When Did It All Go Wrong?

[mdelevie]

If you are using a basic autofocus camera with a kit lens it can be frustrating, particularly in low light. The other reason that people can find it frustrating, and can't get it to do what they want, is they don't understand it and don't know how to use it. Sometimes I think auto-focus was miss-named. You have to be in full control of the auto-system to get the best out of it.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Gareth. For sake of clarification, I'm certainly not using a kit lens or a 'basic' autofocus camera. I'm using very fast primes (50/1.4, 85/1.2, 200/1.8) and pro-quality f/2.8 zooms (24-70L, 70-200L) in a Canon 20D or 5D.

While I find AF extremely useful for sports in strong light, I dislike it at other times. Maybe an example would help: I've lost frames of a bride & her father walking down the aisle due to poor servo AF tracking. In but a few steps they might be halving their distance to the lens, and in low light the camera can get lost hunting for the right focus. This is an important shot, and it's hard enough to capture flattering moments without worrying about my AF tracking poorly. This is a textbook scenario for using servo AF; with a moving subject, one-shot AF wouldn't do. That's just one example that comes to mind.

I admit that perhaps a screen with a split-image focus assistance would help with manual focus on these cameras. In the case of the 20D, the viewfinder image is pretty small, and it's hard to focus 'by eye' in low light on a plain matte screen. What looks sharp in that tiny viewfinder might not look sharp on an 8x10 print. (Infrared or ultrasonic AF would be perfect in this application)

BTW, the revolutionary features of the T90 (to me, anyway) go beyond the comfortable ergonomics and the control wheel. The big deal is that most settings are made via software, the control wheel is just the input device. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the multi-point spot metering and highlight/shadow exposure controls on the T90. (which, according to wikipedia, were copied from the Olympus OM-4) The T90 also introduced the 'program' mode, where after deciding upon the exposure, one can trade-off aperture versus shutter speeds. Brilliant!

BTW, I think of a Canon F1N or a T90 as a 'professional' camera, whereas the AE-1 was definitely a consumer camera. Today's camera offerings reproduce this market segmentation: there are plenty of consumer cameras and some very nice professional ones. I currently use a 20-year-old T90... will a Canon 300D still be usable in 20 years?

Regards,

Mark

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Absolutely agree with Dave. Who would compare an impact wrench with a manual wrench, with a torque wrench and say only one of them is needed ? All this discussion is largely based on our emotional attachment to equipment and brands.

I agree. I've always held that view; but it's usually knives and hammers. Same idea

 

[Al Patterson]

I was going to say when Argus stopped making the C3, but it wasn't an option.

 

[DougK]

I don't mind the advances in technology at all. Matrix metering is a godsend in rapidly changing light conditions. Autofocus works just fine for my purposes but I miss lenses with hyperfocal markings and smooth manual focusing. I also miss the days when a basic camera kit consisted of a body + normal lens. I'm not a big fan of zooms but that has more to do with my preferences rather than the technology itself.

 

[mc_vancouver]

Interesting poll! My vote was for post-AE1, the plastic and the reliance on electronics.

I remember taking one camera on my first trip to Europe, and on Mykonos, which was, back then, not overrun as it now is, finding the camera was no better than an expensive door stop: a Canon AE1 with a spare battery that didn't like the heat or humidity. It regain functionality later, but when I got back to Canada I sold it for a manual camera. That said, one of the best cameras ever built is the Konica Hexar with the fixed 35mm/2.0 Hexanon lens, which only works with a battery...

 

[jlw]

Update on returns

Update on returns

It has been interesting for me to watch the results on this one. It seems that the Canon T90 is well in the lead as the tipping point -- although I've found from reading the replies that there's been some ambiguity in interpreting the poll question, so that some people may feel the T90 was the "last good camera" while others feel it was the "first evil camera."

Still, it seems clear that most people feel the wheels came off sometime during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s.

If this were serious research, my next effort would be to follow up by trying to correlate the respondents' ages with their votes. I'd be interested in this because there's an axiom in the classic-car biz that the car you wanted when you were a pimply teenager is the car you go out and buy when you're flabby, fiftyish, and flush with cash -- this explains the current soaring values of '60s and '70s "muscle cars." It would be interesting to discover if people's pick for the "last good camera" matches up with cameras that were hot news in their youth.

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

If this were serious research, my next effort would be to follow up by trying to correlate the respondents' ages with their votes. I'd be interested in this because there's an axiom in the classic-car biz that the car you wanted when you were a pimply teenager is the car you go out and buy when you're flabby, fiftyish, and flush with cash -- this explains the current soaring values of '60s and '70s "muscle cars." It would be interesting to discover if people's pick for the "last good camera" matches up with cameras that were hot news in their youth.

Funny idea: so I was 15 when 'things got wrong'

 

[jlw]

Funny idea: so I was 15 when 'things got wrong'

Well, a lot of photographers first got interested in it when in their teens (hands up, everybody) so it wouldn't be surprising if the cameras they coveted in that era would be the standard against which they judge everything else since.


I suppose it's possible to suggest that while our tastes may broaden later, in general (thank God for the exceptions) we never quite outgrow the things that appealed to us most in our golden youth, whether they might be cameras, loud bands, flashy cars, or long-haired girls in cheerleader uniforms.

 

[dmr]

Several responses here, very interesting thread ...

If you like the K1000 (I used one for about 20 years), check out the Pentax MX. It's K mount perfection. It's a small, light, precise, all mechanical machine that will impress.

I may do that. That K1000 has had thousands of shots, perhaps over 1000 rolls, and still acting like new. Yes, if/when it dies I'll probably look for another K of some kind.

I can't believe it. I can't say **** in here. Modern technology is censoring me!

What gets me about this board is that some very innocent things trigger the bleep-out. I've shown it to a local VBulletin jock who says he is stumped as to why. Other VBulletin systems don't seem to be as touchy.

I just wanted to point out that in the poll results so far, more people think the Leica M3 was the "wrong turn" camera than the Pentax Spotmatic. ?!?

The Spotmatic is obviously far from a wrong turn. Changing lenses was a major pain, but that's one of the few faults it has/had.

I'm currently 'viewing' someones photos who's basically bought the most expensive DSLR equipment currently available... yet has absolutely no compositional or handling skills whatsoever.

{expletives} Don't get me started!

If this were serious research, my next effort would be to follow up by trying to correlate the respondents' ages with their votes. I'd be interested in this because there's an axiom in the classic-car biz that the car you wanted when you were a pimply teenager is the car you go out and buy when you're flabby, fiftyish, and flush with cash

I'm curious about this too. I'm still using more or less the same camera technology that I did in my late teens, which is so long ago I hate to admit it. Today I could easily afford better -- scratch "better", substitute more expensive, but the Pentax K and the 60s-70s RF do almost all of what I want.

Cars have never been my thing. I do understand the analogy, however.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Sorry,
I don't understand how one can hate autofocus/autoexposure/digital...whatever as a thing that exists. I can certainly understand why you would chose not to use such things...but hate them?

 

[mdelevie]

Well, to try to answer Steve's question, I can't quite say I *hate* autofocus, but it has caused me quite a bit of frustration at times, and I've learned not to trust it. My earlier example of the wedding shot (bride being escorted down the aisle by her dad) came first to mind, but there have been other times where AF has ruined good captures for me.

Consider what happens when the camera loses AF. At least in Canon's case, what the AF does when it 'loses focus lock' is that it heads off to infinitity and back in a search for good focus. Considering my go-to lens for weddings is the 24-70L (which has a huge focal range... it can even do macro), infinity might be a long way off! So the lens heads off on a lengthy excursion, which probably only takes less than a second but it feels like much longer when all of my good photo opportunities are evaporating.

Another example that comes to mind is football from the sidelines. While I'm tracking a player who's running for the goal line, what happens if another player happens to briefly run across the frame in-between myself and the player I'm following? Yep, you got it, the camera starts to focus in towards the nearer player, then loses him (as he runs out of the field of view) and again tries to recapture the original subject. Oh well, maybe I'll get a good shot of the next play.

That's not to say that I "hate" autofocus, I just find that there are times when it simply doesn't work for me. And since cameras now don't provide assistance for manual focus, the obvious work-around is precluded.

As for autoexposure and digital, they're great! The greatest benefit of digital capture is the immediate feedback on the picture. Given that nearly instant feedback (histogram, image preview, or what-have-you), even if the autoexposure gets me close at first, I'll nail it on the next frame. This is good stuff.

This thread has me thinking about all the features I *don't* use. I've never once used second-curtain flash sync. I've never used multiple exposure. I've not used those pre-programmed modes (sports, portrait, landscape, A-DEP) and I stay away from the green square. Automatic noise reduction on long exposures sounds cool, but I can't convince myself that it has any effect. It's extremely rare that I use any WB setting other than AWB.

So what do I use the most?
spot metering (as opposed to matrix)
manual exposure compensation (for the shot and flash exposure)
exposure lock
manual focus
e-TTL flash metering
Av and P modes ("aperture priority" and "program" for non-Canon people)

Every now and then I use self timer and mirror lockup. Other than that, nada.

Regards,

Mark

 

[dazedgonebye]

Mark,
I don't know which Canon camera you use, but it was my understanding that the focus tracking was very good on the pro models. I've used the "sports" mode on my lowly DRebel because that's the only way I can get AF tracking. It allowed me to get shots of ducks landing that I could not manage manually focused.
In any case, I think the biggest failure of automation occurs when the photographer uses it thoughtlessly (this is intended as a general statement). Perhaps marketing is to blame. We're all lead to believe that auto systems can handle any situation and when they let us down, we may tend to dismiss them.
Judiciously used, most "advances" in photo technology are a Godsend in the appropriate situations.

 

[gareth]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Gareth. For sake of clarification, I'm certainly not using a kit lens or a 'basic' autofocus camera. I'm using very fast primes (50/1.4, 85/1.2, 200/1.8) and pro-quality f/2.8 zooms (24-70L, 70-200L) in a Canon 20D or 5D.

Sorry mdelevie, just a lots folks moan about auto-focus because they don't know how to use it.

I've lost frames of a bride & her father walking down the aisle due to poor servo AF tracking. In but a few steps they might be halving their distance to the lens, and in low light the camera can get lost hunting for the right focus.

Yup I know what you mean even the best stuff can struggle when the light is low. But I can't see how old style manual focus would be any great advantage here. I read later you were using the 24-70 (I want one of these), so perhaps a 35L or 50L would help here, though at a price. Or just set the focus and wait for them to come to you, and repeat a few times, though you'll not get many frames in doing this.

I think on the whole auto-focus is fantastic, I love it, there are the odd times it lets me down, but on the whole the number of frames I get in focus had increased dramtically since I started using auto-focus.

 

[x-ray]

Things didn't go wrong. Everything is great.

 

[fdic2000]

SLR's became just cumbersome!

SLR's became just cumbersome!

I've been using SLR since 1978(Pentax MX- My first serious camera). it was a small compact SLR with good lens and easy to use. In 1987 I bought my first Nikon(F3) It was a bigger camera but had better lens it was fine too and in 1997(I think) I bought the F100 and from here it started to get bigger and bigger(both camera and the lens) and I tried the leica R8, It was no help too, this system wasl also big and heavy. It was at its worst when Digital module(back) for R system. Than my brother bought a leica MP and showed me his pictures, and I was impressed. till than I though only SLR's can make serious pictures(I didn't know leica was more popular with the M-system than R). So I bought myself a RF camera(Rollei 35RF- mid July 2006) with 40mm lens. it was simple easy light and fun to take picture.
So I sold all my telphoto lens(both Nikon and leica-R) and hte Rollei 35RF and bought my own MP and a used M6. I didn't tough my SLR's ever since July and didn't felt the need to do so. RF is realy fun to use.

 

[Flinor]

"If this were serious research, my next effort would be to follow up by trying to correlate the respondents' ages with their votes. I'd be interested in this because there's an axiom in the classic-car biz that the car you wanted when you were a pimply teenager is the car you go out and buy when you're flabby, fiftyish, and flush with cash"

My first "real" camera was a Yashica Lynx 1000. When I thought that I'd outgrown it I went SLR with Pentax (LX, MX and my wife's Super Program) Was happy with the SLR's until a trip overseas. I took the three bodies, three motor drives and single focal length lenses from 24mm -200mm, nothing slower than 2.8.

As the vacation wore on, more and more got left in the hotel room each day until I wound up just carrying the LX with a 50 mounted and a 28 in one pocket. I even took the motor drive off.

When we got home I sold all the Pentax gear and dug the 25 year old Yashica out of the back of the closet and stayed with rangefinders since. Hence, my vote that the Nikon F was the wrong turn. Big and heavy=bad, light and small=good.

Unfortunately, the post script is that advancing age have made autofocus and shake reduction mandatory so my new K10D showed up today. It's not as big as I feared but the lens (31mm 1.8) is huge and what's this nonsense about a 240 page IB?

 

[RML]

Nothing went really wrong but, like fdic2000 syas, they became big and cumbersome, especially the lenses. When that happened? I don't know really. My Praktica MTL5 is heavy but similarly sixed to my R-D1. My old Eos3000 is light (plastic and alloys) and also nearly as big as my R-D1. My 50 standard, however, is easily 2-3 bigger than my J8 and surely 2 times bigger than my CZ 50.

 

[jlw]

My 50 standard, however, is easily 2-3 bigger than my J8 and surely 2 times bigger than my CZ 50.

SLR lenses have to have a larger diameter than RF lenses to provide room for the auto diaphragm stop-down mechanism. AF lenses also need to provide room for the focus motor and/or coupling shaft, and lenses that make electronic connections to the camera body need room within the lens mount for a strip of electrical contacts.

All that adds up to the need for a larger diameter of the mount. It would be possible in some cases to design the actual body of the lens to be smaller than the mount, but I suspect many designers feel that looks "odd" -- if you've seen a 105mm Mountain Elmar or a 100/3.5 Canon, you'll note that part of their distinctive appearance comes from the fact that diameter of the lens is smaller at the front than at the back. (I'm sure feminist art theorists could have, and possibly have had, a field day with this whole issue of male photographers' preferences in the matter of lens size, shape and proportion...)

 

[Trius]

Sorry mdelevie, just a lots folks moan about auto-focus because they don't know how to use it.

And it is still called autofocus?

 

[Robert Price]

The problem is not really the camera's so to speak...It's us! Truly, if we could pack all the features of todays high-end DSLR's, in to the body of say a Leica mp. With quality glass in greater focal lengths with out comprimising size and weight, we would. But alas we can not, at least not yet.

That is our problem, not that SLR's digital or film are getting worse. Tecnology and world economics dictate it.

Imagine what a SLR would weigh if the body was all metal?! And the lenses too. WOW! have fun carring that around.

Auto focus, well you don't have to use it, thats why there is a switch to turn it off.

Believe it or not, Range Finder users are the minority for new camera purchases. Most people don't want to have to think about taking a photo. I use A digital SLR for alot of photography, but.... My Contax G2 is for my personal satisfaction, to remind me that I do have control, and that control does extend in the end to my DSLR.