I though my point was simple, that a SLR set to fully manual is akin to a Bessa R2! Manual exposure, manual focus, with absolutely no automation! Basically that is no reason to try to out think the camera. Turn everything off, and only turn on what you need and know works. It wasn't a SLR vs RF, which somehow now it seems to be...sigh...
On the other hand, if you're willing to give up the certainty of a lot of good pictures to gamble in hopes of getting one great picture, then the choice becomes a lot more individualized.....
This whole line of thought really makes me pause! This has nothing at all to do with the camera, but the style or type of shooting one will be doing. Whether an RF or a SLR, both are more than capable of creating bad, mediocre, good, or great results. The only difference is the feature set and its relevancy to the particular photo taking opportunity. But even this wasn't my point, as all that automation can be turned off, making the high tech wonder nothing more than a high quality manual digital camera similar to the R-D1 (aside from the obvious RF limitations).
Anyway, getting back to what types of cameras/features/settings work best in this highly individualized pursuit of great photos, I feel that it varies a lot depending on what you shoot, where, and how. For instance, our previous poster is an aviation guy, and I'm a theater guy. So...
I shouldn't be classified into such a niche because of one example. I am far from an aviation guy! I shoot professionally, which means I shoot in a lot of differing situations. Sure, I've shot aviation, I've hung out of helicopters doing aerials. But that's the minority of my work. I've shot far more studio stills, product shots, corporate events, editorials, theater, film, movie sets, motor sports, environmentals, macro, industrial, annual reports, architecture, scenics, nature, and even some fashion. What I haven't done is traditional sports, weddings, and portraits. The majority of my work is corporate, product, and editorials. The editorial work covers a lot ground from studio to location, and all kinds of shooting scenarios.
And I almost never use matrix metering. It's almost never right. In theaters, rehearsal halls, etc.
Theater is one of the definite situations that I turn off the matrix and use spot or handheld. Depending on the lighting, I may just select an exposure value and leave it, or use spot metering and AE lock to dynamically alter the exposure depending on the lighting. Night photography, heavy backlit, and other challenging lighting conditions are other instances that I turn off matrix. This doesn't take any weight from my statement that I use matrix metering most of the time. I do, and it works perfectly! The nice feature is that I can decide when to use to, and not have to try to outsmart it. I just turn it off and use alternate methods.
SO yea, turn it off, and don't try to compensate for it. that's the beauty of automation. Use it when it works, turn it off and run manual when you know it won't be right, or are not sure how well it will work. That was the thrust of my first post. Don't try to out think it, only delegate when you know it will give you the results you want. Theatre is not one of them from my experience.
quote:For sports or fast action, there is nothing in the world that can beat AF with AF-s lenses, Dynamic motion tracking, matrix metering, (or Canons equivalent) at capturing a series of perfectly focused, perfectly exposed series of shots at 8 frames per second. I am always amazed when I do air to air or ground to air shots of air shows or air racing at the shear number of perfectly done images I can get...
This is another illustration of how what you shoot makes a big difference. If there's nothing in the background except blank sky, I'm sure dynamic AF works great.
Either you haven't tried it, or are shooting with the early stuff. Dynamic tracking works even with distracting backgrounds. In fact, it can even hold focus if an object crosses in front of the path of your object. Ie, you are focused on a a runner rounding third base, and another player passes between you and the guy on third. It will continue to track the guy on third since it uses predictive focus to estimate when the runner at third should be. The guy crossing is outside of those parameters, so it uses the predictive data and focuses where it assumes the runner will be based on its history of speed, angle, etc. When the closer guy passes out of frame, it recaptures the guy on third right where it predicted! I tried this a lot with my daughters softball season (she was on 4 teams, grueling schedule for me
). I was skeptical so I tried to fool it as often as possible. The damn thing really works. Busy background, things crossing in from and behind. Nice!! I really got to learn how it works, and when not to use it. Its supposed to be even better with the D2x.
On the other hand, if there are lots of highly detailed objects at similar distances, you could easily get 40 frames focused on the wrong object! This happens to me all the time in theaters, where the important subjects (blurry, amorphous human beings) are posed right in front of sharp, contrasty, angular scenery that makes an irresistible target for the tiny brain of the dynamic AF system.
That hasn't been my case at all, but then again I've never used it in the theater. Its not designed for that type of environment, nor is AF really. Unless the theater is bright, you could have all sorts of focusing issues which would make the dynamic tracking almost useless. I'm not surprised that you had issues with dynamic tracking, and the manual specifically cites those conditions as situations that will return poor AF results. Turn it off and use manual focusing, rather than try to outsmart it.
quote:...the D2x's can do anything the R-D1 can (with the exception of using M mount lenses). I need the D2x's because of the type of work I do, so its hard to justify the R-D1 at that cost as a personal toy.
My ideal camera bag would contain a pair of Nikon D2xs with a good selection of AF-S lenses, and 2 SB-800 wireless strobes....
Another illustration of the importance of what you want to shoot, and how. Carrying around a big bag of equipment gives you more versatility - but it exacts a big cost in mobility.......
>> bunch of RF vs SLR comparisons <<
You shoot theater. For me, theatre, film, or corporate events with a stage driven presentation with theater type lighting are always a manual focusing, sport metering AE or hand held meter with manual exposure affair. Whether you use a R-D1, R3a, or a D1x to do that doesn't matter. Either will work perfectly fine if you understand your camera well, and know when to use the features available to you. Putting a camera on auto, whether its a R3a with only AE, or a high end SLR with tons of features is not the way to get good results. Automation is a tool to be used as a helper, and not as a crutch. Its up to the photographer to know when a feature is either, and choose appropriately.
I don't know why this has turned to a SLR vs RF argument. I wasn't arguing the point at all. If you read it again, I was merely stating that you should think more in terms of turning on features for you that you know work in the situation you are in, rather then trying having all the automation on and trying to out think it or compensate for it which you stated you were always doing. If you reversed your process to only turning on what you need, things would be much smoother. I followed up with one situation where the automation clearly works, as a demonstration when it makes sense to turn it on, rather than leave it off. It certainly wasn't a knock against RF, or a RF vs SLR debate.
Another illustration of the importance of what you want to shoot, and how. Carrying around a big bag of equipment gives you more versatility - but it exacts a big cost in mobility.
This is an important factor for me: sometimes a chance at the best picture means climbing up into the second balcony, or squeezing in behind the piano, or hanging off the ladder up to the fly loft, or whatever.
When I'm lugging my digital SLR gear, I often don't even bother to explore these types of opportunities, just because "there's no way I can get in there with all this stuff." If all I've got is an RF camera and two lenses in a belt bag, I'll go anywhere. Often it doesn't pay off, but sometimes it does.
I always explore any opportunity regardless of what I am carrying. It doesn't mean I have to drag it all with me. I can easily drop the SLR in the bag and leave it, grab a smaller camera, and head up to the balcony. Even so, I don't find a SLR and a couple lenses such a burden that I wouldn't carry it anywhere I would take a RF.
What I'm saying here is not that I'm right and the other poster is wrong -- but that there IS no "right" answer except what's right for you.
Exactly!!!!!
Whether you agree with me or not, lets not do the RF vs SLR debate because you are exactly right in your statement above. I love RDs. I also love SLRs. I could argue the finer points regarding either regarding any given situation, but I would not want to be required to choose one over the other. Fortunately, I am in a position I don't have to, and work pays for it. For those that have to choose, one system will fit their needs better than the other, and I would never try to covert them away from their choice.
Fact is, if I was not working professional, I would have a very hard time choosing between something like a Hassy 500, a Nikon D70, a Epson R-D1, or a nice M6 setup. Why can't I have them all!!!
