Camera Fatigue

[scooby70]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[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. 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

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Robcat]

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

[K.C.]

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.

[David Sutton]

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.

[kencameron]

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/

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Tony Jay]

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

[Rob C]

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

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

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.

[scooby70]

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