focus. Personally, its numerous deficiencies up to now have kept me from accepting its virtues.
IMHO the potential for electronic viewfinders' fixes for AF's deficiencies is huge and in this respect not to mention numerous others the digital camera is an easy win for me.
-
From this recent flurry of posts, I realise that I am far from being the only person who felt more comfortable with traditonal systems. I'm also stunned to discover that anyone, who thought of himself as a photographer, might have been defeated by loading a film! Okay, I make an exception in two cases: the Nikon F4 which caused me many a blush with its horrid, flawed, 'improved'! self-loading system, and the venerable Pentax 67 11 where the fear of dropping a film when loading and (worse!) after use was a constant sweat-making device. The M Leicas were tricky, but then I seldom had exposure to them, and never once I worked for myself.
But there we are: I set my digis as near to manual as I can make them, and so far, so good. I have but one autofocus optic and then only because I couldn't get it manual. As I age I fnd my eyes fail somewhat; maybe the time might come when af is a blessing, but as I'll probably have lost my driving licence by then, it becomes academic. The vegetable state beckons.
As to the relative difficulties of 'learning' photography: looking at the brief, easy few lines with which the Nikon F3 brochure explained DOF, exposure etc. with the many pages that the Nikon digi offerings require, the comparative simplicity of the one over the other is clearer than I am able to state in my own words.
Give the choice, I wish that the Leica system of a digi back had existed within the Nikon world. It would be nice to pull the old-but-as-new F3 from the safe and use it again! That beautiful, accurate, split-image finder!
Rob C
-
From this recent flurry of posts, I realise that I am far from being the only person who felt more comfortable with traditonal systems.
Change is always difficult to cope with. The longer you've been tied to one way of working the harder that change is.
There's not much to stop people still using film if they want to. B&W is still pretty easy to get hold of for those who still like using it. DIY colour seems to be effectively dead now, but it was hardly ever popular anyway.
I'm also stunned to discover that anyone, who thought of himself as a photographer, might have been defeated by loading a film!
Nobody has actually suggested that....but
Okay, I make an exception in two cases: the Nikon F4 which caused me many a blush with its horrid, flawed, 'improved'! self-loading system, and the venerable Pentax 67 11 where the fear of dropping a film when loading and (worse!) after use was a constant sweat-making device. The M Leicas were tricky, but then I seldom had exposure to them, and never once I worked for myself.
But then you seem to have just admitted it.
For the casual user and beginner film loading could be a challenge to their dexterity. Anyone who worked in camera shops in film days will confirm this. That's why Kodak invented 126, 110 and disc formats, some people even found those difficult!
I'm pretty experienced, but loading one of my Bronica backs is still a pain compared to sliding a CF card into a DSLR.
As to the relative difficulties of 'learning' photography: looking at the brief, easy few lines with which the Nikon F3 brochure explained DOF, exposure etc. with the many pages that the Nikon digi offerings require, the comparative simplicity of the one over the other is clearer than I am able to state in my own words.
As I've said before; Unless you've been in the situation of trying to explain from square one how something works to people, never make assumptions on how difficult something is for the great mass public.
-
In regards to the dissatisfaction with digital, I was reminded of my first "digital" experience, which was with a film camera. After years of using my Mamiya Sekor 1000DTL, on which every control was in exactly the right place and I could focus faster than most point and shoots do today, I wore out my 3rd meter switch (a known weak point). We were well off enough that my wife bought me Nikon's first (I think their first, but didn't research, so don't go batty) electronic camera, the 8008. This was some time in the late '80s, not sure when. But it had the same plethora of switches, buttons and dials that we have now, just with film. We had recently moved and I had no place for my darkroom, so it was slides and prints and long story short, it went on the shelf in favor of some film p&s (bad move, I know). A couple years and I was fed up with the p&s quality and got the 8008 back out. Put fresh batteries in and I could not turn the @#$%$ thing on for the life of me! Had to dig out the manual to @#$% turn it on! Then had to read the manual again to do the electronic load (no film advance lever)...and then to figure out the "mode". Grrr. Or " >:(" I barely managed to refrain from bouncing it off the wall. It went back in the box and I didn't shoot again until my wife sprung $600 for Olympus' revolutionary new 1.4 MP (don't miss the decimal point) digital. I don't miss film, and if you see in color, digital is the only way to go, but I do miss the simplicity of the old devices. I know other posters described trouble teaching aperture/shutter/ISO to beginners, but imaging teaching my 8008 (or 5D for that matter) to those same people.
Rob P
-
On the subject of easiness, digital is similar to English: many people speak it, few well.
Well said, literally.
Digital and automation have lowered the standards of acceptable images. More than half the ADs I used to shoot for now just shoot themselves. Clients save money and don't care or notice the change.
I still love to shoot though. Just bought a 10" Desisti fresnel converted with a 4800WS tube and can't wait to get it into the studio. No time to worry. I'd rather be shooting instead.
-
My first camera was a Kodak folding, probably a number one Pocket Junior. I went through the steps to a Pentax Spotmatic until selling the lot when a darkroom was no longer an option for a hobbyist. Digital has meant I can print again with the minimum of space. I just adore the whole printing thing. As to cameras, I just want them to work and had a moment of fatigue with Canon and cameras in general because I was so annoyed with their sub sub menus. Now I just shoot and enjoy being outdoors and am very careful not to think about the stuff on the 5D2 that doesn't work. That could well lead to giving up.
On a recent trip to Antarctica as well as the Canon I took a 100 year old Thornton Pickard Imperial Pocket folding and a 1915 Kodak No. 1 Autographic special. The Thornton Pickard was like an early PC: you could add stuff on to it but it didn't work very well (or not at all), and the Kodak was the Mac of its day: it worked right out of the box but you had to take what they gave you. Anyway, I'd forgotten how bad film really was. Getting the stuff through security in 10 airports without having the life x-rayed out of it. Loading the the thing when you wanted to photograph (yes, 120 film only gives you 8 shots, but the principle applies), sorting and labelling it when everyone else was at tea, and then the scanning. Arrgh, what a pain. I never got rid of the extra dust. Well I worked hard but only managed 122 frames of film compared to the 4,800 odd digital files. Had fun but I haven't been converted away from CF cards.
Here's an uncleaned-up shot from the Thornton Pickard using a Cooke anastigmat f6.8. The lens sucks.
Regards.
-
To those who think digital is harder to learn than film - could it be that - like me - you aren't quite as good at learning things as you were in those ancient days?
http://kencameron1949.blogspot.com.au/ (http://kencameron1949.blogspot.com.au/)
-
Digital and automation have lowered the standards of acceptable images.
I think the vast majority of people taking photographs wouldn't agree with you, especially anyone old enough to remember just how limiting film was.
-
IMHO I do not think that learning digital photography is harder than film, just that it is a different paradigm.
I accept that the fundamentals of exposure can be initially learn't in the same way as film, from there though things start to change.
ETTR is first followed by throwing out the window all the old rules of thumb such as shutter speed = 1/focal length for a sharp exposure. Even with a very fast shutter speed handheld images can convert the super-duper 22 MP image to a practical 6-10 MP image.
Not an exhaustive list but merely a selection.
I did shoot film for a time but have to confess that I made almost next-to-no progress as a photographer.
Digital photography allowed a massive learning curve at a fairly rapid rate initially because of the short feedback loop that digital provides.
To learn photography digital IMHO is clearly the way to go.
Interested in the opinions of other - particularly older photographers.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I think the vast majority of people taking photographs wouldn't agree with you, especially anyone old enough to remember just how limiting film was.
And that, of coure, is the trouble when it comes to making statistics. That vast majority equates, inevitably, with the lowest common denominator.
Film limiting? Then I must have been Superman to have built a career from not a lot more than Kodachrome 135, FP3/4 and HP3/4 135 along with Ektachrome 64 and TXP 120 on the latter format. Oh, and nothing other than D76+1 soup in which to cook it. Amazingly difficult.
If, perversely, you wanted to make film tough, become an amateur and switch from magic potion to other equally magical potion with every film you expose; that way, you'd surely learn nothing except that the easy way is often the best.
But there's no future in these Black! White! Black! White! discussions, as this thread now certainly reveals...
Over and out.
Rob C
-
The problem of the difference between film and digital is not primarily the technical difference but the difference in the process.
Thats why I bought the Zeiss Ikonta -
I was curious on the change in the process with a fully manual camera without
lightmeter and without distance measurement.
You work different whith film than with digital.
Digital is too fast, but that is also one of the strengths of it.
Its a two-sided sword - everyone has to choose his/her poison.
People start working with sheet film for very good reasons.
Other people switch to digital for other, evenly good reasons.
I myself think, that the experience of shooting film is invaluable and should be part of
every photographic education, even if on the long run one stays fully digital.
-
I'm also stunned to discover that anyone, who thought of himself as a photographer, might have been defeated by loading a film!
I was once loading a film into my Bessa R when the end slipped through my fingers, curled round and went between the shutter blades... bending them. The result was a new shutter :( The company who fixed it told me about a guy who got his tie stuck in the shutter, twice :)