daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 11, 2012 8:16:18 GMT -5
berndt,
....but as much variation is possible with digital - in fact more than was possible before. The problem is that it takes time to learn techniques and if you already one that works for you, you, quite rightly, won't want to change it. I would certainly make the argument that professionals have stuck out with film much longer than amateurs did. The reason, of course, being that when digital first came on the scene it was poor, but never-the-less still better than some people were getting who took poor shots with 110 or suchlike. These were the first to go digital. Others of us have taken longer to be convinced. I do find that there has been something of a snobbery in photography, with real die-hards decrying anything that makes the job easier. I knew someone almost 40 years ago who had been a WWII aircraft reconnaissance photographer (or whatever the correct term for him is). He used to poo-poo what were then modern techniques because things had become 'too easy'.
When auto focus first came out there was quite an outcry. The first cameras weren't too good No, as with flash, it doesn't always get it right. Yes, if photographing a fast moving sport with a manual focus telephoto lens you could pre-focus on a point: fine if, like motor racing, there was a predictability about it. However auto-focus has revolutionised most sports photography and digital has taken it to where film never could.
In the end it is a question of the level of automation. No automation at all means no f-stops, no flash control (other than distance) and exposure by taking off and replacing a cap on the lens - and off course home-made plates.
Each flash technique has its own place. Most people take photos to record an event. In one week end (3 days) a couple of years ago I took almost 3,000 photos which covered all sorts of things from active sport to awarding prizes, from staged photos to candids, most with natural light, some flash. Yes, maybe I could do better on any one photo if I set everything manually but then I would miss most of what I was trying to record. Give me a studio, a large format camera and an afternoon and I probably would do a photo that was 'better'. That however is not my sort of photography. If I wanted to prove how artistic I am, I would paint. Photography is anyway, some would say, for those of less skill.
One extra point "I am always quoting Da Vinci at this point: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." He didn't say it - or at least there is no evidence that he did: it is another urban myth. Even if he did say it, it is not a credible statement. Why? Because when said the person always their level of simplicity not the ultimate simplicity of live. It is a bit like people who are rich arguing that money doesn't make a person happy.
Wayne, Topcon had a GN series of lenses too.
Dave.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 11, 2012 10:52:55 GMT -5
Yes ... and No ... I am not sure, Dave. It depends much on the workflow, you are used to. I am probably not fast enough with the manual focus for sports photography ( it's indeed one of the fields, where a high tech equipment is superior ), but fast enough for most other purposes. It can be also tricky to fix both on a digital camera ... exposure and focus ... and I often forgot to unlock the exposure later. And ... there are too many variable things, on which you always have to pay attention if trusting on auto features. Just for an example, if the ISO is not fixed, the camera might choose a too slow shutter time or if running it in shutter speed priority mode, the picture might get too noisy ... and there many more imaginable patterns. Everything can be set up of course, but choosing modes and settings also takes time. Here is maybe not the place for that, but I could only explain in properly, using a little bit of math. Talking in this terms, we could imagine the outcoming result of a picture ( just considering the exposure ) as a result R of an equation like f(aperture,shutter speed,ISO)=R It is an equation with three variables and how many solutions does such an equation have ? The number is infinite. That exactly describes the situation of any digital camera, run in iAuto mode. So we need to make choices. Aperture or shutter priority mode would eliminate one variable from the equation. Left are two ... and how many solutions does an equation with two variables have ? Still an infintite number, which means that the decision of the camera in those modes is still randomly. Finally wanting to get out of this problem, we need to fix at least one more parameter, which would most likely be the ISO. Now and finally, we do have an equation with just one variable, which leads to an unique solution. The result becomes predictable. If I imagine all the possible combinations, a digital camera is indeed a tool with great possibilities ... but also complicated and in the end, everything cuts down to making choices, fixing parameters ... which actually leads to nothing else then manual settings ... if I want to have some control. Just an example for a comparison, I would name my ancient Canonet from 1961 as a challenger. The ISO ( or ASA ) is already fixed by the inserted film and the camera is naturally working in shutter priority mode ( as I remember ). Setting the shutter speed on 1/250 sec, you will already have a perfectly working point and shoot camera in most of all daylight situations. The focus is easy to set with the rangefinder ( I would say, I am not slower than any autofocus ) and I can't say, that I missed any picture with that. It has a bright lens and at ISO 400, it really works most of the time. No motion blurr, nothing. So, I seriously ask myself very often, for what do we need all those fancy stuff like "face detection", so many sensor, measuring whatever and all those situation modes. Even autofocus can be very tricky. Many people and the face detection runs amok ... and the actually most useless autofocus feature, I found on a camera yet, has been on the Canon 450D, I once had. In Auto mode, a sophisticated system of sensors is always calculating the focus on the object closest to the camera. Can somebody tell me, for what is that good for ? I took pictures on a party, just as a test for using the autofocus features of this camera ... and there has never ever been the right thing or person in focus. Also the face detection on some cameras can be sweet. The person, we want to take a picture of, is suddenly turning away ... and yeah ... somebody in the background will suddenly be sharp instead ... because modern autofocus systems are fast ;D Well ... I don't know ... but not all improvements on cameras are a blessing and before getting deeper in learning how to master them, I would often say: Just don't
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 11, 2012 11:40:55 GMT -5
berndt,
I really thought I had a reasonable understanding of photography.
But your "little bit of math" has convinced me I know nothing at all.
Let's see; √shutter release = ∏r2 of the lens ± diagonal of the film frame = ∞. ∴ ∛of the tripod socket's radius < or possibly > than the hyperfocal distance and it all calculates down to a very, very large circle of confusion.
Oh my poor head!!!
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 13:01:53 GMT -5
Mickey:
1/60 sec., F/8, focus, release the shutter. You should get something usable.
W.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 11, 2012 13:35:21 GMT -5
I wrote and send a further reply earlier but it seems to be somewhere in the ether.
In brief:
Don't judge autofocus on your experiences with a Canon 450D. Yes, AF can be set for the camera to choose the focus point. However, they can also be set in several ways including spot focussing, which is what I use most of the time.
Speed of focussing: put a Canon L series lens on such as a Canon 7D and it will focus faster than can be done manually nine out of ten times.
Autofocus also becomes extremely helpful as one ages and eyesight worsens.
Face detection can be extremely useful for video, but like every system one has to know how to use it. Most modern camcorders have almost nil capability for easy manual focus. I did have a Sony 8mm camcorder with proper lens and focussing - one of the ones that sat on your shoulder. Hardly a thing, though to take on holiday. I will take the limitations of my little Panasonic for such as focussing for its size and convenience.
"for what do we need all those fancy stuff ". The answer is we don't. We can do it all with a cardboard box, with a pin hole punched into a milk bottle top at one end and a sheet of paper or film at the other. At any level that question can be posed - and the answer always is "we don't".
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 11, 2012 15:30:21 GMT -5
Mickey: 1/60 sec., F/8, focus, release the shutter. You should get something usable. W. Using the sunny sixteen rule - 100 ASA, 1/100 sec. at f16 almost always worked for me until I could afford a light meter. I once had a Paxette with an extinction meter. Terrible results. Mickey
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 11, 2012 15:35:40 GMT -5
Dave,
"Autofocus also becomes extremely helpful as one ages and eyesight worsens."
There are instances when manual focus is mandatory but your words are oh so true.
I just had cataract surgery on both eyes. A miracle! But the auto focus of my K-5 is more miraculous and still more accurate.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 11, 2012 16:28:56 GMT -5
In the good old days I would get 36 out of 36 correctly exposed and in focus using such as my fairly primitive Iloca. In truth, of course, I only took photos that gave me a definite result. It was essentially risk free photography. As things have gone on my percentage of success has gone down but almost any subject in any light is a possibility - so I try it anyway. If it comes out it is a bonus, if it doesn't....well it's cost nowt so it doesn't really matter.
The Ilford manual I bought a week ago has exposure tables in it. The little Patterson plastic calculator is essentially based on them. I have used both in the past and they can be surprisingly accurate.
Of course with exposure meters one of the early lessons learned was to point it down, so as not to include too much sky (this pointing up, of course, would give a result that was underexposed - unless you had a fancy incident light meter).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 19:16:12 GMT -5
I once thought autofocus and autoexposure was for sissys. Then I got older and I have learned to cherish those modes--especially when trying to shoot moving subjects. The eyes are the second thing to go.
I was in a camera store a few years ago and a guy about my age or maybe a little older was trading in a beautiful Nikon FM3 he had only had for a few moths. He said photography was his lifelong hobby but he vision simply wasn't good enough to manual focus anymore. He was getting an AF model.
W.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Feb 11, 2012 19:31:24 GMT -5
Mickey ... let me try to bring some enlightment to your circle of confusion, because it's the "theory of everything" ... at least for photography ... regarding the universe, mankind is still working on that Only an equation with one variable is leading to a unique solution. Let's say for example: X + 3 = 10 Only the number 7 whould let that become true. An equation with two variables would already have an infinite number of solutions, for example X + Y = 10 7+3=10 ... but also 5+5 or 8+2 or 9+1 or whatever ... and it is getting even worse if having something like X + Y + Z = 10. Now, talking about photography, F/8 and 1/60 sec would give you the same exposed picture as F/11 and 1/30 sec, wouldn't it. It's nothing else than an equation with two variables and if you add the ISO as it is not fixed in digital cameras, you will get an equation with three variables: f(shutter speed, aperture, ISO) = constant ... the same exposed picture. F/8 and 1/60 sec at ISO 100 will give you the same result as F/11 at 1/60 sec at ISO 200 and there is an infinite number of other combinations as well. The unfortunate thing is, that all those combinations lead to the same exposed picture BUT the result looks different. The aperture is influenting the DOF, a too slow shutter speed can cause motion blurr and a too high ISO let's your picture become noisy. Of course, the camera automatic will not choose completely randomly, the programmer has defined additional rules and conditions, but still ... the outcome is mostly random. What the camera usually does in AUTO mode, is measuring the focus at many points of the picture. The goal is, getting as much in focus as possible ... because the camera can't know WHAT you want to have in focus. The funny thing is, that we actually don't need any sophisticated measuring system or face detection for that, the answer is very simple: A small aperture ( large f-stop ) is needed. Constructing an a little bit more tricky case ... it's a cloudy day and, what mostly happens, something is moving in our picture. So the camera automatic detects some motion ( modern cameras can do that ). A large DOF ... but a short shutter time ... but the picture shouldn't be dark as well ... the camera automatic will go crazy and either choose just something for you or push the ISO to a level, where the noise gets annoying. There is no magic about camera automatic ... just logic. The problem is just, that the camera is not connected to our mind ( yet ). The photographer could have made a much easier ( and better ) decision, because only he knows, how the picture shall look in the end. Maybe the landscape in the background does not need to be in focus at all ... or we don't care, if an unimportant object moving in the picture ( maybe a car passing by ) is scrisp and sharp. The only reason, why a camera automatic is still producing decent results on many smaller digital cameras is the small size of their sensor. The focal length of the lens is just so small, that it basically works like a fixed focal lengh lens. The DOF is huge and everything is sharp from close to far anyway ... even at large apertures. If you look at pictures, taken with a cellphone or P&S, everything is sharp anyway and all those face detection and multi focus measuring stuff is just meaningless More expensive and sophisticated cameras ( having larger sensors ) always tried to avoid those "auto feature" features ... for a good reason ... because it doesn't really work anymore. If I use my MFT camera ( which is half of full frame ), the results in low light and iAuto mode are just random or if you try to shoot at night with a fast pancake, the focus is just continiously switching to somewhere. Very annoying, especially when trying to shoot video. Traditional camcorders are still working well ... also because of their small sensors. People always claimed, that the autofocus system has been to slow on the first movie capable DSLRs, but that's not the problem at all. Having a fast working autofocus system, the situation is even worse. It is always switching, because the shooting situation differs practically from one frame to the next. I shot a lot of video with my GH1, starting with autofocus and noticing very soon, that it doesn't work ( or only at bright sunshine and wideangle ). Then, I begun to fix the focus, which makes sense ... but even better, using a manual lens directly. However ... I see the problem of a bad eyesight. I can still see very well ( at far distances ), but my eyesight became also very bad, looking at close things. So, I needed to adapt my habbits too. I can't see anything on a small screen of a camera. One reason why I hate to use digital menues and my eyes are too bad to focus using a touch screen as well. EVFs are pretty good now, but still ... I can't get used to operate a sophisticated camera menue through that. A rangefinder is still working fine for me though and a TLR is also possible for me to operate with the inbuilt magnifier.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 11, 2012 22:34:38 GMT -5
berndt,
I don't think you are completely right on the focus front. You are choosing to highlight just the one autofocus mode - the one where the camera does a 'best guess' as to what it should focus on. Cameras such as the canon 7D have several different focussing possibilities. 1) manual 2) single point AF 3) Zone AF 4) auto AF 5) spot AF - which is basically the same as single point, but a smaller pin point (mathematically of course a point has no dimension) 6) AF point expansion basically single point, but it extends to the points around it. It makes it easier to follow fast but irregularly moving subjects.
Additionally there is One Shot, AI Focus and AI servo. One Shot holds the focus which is set at the first button half-press. AI servo continuously will refocus until the point at which the shutter fires, then it will refocus for the next picture. AI Focus basically switches between the two modes automatically.
On top of that L series lenses (and some from Sigma and, I think, other manufacturers) give you full time manual focus override when the lens is in Auto mode.
No, it isn't difficult: just use the mode that is best suited to your own way of working, and for the most part stick with it. I've never used the Auto AF (which is the sort you quote above) except to try it out.
7D can take eight frames a second and will, in AI Servo, refocus for every shot. If anyone can focus manually eight times in a second I'd be very surprised.
Dave.
|
|