in this day of auto everything cameras...

When I shoot black and white film (for me) the manual control allows the use of a truncated version of the zone system - I tend to place my shadow areas in zone three as a rule and let the rest of it fall. It's nice to "meter for the shadows and process for the highlights," although admittedly I often process from the hip... Auto settings take that away.

When shooting digital in color with strobe (for work) I find it allows me to balance flash and ambient light much easier and with fewer wasted frames.

For focus, I am happy to let my camera autofocus for me unless shooting with a narrow depth of field, in which case I take control back to make sure the exact point of focus is where I want it.
 
I'd love autofocus but I want dedicated buttons for every function. And there it goes wrong with modern cameras. I don't like that I can't set the diaphragm with a dedicated ring on the lens. That most cameras don't have a knob for speed. That you need to go in a menu for iso. I hate menus (except in a restaurant). So the only thing left is a full manual camera.
 
Spanik said:
I'd love autofocus but I want dedicated buttons for every function. And there it goes wrong with modern cameras. I don't like that I can't set the diaphragm with a dedicated ring on the lens. That most cameras don't have a knob for speed. That you need to go in a menu for iso. I hate menus (except in a restaurant). So the only thing left is a full manual camera.
Click to expand...

or one of the fujis...
 
the other thing about automatic settings is imho that it is much more complicated. Look at what I set on my M6 or on my D700. It can do everything automatically, but if You want to control the result you need the correct it in 10 or 20% of the cases. So, want is easier - anticipating if the automatic settings will be all right and adjusting if needed or - setting it from the very beginning? I do not need to think what the camera will do.
and those issued are multiplied by automatic exposure and focus and autoISO and AE program ("do I take the sport program for a landscape shot because I have been climbing a hill and a shaking" or "do I take the landscape program for an action shot to catch the movement with a long exposure?") an so on.
 
back alley said:
...why are so many still fixated on shooting in manual mode?

i think that me, an old fart, asking this question is kinda funny. it's usually us oldsters that are the dyed in the wool diehards.

but i wonder why, sincerely.

is it my laziness that makes auto everything so appealing?

i have shot the same forever...aperture priority or at least set the aperure i want with a manual camera.
i love auto focus...

what's the strong appeal of staying in manual mode?
Click to expand...

Automatic exposure is exactly that. The camera does not know if you want a silhouette effect, and it does not know if you want a hazy over-saturated effect. Automatic exposure will, by and large, average the scene, which generally, is fine, but often it's not what you're after. Once, by accident, I grossly under exposed a scene, and ended up with a silhouette effect on the negative that I very much liked. With automatic exposure I would not have got that.

If you're after the average "perfect" exposure of a scene, then AE is great. In fact I love AE for slide film and holidays where I'm there to have fun, not just take photos. So often though, my own guesses at exposure, even when "wrong" have rendered pleasing results.
 
It sure is easier to read the manual of a Praktica MTL-3 or Fuji G690BL than one of the telephonebooks that come with those modern wonders.

If I see how often people redo photos because this or that setting isn't what they want I really wonder if full auto is easier. I read my lightmeter, set exposure, focus, compose and shoot. If I didn't move it is ok.

Yes, the Fuji's are coming very close to what I want. But I don't like rangefinders or EVF.
 
After this Friday (the end of the world as we know it) I will still be able to take pictures of zombies with my battery-less film cameras, because I have practiced a lot for that eventuality. Even my light meter is impervious to the big electromagnetic pulses that are going to render DSLRs and DRFs scrap. I feel good about that. :)
 
I generally use aperture priority with consciously dialed exposure compensation. All my automatic cameras make it pretty easy to do. I don't really think that it is very different than what I would achieve with manual mode while using the built-in meter - just that the camera does most of the dialing and I need to fine tune only. But the compensation values are still often in excess of 1.5 stops: full auto would miss a lot.

I switch to full manual when the meter is waay off target (target is what I want, not what is "correct", obviously) or when I need constant exposure between shots.

AF is a mixed case. In some situations, it is way faster and more accurate than MF (my EF 400/5.6L is such a case, especially with moving targets) in others, totally useless (hyperfocal/zone focus techniques). When shooting from tripod, I often focus manually with magnified Live View to get it exactly right.

In general, the auto modes get you in the ball park but a hands on approach can often improve things further. Choosing not to improve things is simply laziness.
 
The automated camera, in all its battery-dependent, electronically-propelled, menu-laden technological glory, is a triumph of Japanese marketing genius.

The same people, if they wished, could sell container-loads of sand to Eskimoes, as well as to Arabs, convincing both that they really, really needed it in their lives.

Today's electronically brilliant computer/cameras have made image capture so simple and painless that a reasonably sensible monkey could capture reasonably acceptable images with just a little training of the ''monkey see, monkey do'' variety.

Personally, the most modern camera I have ever owned or used is a Nikon F3P.
I like it, it's very well designed, it's been very reliable, but I find I only use it if motordrive is likely to be required. All other times it's the ever-faithful, always enjoyable Leica M2s and M3s and Nikon Fs.

I suppose automated cameras have their uses for some people, but they're not for me.
I haven't succumbed to Japanese marketing persuasion yet... (!)
 
dabick42 said:
The automated camera, in all its battery-dependent, electronically-propelled, menu-laden technological glory, is a triumph of Japanese marketing genius.

The same people, if they wished, could sell container-loads of sand to Eskimoes, as well as to Arabs, convincing both that they really, really needed it in their lives.

Today's electronically brilliant computer/cameras have made image capture so simple and painless that a reasonably sensible monkey could capture reasonably acceptable images with just a little training of the ''monkey see, monkey do'' variety.

Personally, the most modern camera I have ever owned or used is a Nikon F3P.
I like it, it's very well designed, it's been very reliable, but I find I only use it if motordrive is likely to be required. All other times it's the ever-faithful, always enjoyable Leica M2s and M3s and Nikon Fs.

I suppose automated cameras have their uses for some people, but they're not for me.
I haven't succumbed to Japanese marketing persuasion yet... (!)
Click to expand...

I think this hits the nail on the head. Modern, automated cameras were not created to improve anyone's photography. They were created to create profit for companies. Nobody is going to make any money by saying that the camera you bought 30 years ago is just fine.
 
Just use what works best for you. Personally, i get more satisfaction the more i control the variables manually, and wet print in my darkroom. I don't care if someone else does or does not use auto focus and/or auto exposure, manual or program mode, film or digital.
 
thegman said:
I think this hits the nail on the head. Modern, automated cameras were not created to improve anyone's photography. They were created to create profit for companies.
Click to expand...

So all those professional working photographers using Canikon DSLRs, they're just being duped by marketing?

I can understand preferring one thing over another. But I don't understand interpreting the last 30 years of advancing camera technology as a farce.
 
for the record...

i use af
aperture priority
i check the shutter speed before firing away
i set my own iso (or should i say asa for the true luddites here)
i determine what i want to focus on
and what i want to meter on
my brain engages before most shots but i will admit many of my better shots were made quickly without too much forethought (instinct, years of practice?)

my house has electricity and my car runs on gasoline and indoor plumbing is something that i have enjoyed since birth!
 
hteasley said:
So all those professional working photographers using Canikon DSLRs, they're just being duped by marketing?
Click to expand...

I doubt he means that. What he means is that what was added wasn't added because cameras of 30 years ago weren't cutting it. The features were added in order to keep selling cameras every couple of years. Many of us here don't like those features, so we are cynical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom