Oppinion on Nikon line
Rudy Garcia
brmcf...@aol.com (BRMCFARLAND) wrote:
> I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
> going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
> sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
> true?
>
> Thanks for any input.
> Becky
As long as the camera mount and film plate are true, the camera is just a
box (with a meter in it).
It is the lens that determines the achievable quality, but it is the
computer immediately behind the eyepiece and the "know how" programmed
into it that will be responsible for the majority of the results obtained.
:-)
--
Use address below for Email replies.
"Rudy Garcia" <ru...@jps.net>
Action Shutter
rudyg...@jps.net (Rudy Garcia) wrote:
> As long as the camera mount and film plate are true, the camera is just a
> box (with a meter in it).
Why do people post ridiculous crap like that?
- AS
Fred Alexander
photography, I wanted to offer sharp enlargements up to
16x20. It never occured to me to use my then (1973) top of
the line Nikon equipment.
I bought a used Mamiya Super 23 that had no built-in light
meter, normal and wide angle lenses, and a 6x7 back. The
negative was probably 4 or more times larger than a 35mm.
For backup I used a Yashica Mat-124, also a 120/220 camera
that produced 6x6 negatives.
Neither of these cameras were in league with a Hasselblad,
but my 35mm Nikon could not compete with images from
negatives so large. Of course, you'll do better with 35mm
today because of the improvements in color negative films,
but I expect the 120/220 film to also be improved.
That said, I have reluctantly shot a few weddings with 35mm.
Besides good lenses (24 2.8 was great for groups), I suggest
you invest in a really good flash. And make sure you use a
professional developer, not a local store or 1 hour place.
For what its worth, I was glad to stop taking weddings after
grad school. I felt like it was the most stressful thing I
did. (3 kids later, that's obviously not true now!)
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
BRMCFARLAND
Edward Craft
The N90S is the best body of the three. The body has nothing to do with
sharpness, only the lens does. Always get the best lens you can afford. If you
ever have to choose between saving money on a lens or on a body, always save on
the body. You can get terrific pictures with a good lens on a so-so camera. You
get lousy pictures with a lousy lens on a great camera body.
I have to add one thing. Please don't take offense, because none is intended.
Your question about sharpness suggests that you are very new to photography.
Before you spend any serious money on equipment, you would benefit from some
reading on the fundamentals. Often in this newsgroup someone tries to settle an
argument about gear by saying that the camera doesn't matter, it's the person
behind the camera. I personally don't believe that to be the case. Nevertheless,
if the person behind the camera doesn't understand what's happening in the
camera, it probably is true.
Best of luck,
Edward Craft
RDD5TK
Perfectly said, sir.
Gene Windell
>I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
>going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
>sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
>true?
I believe most professional wedding photographers use ISO/ASA 400 film
nowadays, either Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra 400NC or VC. While it is
possible to use a slower film for outdoor shots and a faster film for
indoor shots, this can result in having the camera loaded with the
wrong film at the wrong time. ISO 400 films are better than slower
films for recording more ambient light exposure in the background of
indoor pictures taken with flash. This helps keep the people in your
wedding photos from looking like they are floating in a sea of
blackness, which is caused by under-exposed backgrounds.
Most wedding pictures are taken with flash, both indoors and outdoors.
Shooting ISO 400 film outdoors in daylight requires relatively high
shutter speeds and small lens apertures. Small lens apertures result
in increased depth-of-field, which will render ugly and distracting
backgrounds in sharp focus. Ideally, you will want to use the fastest
shutter speed you can that will synchronize with flash. A faster
flash sync shutter speed will give you more control over the lens
apertures you can use in bright sunlight. Also, each incremental gain
in flash sync shutter speed reduces the power (and size)(and expense)
of the flash you need by 1/2.
I strongly recommend that you NOT buy a camera for wedding and
portrait work unless it can sync with flash at 1/250th second or
higher. One reason some pro wedding photographers use medium format
cameras with leaf shutter lenses in because they can sync with flash
at 1/500th sec. If your camera can sync with flash no higher than
1/125th sec., using ISO 400 film in bright sunlight would require a
lens aperture of f/22. The trouble is, (1) - your lenses may not have
an aperture setting smaller than f/16, (2) - shooting at f/22 will
probably render the background in sharper focus than you would like,
and (3) - your flash may not be powerful enough to shoot at f/22.
The Nikon cameras that can sync with flash at 1/250th second are:
F5, F100, N90s, N8008s among the autofocusing models. However, if you
don't plan to specialize in shooting sports or fast moving wildlife
you may find that an autofocusing camera is more of a liability than
an asset. Manually focusing the lens takes about 2 seconds, and how
quickly you can focus doesn't have much to do with shooting good
portraits, landscapes or wedding photos. The Nikon manual focusing
cameras that can sync with flash at 1/250th second are the FM2n, the
FE2, and the FA.
If you get serious about shooting portraits, you will eventually find
yourself using various types of soft-focus filters and vignetting
masks in a matte box. Autofocusing does not work with these types of
lens attachments, and again is more of a liability than an asset.
When you've intentionally made the image fuzzy with these kinds of
gadgets, you must have a split-image focusing screen in the camera to
determine when the image is in focus. The effects of certain types of
special effects filters and vignetting masks depend on the shooting
aperture. Your camera must have a depth-of-field preview feature,
which enables you to see the degree of effect created by special
effects lens attachments. Also, portraiture and wedding photography
are specialties that can call for making double exposures. Make sure
the camera you get has multiple exposure capability.
Whether working outdoors in natural light, or indoors with flash or
other artificial lighting, good portraiture results from controlling
the ratio of highlight to shadow on the subject's face. No 35mm
camera has an internal light meter which facilitates doing this, and a
hand-held incident/flash meter is normally required - which is another
$200+ investment. When using a hand-held light meter, the lens
aperture and shutter speed readings must be transferred manually to
the camera. Therefore, all forms of in-camera light metering are
redundant and irrelevant - again, more of a liability than an asset.
There is no point in paying extra to get fancy in-camera metering
you're not going to be able to use, when the money would be better
spent on a hand-held light meter and lighting equipment.
In summary, I suggest you get a manual focus camera body with
minimalist light metering such as the Nikon FM2n. The FE2 would be
more enjoyable for you to use when you are not carrying your hand-held
meter with you, as it has aperture-preferred exposure automation and
TTL flash metering - features lacking on the FM2n. The FE2 was
discontinued in about 1989, and a good used one costs as much as a
brand new FM2n.
In wedding photography, you must have a backup for each important
piece of equipment in case of failure. That means you have to have at
least 2 camera bodies. As it happens, you can buy 2 manual focus
Nikon bodies for the price of just one F100.
The Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS telephoto lens is about the best lens you
can get for shooting portraits. You need a 50mm f/1.8 AIS for full
length portraits and group shots. You need a 24mm f/2.8 wide angle
lens for shooting in crowded interiors, landscapes and special
effects. These 3 lenses are perhaps all you would ever need for
shooting portraits, weddings, and landscapes.
For weddings, you will need the most powerful flash unit you can
afford (and perhaps a less expensive backup unit). The Quantum T2
powered by the Quantum Turbo battery is ideal, but if your budget
won't allow it a Sunpak 120J will suffice. At about $225, the Polaris
digital ambient/flash meter is a good value.
The purpose of a backup camera body for weddings is simply to enable
you to keep shooting if and when your primary camera malfunctions.
While it need not be exactly like your primary camera, at a minimum it
should use the same lenses and the same flash. If you decide to use a
Nikon FM2n or FE2 as your primary camera, an inexpensive FM-10 or
FE-10 would suffice as a backup.
In summary, the applications you specified requires a camera body
that:
1. can synchronize with flash at 1/250th second
2. has a depth-of-field preview feature
3. has a multiple exposure switch
4. has a split-image focusing screen
The lowest priced new camera you can buy that has these essential
features is the Nikon FM2n, about $425 for a grey market version at
B&H Photo. A used FE2 in nice condition, from a reputable dealer such
as B&H Photo or KEH Camera Brokers will cost about the same or a bit
more.
If you have more specific questions, just ask.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
If the camera doesn't have the essential features you need for your
specialized applications - such as mirror lockup, DOF preview, a
multiple exposure switch, interchangeable focusing screens, flash sync
at 1/250th second, etc., the camera is not "just a box" - it is a door
stop. Also, the question of ruggedness and reliability, shutter
timing accuracy, etc. become an issue at some point.
Of course, it one intends to only shoot mundane snapshots then "just a
box" will probably work out fine for you.
Gene Windell
Anders Svensson
Are you intending to learn photography, or are you aiming at
buying the skill...
Forgive my bluntness, but the second part of your question
(the lens part) makes me think that you could make a much
better decision by reading a textbook or two about
photography before choosing a camera.
As for your question, yes, the lens is is probably more
important than the camera, as long as you compare cameras of
this caliber (PLEASE, NO BRAND WARS NECESSARY - THERE
CERTAINLY ARE ALTERNATIVES) to eachother. But, sharpness is
also to about 80 % a result of proper technique, like using
the correct shutter speed, focusing correctly, using flash
correctly and skilfully, and using a tripod when needed.
These are photographer skills, not camera or lens propertys.
Have faith, tho'. When the photographer skill is there,
camera and lens do count for something and a better lens
*will* add quality (technical quality) to the image. The
better built camera *will* survive clumsiness better, the
better auto-focus and auto-exposure tools will help you
achieve a decent shot when there is a hurry or help you be
more productive.
But if the choice is between camera body and lens, there
will not be much between these cameras in image quality. To
me, the N90s has more appeal, tho'.
With no old Nikkor legacy, the F80 may have as much that
speaks for it.
The F70 is (if found new, unused and with a official
warranty) a bargain, but operates a little different from
the mainstream camera bodies. That would be my budget choice
of these three.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
McEowen
specialized applications - such as mirror lockup, DOF preview, a
multiple exposure switch, interchangeable focusing screens, flash sync
at 1/250th second, etc., the camera is not "just a box" - it is a door
stop. >>
Wow! In another thread the consensus is that 90 percent of photographers never
take their F100 and fancy EOS cameras off of program mode. In this thread we've
got essential features for specialized applications. I'm hanging out in this
thread -- clearly the better photographers post here . . .
Actually, I'm only partly kidding. I rely on 1/250 synch a lot. I use mirror
lock up once or twice a year. DOF preview is pretty constant (though I get by
fine without it on the rangefinders -- diffferent application). I've owned a
few different focusing screens over the years but these days pretty much just
go with the "K" screen. I have NEVER used the multiple exposure function in 25
years of photography.
So, yes, a camera is just a box -- we all COULD shoot with Nikon F bodies but
would we want to? -- but it sure is handy to have "features." In the end,
though, all the features in the world will not make you a shooter who produces
images people will want to look at and get anything from viewing.
BRMCFARLAND
learn about photography first?
When I went to School for for photography we were taught using only a basic
35mm with a 50mm lens. No other lenses, flashes, filters, etc. were used. So
excuse me for not sounding as knowledgable as you. I thought this board was to
ask questions and opinions so we can learn more... not put down others for not
being as educated as they 'should' be.
Thank you very much to everyone who gave me helpful information. It was much
appreciated.
Anders Svensson
>
> Because I ask a question about lenses, that leads you to believe I need to
> learn about photography first?
Yes. The way you put the question, definitely.
s...@randomc.com
>going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
>sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
>true?
If I were going into wedding work, I would look into the Fuji 645 Gz (not
sure of the exact model). Its a small and light vertical format roll film
camera with a zoom lens. This would be my most often used camera in weddings.
Being the larger format, it gives very sharp results. Being smaller than an
N90, it would be unobtrusive and easy to use.
S
s...@randomc.com
><< If the camera doesn't have the essential features you need for your
>specialized applications - such as mirror lockup, DOF preview, a
>multiple exposure switch, interchangeable focusing screens, flash sync
>at 1/250th second, etc., the camera is not "just a box" - it is a door
>stop. >>
>Actually, I'm only partly kidding. I rely on 1/250 synch a lot. I use mirror
>lock up once or twice a year. DOF preview is pretty constant (though I get by
>fine without it on the rangefinders -- diffferent application). I've owned a
>few different focusing screens over the years but these days pretty much just
>go with the "K" screen. I have NEVER used the multiple exposure function in 25
>years of photography.
>So, yes, a camera is just a box -- we all COULD shoot with Nikon F bodies but
>would we want to? -- but it sure is handy to have "features." In the end,
>though, all the features in the world will not make you a shooter who produces
>images people will want to look at and get anything from viewing.
But wait, there's more. "P" is the most useful of the settings. I do tend to
use the aperture priority for a lot of macro work, and shutter priority for
action/sports shots. I'm also constantly using the EV button and various wind
speeds. And the DOF button is used about 80% of the time. I'd use an EC-E
screen but they are very hard to find. Yes, its just a box to me. I don't
need accurate shutter speeds or aperture settings, just the box.
S
s...@randomc.com
>BRMCFARLAND skrev:
>>
>> Because I ask a question about lenses, that leads you to believe I need to
>> learn about photography first?
>Yes. The way you put the question, definitely.
Yep - you sounded like a rank newbie. I'll admit, you got me.
S
Gene Windell
>In article <20000821213409...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, brmcf...@aol.com (BRMCFARLAND) wrote:
>>I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
>>going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
>>sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
>>true?
>
>If I were going into wedding work, I would look into the Fuji 645 Gz (not
>sure of the exact model). Its a small and light vertical format roll film
>camera with a zoom lens. This would be my most often used camera in weddings.
>Being the larger format, it gives very sharp results. Being smaller than an
>N90, it would be unobtrusive and easy to use.
The Fujica GA645ZI is the one with the zoom lens. Like the Contax G2,
this is an electronic rangefinder camera that provides no visual
confirmation of focus - which some people may find unnerving.This is
not a bad choice, but the best camera for wedding work is the Mamiya 6
- which is even smaller than the Fuji GA645ZI.
The Mamiya 6 is a traditional rangefinder like the Leica M6, but on
steroids. It is the same size and weight as a Nikon F4. But it has
the following features which make it ideally suited for wedding work:
1. It has interchangeable, leaf shutter lenses which can sync with
flash up to 1/500th sec.
2. It is almost totally silent in operation - even quieter than a
Leica M6.
3. The absense of reflex mirror induced vibration make it possible to
hand-hold the camera at very slow shutter speeds. Using ISO/ASA 800
film and the standard 75mm lens wide open at f/3.5, most church
interiors are bright enough to allow shooting at 1/30th second
hand-held with sharp results.
4. The square 6X6 cm film format is about 4 times larger than a 35mm
negative. This allows much more flexibility in cropping, allowing one
to "zoom in" on the best part of the negative for printing.
5. The square format means there are no vertical compositions, thus
there is no need to flip the camera or the flash on its side to shoot
verticals.
6. The Mamiya 6 has a collapsible lens mount, and the camera takes up
less space in a camera bag than a full-sized 35mm SLR - even with the
Newton N7500 flash bracket attached.
7. The rangefinder is very bright and very quick and easy to focus in
dim light.
8. It has a top-mounted flash hot shoe like a 35mm SLR, making a
flash bracket less necessary. The camera works well with inexpensive
flash units, such as the Sunpak 383 or Vivitar 283.
In summary this camera's relatively small size, fast handling, quiet
operation, low-light focusing ease, and high flash sync shutter speed
make the Mamiya 6 the ideal camera for shooting weddings. But the
great pleasure in using this camera results from the superb quality of
its lenses which are distortion free, quite sharp at all apertures,
and almost totally immune to lens flare.
Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:54:21 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>
>>In article <20000821213409...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, brmcf...@aol.com
> (BRMCFARLAND) wrote:
>>>going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
>>>sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is
> this
>>>true?
>>If I were going into wedding work, I would look into the Fuji 645 Gz (not
>>sure of the exact model). Its a small and light vertical format roll film
>>camera with a zoom lens. This would be my most often used camera in weddings.
>>Being the larger format, it gives very sharp results. Being smaller than an
>>N90, it would be unobtrusive and easy to use.
>The Fujica GA645ZI is the one with the zoom lens. Like the Contax G2,
>this is an electronic rangefinder camera that provides no visual
>confirmation of focus - which some people may find unnerving.This is
>not a bad choice, but the best camera for wedding work is the Mamiya 6
>- which is even smaller than the Fuji GA645ZI.
I just mentioned the Fuji since I thought it was smaller - guess not. It does
have the zoom advantages though. The Mamyia 7 is super - also the 6 x 7
format is better too. However, what about zoom lenses? I would think they
would be ideal for weddings. Are there any for the Mamyia 7?
>4. The square 6X6 cm film format is about 4 times larger than a 35mm
>negative. This allows much more flexibility in cropping, allowing one
>to "zoom in" on the best part of the negative for printing.
I thought it was a 6 x 7?
S
Edward Craft
BRMCFARLAND wrote:
> Because I ask a question about lenses, that leads you to believe I need to
> learn about photography first?
Certainly not. But your question about lenses was _so_ fundamental that I assumed
- apparently wrongly - that you were a novice. I apologize for the error.
> When I went to School for for photography we were taught using only a basic
> 35mm with a 50mm lens. No other lenses, flashes, filters, etc. were used. So
> excuse me for not sounding as knowledgable as you. I thought this board was to
> ask questions and opinions so we can learn more... not put down others for not
> being as educated as they 'should' be.
Where was the put-down? Was it the part where I said "please don't take offense,
because none is intended?" A lof of good that did. Listen, if you want to see
real put-downs, scroll though any number of the threads here. I didn't see a
single put-down in replies to your post, and certainly didn't intend for mine to
be taken as one.
Regards,
Edward Craft
Mac Breck
news:20000821213409...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I
was
> going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good?
> I am looking for
> sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is
this
> true?
It's better to get the camera body that is compatible with the most lenses
in that manufacturer's lens lineup. Among the camera bodies you listed,
that would be the N90s or the N70, not the N80.
Mac
j...@cheerful.com
5 Thing you need to make a good picture you need:
5. Good Films,
4. Accurate meter (this is why you buy *expensive toy*)
3. Accurate and reliable shutter speed (this is why you buy *expensive toy*)
2. Good Lenses!!! (buy fixed lenses)
1. Skill/Experience (read books and practices)
Photography is art of light management.
You wanna record the moments. The things between the subject and the Film are:
LENS and Shutter Blades (and mirror). So these are the only things that matter.
If you are not lazy to learn, get FM10 or FM2 and buy 50/1.8 lens (these cameras
don't need batteries to operate, well the meter does). When you're getting better
then move to better equipment and keep the old camera as a backup:)
There you go.
Jon
Gene Windell
>>The Fujica GA645ZI is the one with the zoom lens. Like the Contax G2,
>>this is an electronic rangefinder camera that provides no visual
>>confirmation of focus - which some people may find unnerving.This is
>>not a bad choice, but the best camera for wedding work is the Mamiya 6
>>- which is even smaller than the Fuji GA645ZI.
>
>I just mentioned the Fuji since I thought it was smaller - guess not. It does
>have the zoom advantages though. The Mamyia 7 is super - also the 6 x 7
>format is better too. However, what about zoom lenses? I would think they
>would be ideal for weddings. Are there any for the Mamyia 7?
The Fuji GA645zi is essentially a medium format "Point&Shoot,"
featuring a tiny, built-in flash, programmed exposure mode, no real
manual focusing mode, etc. Its features indicate it is designed more
for the casual and inexperienced user, rather than the demands of
professional work. However, if a casual and inexperienced
photographer was inclined to shoot weddings - this may be an excellent
tool for the job. It is only slightly larger than the Mamiya 6 and
Mamiya 7.
Typical of rangefinder cameras, there are no zoom lenses for the
Mamiya 7 (or Mamiya 6) and probably never will be. Zoom lenses are
much more rare among medium format cameras than 35mm SLRs, as they are
bigger, heavier, slower, and more expensive than fixed focal length
lenses. Medium format photographers tend to use techniques which do
not benefit from the use of zoom lenses, so the market demand for them
is limited.
>>>4. The square 6X6 cm film format is about 4 times larger than a 35mm
>>negative. This allows much more flexibility in cropping, allowing one
>>to "zoom in" on the best part of the negative for printing.
>
>I thought it was a 6 x 7?
The 6X6 format Mamiya 6 was discontinued in about 1998, being
supplanted by the more popular 6X7 format Mamiya 7. The 2 cameras are
virtually identical, and share the same features, functionality and
lens designs - though the lenses are not interchangeable.
The peculiarities of wedding photography are such that the square
format is better suited to this specialty. The differences in image
quality between 6X4.5 format and 6X7 format are not evident, all other
things being equal, until enlargement sizes go bigger than 16X20. In
wedding photography, there is very little client demand for
enlargements bigger than 16X20.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
>I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
>going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
>sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
>true?
I believe most professional wedding photographers use ISO/ASA 400 film
Rudy Garcia
<a...@fastshutterspeed.com> wrote:
> In article <rudygnospam-21...@216-119-33-237.o1.jps.net>,
> rudyg...@jps.net (Rudy Garcia) wrote:
>
> > As long as the camera mount and film plate are true, the camera is just a
> > box (with a meter in it).
>
> Why do people post ridiculous crap like that?
>
> - AS
It may sound like crap to you, but only after your selective editing of
the post and my reply.
The original poster asked:
> I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
> going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
> sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
> true?
To which I replied that the camera was fundamentally just a box, as far as
sharpness is concerned. If you think that is crap, then you should stick
to shooting B&W as you are evidently color blind.
Rudy Garcia
> In article <rudygnospam-22...@216-119-34-89.o1.jps.net>,
rudyg...@jps.net (Rudy Garcia) wrote:
> >In article <as-7C93B5.19...@nntp.loop.com>, Action Shutter
> ><a...@fastshutterspeed.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <rudygnospam-21...@216-119-33-237.o1.jps.net>,
> >> rudyg...@jps.net (Rudy Garcia) wrote:
>
> >> > As long as the camera mount and film plate are true, the camera is just a
> >> > box (with a meter in it).
>
> >> Why do people post ridiculous crap like that?
>
> >> - AS
>
>
> >It may sound like crap to you, but only after your selective editing of
> >the post and my reply.
>
> >The original poster asked:
>
> >> I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
> >> going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
> >> sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is
> > this
> >> true?
>
> >To which I replied that the camera was fundamentally just a box, as far as
> >sharpness is concerned. If you think that is crap, then you should stick
> >to shooting B&W as you are evidently color blind.
>
> But it is crap in the 35mm world. The camera controls shutter speed and
> a bad one will cause you all kinds of heartache. You can never get sharp
> crisp images with a vibrating box. Now if you're talking about 4 X 5,
then it
> is more of a box than the 35mm camera is.
>
> S
Now, that is a much more illuminating response than the original :-)
Bad shutter speeds will cause bad exposures. Any loss in sharpness (due to
a slow shutter perhaps) will pale into insignificance, compared to a
terribly exposed shot.
I still think that between the N90s, N80, N70 that the poster was
considering, all the way back to the F (I'll even count the EM) will all
serve equally well in producing sharp pictures as long as they are in
proper alignment.
s...@randomc.com
>In article <as-7C93B5.19...@nntp.loop.com>, Action Shutter
><a...@fastshutterspeed.com> wrote:
>> In article <rudygnospam-21...@216-119-33-237.o1.jps.net>,
>> rudyg...@jps.net (Rudy Garcia) wrote:
>> > As long as the camera mount and film plate are true, the camera is just a
>> > box (with a meter in it).
>> Why do people post ridiculous crap like that?
>> - AS
>It may sound like crap to you, but only after your selective editing of
>the post and my reply.
>The original poster asked:
>> I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
>> going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
>> sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is
> this
>> true?
>To which I replied that the camera was fundamentally just a box, as far as
BRMCFARLAND
No, it was not your comment that offended me, but someone elses. I suppose the
way I worded it sounded too simple. I appreciate photographers opinions, but I
can't stand reading the comments from pompous artists who, from one poorly
worded question, conclude that I need to learn about photography first.Why else
do they add that comment in except to put me down a notch and make themselves
feel smart and important. I'll be the first one to admit I need to learn A LOT
about equipment. That's why I post my questions. To learn. Thank you for your
help. Now I need to go put on my thicker skin!
Anders Svensson
Well, as a expert on the issue at hand (I was the one who
misinterpreted the level of knowledge you are on, Becky, and
I am sorry that you felt offended), let me explain my
standpoint a little.
There *are* a lot of different knowledge levels on
newsgroups. For those who try to help, it is sometimes hard
to get into accord with the mind of the questionaree. This
is what you wrote:
> I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I was
> going to buy the N90s. Would the N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for
> sharpness. I have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that count. Is this
> true?
To me, (and I suspect that you may see my problem) this
sounds like someone new to photography and without a lot of
knowledge about camera technology. To make sense in my
answer, I need to make a interpretation of what advice you
will need. I choose to say "pardon my bluntness" and
(somewhat simple, I admit) go into why photographer
technique is the lion part of image quality, including
sharpness. The "do you want to buy skill" part was
unnecessary.
Again, I apologize for not understanding that you knew
photography. But it wasn't easy to get that from your post
:-)
Mac Breck
news:39a2c97f....@news.psci.net...
> On 22 Aug 2000 01:34:09 GMT, brmcf...@aol.com (BRMCFARLAND) wrote:
snip
> The Nikon cameras that can sync with flash at 1/250th second are:
> F5, F100, N90s, N8008s among the autofocusing models.
Add F4 (F4, F4s, F4e), since you aren't listing only current models.
> However, if you
> don't plan to specialize in shooting sports or fast moving wildlife
> you may find that an autofocusing camera is more of a liability than
> an asset. Manually focusing the lens takes about 2 seconds, and how
> quickly you can focus doesn't have much to do with shooting good
> portraits, landscapes or wedding photos. The Nikon manual focusing
> cameras that can sync with flash at 1/250th second are the FM2n, the
> FE2, and the FA.
>
> If you get serious about shooting portraits, you will eventually find
> yourself using various types of soft-focus filters and vignetting
> masks in a matte box. Autofocusing does not work with these types of
> lens attachments, and again is more of a liability than an asset.
> When you've intentionally made the image fuzzy with these kinds of
> gadgets, you must have a split-image focusing screen in the camera to
> determine when the image is in focus.
A K-screen in an F4s, or an A-Screen in an F5 would work. So would the
FM2n, but I'd use the F4s (on S or CS) since it seems to be quieter than my
FM2n, plus with a motor, your chance of missing a shot is reduced. With the
FM2n, I'd never use a motor at a wedding because it's way too loud (probably
would be heard on the videotape).
snip
> The Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS telephoto lens is about the best lens you
> can get for shooting portraits. You need a 50mm f/1.8 AIS for full
> length portraits and group shots. You need a 24mm f/2.8 wide angle
> lens for shooting in crowded interiors, landscapes and special
> effects. These 3 lenses are perhaps all you would ever need for
> shooting portraits, weddings, and landscapes.
I'd add the 35 f/1.4 AIS and 85 f/1.4 AIS. Those were the lenses I found
most useful at weddings.
> For weddings, you will need the most powerful flash unit you can
> afford (and perhaps a less expensive backup unit). The Quantum T2
> powered by the Quantum Turbo battery is ideal,
Love my Quantum Turbo battery. No missed shots due to recycling.
Mac
Edward Craft
> [snip] Now I need to go put on my thicker skin!
Okay, bygones then, right? If it makes you feel any better, every regular
participant in this group has taken a hit every now and then, some more than
others, some more deservedly than others. It's kind of like sitting in the first
row at the dolphin show at Sea World. You're in the splash zone. You're going to
get wet. Says so right on the ticket.
Have fun with your shooting,
Edward Craft
Dan
> >I am looking to buy a Nikon for weddings, portraits,
> >landscapes, etc. I was going to buy the N90s. Would the
> >N80 or N70 be as good? I am looking for sharpness. I
> >have heard that it's the lens, not the camera that
> >count. Is this true?
Brmcfarland, I don't know your experience level, but you
sound like a novice to me (ignore the next statement if
my perception is wrong). Since a wedding is usually the
most important photographed event in a person's life, a
novice probably shouldn't accept a wedding assignment.
I'd think (but don't know from experience) that the
N90s, N80, and N70 are all equally sharp. (The damping
of shutter and mirror vibration may be the only
difference.) But different camera bodies have other
distinctions that are important. I'm not familiar
enough with the models you mention to compare them.
ewin...@psci.net (Gene Windell) wrote:
> [big snip...]
>
> In summary, the applications you specified requires a
> camera body that:
>
> 1. can synchronize with flash at 1/250th second
> 2. has a depth-of-field preview feature
> 3. has a multiple exposure switch
> 4. has a split-image focusing screen
"Requires" is a bit strong here. You require a 1/250
flash sync for weddings. I've attended a number of
weddings in which the photographer used a Canon Elan. I
believe the Elan only syncs at 1/125. You require
multiple exposure for weddings and portraits, but to my
knowledge most wedding and portrait multiple images are
done in the lab.
On the other hand, one could go further and say that
shooting landscapes requires a view camera and a mule to
carry it, that shooting portraits requires studio
strobes with modeling lights, and so forth. All useful,
but not requirements.
Your reasoning is good, but your recommendations are
shaky. The FM2n and FE2 are not the _only_ suitable
options, which is what I hear you saying. Many newer
models have a spot meter, for example, which is quite
useful for landscapes. Your recommendations may not
even be the _most_ suitable options. An FE2 is at least
10 years old: do those who shoot events like weddings
commonly buy 10-year-old used equipment? And while a
good camera, the FM2n lacks almost all conveniencies: no
auto-focus, no auto-exposure, no TTL flash. Even the
meter indication in the viewfinder is less convenient
than those in newer cameras which are marked off in
1/2-stop or 1/3-stop increments.
And, last but not least, you seem to have based your
recommendations on Brmcfarland's interest in weddings,
portraits, and landscapes. You may have forgotten her
"etc." I could be wrong, but her request was worded in
a way that makes me think that "etc." is pretty wide.
Chi
Gene Windell
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>A K-screen in an F4s, or an A-Screen in an F5 would work. So would the
>FM2n, but I'd use the F4s (on S or CS) since it seems to be quieter than my
>FM2n, plus with a motor, your chance of missing a shot is reduced. With the
>FM2n, I'd never use a motor at a wedding because it's way too loud (probably
>would be heard on the videotape).
During the wedding reception, ambient noise levels are often so high
that people couldn't hear you if you fired up a chainsaw. Likewise,
when you are shooting outdoors motor noise isn't objectionable. I
think motor noise becomes an issue only during the wedding ceremony.
But the officiant will often disallow any photography during the
ceremony anyway, so it may be irrelevant.
A benefit of the FM2n and FE2 is that the motor is completely
removable for those occasions when the lowest noise levels and
lightest weight are desired. Alternatively, the motor for the FM2n
and FE2 can be switched off and the film advance/shutter cocking
accomplished by the thumb lever on the camera. Obviously, this isn't
an option with cameras that have no thumb lever advance. A thumb
lever advance also relieves worries about the motor drive batteries
dying at the worst possible moment.
Personally, I don't think anything happens so quickly when shooting
weddings, portraits and landscapes that one is likely to miss
important shots due to lack of motorized film advance. The
photographers at the top of each of these specialties use
non-motorized Hasselblad cameras, and they somehow seem to manage.
Perhaps it is by abandoning the use of motorized cameras, zoom lenses,
etc. that one learns the techniques that allow them to reach the top
rank of these photo specialty areas.
>> The Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS telephoto lens is about the best lens you
>> can get for shooting portraits. You need a 50mm f/1.8 AIS for full
>> length portraits and group shots. You need a 24mm f/2.8 wide angle
>> lens for shooting in crowded interiors, landscapes and special
>> effects. These 3 lenses are perhaps all you would ever need for
>> shooting portraits, weddings, and landscapes.
>
>I'd add the 35 f/1.4 AIS and 85 f/1.4 AIS. Those were the lenses I found
>most useful at weddings.
Having fast lenses like these open the door to shooting the whole
wedding by available light only, with ISO/ASA 800 film such as Fuji
NHG II. Assuming you have a backup camera body, you can mount the
35mm on one camera and the 85mm on the other - and never need to
change lenses.
However these particular lenses are budget busters, and a beginner may
find their limited funds are better spent on other things such as
lighting equipment, hand-held meter, tripod, equipment bags, etc.
Alternatively, one could gain the same low-light capability by getting
the much less expensive 50mm f/1.4 - and simply taking a few steps
backwards instead of using the 35mm f/1.4, and taking a few steps
forward instead of using the 85mm f/1.4.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
> "Requires" is a bit strong here. You require a 1/250
> flash sync for weddings. I've attended a number of
> weddings in which the photographer used a Canon Elan. I
> believe the Elan only syncs at 1/125. You require
> multiple exposure for weddings and portraits, but to my
> knowledge most wedding and portrait multiple images are
> done in the lab.
> On the other hand, one could go further and say that
> shooting landscapes requires a view camera and a mule to
> carry it, that shooting portraits requires studio
> strobes with modeling lights, and so forth. All useful,
> but not requirements.
One can shoot landscapes, portraits and weddings with any kind of
camera - including an $8 single-use, disposable camera. The equipment
that one brings to the task depends on what level of technique one's
skills allow them to employ.
If one does not have the know-how or the equipment to accomplish
multiple exposures in-camera, then they obviously will have no choice
but to have this work done in a wet lab or digitally in Photoshop.
And if one's camera does not have the capability for multiple
exposures, they will never gain the know-how. The inability to do it
in-camera results in increased costs to the client, and a limitation
on the photographer's own repertoire of skills.
Regarding shooting weddings with a Canon Elan IIe, I must confess that
I also have attended weddings where the "official" photographer was
using the same kind of equipment as the weddings guests. Doubtless,
the end result was the same kinds of images that the wedding guests
were getting with their own cameras. As I already mentioned, the kind
of equipment that one brings to the task will depend on what level of
technique the photographer is capable of employing. If the only
technique one knows how to perform is "set the computer to default
modes, and press the button," then I suppose the Canon Elan is as good
as any other camera.
If one does not have the capability to sync with flash at 1/250th sec.
or higher, they will never learn how to use flash as the main light
instead of merely fill light outdoors in sunlight. Neither will they
ever learn how to control the brightness of the background and the
brightness of the subject independently. And neither will they ever
learn what is preventing them from elevating their outdoor flash
pictures to the professional level.
> Your reasoning is good, but your recommendations are
> shaky.
After you've been able to talk someone into paying you $1,000 in
advance to shoot their wedding, based on the strength of your
portfolio and your reputation - then come back and tell me my
recommendations are shaky.
> The FM2n and FE2 are not the _only_ suitable
>options, which is what I hear you saying.
Correct. Any camera that is capable of sync with flash at 1/250th
sec. or higher, has multiple-exposure capability, has a DOF preview
feature, and can accept a split-image focusing screen will serve just
as well for weddings and portraits. These features are not nearly so
important for shooting landscapes, but without them the photographer
will eventually hit a brick wall regarding the techniques they can
employ and thus how far their work can progress.
The simple answer is to just say "get yourself a Nikon F5, a 28-70mm
f/2.8 zoom and a 80-200 f/2.8 zoom, and a SB-28 flash and you'll be
all set." But most beginners are not prepared to start out at that
level of expense, and all of that high-tech gadgetry will not improve
the quality of their portfolio.
In portraiture and weddings, the person requesting the work will often
display pictures torn out of a magazine and ask "can you make a
picture that looks like this?" Saying "I don't know - ask my camera"
is not a satisfactory response.
To succeed in portraiture and wedding photography, one must be able to
produce stunning, dramatic, awe-inspiring prints which no casual
amateur is capable of achieving with his auto-everything camera. It
depends on applying technique, and using equipment which allows and
does not prevent technique from being applied. It requires
controlling lighting ratios, metering them accurately, and knowing
what the outcome will be before you ever press the shutter button. A
camera store can not sell you that in a box, and you will never learn
it if you buy a camera because you want its "convenience features."
"Convenience" is the anathema of producing stunning, dramatic
photographs - and the mark of a lazy, complacent photographer.
The dramatic quality of any photograph is equivalent to the amount of
human enginuity and effort that went into making it.
> Many newer models have a spot meter, for example, which is quite
> useful for landscapes. Your recommendations may not
> even be the _most_ suitable options.
Perhaps not. I was offering the original poster advice on what I feel
combines the necessary features at the lowest cost. What is the
lowest priced camera that can sync with flash at 1/250th sec, has DOF
preview, multiple exposure capability, and interchangeable focusing
screens?
> An FE2 is at least
>10 years old: do those who shoot events like weddings
>commonly buy 10-year-old used equipment?
The most commonly used camera among the top wedding professionals is
the Hasselblad 500CM, some of which are 25 years old. The FE2's
record of reliability has withstood the test of time, and with
periodic maintenance should last until everything goes digital. The
FE2 was produced back in the days when the manufacturers made cameras
as good as they knew how, and before their profits depended on planned
obsolescense and churning out computerized plastic which requires
upgrading and replacement every 3 or 4 years.
> And while a good camera, the FM2n lacks almost all conveniencies: no
> auto-focus, no auto-exposure, no TTL flash.
Thankfully. Otherwise, the photographer would have to go to the
trouble of switching off all of the "no brain" convenience features on
the F100 in order to employ the techniques required to succeed in
portraiture and wedding photography.
> Even the meter indication in the viewfinder is less convenient
> than those in newer cameras which are marked off in
>1/2-stop or 1/3-stop increments.
There are only 2 ways to achieve reliable, predictable exposure
results with the precision required for professional quality
portraiture and wedding work. First is to shoot Polaroid test prints.
Second is to use a hand-held, ambient/flash meter. When one employs
either of these methods, in-camera meter readouts are worthless and a
waste of money.
However, the Nikon FE2 has all of the strengths and features of the
FM2n - but also has an unobtrusive implementation of exposure
automation. In my opinion, this makes it more desirable for casual
use when a hand-held meter is not being used.
>
> And, last but not least, you seem to have based your
> recommendations on Brmcfarland's interest in weddings,
> portraits, and landscapes. You may have forgotten her
> "etc." I could be wrong, but her request was worded in
> a way that makes me think that "etc." is pretty wide.
If she is interested in shooting more "etc." than the portraits,
weddings, and landscapes which she specified - then she might be well
served by an entry-level, auto-everything camera. My advice was
oriented toward choosing equipment for those 3 specialties which would
free her of limitations, and would allow her to progress as far as her
interests could take her.
I'll acknowledge that Becky did not indicate any desire to become a
professional. But many photo enthusiasts strive to improve the
quality of their work until it has reached a professional level. And
I define that as "saleable" quality. There is a reason why the most
expensive, professional level 35mm SLR cameras can sync with flash at
1/250th sec or higher, have DOF preview, multiple exposure capability,
and interchangeable focusing screens. It is because pro level
techniques and results require these features. If one would rather
spend their money on "convenience" features instead of pro-level
capabilities, that is their own choice to make. It is a blessing that
the Nikon FM2n and FE2 provide these features at such modest cost.
Gene Windell
Woodard R. Springstube
photos you get. I'll take a lower level body, or even a manual body
like an FM2n, and put an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor AFS lens on it and you
take an F5 with the now discontinued 80-200, f4.5-5.6 lens on it, and
we'll shoot the same film (say Velvia) at the same time, with the
same subject, and see whose shots are the best. My money is on the
manual body with the good lens.
Woodard Springstube
<s...@randomc.com> wrote in message
news:8nvabt$9co$4...@crchh14.us.nortel.com...
Action Shutter
wrote:
> However, placing a 2X neutral density filter in front of the lens also
> reduces the brightness of the flash by half. So to get the same level
> of flash brightness on the people in the foreground, the flash must
> output twice as much light as would be required if the camera could
> sync with flash at 1/250th sec. So if one is willing to buy and use
> neutral density filters, and buy a flash unit that is twice as
> powerful as would otherwise be required, a photographer who can sync
> with flash no higher than 1/125th sec can achieve the same effects as
> the photographer who can sync with flash at 1/250th sec.
You're not familiar with motion blur, are you?
- AS
Action Shutter
wrote:
> No, I'm not. What is motion blur?
>
> My comments were within the context of the original poster's question
> about choosing a camera for portraits, weddings, landscapes, etc.
> Perhaps it is the "etc." where problems with motion blur arise?
Etc. just about covers it.
Motion blur occurs when the shutter speed is too slow to freeze the action.
There's a huge difference (100%, in fact) between 1/250 and 1/125.
- AS
s...@randomc.com
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:18:26 -0400, Dan <d...@not.here.org> wrote:
>One can shoot landscapes, portraits and weddings with any kind of
>camera - including an $8 single-use, disposable camera. The equipment
>that one brings to the task depends on what level of technique one's
>skills allow them to employ.
The disposable camera requiring the greater skill - the mid range SLR the
least. To capture a high quality image of course.
S
Gene Windell
I won't argue with that. I think the reason people buy computerized
cameras is because they hope to achieve higher quality photos while
applying lessor degrees of skill and effort.
For example, let's consider the issue of shooting flash pictures with
fast film outdoors in daylight. The disadvantage of flash sync
limited to 1/125th sec shutter speed (or slower) can be overcome by
use of neutral density filters. Reducing the light passing through
the lens by half has the same effect on working aperture as increasing
the shutter speed by one increment.
However, placing a 2X neutral density filter in front of the lens also
reduces the brightness of the flash by half. So to get the same level
of flash brightness on the people in the foreground, the flash must
output twice as much light as would be required if the camera could
sync with flash at 1/250th sec. So if one is willing to buy and use
neutral density filters, and buy a flash unit that is twice as
powerful as would otherwise be required, a photographer who can sync
with flash no higher than 1/125th sec can achieve the same effects as
the photographer who can sync with flash at 1/250th sec.
But why force yourself to use neutral density filters, and buy a flash
unit that costs twice as much, and perform the manual flash exposure
calculations - when all of that can be eliminated by simply buying a
camera that can sync with flash at 1/250th sec to begin with? Working
with neutral density filters and flash exposure requires way more
skill and effort than using a camera which has a high flash sync
shutter speed to begin with.
But when the typical beginner is considering his first 35mm SLR, he
is usually thinking "well, I don't know anything about flash exposure
and don't care to learn. So I'll buy a camera that has a built-in
flash, and TTL exposure metering, and that sets both the lens aperture
and shutter speed automatically." The beginner has no concept of the
limitations he is imposing on himself by buying a camera with a
relatively slow flash sync shutter speed. He also has no concept of
how much skill and effort and expense will be required to overcome the
limitations of the equipment he bought because he wanted a camera
which would "do everything for him."
With modern, mass production manufacturing methods, it doesn't cost
any more to make a shutter that can sync with flash at 1/250th sec
than one that is limited to flash sync at 1/125th sec. Way back in
1983, Nikon equipped the "amateur grade" FE2 and FA model cameras with
flash sync at 1/250th sec. Nowadays, they force you to buy a
"professional level" camera to get features they were giving away to
amateurs 20 years ago.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is a blessing that the Nikon
FM2n and FE2 offer the highest level of capabilities at such a modest
cost. Amazingly, the people who would benefit most from using these
cameras are usually unaware of them - and would have no interest in
them even if they were aware. Instead, we have Nikon N60 owners
saying "I just can't wait until the new N65 comes out!"
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<a...@fastshutterspeed.com> wrote:
>In article <39a47a56....@news.psci.net>, ewin...@psci.net (Gene Windell)
>wrote:
>
>> However, placing a 2X neutral density filter in front of the lens also
>> reduces the brightness of the flash by half. So to get the same level
>> of flash brightness on the people in the foreground, the flash must
>> output twice as much light as would be required if the camera could
>> sync with flash at 1/250th sec. So if one is willing to buy and use
>> neutral density filters, and buy a flash unit that is twice as
>> powerful as would otherwise be required, a photographer who can sync
>> with flash no higher than 1/125th sec can achieve the same effects as
>> the photographer who can sync with flash at 1/250th sec.
>
>You're not familiar with motion blur, are you?
No, I'm not. What is motion blur?
My comments were within the context of the original poster's question
about choosing a camera for portraits, weddings, landscapes, etc.
Perhaps it is the "etc." where problems with motion blur arise?
Gene Windell
Anders Svensson
>
> Put a crap lens on a top-of-the-line body, and see what kind of
> photos you get. I'll take a lower level body, or even a manual body
> like an FM2n, and put an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor AFS lens on it and you
> take an F5 with the now discontinued 80-200, f4.5-5.6 lens on it, and
> we'll shoot the same film (say Velvia) at the same time, with the
> same subject, and see whose shots are the best. My money is on the
> manual body with the good lens.
>
> Woodard Springstube
Don't be too sure about that.
"Crap lens" is pretty strong words to use about most lenses
that escape any serious manufacturers quality control, even
if there *is* a quality and performance difference between
these two lenses.
My point is simply that lab test surroundings are hard to
achieve, and the individual photographers actual skill and
technique comes into this "dilemma".
It can be reasoned that the 2.8 allows half the shutter
speed of the el-cheapo - this obviously will be important
when using the camera in fringe (shutterspeed-wise)
conditions. Likewise, it can be reasoned that the price
difference betwen the cheap and expensive lens certainly
allow a magnificent tripod (or several) to be had... ;-).
Also, the issue of correct exposure in regard to
negative/slide sharpness isn't to be forgotten as well as
using backgrounds, color contrast, sidelight and other means
to get a *impression* of sharpness - technique *is*
important.
Tony Polson
<spri...@jump.net> wrote:
> Put a crap lens on a top-of-the-line body, and see what kind of
> photos you get. I'll take a lower level body, or even a manual body
> like an FM2n, and put an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor AFS lens on it and you
> take an F5 with the now discontinued 80-200, f4.5-5.6 lens on it, and
> we'll shoot the same film (say Velvia) at the same time, with the
> same subject, and see whose shots are the best. My money is on the
> manual body with the good lens.
Provided all other things remain equal (for example, both cameras are
mounted on sturdy tripods) my money is also on the manual body with the
good lens.
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
s...@randomc.com
>Put a crap lens on a top-of-the-line body, and see what kind of
>photos you get. I'll take a lower level body, or even a manual body
>like an FM2n, and put an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor AFS lens on it and you
>take an F5 with the now discontinued 80-200, f4.5-5.6 lens on it, and
>we'll shoot the same film (say Velvia) at the same time, with the
>same subject, and see whose shots are the best. My money is on the
>manual body with the good lens.
No joke Woody. But the point being made is that a camera body isn't just a
box. Not even an FM2n. No one ever said that the lens wasn't important. But
when someone says that a camera body is just a "box", the degree of lunacy
goes up proportionally to their idiotic personality. Compare the results of
an F5 and an FM2n with that 80-200 AFS lens and you likely see some
differences in the area of exposure.
So we all agree that a cheap lens won't get you very far. Only some of us
feel, in grave error I'm afraid, that the camera body is just a box.
S
Bob Hickey
be a master photographer to shoot a wedding in 35. No room for cropping,
mirror blackout ( some people have an uncanny ability to blink,
bordering on the psychic, every time you push the button ) tiny
viewfinder, and lastly they all pretty much look alike, which leaves the
client wondering why they're paying so much to have pictures taken with
the same kind of camera they own. Yes, most think it's the camera that
makes the pictures. I can't imagine myself
toying with "features" and flash sync, trying to second guess the
camera, while the guests, most of whom have an attention span shorter
than 1/125s wait. They don't.
There's a good deal of psychology that goes into a successful, read
profitable, wedding shoot, and many ways to lose control of the
situation. It just always seemed to me that the less attention the
equipment demands, the more available for the shot. And some of these
people ARE demanding. Bob Hickey
Mac Breck
> In article <8o237l$h6c$1...@news.jump.net>, "Woodard R. Springstube"
<spri...@jump.net> wrote:
> >Put a crap lens on a top-of-the-line body, and see what kind of
> >photos you get. I'll take a lower level body, or even a manual body
> >like an FM2n, and put an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor AFS lens on it and you
> >take an F5 with the now discontinued 80-200, f4.5-5.6 lens on it, and
> >we'll shoot the same film (say Velvia) at the same time, with the
> >same subject, and see whose shots are the best. My money is on the
> >manual body with the good lens.
>
>
> No joke Woody. But the point being made is that a camera body isn't just
a
> box. Not even an FM2n. No one ever said that the lens wasn't important.
But
> when someone says that a camera body is just a "box", the degree of lunacy
> goes up proportionally to their idiotic personality. Compare the results
of
> an F5 and an FM2n with that 80-200 AFS lens and you likely see some
> differences in the area of exposure.
Not if the person using the FM2n knows what they're doing. I'd go with the
FM2n and the better lens any day.
Mac
Mac Breck
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:56:46 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>
> >A K-screen in an F4s, or an A-Screen in an F5 would work. So would the
> >FM2n, but I'd use the F4s (on S or CS) since it seems to be quieter than
my
> >FM2n, plus with a motor, your chance of missing a shot is reduced. With
the
> >FM2n, I'd never use a motor at a wedding because it's way too loud
(probably
> >would be heard on the videotape).
>
> During the wedding reception, ambient noise levels are often so high
> that people couldn't hear you if you fired up a chainsaw. Likewise,
> when you are shooting outdoors motor noise isn't objectionable. I
> think motor noise becomes an issue only during the wedding ceremony.
BINGO!
> But the officiant will often disallow any photography during the
> ceremony anyway, so it may be irrelevant.
Never had it happen (fast lenses and no flash).
> A benefit of the FM2n and FE2 is that the motor is completely
> removable for those occasions when the lowest noise levels and
> lightest weight are desired. Alternatively, the motor for the FM2n
> and FE2 can be switched off and the film advance/shutter cocking
> accomplished by the thumb lever on the camera. Obviously, this isn't
> an option with cameras that have no thumb lever advance. A thumb
> lever advance also relieves worries about the motor drive batteries
> dying at the worst possible moment.
>
> Personally, I don't think anything happens so quickly when shooting
> weddings,
Oh yes. Expressions can be fleeting. I've missed 'em while winding. Note
that I'm not advocating the motor drive for continuous shooting, but just so
you're always wound and ready.
> portraits and landscapes that one is likely to miss
> important shots due to lack of motorized film advance.
Less likely, I agree.
> The
> photographers at the top of each of these specialties use
> non-motorized Hasselblad cameras, and they somehow seem to manage.
You can get a 'Blad with a motor, right? I agree it can be done without a
motor, but who's to say what shots they miss. You'll never see them because
they've been missed. To me a quiet motor is preferrable here.
> Perhaps it is by abandoning the use of motorized cameras, zoom lenses,
> etc. that one learns the techniques that allow them to reach the top
> rank of these photo specialty areas.
Again, I'm not suggesting continuous shooting, and never mentioned zooms
(since I've never met an f/1.4 zoom).
> >> The Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS telephoto lens is about the best lens you
> >> can get for shooting portraits. You need a 50mm f/1.8 AIS for full
> >> length portraits and group shots. You need a 24mm f/2.8 wide angle
> >> lens for shooting in crowded interiors, landscapes and special
> >> effects. These 3 lenses are perhaps all you would ever need for
> >> shooting portraits, weddings, and landscapes.
> >
> >I'd add the 35 f/1.4 AIS and 85 f/1.4 AIS. Those were the lenses I found
> >most useful at weddings.
>
> Having fast lenses like these open the door to shooting the whole
> wedding by available light only, with ISO/ASA 800 film such as Fuji
> NHG II. Assuming you have a backup camera body, you can mount the
> 35mm on one camera and the 85mm on the other - and never need to
> change lenses.
Or shooting the "no flash allowed" shots via available light with these fast
lenses on one body, and shooting the "flash allowed" shots with flash and
slower film (ASA 100) in another body.
> However these particular lenses are budget busters, and a beginner may
> find their limited funds are better spent on other things such as
> lighting equipment, hand-held meter, tripod, equipment bags, etc.
Buy USED.
> Alternatively, one could gain the same low-light capability by getting
> the much less expensive 50mm f/1.4 - and simply taking a few steps
> backwards
Yes, if you can. Sometimes, there's those darn immovable, inconsiderate
objects like walls and pews in the way though.
> instead of using the 35mm f/1.4, and taking a few steps
> forward instead of using the 85mm f/1.4.
Disagree. I'd stay back and crop in the printing process. Also, it'd be
possible to do the entire wedding with a 35 f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.4.
Mac
Chi
> Regarding shooting weddings with a Canon Elan IIe, I must
> confess that I also have attended weddings where the
> "official" photographer was using the same kind of equipment
> as the weddings guests.
In the weddings I've attended the pro usually only used 35mm
at the reception. I know one pro who offers a budget
package where he shoots the whole wedding with 35mm instead
of the 6x6 he normally uses. This keeps his processing
costs down and limits the quality of prints -- but his skill
level doesn't suddenly drop because he used 35mm for a
particular job.
> Doubtless, the end result was the same kinds of images that
> the wedding guests were getting with their own cameras.
You must get invited to weddings where the average
photography skill levels are pretty high. A typical high
school newspaper photographer takes much better pictures
than the pictures taken by guests at the weddings I've
attended. I exaggerate, but not too much.
> If one does not have the capability to sync with flash at
> 1/250th sec. or higher.
In your original reply, you mention that f/22 is required to
shoot wedding portraits at 1/125 in sun with fast film, and
that this makes background objectionably sharp. At 1/250,
f/16 is required in the same circumstances, which hardly
throws the background out of focus.
You also mention that Brmcfarland would need a powerful, pro
flash to shoot weddings with a slower sync. True, but every
wedding photographer I've ever seen has had a powerful, pro
flash system. If she's not the pro at the wedding, then the
wedding party isn't going to pose for her portraits anyhow
-- they're already spending too much of their day posing.
> > Your reasoning is good, but your recommendations are
> > shaky.
>
> After you've been able to talk someone into paying you $1,000
> in advance to shoot their wedding, based on the strength of
> your portfolio and your reputation - then come back and tell
> me my recommendations are shaky.
My wording was more than just a little poor here -- but I
was actually (in my mind) praising your reply here, and then
objecting to your conclusion. Obviously, I didn't word it
that way and I apologize. Here's what I meant:
"Your reasoning is good" -- That is, good description of
things Brmcfarland should be looking for in a camera body,
and why. Far better than most such replies that would
say "you need 1/250 flash sync" without a description of
how the feature's used.
"Your recommendations are shaky" -- That is, you make it
sound like the FM2n and the FE2 are the only cameras that
can do the job, and that none of the cameras that
Brmcfarland mentions (N70, N80, N90s) are suitable. In my
opinion, that just isn't so. I've never seen a wedding or
portrait photographer with an FM2n or an FE2 (and I have
seen one use an N90s). It seems to me that they almost all
use medium format, and the 35mm that I've seen in use just
hasn't happened to be one of those two models.
Please note that I'm not objecting to the FM2n or F2E. They
may be the best choices available, all things considered
including cost. But they're not the only choices, which
your strong wording suggests.
> Correct. Any camera that is capable of sync with flash at
> 1/250th sec. or higher, has multiple-exposure capability, has
> a DOF preview feature, and can accept a split-image focusing
> screen will serve just as well for weddings and portraits.
> These features are not nearly so important for shooting
> landscapes, but without them the photographer will eventually
> hit a brick wall regarding the techniques they can employ and
> thus how far their work can progress.
You sound like a wedding/portrait photographer. I know a
landscape photographer that would make a similar claim for
different features. That is, he would say that without
swing and tilt and shift and f/64 and independent processing
of individual negatives the "photographer will eventually
hit a brick wall regarding the techniques they can
employ...."
> > [regarding the FM2n]
> > Even the meter indication in the viewfinder is less
> > convenient than those in newer cameras which are marked off
> > in 1/2-stop or 1/3-stop increments.
>
> There are only 2 ways to achieve reliable, predictable
> exposure results with the precision required for professional
> quality portraiture and wedding work. First is to shoot
> Polaroid test prints.
FM2n/FE2 offer no advantage over other 35mm cameras here.
> Second is to use a hand-held, ambient/flash meter.
Or here.
> When one employs either of these methods, in-camera meter
> readouts are worthless and a waste of money.
True, but photographers often applies other methods --
particularly at weddings. And you left landscapes out of
this discussion. Best metered with a handheld spot meter,
perhaps, but an in-camera spot meter works pretty well.
> There is a reason why the most expensive, professional level
> 35mm SLR cameras can sync with flash at 1/250th sec or
> higher, have DOF preview, multiple exposure capability, and
> interchangeable focusing screens.
But is there a reason why modern, electronically-controlled,
amature-level 35mm SLRs _lack_ multiple exposure capability
or DOF preview? What would they cost, $0.25? (1/250 sync
and interchangable focusing screens I can understand.) But I
rant....
Chi
s...@randomc.com
Maybe equal, just maybe perhaps, but not better. There's nothing that
the FM2 can do that the F5 can't - and it usually does it much better.
There's just no room for argument there. If you're going for the old bogus
"manual is better" argument, remember that the F5 and others can also go into
full manual mode. And the meter is still 3D RGB matrix - F5 has an advantage.
Wanna make it equal and go with center-weighted? You can do that too. Wanna
go with spot metering and do some zone-system black and white work? You can
do that too.
All other things being equal, the F5 is a more useful tool in the hands of an
expert or a serious hobbyist. I'm not biased because I don't have any manual
equipment - I own an original FM, an original F3, an N60, (gave to Mother in
Law) an N80 and an F5. I spent my first decades of photography using a
Contax, Pentax Spotmatic (thread mount) the FM and F3 and produced thousands
of good images. (among many other cameras as well) Since I bought the N60 and
others, I haven't gone back. I'm not saying that owning an F5 or F100 makes
you a better artist - it just puts better tools into your hands that you can
use to your advantage to improve your shots. (technically speaking) If you
choose to use them in manual mode, at least you have a durable body in your
hands.
Back to that wedding - I'd rather have the F5 with that lens for sure.
S
Mac Breck
No, we were comparing an FM2n with a top Nikkor on it, to an F5 with a
bargain basement Nikkor on it. The bargain basement Nikkor will lower the
quality of the F5 shots, and limit what the F5 can do.
> All other things being equal, the F5 is a more useful tool in the hands of
an
> expert or a serious hobbyist. I'm not biased because I don't have any
manual
> equipment - I own an original FM, an original F3, an N60, (gave to Mother
in
> Law) an N80 and an F5.
You "own an original FM" and "don't have any manual equipment" ???
Mac
Gene Windell
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> But the officiant will often disallow any photography during the
>> ceremony anyway, so it may be irrelevant.
>
>Never had it happen (fast lenses and no flash).
Oh, it happens. I think it depends on community standards and
traditions. I've worked in towns where the Protestant ministers will
let you do anything you want, but the Catholic priests impose all
kinds of restrictions. In other communities, the Catholic priests
have no restrictions at all - while the Protestant ministers act like
they are prison wardens.
But what really chaps me is when the officiant strictly tells me there
is no flash allowed during the ceremony, and then the wedding guests
merrily flash away unchecked with their pocket cameras. Where's the
justice?
>> Personally, I don't think anything happens so quickly when shooting
>> weddings,
>
>Oh yes. Expressions can be fleeting. I've missed 'em while winding. Note
>that I'm not advocating the motor drive for continuous shooting, but just so
>you're always wound and ready.
Perhaps this goes to the issue of shooting style. I can see where one
who practices the "photojournalistic" style of wedding photography
would find motorized film advance more useful. Personally, I
generally don't do PJ type pictures at weddings. I perceive wedding
photography as environmental portraiture, and regard each of my shots
as a portrait. E.g. "here is a portrait of the bride and groom
cutting the cake" and "here is a portrait of the bride and groom
sipping champaigne in the rear seat of the limo." I pose and light
everything as though I was working in the studio - except the ceremony
shots and certain unpredictable events which occur at the reception
which even the bride is not anticipating. I do all of this so the
bride can know exactly what she is getting in advance, and there are
no surprises for either of us. The only fleeting expressions I ever
catch are those that happen spontaneously while one of my shots is
being staged - which happens more often than one might expect.
Where the noise is not obtrusive and inappropriate, I find motor wind
noise helpful in shooting posed pictures of people. When no flash is
used, the motor noise is like a signal of finality that assures the
subject(s) that the picture has been taken. It signals the subject
that they can exhale, blink their eyes, etc. When I shoot with my
super-quiet Mamiya 6, and lower the camera from my face, the subject
often gives me a quizzical look as if to ask "is that it? Did you
take the picture?"
I enjoy the authoritative sound of the Nikon MD12. Sort of like when
you fire up a chainsaw, bystanders tend to stay out of your way -
perhaps out of a subconscious fear of losing a body part.
>
>> The photographers at the top of each of these specialties use
>> non-motorized Hasselblad cameras, and they somehow seem to manage.
>
>You can get a 'Blad with a motor, right?
Yup. Perhaps some are used at weddings, I don't know. I think the
additional weight may be objectionable.
> I agree it can be done without a
>motor, but who's to say what shots they miss. You'll never see them because
>they've been missed. To me a quiet motor is preferrable here.
Come on Mac! You know that nothing important ever happens while
you're reloading film, changing lenses, or cocking the shutter. If
one begins worrying about that, their logic will force them to shoot
everything on videotape at 30 fps - and then use a frame grabber to
select the shots they want.
Any competant wedding photographer is going to deliver to the bride
more good proof prints than her wedding album has the capacity to
hold. The bride's problem is having too many good shots, not too few.
You can't trouble your mind with worry about the shots you could have
gotten but didn't, due to lack of being prepared. If we had better
prepared ourselves, we would both be staff photographers for Playboy
magazine.
>> >I'd add the 35 f/1.4 AIS and 85 f/1.4 AIS. Those were the lenses I found
>> >most useful at weddings.
>>
>> Having fast lenses like these open the door to shooting the whole
>> wedding by available light only, with ISO/ASA 800 film such as Fuji
>> NHG II. Assuming you have a backup camera body, you can mount the
>> 35mm on one camera and the 85mm on the other - and never need to
>> change lenses.
>
>Or shooting the "no flash allowed" shots via available light with these fast
>lenses on one body, and shooting the "flash allowed" shots with flash and
>slower film (ASA 100) in another body.
I think you've made a good point. One can certainly do a fine job of
shooting a wedding day with only those 2 lenses. And if one could
only take 2 lenses to a wedding, the 85mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/1.4
would probably be the best choices. But if one could take 3 lenses to
the wedding, I would pick a 24mm, a 50mm , and a 105mm. And as it
happens, you can buy all 3 of these new or used for less than the 2
lenses you prefer. Again, I think it goes to the matter of style and
how the photographer plans to shoot once he gets to the job.
>
>> However these particular lenses are budget busters, and a beginner may
>> find their limited funds are better spent on other things such as
>> lighting equipment, hand-held meter, tripod, equipment bags, etc.
>
>Buy USED.
Even used, these don't come cheap. If the church has a balcony or
choir loft in the rear, you can put an assistant up there to shoot
ceremony shots with a 135mm f/2 or a 180mm f/2.8 ED by available light
with ASA 800 film and tripod. This somewhat overcomes the problem of
the officiant disallowing ceremony shots up front at the altar. Some
photographers may prefer to allocate limited budget dollars to gain
the utility of a fast 135mm or 180mm, instead of getting the premium
priced 35mm and 85mm lenses. Of course, these 2 lenses I mentioned
don't come cheap either. Unfortunately, most people are not in a
position to simply "buy everything" - at least, not all at once. The
old Vivitar Series One 135mm f/2.3 performs remarkably well at open
apertures, and can be found for about $150 or less.
I think it's best for the photographer to first decide what kinds of
shots they want to get, and study the techniques that are required to
get them. Then, buy the equipment that enables those techniques. You
can't just go to a newsgroup and say "I want sharpness" and expect to
get any meaningful replies about what equipment you should buy. But
such a question does seem to stimulate a lot of responses and reveal a
lot of passions, so perhaps it is not such a bad newsgroup question.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>> Compare the results of an F5 and an FM2n with that 80-200 AFS lens and you likely see some
>> differences in the area of exposure.
>
>Not if the person using the FM2n knows what they're doing.
That's the whole allure of buying an F5. The advertising implies that
you can get superior results without knowing what you are doing.
Isn't that the appeal of computerization in general? It allows one to
do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
Personally, I would be ashamed to be seen in public with a
computerized camera - out of fear of being thought to be a rank
amateur. Not that there is anything wrong with being a rank amateur,
as we all start out that way.
I want my pictures to be the result of my own judgement and decisions,
not the decisions of a computer algorithm. Otherwise, I would have no
basis for taking pride in my work or the results I achieve. But more
importantly, if one does know what they are doing the "convenience
features" of a computerized camera only clutter up the controls and
get in the way.
I attended my own family reunion recently, and shot the formal group
photos with a Mamiya 6. I noticed one of my young second cousins
sporting a new Nikon N70, which she probably had received as a high
school graduation gift. I noticed her shooting an informal portrait
or two of her parents with its pop-up flash, but then she abruptly
stopped. Another small group soon approached her and said "take our
picture." She replied "I can't. There seems to be something wrong
with my camera, but I can't figure out what." Though there were
several photography buffs in the group, there was no one there who
could help her - including me.
So much for computers enabling people to do things they otherwise
couldn't do. Had the girl been gifted a Nikon FM2n instead of an N70,
she would have undoubtedly been able to get the pictures she wanted.
When learning to operate the camera becomes more complex than learning
the fundamental principles of photography - automation has been taken
to the extreme where it is no longer advantageous.
If it's equipped with an automatic transmission, a small child can
drive away in an automobile. Not so if it has a manual transmission.
Likewise, it is dangerous for a child to have access to an autoloading
firearm. But there is little chance that a child can get into trouble
with a muzzle-loader. If one begins with equipment that is too
sophisticated and "convenient," they may not endure long enough to
ever learn the basics. And if they have thoroughly learned the
basics, they may never have a need or desire for the sophisticated
convenience features.
People use manual cameras because they can. Perhaps people use
computerized cameras because they can't.
Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:47:11 -0400, "Mac Breck"
><macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>>> Compare the results of an F5 and an FM2n with that 80-200 AFS lens and you
> likely see some
>>> differences in the area of exposure.
>>
>>Not if the person using the FM2n knows what they're doing.
>That's the whole allure of buying an F5. The advertising implies that
>you can get superior results without knowing what you are doing.
>Isn't that the appeal of computerization in general? It allows one to
>do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
>Personally, I would be ashamed to be seen in public with a
>computerized camera - out of fear of being thought to be a rank
>amateur. Not that there is anything wrong with being a rank amateur,
>as we all start out that way.
That's such an arrogant statement - rooted in fiction.
>I want my pictures to be the result of my own judgement and decisions,
>not the decisions of a computer algorithm. Otherwise, I would have no
>basis for taking pride in my work or the results I achieve. But more
>importantly, if one does know what they are doing the "convenience
>features" of a computerized camera only clutter up the controls and
>get in the way.
>I attended my own family reunion recently, and shot the formal group
>photos with a Mamiya 6. I noticed one of my young second cousins
And a Mamiya 6 isn't modern?
>sporting a new Nikon N70, which she probably had received as a high
>school graduation gift. I noticed her shooting an informal portrait
>or two of her parents with its pop-up flash, but then she abruptly
>stopped. Another small group soon approached her and said "take our
>picture." She replied "I can't. There seems to be something wrong
>with my camera, but I can't figure out what." Though there were
>several photography buffs in the group, there was no one there who
>could help her - including me.
That's just a delightful little example for you isn't it. Typical anti-hype
from the anti-modern photographers who somehow think that there is a need to
"get back to nature" in photography - which is pure bunk. Photography has
always been about technology of one sort or another. Its just a matter of
whether you want to be Amish or Mennonite. See the Hypocricy?
>So much for computers enabling people to do things they otherwise
>couldn't do. Had the girl been gifted a Nikon FM2n instead of an N70,
Ever notice that keyboard you're pecking on? Its attached to a gadget called
a computer.
>she would have undoubtedly been able to get the pictures she wanted.
>When learning to operate the camera becomes more complex than learning
>the fundamental principles of photography - automation has been taken
>to the extreme where it is no longer advantageous.
I used an N60 for years and I can assure you that its easier to use one
properly than an FM which I used for longer. She would have to learn how to
use a flash - that would be more difficult than using the N70. If she
couldn't get the N70 going, she wouldn't have been able to get the flash
working properly on an FM.
>People use manual cameras because they can. Perhaps people use
>computerized cameras because they can't.
Or they choose to.
That's crap Gene. I started out with a Retina and slowly progressed to a
Pentax Spotmatic - the old threaded type. I took a crap load of shots with
those and an old Contax. I also own an FM from '79 and an F3 from '81 as well
as an F5 and N80. I use the modern ones because they are superior tools and I
know how to use them. I also know how to use the others - but choose not to.
If I could get a 4 x 5 that was as convenient and accurate, I would. For now
I have to stick with a Linhof and use my F5 for a meter. (why not?)
S
Chi
> >People use manual cameras because they can. Perhaps people use
> >computerized cameras because they can't.
>
> Or they choose to.
>
Got to agree with S here. When I was in high school is was common
to start with such an all manual camera. Many
people just set the shutter speed to 60 (flash sync speed) and then
turned the aperture ring until the meter needles matched. The camera
was making the exposure decision just as much as today's Rebel set
to program mode. More labor is required from the shooter of an
all-manual camera -- not more thought. Of course, many other people
applied thought too, and still do on their automated cameras. (Which
work quite well in manual mode.)
Chi
Bob Hickey
Changed the alt. and reg. and charged the AC. Afterward, I sat there in
a blast of cold air, banging another nail in the coffin wondering why I
never figured out how the radio, excuse me, sound system works. Between
coughs, I realized it's because I have no desire to let someone else
pick my music for me, ergo, I'll probably never learn. If I want music,
I'll get a Miles Davis tape out of my pick-up.
Just bought an R3 in nice shape. Has a spot meter in it which I leave
on. I did look at the instruction book which has a nifty graph detailing
how and where the bottom- weighted averaging meter gets its information.
Looks good. Except, of course, if I'm taking a portrait. Then I would
have to tell them to wear something with a Zone V left sleeve. Failing
that, I would have no problem placing their face on Zone VI.
A great line from an Al Pacino movie goes: " The Devils greatest trick
was convincing people he doesn't exist."
I think Nikons greatest trick was convincing people they couldn't take
pictures without 1,005 sensors in 3D.
Bob Hickey
Gene Windell
>>Personally, I would be ashamed to be seen in public with a
>>computerized camera - out of fear of being thought to be a rank
>>amateur. Not that there is anything wrong with being a rank amateur,
>>as we all start out that way.
>
>That's such an arrogant statement - rooted in fiction.
I agree with Chaucer, who in The Canterbury Tales identifies pride as
the first and worst of the 7 Deadly Sins. But without pride, a
professional photographer can't muster the courage to get out of bed
every day and face the world. That isn't fiction, it is reality - at
least it is MY reality.
>
>>I attended my own family reunion recently, and shot the formal group
>>photos with a Mamiya 6. I noticed one of my young second cousins
>
>And a Mamiya 6 isn't modern?
It isn't computerized. It is modern to the extent that the Nikon FE2
is a modern camera. It has an internal light meter, which I never
use, and an AE position on the shutter speed dial - which I also never
use. But these features are non-obtrusive, so I don't object to their
being there.
>
>> Another small group soon approached her and said "take our
>>picture." She replied "I can't. There seems to be something wrong
>>with my camera, but I can't figure out what." Though there were
>>several photography buffs in the group, there was no one there who
>>could help her - including me.
>
>That's just a delightful little example for you isn't it. Typical anti-hype
>from the anti-modern photographers who somehow think that there is a need to
>"get back to nature" in photography - which is pure bunk. Photography has
>always been about technology of one sort or another. Its just a matter of
>whether you want to be Amish or Mennonite. See the Hypocricy?
No, I don't see the hypocricy. I am not opposed to advances in
technology. What I'm opposed to is people pushing the button on a
Gameboy with a lens attached, and calling themselves a
"photogrtapher." I'm opposed to beginners shooting their first roll
of film in their brand new Nikon N60, and when they get their prints
back from the 1-hour lab exclaiming "Ah, I've mastered photography."
I'm reminded of a scene in an episode of Star Trek, The Next
Generation. Commmander Data has created a female android like
himself, and named her Lol. At her first social encounter in the Ten
Forward lounge, Lol makes a fool of herself and everyone laughs at
her. As Data is escorting her back to her quarters, she exclaims "I
made them laugh. So this is humor? Without understanding it, I've
somehow mastered it."
The late, great Edward Weston once said: "It isn't the mundane
subjects of life that attract viewer interest in a photograph, but
rather it is the way they are lighted."
The word "photography" means "writing with light." Yet lighting is
the last thing that most photographers ever learn, and most never
learn it. Many don't even recognize that lighting is something that
needs to be learned, and instead focus all of their efforts on nailing
the perfect exposure. It isn't the density of the negative that makes
or breaks the picture, but instead the interplay of highlight and
shadow within the scene.
No in-camera light meter, regardless of how sophisticated, can help
the photographer manage and control the interplay of highlight and
shadow. That must be borne out of his own mind, his own vision and
his own creativity. But without gaining a mastery of lighting
principles and lighting technique, the photographer is condemned to
spend a lifetime shooting nothing but mundane snapshots. And his
pictures will remain nothing but mundane snapshots, regardless of how
quickly focused or how accurately exposed. Camera computerization can
not solve the problem of creating lifeless, uninteresting pictures.
>
>Ever notice that keyboard you're pecking on? Its attached to a gadget called
>a computer.
I'm as much a gearhead and gadget freak as the next person, a weakness
I've struggled with all of my life. All of the many years I spent as
an amateur photographer, I took great pride in being the first kid on
the block with the latest and greatest camera technology. But as a
professional I view my equipment as troublesome junk, even the brand
new stuff, which breaks down and requires maintenance all too often.
I simply want the stuff to work, and the less complicated it is - the
less likely it is to break down.
Yes, I love technology. I have digital light meters, digital radio
flash slaves, studio monolights that are controlled by remote control
and I love all of that stuff. But none of this helps me decide how to
manage the interplay of highlight and shadow on my subject matter.
But autofocusing and in-camera matrix metering are certainly of no
value to me at all. One should not feel obligated to use technology
which serves no purpose for them. When I was an amateur, in love with
my equipment, I remember feeling quite differently.
>
>I used an N60 for years and I can assure you that its easier to use one
>properly than an FM which I used for longer.
Yes, but used for what? If one's ambitions will never extend beyond
shooting mundane snapshots, then I suppose the premium should be
placed on convenience. But unfortunately, there is no "convenient"
way to make stunning, dramatic, awe-inspiring images. There never has
been, and there never will be. To do that, one must learn lighting
and lighting technique - and provide the critical element of
imagination. Yet, the whole purpose of an auto-everything camera is
to free the operator from the need to ever learn anything - while
making exposures as brainlessly and effortlessly as possible.
When one extolls the benefits of auto-everything cameras, they are
voicing the virtues of shooting mundane shapshots. Like the android
Lol in the Star Trek episode, they are saying "Photography! Without
understanding it, I've somehow mastered it." And it doesn't really
matter how many decades one has been practicing it without
understanding it. I estimate that I had been avidly taking photos for
at least 20 years before I ever gained the first clue about how to
make an interesting picture.
>She would have to learn how to use a flash - that would be more difficult than using the N70.
Every photographer needs to understand flash exposure, and how to
blend its color, brightness, contrast quality and direction with
ambient light. Postponing that requirement indefinitely does not
solve any problems, but only adds to them.
>>People use manual cameras because they can. Perhaps people use
>>computerized cameras because they can't.
>
>Or they choose to.
>
>That's crap Gene. I started out with a Retina and slowly progressed to blah, blah, blah.
No, it isn't crap. It is simply an argument and a point of view which
you don't happen to agree with.
All I can suggest is that you try starting up your own photography
studio. Then hire some young kid off the street as your employee, and
teach him what you can in the effort to keep him from destroying your
reputation. If lighting technique is the last thing you teach him,
you will go broke before the new employee has a chance to learn
anything else - regardless of how much camera automation you dump into
his lap.
I daresay that all of my clients own a camera, and many of them own
cameras that are way more modern and sophisticated than the equipment
I use. Yet, they hire me because they know I can make images for them
which they can't make for themselves. Everybody has access to the
latest camera technology, by simply whipping out their credit card.
But what my clients are paying for when they hire me is something they
know can't be brought home in a box from the camera store. That is
where my attitude comes from, and if I didn't have that attitude I
would simply rent to the client a Nikon F5 and tell them to shoot the
picture themselves.
Gene Windell
Mac Breck
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:04:34 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> But the officiant will often disallow any photography during the
> >> ceremony anyway, so it may be irrelevant.
> >
> >Never had it happen (fast lenses and no flash).
>
> Oh, it happens. I think it depends on community standards and
> traditions. I've worked in towns where the Protestant ministers will
> let you do anything you want, but the Catholic priests impose all
> kinds of restrictions. In other communities, the Catholic priests
> have no restrictions at all - while the Protestant ministers act like
> they are prison wardens.
>
> But what really chaps me is when the officiant strictly tells me there
> is no flash allowed during the ceremony, and then the wedding guests
> merrily flash away unchecked with their pocket cameras. Where's the
> justice?
As with most things, there isn't any. What I'd really like it to be
invisible during the ceremony and reception (like the new "Invisible Man" TV
series on The Sci-Fi Channel). That would be great! I could get all the
good expressions and not be in anybody's way. Everything would be more
candid, and fresh.
> >> Personally, I don't think anything happens so quickly when shooting
> >> weddings,
> >
> >Oh yes. Expressions can be fleeting. I've missed 'em while winding.
Note
> >that I'm not advocating the motor drive for continuous shooting, but just
so
> >you're always wound and ready.
>
> Perhaps this goes to the issue of shooting style. I can see where one
> who practices the "photojournalistic" style of wedding photography
> would find motorized film advance more useful.
That's me. I don't like to be able to sense the photographer's influence on
the pictures. During the ceremony and the reception, I want to be the fly
on the wall, that nobody can see.
> Personally, I
> generally don't do PJ type pictures at weddings. I perceive wedding
> photography as environmental portraiture, and regard each of my shots
> as a portrait.
While that's fine for the posed shots, it feels too stiff and contrived for
the ceremony and reception to me.
> E.g. "here is a portrait of the bride and groom
> cutting the cake" and "here is a portrait of the bride and groom
> sipping champaigne in the rear seat of the limo." I pose and light
> everything as though I was working in the studio - except the ceremony
> shots and certain unpredictable events which occur at the reception
> which even the bride is not anticipating. I do all of this so the
> bride can know exactly what she is getting in advance, and there are
> no surprises for either of us. The only fleeting expressions I ever
> catch are those that happen spontaneously while one of my shots is
> being staged - which happens more often than one might expect.
I just meant the fleeting expression you see after you just took the shot,
and are winding.
> Where the noise is not obtrusive and inappropriate, I find motor wind
> noise helpful in shooting posed pictures of people. When no flash is
> used, the motor noise is like a signal of finality that assures the
> subject(s) that the picture has been taken. It signals the subject
> that they can exhale, blink their eyes, etc. When I shoot with my
> super-quiet Mamiya 6, and lower the camera from my face, the subject
> often gives me a quizzical look as if to ask "is that it? Did you
> take the picture?"
They can still hear my F4s (muffled but still audible), but it's not like
the FM2/MD-12 (loud and brassy) noise levels. I've got to say, I've been
pleasently surprised with my F4s (except for the bright lime green
viewfinder illuminating light that shows out the front like a New England
lighthouse).
> I enjoy the authoritative sound of the Nikon MD12. Sort of like when
> you fire up a chainsaw, bystanders tend to stay out of your way -
> perhaps out of a subconscious fear of losing a body part.
Oh well, different styles, I guess.
> >
> >> The photographers at the top of each of these specialties use
> >> non-motorized Hasselblad cameras, and they somehow seem to manage.
> >
> >You can get a 'Blad with a motor, right?
>
> Yup. Perhaps some are used at weddings, I don't know. I think the
> additional weight may be objectionable.
>
> > I agree it can be done without a
> >motor, but who's to say what shots they miss. You'll never see them
because
> >they've been missed. To me a quiet motor is preferrable here.
>
> Come on Mac! You know that nothing important ever happens while
> you're reloading film, changing lenses, or cocking the shutter. If
> one begins worrying about that, their logic will force them to shoot
> everything on videotape at 30 fps - and then use a frame grabber to
> select the shots they want.
Not at a crummy 720 lines of resolution! Yuck! I just like to cut the odds
of missing something by having a motor, and several bodies.
> Any competant wedding photographer is going to deliver to the bride
> more good proof prints than her wedding album has the capacity to
> hold. The bride's problem is having too many good shots, not too few.
I tend to be a perfectionist and hate missing a shot. It makes me feel like
I've failed.
> You can't trouble your mind with worry about the shots you could have
> gotten but didn't, due to lack of being prepared. If we had better
> prepared ourselves, we would both be staff photographers for Playboy
> magazine.
Sigh! If only.... :-)
True, but still a lot less money than new.
> If the church has a balcony or
> choir loft in the rear, you can put an assistant up there to shoot
> ceremony shots with a 135mm f/2 or a 180mm f/2.8 ED by available light
> with ASA 800 film and tripod. This somewhat overcomes the problem of
> the officiant disallowing ceremony shots up front at the altar. Some
> photographers may prefer to allocate limited budget dollars to gain
> the utility of a fast 135mm or 180mm, instead of getting the premium
> priced 35mm and 85mm lenses. Of course, these 2 lenses I mentioned
> don't come cheap either. Unfortunately, most people are not in a
> position to simply "buy everything" - at least, not all at once.
Luckily, I have all of the lenses mentioned, but it did take me a long time
(22 years) to accumulate them. I usually like to stick with ASA 100 film,
with ASA 400 as the top end.
> The
> old Vivitar Series One 135mm f/2.3 performs remarkably well at open
> apertures, and can be found for about $150 or less.
>
> I think it's best for the photographer to first decide what kinds of
> shots they want to get, and study the techniques that are required to
> get them.
True.
> Then, buy the equipment that enables those techniques. You
> can't just go to a newsgroup and say "I want sharpness" and expect to
> get any meaningful replies about what equipment you should buy.
People are always after a short cut, but it takes time and practice. All we
can do is to suggest some good starting points.
> But
> such a question does seem to stimulate a lot of responses and reveal a
> lot of passions, so perhaps it is not such a bad newsgroup question.
Agreed.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:18654-39...@storefull-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
I remain unconvinced, and use my F4s on Spot or Center-Weighted. All my
other Nikons (F2A, F2AS, F3HP, FM, FM2n) are center-weighted. As long as
you know where it's reading, center-weighted can be used very well. When it
can't, there's always my Soligor Digital Spot. :-)
Mac
Mac Breck
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:45:53 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>
> >>Personally, I would be ashamed to be seen in public with a
> >>computerized camera - out of fear of being thought to be a rank
> >>amateur. Not that there is anything wrong with being a rank amateur,
> >>as we all start out that way.
> >
> >That's such an arrogant statement - rooted in fiction.
>
> I agree with Chaucer, who in The Canterbury Tales identifies pride as
> the first and worst of the 7 Deadly Sins. But without pride, a
> professional photographer can't muster the courage to get out of bed
> every day and face the world. That isn't fiction, it is reality - at
> least it is MY reality.
Some measure of pride, yes, but I think it's mostly confidence that's
needed.
> No, I don't see the hypocricy. I am not opposed to advances in
> technology. What I'm opposed to is people pushing the button on a
> Gameboy with a lens attached, and calling themselves a
> "photogrtapher." I'm opposed to beginners shooting their first roll
> of film in their brand new Nikon N60, and when they get their prints
> back from the 1-hour lab exclaiming "Ah, I've mastered photography."
That last visual is kind of stomach-wrenching.
> I'm reminded of a scene in an episode of Star Trek, The Next
> Generation. Commmander Data has created a female android like
> himself, and named her Lol. At her first social encounter in the Ten
> Forward lounge, Lol makes a fool of herself and everyone laughs at
> her. As Data is escorting her back to her quarters, she exclaims "I
> made them laugh. So this is humor? Without understanding it, I've
> somehow mastered it."
> The late, great Edward Weston once said: "It isn't the mundane
> subjects of life that attract viewer interest in a photograph, but
> rather it is the way they are lighted."
I really like that.
I find that extremely hard to believe. What could be easier to use than an
FM?
Well said, Gene.
Mac
Mac Breck
> For a beginner, I think a computerized camera is like a bicycle that
> has training wheels. Most children will resist the parent taking the
> training wheels off of the bicycle. The kid is quite content with the
> bicycle the way it is, and fears the consequences of attempting to
> ride without them. Likewise, most beginning photographers will resist
> learning to determine their exposures manually - and God forbid ever
> attempting to learn about manual flash exposure. They cling to TTL
> flash metering like it was their baby bottle, and are mystified by the
> thought of using a hand-held flash meter or multiple remote flash
> units.
Losing the training wheels leads to creativity, and developing a sense of
your personal style of photography.
> I'm not saying that using a manual camera will teach anyone anything
> about the principles of photography. But neither will it encourage
> the development of a psychological dependence on automation - which
> can lead to the false belief that there is no gain in ever learning
> the fundamentals. These people mature into the strongest proponents
> for camera automation, and always own the latest and fanciest cameras
> - compelled to upgrade as soon as release of a newer model reveals the
> flaws of the camera they already own.
>
> For example, everyone thought the Nikon F4 was a pretty good camera -
I still do.
> until the F5 was released. Suddenly, it became obvious that the F4
> couldn't autofocus quickly enough. So everyone dumps their F4 and
> buys an F5,
I just love those people! Don't you? :-) Ditto for their manual focus
AI and AIS lenses, in favor of AF lenses. Where would we be without these
wonderful folks?
> taking great pride in ownership of the latest and
> greatest. But did the quality of their pictures improve upon buying
> the new camera? Same thing with the N8008s. Everybody thought it was
> a pretty good camera - until the N90 was introduced. Suddenly, the
> N8008 became woefully inadequate. And when the F100 was introduced,
> the N90s instantly became substandard - and no longer worthy of
> bragging rights or pride of ownership. People have to make excuses
> for the shame of not yet upgrading to the F100.
>
> What a fool's game! Either the damned camera works, or it doesn't.
> Autofocusing technology has not yet been perfected, and it never will
> be. This is simply because the camera has no way of knowing what the
> photographer wants to be in focus and what shouldn't be in focus -
> without somehow communicating that to the camera. But every few
> years, whenever camera sales begin to lag, the manufacturers "improve"
> the method by which the photographer communicates to the camera what
> he wants in focus. It is simply a fool's game, attempting to solve a
> problem which never existed in the first place. Manually focusing a
> camera lens is not time consuming or difficult, and it is a method of
> achieving focus which never fails.
Except when sometimes using the screens that come standard in an AF body.
This is why I changed my F4s to a K-screen.
> I believe that manually focusing a
> lens is the only part of camera operation that could really be
> considered fun. But apparently, others believe that pushing a button
> and making a motor whir is even more fun.
>
> Of course, I could also drone on about why an in-camera light meter
> can never provide anything more than an estimate of correct exposure -
> but I'll save that for another post.
Not so if you know where it's metering, like the Spot in the F4s.
Mac
David Gay
ewin...@psci.net (Gene Windell) writes:
> For example, everyone thought the Nikon F4 was a pretty good camera -
> couldn't autofocus quickly enough. So everyone dumps their F4 and
> greatest.
I just love Usenet. Lots of unsubstantiated prejudice presented as fact
(hint: could you give us useful figures on the number of such people, and
show that they didn't have a good reason to want an F5 ?)
I'm sure I could write a beautiful sentence replacing F4 with "Gene Windell",
"F5" with "Mac Breck", and a few other useful substitutions. It would probably
be just about as useful as the paragraph above.
--
David Gay - Yet Another Starving Grad Student
dg...@cs.berkeley.edu
Gene Windell
>> That's crap Gene. [...]
>
>Got to agree with S here. When I was in high school is was common
>to start with such an all manual camera. Many
>people just set the shutter speed to 60 (flash sync speed) and then
>turned the aperture ring until the meter needles matched. The camera
>was making the exposure decision just as much as today's Rebel set
>to program mode. More labor is required from the shooter of an
>all-manual camera -- not more thought.
I will quickly agree that simply owning or using a manual camera, like
a computerized camera, is not going to teach a beginner anything about
the fundamental principles of photography. He will only learn how to
operate the camera. But a fully manual camera is easier to learn to
use than a computerized camera, simply because it has fewer controls
and fewer functions to memorize.
It doesn't require much interest or brain power to memorize something
like this: "In addition to controlling how much light strikes the
film, shutter speeds freeze motion while f/stops determine depth of
field." A manual camera requires the user to physically operate the
shutter speed knob and the aperture ring, and they can start applying
this little verse they've memorized the first time they use the
camera.
But if a beginner starts out with a computerized camera, they don't
have to memorize anything except how to find the main power switch.
"F/stops and shutter speeds? Oh, I don't care anything about that. I
just leave this little switch set to the green "P" position, and
everything turns out fine - usually." "All those little numbers in
the viewfinder? I doesn't seem to matter much what they indicate.
Everything turns out fine - usually."
For a beginner, I think a computerized camera is like a bicycle that
has training wheels. Most children will resist the parent taking the
training wheels off of the bicycle. The kid is quite content with the
bicycle the way it is, and fears the consequences of attempting to
ride without them. Likewise, most beginning photographers will resist
learning to determine their exposures manually - and God forbid ever
attempting to learn about manual flash exposure. They cling to TTL
flash metering like it was their baby bottle, and are mystified by the
thought of using a hand-held flash meter or multiple remote flash
units.
I'm not saying that using a manual camera will teach anyone anything
about the principles of photography. But neither will it encourage
the development of a psychological dependence on automation - which
can lead to the false belief that there is no gain in ever learning
the fundamentals. These people mature into the strongest proponents
for camera automation, and always own the latest and fanciest cameras
- compelled to upgrade as soon as release of a newer model reveals the
flaws of the camera they already own.
For example, everyone thought the Nikon F4 was a pretty good camera -
until the F5 was released. Suddenly, it became obvious that the F4
couldn't autofocus quickly enough. So everyone dumps their F4 and
buys an F5, taking great pride in ownership of the latest and
greatest. But did the quality of their pictures improve upon buying
the new camera? Same thing with the N8008s. Everybody thought it was
a pretty good camera - until the N90 was introduced. Suddenly, the
N8008 became woefully inadequate. And when the F100 was introduced,
the N90s instantly became substandard - and no longer worthy of
bragging rights or pride of ownership. People have to make excuses
for the shame of not yet upgrading to the F100.
What a fool's game! Either the damned camera works, or it doesn't.
Autofocusing technology has not yet been perfected, and it never will
be. This is simply because the camera has no way of knowing what the
photographer wants to be in focus and what shouldn't be in focus -
without somehow communicating that to the camera. But every few
years, whenever camera sales begin to lag, the manufacturers "improve"
the method by which the photographer communicates to the camera what
he wants in focus. It is simply a fool's game, attempting to solve a
problem which never existed in the first place. Manually focusing a
camera lens is not time consuming or difficult, and it is a method of
achieving focus which never fails. I believe that manually focusing a
lens is the only part of camera operation that could really be
considered fun. But apparently, others believe that pushing a button
and making a motor whir is even more fun.
Of course, I could also drone on about why an in-camera light meter
can never provide anything more than an estimate of correct exposure -
but I'll save that for another post.
Gene Windell
Skip
>
> <SNIP>.
>
> People use manual cameras because they can. Perhaps people use
> computerized cameras because they can't.
>
>
>
I'm going to second the below post. I certainly CAN use a manual
camera, I started out with an Exacta II, then went to a VXIIb when that
first one was stolen. Then got a Canon AT-1, for its internal meter.
Then I got an A1, because I liked the features, and yes, I had learned
to use the overrides because of my earlier experience. I now have an
A2. I use automated cameras because I choose to for the convenience,
not because I can't use a manual camera!
Recommend that someone learn on an manual camera if you wish, but don't
deride those of us who use automated cameras as incapable!
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anders Svensson
> >
> >I used an N60 for years and I can assure you that its easier to use one
> >properly than an FM which I used for longer.
>
> Yes, but used for what? If one's ambitions will never extend beyond
> shooting mundane snapshots, then I suppose the premium should be
> placed on convenience. But unfortunately, there is no "convenient"
> way to make stunning, dramatic, awe-inspiring images. There never has
> been, and there never will be.
Gene, I feel that you are advocating this "remove technology
support" thing too hard. There are many parallels in other
areas, and I think everyone is able to find at least one
example for themselves where automation helps in their daily
life - I am under the impression that US drivers like
automatic gearboxes for their convinience (and, it might
also explain the relaxed driving habits of US people
compared to Autobahn and Rome. We - the Icemen of the North
- don't like it because it stinks on snow and ice). But
where it works, it works.
The notion that a fully automatic camera with program
support somehow limits photography is not correct, IMHO. It
help a lot of people who may envision and pursue great
images to overcome obstacles like f/stop and shutter speed,
ISO rating and focusing.
Many "stunning" and "dramatic" shots are in reality cliches,
and there is a whole shool of serious photographers that
think that beyond basic, working technique, content is
everything. Are they wrong?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson, troublemaker :-)
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
McEowen
> couldn't autofocus quickly enough. So everyone dumps their F4 and
> buys an F5, >>
Well, it's true that the F4 is a pretty sorry autofocus camera. On the other
hand it's probably one of the best manual focus/motorized cameras ever made.
Some of us stick to it and reject the F5/F100 because we like traditional
controls (i.e. a regular shutter speed dial). It's truly a sweetheart tool . .
. but quick/accurate autofocus, well, I'm sure there are better machines if you
need that "feature" . . .
Of course, there are some in this group that might argue that the F3 was the
best ever, or the F2 or the F . . . Features are nice (the F4 is certainly an
improvement over the F3 if you ask me) so let's not take this technological
laggard thing too far, OK?
s...@randomc.com
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:45:53 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>No, I don't see the hypocricy. I am not opposed to advances in
>technology. What I'm opposed to is people pushing the button on a
>Gameboy with a lens attached, and calling themselves a
>"photogrtapher." I'm opposed to beginners shooting their first roll
>of film in their brand new Nikon N60, and when they get their prints
>back from the 1-hour lab exclaiming "Ah, I've mastered photography."
Here you make sense. But below you start ranting again and claiming that
anyone who uses an N60 can't make dramatic photographs.
>the perfect exposure. It isn't the density of the negative that makes
>or breaks the picture, but instead the interplay of highlight and
>shadow within the scene.
Never said otherwise. In case you haven't noticed, this newsgroup is about
35mm equipment.
>>Ever notice that keyboard you're pecking on? Its attached to a gadget called
>>a computer.
>I'm as much a gearhead and gadget freak as the next person, a weakness
>I've struggled with all of my life. All of the many years I spent as
>an amateur photographer, I took great pride in being the first kid on
>the block with the latest and greatest camera technology. But as a
>professional I view my equipment as troublesome junk, even the brand
>new stuff, which breaks down and requires maintenance all too often.
>I simply want the stuff to work, and the less complicated it is - the
>less likely it is to break down.
That's fine, but you don't need to force your "simple is better" "only
weenies use modern stuff" philospohy on us. I am reminded of one of my
pro buddies who brandishes the same attitude. "F3 is all you need, don't need
autofocus and all that modern crap"...just like you. What does he have in his
studio? The latest Sinar $25,000 digital back and a $10,000 computerized
balanced studio stand for the camera. He has focusing aids, on-camera meters
(hah!) and the works - yes, there's hypocricy!
>>I used an N60 for years and I can assure you that its easier to use one
>>properly than an FM which I used for longer.
>Yes, but used for what? If one's ambitions will never extend beyond
Same things Gene. Since I knew how to use a manual camera already, and
understand the interplay of shadow and highlight and whatever else you want to
throw in there, I find the features of an N60 or other camer very helpful. I
know what its doing and why and know when to correct it.
>shooting mundane snapshots, then I suppose the premium should be
>placed on convenience. But unfortunately, there is no "convenient"
>way to make stunning, dramatic, awe-inspiring images. There never has
>been, and there never will be. To do that, one must learn lighting
Sure there is Gene, just because you aren't willing to try doesn't mean that
the methods haven't become easier and more reliable. By every statement you
are implying that using an N60 or more means that one has no ability to make
drama out of film. You're so full of yourself you can't see what's going on
around you.
>and lighting technique - and provide the critical element of
>imagination. Yet, the whole purpose of an auto-everything camera is
>to free the operator from the need to ever learn anything - while
>making exposures as brainlessly and effortlessly as possible.
That's not true Gene - its to help.
>When one extolls the benefits of auto-everything cameras, they are
>voicing the virtues of shooting mundane shapshots. Like the android
There you go again, its not true. Just because you're a camera moron doesn't
mean that there aren't professionals out there who find the modern gear very
useful.
>>She would have to learn how to use a flash - that would be more difficult than
> using the N70.
>Every photographer needs to understand flash exposure, and how to
>blend its color, brightness, contrast quality and direction with
>ambient light. Postponing that requirement indefinitely does not
>solve any problems, but only adds to them.
But you can go a lot further quicker with that N60 as a rank newbie until you
decide to learn.
>>Or they choose to.
>>That's crap Gene. I started out with a Retina and slowly progressed to blah,
> blah, blah.
>No, it isn't crap. It is simply an argument and a point of view which
>you don't happen to agree with.
Gene, you're full of it. Its not true. How many rank newbies out there own
an F5 or EOS 1V? Making good photographs isn't about having the latest stuff,
but the inverse isn't true. Not only do I not agree with it, you're wrong.
Your argument is that all manual gear is used by professionals who by the way
never use anything else. See a guy with an N60 and you see a guy who can't
take pictures.
>I daresay that all of my clients own a camera, and many of them own
>cameras that are way more modern and sophisticated than the equipment
>I use. Yet, they hire me because they know I can make images for them
>which they can't make for themselves. Everybody has access to the
Perhaps you have the technique, but given your attitude I certainly won't be
calling on you soon.
Gene, this group is about equipment - face it. If you don't like discussions
about equipment, albeit modern equipment, then go back to your Amish Photo
Studio and do your thing.
S
s...@randomc.com
No, lets start now. This is one area where you have less to complain about.
I've been amazed at how the modern metering systems capture what I've been
slaving over for years. They really do nail it most of the time. And when
they won't I'm usually aware of their limitations ahead of time. I find the
modern meters to be very helpful.
SS
>Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>"Bob Hickey" <f11...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:18654-39...@storefull-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>I remain unconvinced, and use my F4s on Spot or Center-Weighted. All my
>other Nikons (F2A, F2AS, F3HP, FM, FM2n) are center-weighted. As long as
>you know where it's reading, center-weighted can be used very well. When it
>can't, there's always my Soligor Digital Spot. :-)
This would be a good one to discuss here. I've been putting the F5's meter to
the test and am becoming convinced that it does what they say it does. I like
being able to control my scene in my old FM, but the new meter is pretty
amazing - never thought they'd be able to do that.
S
>Mac
s...@randomc.com
>> Gene Windell
Thanks Skip. Many of us feel that way. Is Gene's attitude one of
unwillingness to change? Or is it fear? What's the reason that some people
feel the need to deride modern gear and its users? It must be some inner fear
of using modern gear, an inadequacy thing. Or perhaps they are jealous, or
don't have self-confidence - I don't get this one at all. After all, why does
it matter to them if they are so happy using their FMs. Why is it necessary
to deride us who like to use modern stuff?
S
Edward Craft
> I just love Usenet. Lots of unsubstantiated prejudice presented as fact
> (hint: could you give us useful figures on the number of such people, and
> show that they didn't have a good reason to want an F5 ?)
Gene wasn't presenting facts, he was presenting opinions. Call opinions
"prejudice" if you must, but that's your prejudice. I'm getting irritated by
having someone inject into every discussion like this "give us figures and charts
and double-blinds and blah-blah-blah." What a bore.
As to Gene's opinions, I think he's gone a little over the top. (That is my
opinion, I have no charts, market studies or bench test data to back it up.) He
has made automatic cameras out to be evil incarnate. It's a bit much. The F5
doesn't free you from thinking. It may - repeat may - help you get the shot
quicker and with a higher probability of success. The young girl's camera may
simply have been broken. That can happen to a manual camera, too. Nevertheless, I
second the motion that people ought to learn on a manual camera, or at least on a
"computerized" camera set only to manual. That's my opinion. I could be wrong,
but of course, I'm not.
Regards,
Edward Craft
Gene Windell
>In article <39a5ad5f...@news.psci.net>, ewin...@psci.net (Gene Windell) wrote:
>No, lets start now.
For sake of brevity, I'll bypass the whole technical issue of the
in-camera, reflected light meter's inability to know the reflectance
value of the object it is metering from - unless, it is an object of
known reflectance value, such as an 18% gray card or the palm of your
hand (35%).
At the heart of the matter is that preference for brightness values
for the objects in a scene is a purely subjective matter. Shoot a
typical landscape with slide film, and bracket the exposures 1/2
f/stop more and less than the camera's meter recommendation. Now,
show the 3 slides to people selected at random, and ask which they
think is correctly exposed. It is much like asking random people to
adjust the bass and treble controls on your car radio.
With negative film, the vagarities get even worse. The processing
lab's automated printing machine can not recognize subject matter, and
can not identify what the photographer intended to be the main
subject. Consequently, the machine attempts to average the brightness
values of all the objects in the scene - with exposure weighting
toward the largest objects. So unless your scene contains only
objects of medium brightness values - the resulting print will
probably appear somewhat different than what you intended, regardless
of how carefully you metered the scene. Try shooting an indoor
portrait of a light skinned subject in front of a black background.
An automated printing machine will invariably base the print paper
exposure time on the background - which causes the portrait subject to
be way over exposed and too bright.
The solution to automated printing machines is to send the film to a
custom printing lab, where a video analizer technician will recognize
what the photographer intended as the main subject. The technician
then tweaks the print paper exposure time and color balance to make
the main subject look as good as it can be made to look. But this is
still just a subjective opinion. Two different video analizer
technicians will print the same negative differently, and perhaps they
will both get excellent results - but people selected at random will
prefer one print over the other.
Virtually all color negative films are notorious for being optimistic
in their rating for sensitivity to light. For example, Fuji NPS is DX
encoded for ISO 160 - but if you shoot at that rating your negatives
will consistently be 1/2 f/stop under-exposed. So what does DX film
encoding do for you, except assure that some of your pictures will be
ruined due to under-exposure?
I'm not saying that in-camera light meters are not useful. I'm just
saying that if one fully understands all of the characteristics of the
film he is using, and fully understands how his printing lab operates
- then he can use a hand-held incident or 1 degree spot meter to guage
exposures which will meet his expectations far more often than using a
computerized camera with DX film code reading and any kind of
in-camera light meter.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Gene, I feel that you are advocating this "remove technology
>support" thing too hard.
Welcome to the crowd, as you obviously are not alone.
I believe the reasons that anybody prefers one type of equipment over
another are purely psychological. This becomes evident in the "Is
Leica Worth It" topic and the immortal "Is Canon better than Nikon "
topic. Why a person makes the camera equipment choices he does is
really nothing more than personal choice, and those choices don't
require the approval of anyone else.
I realize that many members of this newsgroup are older than I am,
smarter than I am, better photographers, and more successful. I know
that I'm not going to change anyone's mind regarding how they feel
about camera computerization, and that really isn't my endeavor. I
assume that the market research departments of the camera
manufacturers know what people want to buy, and where the profits are
to be made.
However, the fact that Cosina has successfully launched the
Voigtlander Bessa RF indicates to me that there are still a few people
who enjoy making pictures without computer assistance. The Nikon FM2n
is really sort of an anachronism, or a relic of a bygone era. Yet,
Nikon continues to produce them so I assume that there are a few
people still buying them.
Now, most of the members of this newsgroup undoubtedly feel that
people who buy or use non-computerized cameras are fools, idiots,
Luddites, "Amish" or what have you. Most people have no idea why
someone would deliberately choose to use a non-computerized camera.
What I've done is offer some insights into some of the reasons why
people choose to use non-computerized cameras. I offered these
insights purely for purposes of edification. Think of it as an
adjunct to "Camera Psychology 101," or simply "Abnormal Psychology
301" if you prefer.
In my younger days, I owned and used my share of computerized cameras.
It was only as I've grown older that I've reverted to a style of
photography that relies on technique, rather than high-tech gizmos.
As with Alzheimer's disease, this may be something that readers here
can look forward to in their own futures.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<ecraft...@optonline.net> wrote:
>As to Gene's opinions, I think he's gone a little over the top.
I was attempting to present a point of view in a way that was not
ambiguous, vague, or wishy-washy. Some people use profanity to make
their point; I prefer to make strong assertions. I suppose that one
is no less offensive than the other.
I suspect there are some first-time 35mm SLR camera buyers who come to
this newsgroup, looking for advice on what they should buy.
Invariably, they are steered toward the Canon Rebel 2000 or the Nikon
N60 - as though one would be foolish to consider anything else.
Yet there are other, worthy, cameras on the market which tend to be
lower in price yet have some features that are more useful. Features
such as DOF preview, spot metering, multiple exposure switch, manual
film speed setting, etc. These cameras are seldom mentioned to
beginners because they are not computerized, and seemingly, nobody in
their right mind would want a camera that can't do all of the thinking
and do all of the work for you.
There cameras are the Nikon FM10 and FE10, the Olympus OM2000, Yashica
FX3 2000, similar cameras from Vivitar and Phoenix, and the Pentax
ZX-M. These are all relatively low priced, yet are quite capable
performers. In some cases, they have capabilities that the
entry-level computerized cameras lack. But why would any sane person
want to buy one of them?
Yes, that is the question. Why would any sane person want to buy a
non-computerized camera? Some beginning photographers may want to
know if there is an answer to that question.
In my own inept and offensive way, I have attempted to explain why
someone may want to own a non-computerized camera. People who own
computerized cameras have already made their choice, so of course any
other choices will be relegated to stupidity. But for whatever it is
worth to the beginners out there, I have presented these opinions.
For the rest of you, all I can say is "your mother!"
Gene Windell
Bob Hickey
you're USED to the center-weighted meter. It's not the camera making the
decision. And now that I know the FM2 IS centerweighted, I'll do my best
to forget.
After all these years.
No; I keep my trusty Seconic clipped to my bag, and use it right from
the get go. I just don't see myself trying to remember the metering
pattern on whatever I decided to take that day, and then doing some kind
of Chinese Algebra, which usually turns out to be an educated guess any
way. I can easily see
where a little fill flash would throw the whole system into a full blown
psychotic episode. Bob Hickey
Edward Craft
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:36:45 GMT, Edward Craft
> <ecraft...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >As to Gene's opinions, I think he's gone a little over the top.
>
> I was attempting to present a point of view in a way that was not
> ambiguous, vague, or wishy-washy. Some people use profanity to make
> their point; I prefer to make strong assertions. I suppose that one
> is no less offensive than the other.
There was nothing offensive about your post, Gene. It went over the top,
in my view, when you crossed from what beginners should be advised to use
to a general indictment of automation no matter who is using it. A bit of
a stretch, don't you think? It's just a little short of saying something
like "Agfa is dog s**t." (Cheap shot, I know. Couldn't resist.)
> For the rest of you, all I can say is "your mother!"
LMAO. And to think I stood up for you! By the way, I think it's properly
"yo mama."
Regards,
Edward Craft
s...@randomc.com
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:51:57 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>
>>In article <39a5ad5f...@news.psci.net>, ewin...@psci.net (Gene Windell)
> wrote:
>>No, lets start now.
>For sake of brevity, I'll bypass the whole technical issue of the
>in-camera, reflected light meter's inability to know the reflectance
>value of the object it is metering from - unless, it is an object of
>known reflectance value, such as an 18% gray card or the palm of your
>hand (35%).
>At the heart of the matter is that preference for brightness values
>for the objects in a scene is a purely subjective matter. Shoot a
>typical landscape with slide film, and bracket the exposures 1/2
>f/stop more and less than the camera's meter recommendation. Now,
>show the 3 slides to people selected at random, and ask which they
>think is correctly exposed. It is much like asking random people to
>adjust the bass and treble controls on your car radio.
Its easier to keep the discussion confined to E6 and K14 for the very reason
you mention below. (which I snipped) That's where I'll stay.
>will consistently be 1/2 f/stop under-exposed. So what does DX film
>encoding do for you, except assure that some of your pictures will be
>ruined due to under-exposure?
That's where the knowledge gained from manual cameras helps. I usually know
my film and how and when to compensate. I find that Matrix metering still
produces excellent results anyhow. The old maxum from my one of my photonics
professors still rings true - "Don't rely on a tool, rely on the instincts
I've trained into you. Question the results of any tool you use, make sure
they make sense to you." I always ask myself when I look into that viewfinder
- "does this make sense?"
>I'm not saying that in-camera light meters are not useful. I'm just
>saying that if one fully understands all of the characteristics of the
>film he is using, and fully understands how his printing lab operates
>- then he can use a hand-held incident or 1 degree spot meter to guage
>exposures which will meet his expectations far more often than using a
>computerized camera with DX film code reading and any kind of
>in-camera light meter.
Labs - another issue altogether. Combine that with the print film issues you
described and you've got a lot to think about.
Do you always use a hand held? Or do you use the meter in your FM? What I'm
saying is that having an F100 or F5 or N80 or whatever gives you a spot or
center weighted or 3D meter all in one body. All things being equal, this is
very convenient.
The DX coding is another issue that I don't much run into problems with. I'd
love to include it in the discussion, but I don't have a lot of complaints at
this point. Perhaps because I'm ready to use an override mode and set it
manually if necessary.
S
>Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:48:29 +0200, Anders Svensson
><Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>Gene, I feel that you are advocating this "remove technology
>>support" thing too hard.
>Welcome to the crowd, as you obviously are not alone.
>However, the fact that Cosina has successfully launched the
>Voigtlander Bessa RF indicates to me that there are still a few people
>who enjoy making pictures without computer assistance. The Nikon FM2n
I agree. And more power to you all. I'm certainly not throwing away my
Pentax Spotmatic or my FM! The only AI lens I'm tossing is my gummed up 135 -
perhaps there is a good technician out there who can make it work right for
good?
>Now, most of the members of this newsgroup undoubtedly feel that
>people who buy or use non-computerized cameras are fools, idiots,
>Luddites, "Amish" or what have you. Most people have no idea why
>someone would deliberately choose to use a non-computerized camera.
Don't get us wrong Gene, probably 99% of the auto users in this group have
spent years on the manual stuff. And we don't think you guys are idiots. We
just don't like being called newbies because we use an EOS 1V or F5.
>In my younger days, I owned and used my share of computerized cameras.
>It was only as I've grown older that I've reverted to a style of
>photography that relies on technique, rather than high-tech gizmos.
I wouldn't say that the high tech gizmo users don't rely on technique either -
you'd better have a technique with one of those things!
Steve
>Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:36:45 GMT, Edward Craft
><ecraft...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>As to Gene's opinions, I think he's gone a little over the top.
>I was attempting to present a point of view in a way that was not
>ambiguous, vague, or wishy-washy. Some people use profanity to make
>their point; I prefer to make strong assertions. I suppose that one
>is no less offensive than the other.
>Yet there are other, worthy, cameras on the market which tend to be
>lower in price yet have some features that are more useful. Features
>such as DOF preview, spot metering, multiple exposure switch, manual
>film speed setting, etc. These cameras are seldom mentioned to
>beginners because they are not computerized, and seemingly, nobody in
>their right mind would want a camera that can't do all of the thinking
>and do all of the work for you.
I'm not advocating this point of view, but there is an opinion that many
beginners don't want to know much about what they are doing. In that case,
the N60 would be a good choice and capture many many decent shots.
For the one who plans to go further I would suggest an all manual camera.
(No, you can't borrow my FM!) That will teach them something. An N60 in the
hands of a lifetime newbie is just a big point and shoot. But a good one
nonetheless.
There are several things an all-auto camera won't do: 1) Choose your subject
2) Decide what you want to do with the light that is there 3) Decide how
you will compose the picture 4) Decide when to snap. That's where most of
the art comes in anyhow.
S
Chris Kelly
I disagree with you. Lets put aside the meter on the F5, which
is different than anything else. Most cameras, in fact all that I
own or have used, have a spot meter which can give me
1 degree of incedence. Since I have gone and tested the meters
on all of my cameras, and always shoot with film that I am
familiar with (I only use Provia, Velvia, and Astia and buy in
bulk), the in camera spot meter is better for exposure than a
hand held. It is better for the following reasons.
1) It takes the lens into consideration. Some lenses soak up
a third of a stop, or more. If you use a non-TTL meter, it does
not take this into account.
2)Any filters are also better metered TTL.
3)Its faster.
So, I often spot meter myself, but prefer, by far, to use the
in camera spot.
"Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
news:39a6ad38...@news.psci.net...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:51:57 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>
> >In article <39a5ad5f...@news.psci.net>, ewin...@psci.net (Gene
> >No, lets start now.
>
> For sake of brevity, I'll bypass the whole technical issue of the
> in-camera, reflected light meter's inability to know the reflectance
> value of the object it is metering from - unless, it is an object of
> known reflectance value, such as an 18% gray card or the palm of your
> hand (35%).
>
> At the heart of the matter is that preference for brightness values
> for the objects in a scene is a purely subjective matter. Shoot a
> typical landscape with slide film, and bracket the exposures 1/2
> f/stop more and less than the camera's meter recommendation. Now,
> show the 3 slides to people selected at random, and ask which they
> think is correctly exposed. It is much like asking random people to
> adjust the bass and treble controls on your car radio.
>
> will consistently be 1/2 f/stop under-exposed. So what does DX film
> encoding do for you, except assure that some of your pictures will be
> ruined due to under-exposure?
>
> I'm not saying that in-camera light meters are not useful. I'm just
> saying that if one fully understands all of the characteristics of the
> film he is using, and fully understands how his printing lab operates
> - then he can use a hand-held incident or 1 degree spot meter to guage
> exposures which will meet his expectations far more often than using a
> computerized camera with DX film code reading and any kind of
> in-camera light meter.
>
> Gene Windell
>
>
ERNReed
The thin vertical red one on the side of their SLR bodies? I don't have an
opinion per se, but I have wondered why it's there ...
<grin>
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.R.
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
Bob Hickey
do 95% B/W with either a Rollei or Hassy, and a Seconic spot. I think
metering is part of the art, a very necessary part espescially as I
shoot some dark pictures. I don't make contact prints; just
pull them thru the carrier, and sort of transpose light to dark in my
mind deciding what to print. Consistantly, if I
use any kind of averaging meter, the stupid thing finds the highlites,
and thinks that's the picture. It's almost as if they look for a window
to stare at. Trying to print something like that is where the fun stops.
Not to mention the price of decent paper. I
guess it would be nice if B/W worked like color, with a bogus ISO and
then a -1,+3 behind it, but it doesn't, If I miss the full range of the
scene, it's a bad exposure, next case. If I
shoot color, and the prints show highlites at the expense of the
shadows, well, who's to blame? I know in advance that's what auto-exp
printers do. and if I want a better print, I have to pay for it.
Simple.
Bob Hickey
Gene Windell
wrote:
>Gene
>I disagree with you.
My point was that if the photographer always uses a hand-held
ambient/flash/spot meter, any kind of in-camera meter is a redundancy
which is seldom if ever used.
What I didn't say was that learning to use an ambient/flash/spot meter
effectively and creatively is way more complex and difficult than
learning to use any kind of camera, whether it is computerized or not.
I also didn't say that some types of photography benefit more from
using a hand-held meter that others. For example if one specializes
in photojournalism, or fast action sports, or wildlife - there often
isn't time to use a hand-held meter. There are many types of
photography where the photographer has no control over the lighting,
and the action of the subject matter is more important than anything
to do with lighting ratios. Likewise, if one is only shooting casual
snapshots which are going to be looked at only once and stored in a
shoebox out in the garage - then obviously there is no purpose in
using a hand-held light meter.
I would like the beginning photographers who may be reading this to
know that hand-held light meters exist. There are some types of
photography where achieving excellence requires using them. These are
the types of photography where the photographer first creates the
image in his own imagination. He knows how the subject matter will be
organized, what lens focal length he will use, which f/stop he will
shoot at to achieve the desired degree of depth of field. He decides
how he will control the brightness, color, contrast quality, and
direction of the multiple light sources he will use - to create mood,
depth and drama in his scene. And he knows all of this before he ever
picks up the camera, because the image already exists in his own mind.
Because he already knows which shutter speed and lens aperture he will
be using, the photographer's challenge is to adjust the brightness
ratios of all his lighting sources, and still arrive at the correct
overall brightness level in the scene to achieve correct film exposure
for the f/stop and shutter speed he has chosen. The brightness of
each light source falling on the subject must be metered and adjusted
individually, one at a time. He may want the light on the background
to be 1 f/stop darker than the main light on the main subject. He may
want the light on the foreground to be 2 f/stops darker than the light
on the main subject. And the main subject may be illuminated by three
separate light sources, with each being 1 f/stop apart in brightness.
Obviously autofocusing, autoexposure, and in-camera light metering is
of no help whatsoever in achieving any of this.
There are basically only two types of photographers. There are those
who attemp to photograph the world as it really is. And then there
are those who attempt to photograph the world as they would like it to
be. If you want to be one of the former, a computerized camera will
serve your needs in excellent fashion. But if you would like to be
one of the latter, a computerized camera will not take you where you
want to go - and will more likely prevent you from ever getting there.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<ecraft...@optonline.net> wrote:
>There was nothing offensive about your post, Gene. It went over the top,
>in my view, when you crossed from what beginners should be advised to use
>to a general indictment of automation no matter who is using it. A bit of
>a stretch, don't you think? It's just a little short of saying something
>like "Agfa is dog s**t." (Cheap shot, I know. Couldn't resist.)
I don't think I've issued a general indictment of automation no matter
who is using it. I'm not opposed to drinking whisky, for example. In
fact, I like it. But I don't believe a parent should give a kid a
couple of shots of whisky each day before he is sent off to school.
That is tantamount to what happens when a beginner starts out with a
computerized camera. Problem is, some people think that because they
have been taking pictures for 30 years they have graduated from
elementary school - when in fact, they haven't.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>The notion that a fully automatic camera with program
>support somehow limits photography is not correct, IMHO. It
>help a lot of people who may envision and pursue great
>images to overcome obstacles like f/stop and shutter speed,
>ISO rating and focusing.
If f/stop and shutter speed are regarded as "obstacles," I fear the
person may pursue but fall way short of anything that could be called
a "great image." As to focusing being an obstacle, are you advocating
photography for the blind? In the U.S., we have something called The
Americans With Disabilities Act - and I hope the government doesn't
catch wind of this issue.
>
>Many "stunning" and "dramatic" shots are in reality cliches,
>and there is a whole shool of serious photographers that
>think that beyond basic, working technique, content is
>everything. Are they wrong?
Perhaps this "whole school of serious photographers" you refer to are
people who can only take pictures with computerized cameras. I knew
it was only a matter of time until that became a reality.
As to content being everything, I don't really know how that term is
defined. I will dangerously assume you mean the activity or being of
the subject matter itself. And if that is what you mean, then yes - I
would say they are wrong.
I will again refer to the immortal words of Edward Weston: "It is not
the mundane subjects of life that stimulate viewer interest in a
photograph, but rather it is the way they are lighted."
The problem is, there is nothing else to take pictures of except "the
mundane subjects of life." Is this the "content" you are referring
to?
Most readers here are familiar with Weston's famous B&W photos of bell
peppers, which by means of shadow and highlight are made to look like
graceful, female nudes. These pictures are interesting because they
trick the eye and the mind. Weston proved that by use of lighting
technique, just about anything can be made to look like just about
anything else. Fat people can be made to look thin, new buildings can
be made to look old, ugly things can be made to look pretty, etc.
Now, here's the thing. If you place an ordinary bell pepper on a
table, and then photograph it with a Nikon F5 and an SB28 flash
attached - the pepper is never going to look like anything else but a
bell pepper. It doesn't matter how quickly the lens can autofocus, it
doesn't matter how accurately the RGB 3D matrix meter can control the
flash - the darned this is still going to look like a bell pepper and
nothing else.
So if we live in a world where content is everything, then art is
dead. If pictures which serve no other purpose except to please the
eye and stimulate the imagination are "cliches," then I say we need
more of these cliches. And we need more photographers who know how to
create them. None of this is going to come out of a computerized
camera. It comes out of human imagination, applied through technique
with very basic tools.
I suspect that if Edward Weston had been the owner of a Nikon F5, he
would have spent all of his time twiddling with the gadgets on his
camera - and never had the inspiration to light his famous pictures as
he did. He undoubtedly would have taken a lot of mundane snapshots,
but never have contributed anything to the understanding of
photography. And I can see by the course of this discussion, whatever
Weston did contribute is fading away quickly.
Gene Windell
Gene Windell
>Don't get us wrong Gene, probably 99% of the auto users in this group have
>spent years on the manual stuff. And we don't think you guys are idiots. We
>just don't like being called newbies because we use an EOS 1V or F5.
Well, I apologize. I didn't intend to seem so insulting. But when
one is expressing an extreme point of view, for purposes of
illustration, it is difficult to do so without offending somebody.
When I say "if the shoe fits, wear it" - that need not be taken as an
open invitation for every member of the newsgroup to come and try on
the shoe, or beat me over the head with it.
In the attempt to get back on topic, I must say that I think it's a
shame that only B&H Photo imports the Nikon FE10. This is just like
the FM10, except that it also has aperture preferred exposure
automation (and I suppose an electronic shutter to go along with it).
I see no point at all in using a camera with manual metering only,
unless the photographer intends to use a hand-held meter most or all
of the time. While some advanced photographers fall into this
catagory, I think most self-taught beginners will not be ready for a
hand-held meter until they've worked awhile on composition,
experimented with freezing motion, controlling depth of field, etc.
I sincerely believe that a beginner will learn no less about the
effects of adjustable f/stops and shutter speeds with a camera that
has aperture or shutter speed preferred exposure automation.
Match-needle or "light the diode" manual metering does nothing but
slow down the process, with no apparent gain. With aperture preferred
exposure automation, the user is still manually controlling both
aperture and shutter speed - but by turning only one dial instead of
two. To stay out of trouble, the user must learn to keep an eye on
the shutter speed indicator in the viewfinder - and know the effects
of those shutter speeds.
It is the fully programmed exposure modes that equate to "training
wheels" for a beginner. In programmed mode, the beginner quickly
learns that he doesn't need to know anything about f/stops and shutter
speeds. Why bother to learn the fundamentals, when you can seemingly
get good results without this learning? I think when a beginner gets
too much automation too soon, it becomes a deterrant to learning the
fundamentals. By analogy, it is sort of like giving a young driver
the keys to a car with an automatic transmission - before he has
learned the meaning of a STOP sign. It only takes 5 minutes to learn
and memorize the basic effects of adjustable f/stops and shutter
speeds, but if beginners don't learn this on day 1 - they may never
learn it.
I have an anecdote I want to share. A few months ago, my wife and I
went on vacation to Cancun with her sister and the brother-in-law. I
thought this guy was a knowledgeable photographer, but only because he
had been using the same old Minolta SRT-201 since he got it - 25 years
or so ago. The lens mount on the camera had recently broken, so it
would no longer hold a lens in place. Before we left from his house
to go on the trip, he got out the old camera and showed it to me.
During the course of the discussion, it became obvious that he had
absolutely no grasp of the effects of variable shutter speeds and
f/stops. No concept of freezing motion or controlling depth of field.
But he did partially understand the "Sunny 16 rule," which he got off
of the instruction sheet inside Kodak film boxes. He would always set
the shutter speed to 1/over the film speed, for example with ISO100
film he would set the shutter speed to 1/125th sec. And then he would
turn the aperture ring to match the needles in the viewfinder. But he
would never change the shutter speed - no matter what. He had no clue
that changing the shutter speed would have an effect on freezing
subject motion or camera shake. Likewise, he had never noticed that
using different lens apertures would expand and contract the depth of
field in his pictures. Quite frankly, I was astounded - and if
someone had told me this story I probably would not have believed it.
But then, things got worse. Because the old Minolta was broken, he
had bought a new Samsung APS Point&Shoot with a zoom lens. He raved
on and on about how much better his pictures were from this camera,
and how he thought anybody who used "old fashioned" (meaning all)
35mm SLRs was missing the boat.
To make a long story a little shorter, he got the film developed at a
1-hour place on the day we got back from the trip. He was absolutely
delighted with the results, and couldn't wait to show me.
I've never seen so many terrible pictures all together in the same
place in my life. They were all lacking in sharpness, were grainy,
had poor color contrast and saturation. Almost all were suffering
from under-exposure. They were all poorly composed, and they were all
boring. "Hey, there's a palm tree! Better'd get a picture of it."
But he was absolutely delighted with the prints, and thought they were
great. So I guess he had acquired the perfect camera. But at this
point in his life, I think his chances of ever learning the
fundamentals of photography are zilch.
As a result of that experience with my brother-in-law, now I'm a
little skeptical when I hear someone say "Oh, yeah. I used those old
manual cameras for 25 years - but now I've got this new computerized
camera . . . ."
Gene Windell
Mac Breck
news:39a6ad38...@news.psci.net...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:51:57 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>
> >In article <39a5ad5f...@news.psci.net>, ewin...@psci.net (Gene
Windell) wrote:
>
> For sake of brevity, I'll bypass the whole technical issue of the
> in-camera, reflected light meter's inability to know the reflectance
> value of the object it is metering from - unless, it is an object of
> known reflectance value, such as an 18% gray card or the palm of your
> hand (35%).
This is why you take the meter's reading, think, and adjust to make the
picture look how you want it to look. With somebody using a camera
automation, the last two steps are probably skipped. Unless a lot of their
pics come back drastically off, they're not likely to care. They don't take
photography that seriously, or they think it's too complicated for them to
master. If their pics are way off, they may either 1) learn something or 2)
just assume the camera is broken or an inferior model. If their first
camera was a manual exposure only model, it'll probably be "1", but if their
first camera was an N60, Rebel, or something like it, it'll probably be "2".
> At the heart of the matter is that preference for brightness values
> for the objects in a scene is a purely subjective matter. Shoot a
> typical landscape with slide film, and bracket the exposures 1/2
> f/stop more and less than the camera's meter recommendation. Now,
> show the 3 slides to people selected at random, and ask which they
> think is correctly exposed. It is much like asking random people to
> adjust the bass and treble controls on your car radio.
I'd rather shoot one slide, and put the exposure exactly where I want it,
predictably and repeatedly.
> With negative film, the vagarities get even worse. The processing
> lab's automated printing machine can not recognize subject matter, and
> can not identify what the photographer intended to be the main
> subject. Consequently, the machine attempts to average the brightness
> values of all the objects in the scene - with exposure weighting
> toward the largest objects. So unless your scene contains only
> objects of medium brightness values - the resulting print will
> probably appear somewhat different than what you intended, regardless
> of how carefully you metered the scene. Try shooting an indoor
> portrait of a light skinned subject in front of a black background.
> An automated printing machine will invariably base the print paper
> exposure time on the background - which causes the portrait subject to
> be way over exposed and too bright.
A good reason to do your own printing.
> The solution to automated printing machines is to send the film to a
> custom printing lab, where a video analizer technician will recognize
> what the photographer intended as the main subject. The technician
> then tweaks the print paper exposure time and color balance to make
> the main subject look as good as it can be made to look. But this is
> still just a subjective opinion. Two different video analizer
> technicians will print the same negative differently, and perhaps they
> will both get excellent results - but people selected at random will
> prefer one print over the other.
A good reason to do your own printing, or give the custom lab precise
instructions (not just give it to them and blindly hope for the best).
> Virtually all color negative films are notorious for being optimistic
> in their rating for sensitivity to light. For example, Fuji NPS is DX
> encoded for ISO 160 - but if you shoot at that rating your negatives
> will consistently be 1/2 f/stop under-exposed. So what does DX film
> encoding do for you, except assure that some of your pictures will be
> ruined due to under-exposure?
DX gives you the opportunity that your film speed rating will be set
completely wrong. Oh boy! That's something I want, preferrably with no
manual override! <S>
> I'm not saying that in-camera light meters are not useful. I'm just
> saying that if one fully understands all of the characteristics of the
> film he is using, and fully understands how his printing lab operates
> - then he can use a hand-held incident or 1 degree spot meter
or in-camera center-weighted or in-camera spot meter
> to guage
> exposures which will meet his expectations far more often than using a
> computerized camera with DX film code reading
True.
> and any kind of
> in-camera light meter.
Not true. You just have to know where the in-camera meter is metering (the
pattern and weighting) and I'm NOT talking about some computerized "matrix"
metering system here.
Mac
Mac Breck
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:48:04 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
>
> >Don't get us wrong Gene, probably 99% of the auto users in this group
have
> >spent years on the manual stuff. And we don't think you guys are idiots.
We
> >just don't like being called newbies because we use an EOS 1V or F5.
>
> Well, I apologize. I didn't intend to seem so insulting. But when
> one is expressing an extreme point of view, for purposes of
> illustration, it is difficult to do so without offending somebody.
> When I say "if the shoe fits, wear it" - that need not be taken as an
> open invitation for every member of the newsgroup to come and try on
> the shoe, or beat me over the head with it.
>
> In the attempt to get back on topic, I must say that I think it's a
> shame that only B&H Photo imports the Nikon FE10. This is just like
> the FM10, except that it also has aperture preferred exposure
> automation (and I suppose an electronic shutter to go along with it).
>
> I see no point at all in using a camera with manual metering only,
> unless the photographer intends to use a hand-held meter most or all
> of the time.
One is not necessarily related to the other. I use a manual-metering-only
body because I know where the meter is reading, and then adjust every
exposure to place it exactly where I want it. I put the subject in the zone
where I want it.
Using the above approach is usually much faster than using a handheld meter.
However, I *do* use a handheld meter (a 1 degree spotmeter where I can tell
exactly where the meter is reading), *when* the meter in-camera meter cannot
do the job. I find the only time that the in-camera meter cannot do the
job, is when the subject is too far away and I'm using a
center-weighted-only body, and there's nothing of similar brightness nearby,
or if I want to meter on a lot of smaller, important points in the scene to
make sure they all fall within the dynamic range of the film.
Using a handheld meter "most or al of the time" lends itself more to large
format photography than to 35mm photography.
> While some advanced photographers fall into this
> catagory, I think most self-taught beginners will not be ready for a
> hand-held meter until they've worked awhile on composition,
> experimented with freezing motion, controlling depth of field, etc.
>
> I sincerely believe that a beginner will learn no less about the
> effects of adjustable f/stops and shutter speeds with a camera that
> has aperture or shutter speed preferred exposure automation.
Probably true, well maybe a little less. I notice you left out Program
mode.
> Match-needle or "light the diode" manual metering does nothing but
> slow down the process, with no apparent gain.
Absolutely not true! I completely disagree.
> With aperture preferred
> exposure automation, the user is still manually controlling both
> aperture and shutter speed - but by turning only one dial instead of
> two.
And they have to remember to set the exposure compensation every time unless
their subject is of average brightness! Wow, there's the second dial again,
only this time you've been lulled into thinking that the camera's going to
"take care of you". I'd rather have my hands on the shutter speed knob and
aperture ring, and make the appropriate adjustments without having to search
for the exposure compensation control, take it off lock, and dial in the
adjustment, take the shot, and then set the adjustment back to zero before
taking a different shot.
The only time aperture priority, shutter priority, or program mode are
useful is when you don't have time to make the adjustments, and let the
automation take care of the exposure, hoping that the automation can get you
close.
snip
> It is the fully programmed exposure modes that equate to "training
> wheels" for a beginner.
or a crutch for the seasoned pro to quickly take a "snapshot" when there's
*no* time to set up the exposure at all.
> In programmed mode, the beginner quickly
> learns that he doesn't need to know anything about f/stops and shutter
> speeds. Why bother to learn the fundamentals, when you can seemingly
> get good results without this learning? I think when a beginner gets
> too much automation too soon, it becomes a deterrant to learning the
> fundamentals.
True. That's why it's better to *start* without automation.
> By analogy, it is sort of like giving a young driver
> the keys to a car with an automatic transmission - before he has
> learned the meaning of a STOP sign. It only takes 5 minutes to learn
> and memorize the basic effects of adjustable f/stops and shutter
> speeds, but if beginners don't learn this on day 1 - they may never
> learn it.
and their creativity will probably be stunted, and soon all pictures will
begin to look alike, as this attitude takes over.
> I have an anecdote I want to share. A few months ago, my wife and I
> went on vacation to Cancun with her sister and the brother-in-law. I
> thought this guy was a knowledgeable photographer, but only because he
> had been using the same old Minolta SRT-201 since he got it - 25 years
> or so ago. The lens mount on the camera had recently broken, so it
> would no longer hold a lens in place. Before we left from his house
> to go on the trip, he got out the old camera and showed it to me.
>
> During the course of the discussion, it became obvious that he had
> absolutely no grasp of the effects of variable shutter speeds and
> f/stops. No concept of freezing motion or controlling depth of field.
> But he did partially understand the "Sunny 16 rule," which he got off
> of the instruction sheet inside Kodak film boxes. He would always set
> the shutter speed to 1/over the film speed, for example with ISO100
> film he would set the shutter speed to 1/125th sec. And then he would
> turn the aperture ring to match the needles in the viewfinder. But he
> would never change the shutter speed - no matter what. He had no clue
> that changing the shutter speed would have an effect on freezing
> subject motion or camera shake. Likewise, he had never noticed that
> using different lens apertures would expand and contract the depth of
> field in his pictures. Quite frankly, I was astounded - and if
> someone had told me this story I probably would not have believed it.
How could he have lived that long with the SRT and not learned that stuff?
Not paying attention? With this level of "not paying attention" he should
have been run over while crossing the street long ago.
> But then, things got worse. Because the old Minolta was broken, he
> had bought a new Samsung APS Point&Shoot with a zoom lens. He raved
> on and on about how much better his pictures were from this camera,
> and how he thought anybody who used "old fashioned" (meaning all)
> 35mm SLRs was missing the boat.
He obviously has only a surface interest in photography.
> To make a long story a little shorter, he got the film developed at a
> 1-hour place on the day we got back from the trip. He was absolutely
> delighted with the results, and couldn't wait to show me.
>
> I've never seen so many terrible pictures all together in the same
> place in my life. They were all lacking in sharpness, were grainy,
> had poor color contrast and saturation. Almost all were suffering
> from under-exposure. They were all poorly composed, and they were all
> boring. "Hey, there's a palm tree! Better'd get a picture of it."
> But he was absolutely delighted with the prints, and thought they were
> great. So I guess he had acquired the perfect camera. But at this
> point in his life, I think his chances of ever learning the
> fundamentals of photography are zilch.
This is so bad, you've either got to be making this up, or the guy has an IQ
of less than 40.
> As a result of that experience with my brother-in-law, now I'm a
> little skeptical when I hear someone say "Oh, yeah. I used those old
> manual cameras for 25 years - but now I've got this new computerized
> camera . . . ."
Well, I'm at the opposite end of that scale.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:vVPp5.3296$_X.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> "Gene Windell" <ewin...@psci.net> wrote in message
> news:39a74e83....@news.psci.net...
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:48:04 GMT, s...@randomc.com wrote:
snip
> > I see no point at all in using a camera with manual metering only,
> > unless the photographer intends to use a hand-held meter most or all
> > of the time.
>
> One is not necessarily related to the other. I use a manual-metering-only
> body because I know where the meter is reading, and then adjust every
> exposure to place it exactly where I want it. I put the subject in the
zone
> where I want it.
>
> Using the above approach is usually much faster than using a handheld
meter.
> However, I *do* use a handheld meter (a 1 degree spotmeter where I can
tell
> exactly where the meter is reading), *when* the meter in-camera meter
cannot
> do the job. I find the only time that the in-camera meter cannot do the
> job, is when the subject is too far away and I'm using a
> center-weighted-only body, and there's nothing of similar brightness
nearby,
> or if I want to meter on a lot of smaller, important points in the scene
to
> make sure they all fall within the dynamic range of the film.
.... or when I'm trying to establish a specific ratio between highlight and
shadow (e.g. in a portrait), and am using a center-weighted-only body.
Mac
Gene Windell
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>> and any kind of in-camera light meter.
>
>Not true. You just have to know where the in-camera meter is metering (the
>pattern and weighting) and I'm NOT talking about some computerized "matrix"
>metering system here.
I agree Mac. I'm guilty of exaggeration. If one is lighting with
multiple strobe units, then obviously an in-camera meter can't do much
for you. But there are many types of photography where there is no
time to use a hand-held meter, and little or no control over the
lighting. Just as you said, if the photographer is smarter than his
meter he can get excellent and consistent results. It is only when
the meter is smarter than the photographer that luck comes into play.
From all accounts I've heard, the F5's matrix meter provides more good
luck than anyone really deserves. It's a shame that Nikon doesn't put
this same meter in the N-60.
I remember when Nikon produced only one model of camera, and they made
it as good as they knew how. Back in those days, there were real
differences between a Nikon and Pentax, and the Nikon name brand
really meant something. Nowdays, they are always holding something
back from you unless you buy the top-of-the-line model. You have to
pay extra to get over-ride of DX film speed settting, pay extra to
get a PC flash sync terminal, pay extra to get DOF preview, pay
extra to get flash sync at 1/250th sec., etc. Problem is, the first
time camera buyer doesn't know which of these features and
capabilities he needs - until after he's already bought his N60, and
found out too late.
Instead, Nikon provides the N60 with autofocusing and programmed
exposure instead of the useful features and functions which are
omitted. So the newbie assumes that autofocusing and programmed
exposure are vital and essential to good photography, while the
omitted features are nothing more than frills. This marketing scheme
deceives the 1st time camera buyer, and stands the truth on its head.
Perhaps the true meaning of the Japanese word "Nikon" is "liar." And
the true meaning of "American consumer" is "gullible dupe."
Gene Windell
Mcgchrs
their subject is of average brightness! Wow, there's the second dial again,
only this time you've been lulled into thinking that the camera's going to
"take care of you". I'd rather have my hands on the shutter speed knob and
aperture ring, and make the appropriate adjustments without having to search
for the exposure compensation control, take it off lock, and dial in the
adjustment, take the shot, and then set the adjustment back to zero before
taking a different shot.
The only time aperture priority, shutter priority, or program mode are
useful is when you don't have time to make the adjustments, and let the
automation take care of the exposure, hoping that the automation can get you
close."
------------------------------------------------------------
Going by my experience, I find the above statement absolutely absurd!! I use
Av on my cameras most of the time (unless I'm using my handheld meter) and
usually in conjunction with spot meter. I have not once used Exposure Comp.!!
I often use slide film and often don't need to bracket.
Usually I spot meter the portion of the scene I want to be middle grey, Use the
conveniently located AE lock button, adjust the aperature/speed (now properly
coupled) to where I want them and fire (after composing and focusing etc).
I almost always get exactly what I want and have total control of the image!!
Undoubtedly, when one wants fine control of the image (using strobes or
difficult light situations) and time is not an issue, nothing beats hand-held
metering and manual operation.
I think we all have to remember that these are tools we are talking about, and
knowing what they do and how they work and each one's strong and weak points is
essential to using them to the best of their (and our) ability. One can not be
a "good' photographer by relying on program modes, but one can not always get
"the shot" with manual exposure/manual focus cameras. It all depends on the
person and their situation!!
Mcgchrs
exposure instead of the useful features and functions which are
omitted. So the newbie assumes that autofocusing and programmed
exposure are vital and essential to good photography, while the
omitted features are nothing more than frills."
A lot of student (high school and college) first-time buyers that I've talk to
believe they are getting the best of both worlds getting auto/manual cameras.
I suspect, though, that many will put the camera on program and use AF and
never look back!
I think this was the original point of the thread, It's more difficult to learn
hows and whys of photography if you have such a readily available shortcut.
To go along with the SRT story, I thought an acquaintance of mine new
photogrphy based on using a Nikon FM and doing extensive traveling with it.
The secret, I found, was to use 400 speed film, 1/125, and move the aperature
until the meter said to stop! That's not really an improvement over program
mode!! :)
Anders Svensson
> So if we live in a world where content is everything, then art is
> dead.
We are not living a world where art is dead, and if we were,
then overly worrying about using "wrong" equipment, method
and technique would certainly not solve the problem. The
"why" is, as so often in emotional and mindbending work -
art, more important than the "how".
Or, (with a stretching of the notion that manual is more
"artsy" and pure photography than automatic, what about
painting, sketching, or for that matter rock carving. With a
manual vs automatic photography polarisation, we all lose
out to the "real artists".
Technology moves on. We may think (and sometimes correctly
so) that some of the progress is useless but much of what
Nikon, CAnon et al brings us is making photography easier,
the end result better and the mistakes fewer between.
> If pictures which serve no other purpose except to please the
> eye and stimulate the imagination are "cliches," then I say we need
> more of these cliches.
I am referring to popular clichees like "the sundown and
illuminated clouds" "the tree in heavy backlight" "motion
fortified by blur" "sidelight making dramatic relief" and so
on.
> And we need more photographers who know how to
> create them. None of this is going to come out of a computerized
> camera. It comes out of human imagination, applied through technique
> with very basic tools.
You have a point here, but there is also a counterpoint to
make. The point is ofcourse that flexing ones photo muscles
(not invoking automation, applying knowledge and executing
judgement as well as innovation) is going to result in even
better knowledge and sometimes new and refreshing ideas how
to to apply technike in new ways. The other side of this
coin is how new tools boost productivity and allows new ways
to do things. Evolutionary vs revolutionary, perhaps :-)
If more powerful automation isn't supportive of new
thoughts, it will be a crutch and a straightjacket for the
mind, but there is not much that says that this is so.
> I suspect that if Edward Weston had been the owner of a Nikon F5, he
> would have spent all of his time twiddling with the gadgets on his
> camera - and never had the inspiration to light his famous pictures as
> he did. He undoubtedly would have taken a lot of mundane snapshots,
> but never have contributed anything to the understanding of
> photography. And I can see by the course of this discussion, whatever
> Weston did contribute is fading away quickly.
Edward Weston had a period when he (not so sucessfully)
applied a lot of content to his images, making them
political and ethiccal messages. This was not well taken by
his fans of that time, but given that this also was
politically loaded (he, very simplified reacted on war
draftings, very unpatriotic and hard to justify in that time
and period - he was 20 years too early, I believe).
But why a photographic artist (or even a competent and
honest amateur) would need to have a problem with a
automatic camera with AF support is beyond me. I would
rather like to suggest that if a craftsman starts blaming
his tools for the lack of workmanship quality, he is in
trouble already.
Henry Cartier Bresson and Christer Strömholm are two
photographers who put extreme emphasis on content (in
different ways), and very little on what camera they use,
They both use/used Leica and Leica was (and perhaps is) the
ultimate no-fuss manual camera with minimal auto support.
But my best guess is that if they had been offered a Nikon
F60 with a decent lens, they might have been very happy to
use that too. It *might* have been too futuristic for them,
or the wrong kind of camera, but I bet I could have sold
them a Contax G" in that case... :-) I am absolutely certain
that they would have had no problems using that camera in a
way that none of us two can use either the most expensive
manual or automatic system. At least I know this for a fact
about me.
Final point:
I don't think it is completely wrong by being conservative
and traditional - and I hope I manage to disagree in a way
that adds to this discussion - it does not end at
photography.
We need to watch out for unneccesary complication and in
which ways our control over (any) process is put in
jeopardy. But like in so many areas, there is a middle road
where the some of the advantages from two extreme viewpoints
can have a place side by side and cross breed as well as
make old ideas work better. (pathetic, eh?).
In short, A Nikon F5 (or a F60, or a FM2) will not help with
saying where to go, what to aim at and where to stand, how
to compose, and when to push. These are the (IMHO) main
elements (but not all) of photography, and the simple act of
focusing and setting a f/stop isn't to mean a lot of
difference if that is done by servo mechanisms or by hand.
> Gene Windell
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
> Instead, Nikon provides the N60 with autofocusing and programmed
> exposure instead of the useful features and functions which are
> omitted.
Useful for who, and for what? If there are different answers
to those questions...
> So the newbie assumes that autofocusing and programmed
> exposure are vital and essential to good photography, while the
> omitted features are nothing more than frills.
Which in some ways is a correct assumption. Between the
casual snapshooter and the master photographer, we have so
many different people out there, with different needs and
different interest in learning so it has to be true that
some cameras are plainly wrong for some of the people.
> This marketing scheme
> deceives the 1st time camera buyer, and stands the truth on its head.
To this, a small remark.
The market is what people want to buy - and for a amateur, a
camera is a luxury, a hobby tool, not a necessity.
Have it occured to you that you might be not only in a
minority (and good, knowledgeable photographers is a
minority, that's for certain) but you are also applying your
own values and presumptions omn a large number of people who
don't share them or have any use for them. The majority of
SLR owners may just want giant P&S's with removable lens
capacity, and just like cars, buy something that has a large
"feelgood" factor. But is that "wrong" or is the camera
maker dishonest when they make this camera available ?
> Perhaps the true meaning of the Japanese word "Nikon" is "liar."
I believe that someone else wrote that particular wordbook.
Nikon has taken a lot of flak for being traditional and
spartan with their features, so this is a pretty novel
approach. If any camera maker (of the japanese ones) is
careful with innovations, it's Nikon. Ask Terry Danks if you
don't believe me... :-)
Gene Windell
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>> I see no point at all in using a camera with manual metering only,
>> unless the photographer intends to use a hand-held meter most or all
>> of the time.
>
>One is not necessarily related to the other. I use a manual-metering-only
>body because I know where the meter is reading, and then adjust every
>exposure to place it exactly where I want it. I put the subject in the zone
>where I want it.
Yes, but it takes a lot of experience and more importantly motivation
to learn how to do that. Meanwhile, the beginner may come to view the
manual metering process as needless tedium. And for shooting casual
snapshots which one already knows are going to end up in a shoebox out
in the garage - it is needless tedium.
>
>Using the above approach is usually much faster than using a handheld meter.
For some it is, others not. I guess it all boils down to which
techniques one has practiced the most. I regard using a hand-held
incident meter as the lazy man's approach, and I've never denied being
somewhat lazy.
>Using a handheld meter "most or al of the time" lends itself more to large
>format photography than to 35mm photography.
I know it seems that way, but need not be true. I got started with a
hand-held meter with a medium format SLR which had no internal light
meter. But I soon learned that techniques that are normally
associated with medium and large format photography also adapt very
well to 35mm shooting. The main difference is the size of the film.
I shoot a lot less film than is typical for 35mm photography, but have
a much higher percentage of keepers. Most importantly, I have a high
level of confidence in how my prints will look - before I press the
shutter button.
>> Match-needle or "light the diode" manual metering does nothing but
>> slow down the process, with no apparent gain.
>
>Absolutely not true! I completely disagree.
>
>> With aperture preferred exposure automation, the user is still manually controlling both
>> aperture and shutter speed - but by turning only one dial instead of
>> two.
>
>And they have to remember to set the exposure compensation every time unless
>their subject is of average brightness! Wow, there's the second dial again,
>only this time you've been lulled into thinking that the camera's going to
>"take care of you".
I can't disagree, and believe you have found a serious hole in my
argument. You're even more of a Luddite than I am, which undoubtedly
has lead you to becoming a better photographer than I am as well. (If
in doubt, that is meant as a sincere compliment.)
>
>The only time aperture priority, shutter priority, or program mode are
>useful is when you don't have time to make the adjustments, and let the
>automation take care of the exposure, hoping that the automation can get you
>close.
Or when the camera operator simply doesn't place any great importance
on the technical quality of his pictures. But I'm afraid this kind of
photography is what keeps Kodak in business.
>> It is the fully programmed exposure modes that equate to "training
>> wheels" for a beginner.
>
>or a crutch for the seasoned pro to quickly take a "snapshot" when there's
>*no* time to set up the exposure at all.
That assumes the seasoned pro keeps the camera set to programmed mode
all of the time, otherwise, neither would he have time to switch from
his "usual" mode into programmed mode.
I just don't buy it. I don't think programmed mode ever benefits
anybody - beginner, serious amateur or pro. It is simply a salute to
laziness and complacency. If the photographer "doesn't have time" to
make the decisions associated with using aperture or shutter speed
preferred exposure automation - then he also "doesn't have time" to be
taking any kind of pictures at all.
>> During the course of the discussion, it became obvious that he had
>> absolutely no grasp of the effects of variable shutter speeds and
>> f/stops. No concept of freezing motion or controlling depth of field.
>> But he did partially understand the "Sunny 16 rule," which he got off
>> of the instruction sheet inside Kodak film boxes. He would always set
>> the shutter speed to 1/over the film speed, for example with ISO100
>> film he would set the shutter speed to 1/125th sec. And then he would
>> turn the aperture ring to match the needles in the viewfinder. But he
>> would never change the shutter speed - no matter what. He had no clue
>> that changing the shutter speed would have an effect on freezing
>> subject motion or camera shake. Likewise, he had never noticed that
>> using different lens apertures would expand and contract the depth of
>> field in his pictures. Quite frankly, I was astounded - and if
>> someone had told me this story I probably would not have believed it.
>
>How could he have lived that long with the SRT and not learned that stuff?
>Not paying attention? With this level of "not paying attention" he should
>have been run over while crossing the street long ago.
I really can't explain it. There are a lot of otherwise intelligent
people who seem to have blind spots in their mentality. How else can
you explain the appeal of communism to intellectual elites? You see
this again in certain types of religious cults.
>
>> But then, things got worse. Because the old Minolta was broken, he
>> had bought a new Samsung APS Point&Shoot with a zoom lens. He raved
>> on and on about how much better his pictures were from this camera,
>> and how he thought anybody who used "old fashioned" (meaning all)
>> 35mm SLRs was missing the boat.
>
>He obviously has only a surface interest in photography.
No, I'd say he really didn't have any interest in photography at all.
He simply wanted "good pictures," and didn't realize there was any
connection between the two.
> They were all poorly composed, and they were all
>> boring. "Hey, there's a palm tree! Better'd get a picture of it."
>> But he was absolutely delighted with the prints, and thought they were
>> great. So I guess he had acquired the perfect camera. But at this
>> point in his life, I think his chances of ever learning the
>> fundamentals of photography are zilch.
>
>This is so bad, you've either got to be making this up, or the guy has an IQ
>of less than 40.
No, it's all true I swear. And that was only the short version of the
story. He also brought out an old 80-200mm zoom to show me. I slid
out the built-in, retractable lens shade and said "hey, this lens
shade is pretty nice." He said, "what's a lens shade?" I thought
that was just piece of the lens which had came loose, so I normally
keep a piece of tape on it to hold it back and out of the way. The
discussion went on and on like that - a Monty Python skit from
photographic hell.
We can easily forget that the newbies who ask questions in this
newsgroup had to demonstrate a good bit of enthusiasm and motivation
just to find their way here and think up a question to ask. But I'm
sure there are a lot of people out there in the general population,
taking pictures, who have so little knowledge of photography that
they're not even aware there are any questions - let alone answers.
>> As a result of that experience with my brother-in-law, now I'm a
>> little skeptical when I hear someone say "Oh, yeah. I used those old
>> manual cameras for 25 years - but now I've got this new computerized
>> camera . . . ."
>
>Well, I'm at the opposite end of that scale.
Seems to me like the more confidence one has in his own skills and
techniques, the less he *wants* to rely on camera automation. I think
it is an interesting coincidence that the simplicity of the Nikon FM2n
makes it an excellent learner's camera, yet it is so reliable and free
of limitations that it can also be classed as a valuable tool for
seasoned pros.
Try this scenario. First time camera buyer walks into a camera store,
and soon decides a Nikon N60 will suit his needs. He says "now, I'll
need to buy a lens." The sales clerk slaps a 50mm f/1.8 and a 35-80mm
zoom on the counter. The buyer picks up the zoom lens and asks "what
does this do?" The clerk replies "well, you turn this ring back and
forth and the image size gets larger and smaller." The buyer picks up
the 50mm f/1.8 and asks "what does this one do?" The clerk replies
"well, it doesn't do anything." The buyer replies "OK, I've made my
decision. I want the lens that does something."
I think this may be the reason why the Nikon FM2n is such a relatively
unpopular camera. It doesn't "do" anything.
Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:32:37 GMT, "Chris Kelly" <cke...@imsi.com>
>wrote:
>>Gene
>>I disagree with you.
>There are basically only two types of photographers. There are those
>who attemp to photograph the world as it really is. And then there
>are those who attempt to photograph the world as they would like it to
>be. If you want to be one of the former, a computerized camera will
>serve your needs in excellent fashion. But if you would like to be
>one of the latter, a computerized camera will not take you where you
>want to go - and will more likely prevent you from ever getting there.
Nice statement, and I know what you're saying. But sometimes, the world as it
is can be quite dramatic and pretty hard to capture.
Steve
>Gene Windell
s...@randomc.com
>Going by my experience, I find the above statement absolutely absurd!! I use
>Av on my cameras most of the time (unless I'm using my handheld meter) and
>usually in conjunction with spot meter. I have not once used Exposure Comp.!!
>I often use slide film and often don't need to bracket.
That's a problem then. Perhaps your subjects are too mundane to care, but
there are many times when a -1 will emphasize something that I want
emphasized. It can be used as an effect even if you don't think the "correct"
exposure needs it.
Steve
Mcgchrs
there are many times when a -1 will emphasize something that I want
emphasized. It can be used as an effect even if you don't think the "correct"
exposure needs it.<<
Why is that a problem? There are other ways of adjusting exposure than EC
dials! Why do you wish to assume that my "subjects are too mundane"?
Jansen98
older manual (FM-2n), as well as the F-100. I'll probably be buried with my
FM-2n, but will most likely trade the F-100 for a newer model in a few
years. The F100 does get shots that would be impossible with the FM2n--five
shots in a row of my dog leaping over a puddle. You just can't do that with
a manual camera. I've had electronic cameras fail me in the cold ski areas
of Colorado where my backup FM2n came to the rescue. Without batteries the
electronic cameras are paperweights. But you can always carry spare
batteries (you have to carry film anyway). I love the way the F100 lets me
concentrate on the composition instead of worrying about the exposure. Grab
shots could easily be missed with slower manual cameras. My point is both
have their uses and both can be enjoyed producing good photographs. Nuff
said.
wes jansen
jans...@fidalgo.net
Mac Breck
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:10:15 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
snip
>
> You have to
> pay extra to get over-ride of DX film speed settting,
My F4s has the DX override. I always set my ASA. I've heard of F5's
changing film speed as the ambient temperature dropped when using the DX to
set the film speed.
The Leica P&S I once had didn't have the override, and that's why I returned
it. I could have fooled it with exposure compensation I guess, but who
wants to have to remember to play those games?
> pay extra to
> get a PC flash sync terminal,
Don't they ALL have this?
> pay extra to get DOF preview, pay
> extra to get flash sync at 1/250th sec., etc.
> Problem is, the first
> time camera buyer doesn't know which of these features and
> capabilities he needs - until after he's already bought his N60, and
> found out too late.
Well at least he hasn't spent much on the N60.
> Instead, Nikon provides the N60 with autofocusing and programmed
> exposure instead of the useful features and functions which are
> omitted.
Because they expect the newbies to be brainless snap-shooters, and often
times they're right.
> So the newbie assumes that autofocusing and programmed
> exposure are vital and essential to good photography, while the
> omitted features are nothing more than frills. This marketing scheme
> deceives the 1st time camera buyer, and stands the truth on its head.
> Perhaps the true meaning of the Japanese word "Nikon" is "liar."
No, that's just every Marketing Department (Honorary Bill Clinton Truth
Evasion Division).
Hey, they do make the FM2n, you know. Also, you can still get nice F4's if
you look for them (All those people switching from the F4s to F5's and
F100's are my friends!).
> And
> the true meaning of "American consumer" is "gullible dupe."
>
> Gene Windell
Those who don't do their homework are.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:39A805DA...@swipnet.se...
> I believe that someone else wrote that particular wordbook.
> Nikon has taken a lot of flak for being traditional and
> spartan with their features, so this is a pretty novel
> approach. If any camera maker (of the japanese ones) is
> careful with innovations, it's Nikon. Ask Terry Danks if you
> don't believe me... :-)
They used to be a lot more conservative with the innovations. Then came the
AF and N camera period, and they had to compete with Canon or die, and the
computerized camera/computerized lens arms race began.
I miss the old Nikon of ~1978-1982.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:20000826122125...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> "And they have to remember to set the exposure compensation every time
unless
> their subject is of average brightness! Wow, there's the second dial
again,
> only this time you've been lulled into thinking that the camera's going to
> "take care of you". I'd rather have my hands on the shutter speed knob
and
> aperture ring, and make the appropriate adjustments without having to
search
> for the exposure compensation control, take it off lock, and dial in the
> adjustment, take the shot, and then set the adjustment back to zero before
> taking a different shot.
>
> The only time aperture priority, shutter priority, or program mode are
> useful is when you don't have time to make the adjustments, and let the
> automation take care of the exposure, hoping that the automation can get
you
> close."
> Going by my experience, I find the above statement absolutely absurd!! I
use
> Av on my cameras most of the time (unless I'm using my handheld meter) and
> usually in conjunction with spot meter. I have not once used Exposure
Comp.!!
> I often use slide film and often don't need to bracket.
Use the
> conveniently located AE lock button, adjust the aperature/speed (now
properly
> coupled) to where I want them and fire (after composing and focusing etc).
> I almost always get exactly what I want and have total control of the
image!!
And what advantage did AE get you when you had to find a middle grey to
meter on, use the AE lock, and then recompose?
With a manual exposure camera, I usually* decide on a shutter speed I'm
going to use, meter on whatever I want, and adjust the f/stop to put it in
it's correct zone.
*unless I'm after a particular depth of field effect (in which case I start
with the f/stop).
Mac
Mac Breck
> >Using a handheld meter "most or all of the time" lends itself more to
large
> >format photography than to 35mm photography.
>
> I know it seems that way, but need not be true. I got started with a
> hand-held meter with a medium format SLR which had no internal light
> meter. But I soon learned that techniques that are normally
> associated with medium and large format photography also adapt very
> well to 35mm shooting. The main difference is the size of the film.
The main difference is the pace you work at. Large format is done at a
slower pace (bigger equipment, almost always big tripods, tilts/shifts, no
internal meter, 2 sheets of film per loader).
> I shoot a lot less film than is typical for 35mm photography, but have
> a much higher percentage of keepers. Most importantly, I have a high
> level of confidence in how my prints will look - before I press the
> shutter button.
Same here.
> >> Match-needle or "light the diode" manual metering does nothing but
> >> slow down the process, with no apparent gain.
> >
> >Absolutely not true! I completely disagree.
> >
> >> With aperture preferred exposure automation, the user is still manually
controlling both
> >> aperture and shutter speed - but by turning only one dial instead of
> >> two.
> >
> >And they have to remember to set the exposure compensation every time
unless
> >their subject is of average brightness! Wow, there's the second dial
again,
> >only this time you've been lulled into thinking that the camera's going
to
> >"take care of you".
>
> I can't disagree, and believe you have found a serious hole in my
> argument. You're even more of a Luddite than I am, which undoubtedly
> has lead you to becoming a better photographer than I am as well. (If
> in doubt, that is meant as a sincere compliment.)
I just don't see what some people think is so difficult about using manual
exposure. For most things that aren't high speed sports shots, it's easy.
> >The only time aperture priority, shutter priority, or program mode are
> >useful is when you don't have time to make the adjustments, and let the
> >automation take care of the exposure, hoping that the automation can get
you
> >close.
>
> Or when the camera operator simply doesn't place any great importance
> on the technical quality of his pictures. But I'm afraid this kind of
> photography is what keeps Kodak in business.
Well, that's one good thing.
> >> It is the fully programmed exposure modes that equate to "training
> >> wheels" for a beginner.
> >
> >or a crutch for the seasoned pro to quickly take a "snapshot" when
there's
> >*no* time to set up the exposure at all.
>
> That assumes the seasoned pro keeps the camera set to programmed mode
> all of the time, otherwise, neither would he have time to switch from
> his "usual" mode into programmed mode.
>
> I just don't buy it. I don't think programmed mode ever benefits
> anybody - beginner, serious amateur or pro. It is simply a salute to
> laziness and complacency.
I use Programmed mode on my CoolPix 950, but that camera's purely for
snapshots, and the automation is harder to work around than on my F4s. I
always use AF on the CoolPix 950 because the manual focus is terrible. With
the Coolpix, I tinker around with it after the Program/AF shots aren't
giving me what I wanted (but you can easily do this with a Digital Camera).
> If the photographer "doesn't have time" to
> make the decisions associated with using aperture or shutter speed
> preferred exposure automation - then he also "doesn't have time" to be
> taking any kind of pictures at all.
Just snapshots.
>
> >> During the course of the discussion, it became obvious that he had
> >> absolutely no grasp of the effects of variable shutter speeds and
> >> f/stops. No concept of freezing motion or controlling depth of field.
> >> But he did partially understand the "Sunny 16 rule," which he got off
> >> of the instruction sheet inside Kodak film boxes. He would always set
> >> the shutter speed to 1/over the film speed, for example with ISO100
> >> film he would set the shutter speed to 1/125th sec. And then he would
> >> turn the aperture ring to match the needles in the viewfinder. But he
> >> would never change the shutter speed - no matter what. He had no clue
> >> that changing the shutter speed would have an effect on freezing
> >> subject motion or camera shake. Likewise, he had never noticed that
> >> using different lens apertures would expand and contract the depth of
> >> field in his pictures. Quite frankly, I was astounded - and if
> >> someone had told me this story I probably would not have believed it.
> >
> >How could he have lived that long with the SRT and not learned that
stuff?
> >Not paying attention? With this level of "not paying attention" he
should
> >have been run over while crossing the street long ago.
>
> I really can't explain it. There are a lot of otherwise intelligent
> people who seem to have blind spots in their mentality. How else can
> you explain the appeal of communism to intellectual elites? You see
> this again in certain types of religious cults.
Isn't the saying "The bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe?" Seems
applicable here.
Maybe you could have taped it, and it'd have been a comic skit. You could
get John Cleese to play your part. Eric Idle could have been the brother in
law.
So the buyer will use nothing but ASA 800 film or flash because of the
f/4.5-f/5.6 f/stop of his zoom, instead of being able to use ASA 100 film
with the 50.
> I think this may be the reason why the Nikon FM2n is such a relatively
> unpopular camera. It doesn't "do" anything.
The FM2n has got to be pretty popular since they still offer it new, 18
years after it was introduced.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:96731665...@mirror.fidalgo.net...
snip
> The F100 does get shots that would be impossible with the FM2n--five
> shots in a row of my dog leaping over a puddle. You just can't do that
with
> a manual camera.
You're right, with the FM2n, I'd only be able to get 4 shots at most. Using
the F4s, I could get almost 6.
FM2n + MD-12
Put the whole puddle in the DOF
Set the shutter speed for the f/stop.
Fire away at 3.5fps.
Mac