Subject Focus Posted April 3, 2015 Share #61 Posted April 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm never going back. Eventually I'll have to find a macro and telephoto option but I'm forever done with those big black spotted plastic dslrs. I have an aversion to them now and loathe them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Hi Subject Focus, Take a look here Can Never Go Back to DSLR. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Najja Posted April 3, 2015 Share #62 Posted April 3, 2015 Guess I'm not really qualified to respond to this because I don't shoot digital. I'm stuck on film. Just something about it that keeps me there. And, I love my Leica M3. The other film cameras that I use are Nikon F2 and Mamiya RZ67 Pro ll, for medium format. But, for those shooting digital, it's good, if that's what you like. It's all photography. "Have camera will travel" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted April 4, 2015 Share #63 Posted April 4, 2015 I agree with the first part of that sentence, about Leica being the most enjoyable to use. But I still think functionality is determined by what one is comfortable using and the type of photography one wants to do. I get that and when I am doing work that a Leica M works well for, it's truly a glove that fits like no other. But then there are days where I feel the same way about using a DSLR, Mamiya 6, Hasselblad V series or a 4x5. There is an enormous difference in the enthusiast crowd on a forum and a working shooter who deploys equipment at the snap of a finger in a near subconscious manner. I'm an idea machine when it comes to making imagery, I see a *lot* of photographs on a daily basis so I am pretty quick to choose the right tool for the shot far more often than play favorites. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted April 4, 2015 Share #64 Posted April 4, 2015 There are as many ways to photograph wildlife as there are to photograph people. My wildlife camera is the R8/DMR and 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt R. Photographs of North American birds and mammals by Douglas Herr No AF or IS. To what I have seen of your work, most of your shots are either static or the creatures are moving sideways, Do you have any images that you have shot of birds and other animals running or flying towards you. Personally I feel Automatic focusing and Image stabilizers have mutured now and I think they are terrific. love my Canon L lenses and also very impressed with my fuji X-TI. Some years ago when I bought my first Automatic camera I was convinced how good the auto system was So I never bought another manual camera again, likewise for my Manual lenses, love my R system however I will not buy any more Manual lenses and that includes the M system. Yesterday I bought the Fuji XF 10-24mm lens and I must say it's truly superb. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted April 4, 2015 Share #65 Posted April 4, 2015 To what I have seen of your work, most of your shots are either static or the creatures are moving sideways,Do you have any images that you have shot of birds and other animals running or flying towards you. Like this? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/242912-can-never-go-back-to-dslr/?do=findComment&comment=2792393'>More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted April 4, 2015 Share #66 Posted April 4, 2015 Wildlife action photos don't do much for me because the composition is typically weak. Composition isn't all about keeping the background out of the way and proper wing position, it's about using every element of the picture area to enhance the image. Automatic features have made action photos as common as dirt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted April 4, 2015 Share #67 Posted April 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with the first part of that sentence, about Leica being the most enjoyable to use. But I still think functionality is determined by what one is comfortable using and the type of photography one wants to do. I agree completely, and my expectations for what and how I shoot are quite different than the norm today. When I shot sports in college (mid 1960s) everything was manual, and the common long lenses were around 200mm. Action sports shots were more about the game, teams, and context, and framing tended to be wider than today. I shot sports with both SLRs (135 & 200) and Leica RF (50 & 90), and the goal was to find interesting shots that fit the equipment you were using. I stopped carrying cases of gear long ago, seldom do sports anymore (except grandkids), and take at most 2 cameras with lenses mounted, or one body and an extra lens. I still look for interesting shots for what I carry, and don't bemoan the shots I'm not prepared for. I do have a dSLR with a couple of autofocus long lenses, but it gathers dust as I much prefer an M or film SLR. There was a TV story about a group of photographers who had covered every Super Bowl game, and were shooting this year's also. As I recall at least two still shot film, and at least one used all manual focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted April 4, 2015 Share #68 Posted April 4, 2015 I get that and when I am doing work that a Leica M works well for, it's truly a glove that fits like no other. But then there are days where I feel the same way about using a DSLR, Mamiya 6, Hasselblad V series or a 4x5. There is an enormous difference in the enthusiast crowd on a forum and a working shooter who deploys equipment at the snap of a finger in a near subconscious manner. I'm an idea machine when it comes to making imagery, I see a *lot* of photographs on a daily basis so I am pretty quick to choose the right tool for the shot far more often than play favorites. I don't think we disagree here, except that for my kind of shooting I don't want to carry all the various system options around so I've settled on the M. With the image quality of the M240, I actually no longer see much, if any, advantage to maintaining a medium format system. And if I come across a scene that looks like it would make a good panorama, I'll shoot three or four frames and stitch them rather than carry an XPan. My XPan was actually the first camera to go after purchasing my first M8 and learning how to stitch photos. From time to time I'll come across something that the M may not be the best tool for, but for me those times are too infrequent to justify keeping a dSLR around. Going back to the original question posed, I'm quite certain I'm done with dSLR shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted April 4, 2015 Share #69 Posted April 4, 2015 Like this? Now that's what I call a good answer! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hossegor Posted April 4, 2015 Share #70 Posted April 4, 2015 i like the rangefinder sometimes, but i use my Sony A7 or D700 when needed. specially with longer lenses and nightshots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 4, 2015 Share #71 Posted April 4, 2015 ... I recall at least two still shot film, and at least one used all manual focus. Don't all AF lenses have a manual mode? Don't some digital cameras have automatic focus magnification when used this way? Do some cameras have an instant manual override plus magnification when you move the focus ring of a lens while it is in AF mode? Is this not the most precise method to assure accurate focus on exactly what you want? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted April 4, 2015 Share #72 Posted April 4, 2015 Don't all AF lenses have a manual mode? Don't some digital cameras have automatic focus magnification when used this way? Do some cameras have an instant manual override plus magnification when you move the focus ring of a lens while it is in AF mode? Is this not the most precise method to assure accurate focus on exactly what you want? Simply having "features" doesn't mean they work as well as cameras designed for manual use. Once cameras were designed primarily for autofocus they were optimized for that, and focus screens no longer let you judge sharpness as well as an old "ground glass" - that's why they add focus aids, which I find distracting and less accurate. I have come to like the Sony A7 as a digital solution for my old manual SLR lenses, as I can judge sharpness well on its EVF withou peaking or mag enabled, and the lenses work as well on it as ever - even without auto diaphragm function. I haven't tried all autofocus lenses, but I have yet to see one as nice to use in manual as the manual lenses of the 60s-70s. And since I don't want autofocus anyway, why should I bother to check them out? My lens collection is all I need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted April 4, 2015 Share #73 Posted April 4, 2015 Automatic features have made action photos as common as dirt. A similar discussion arises among automobile enthusiasts regarding the latest automatic and clutchless-manual transmissions and various other automatic controls for traction, braking, suspension et al. Some embrace them wholeheartedly saying they are merely additions to the toolset of skilled drivers, while others disparage them as crutches for the inexperienced and lazy. There is probably some truth to both sides, in cars and cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted April 4, 2015 Share #74 Posted April 4, 2015 Once cameras were designed primarily for autofocus they were optimized for that, and focus screens no longer let you judge sharpness as well as an old "ground glass" - that's why they add focus aids, which I find distracting and less accurate. Every SLR I've had since my 1st in 1967 came standard with focus aids (microprisms and split-rangefinders or both) because the plain GG screens were too dark and grainy for consistent focus accuracy with an assortment of lenses. Myself I find focusing my old manual Nikkors much easier and more accurate on the plain screen in my Canon 5D than the GG+fine fresnel+split+microprism screen in my Nikon F. Either one I find tons easier and nicer than either the EVF on my M240 or Nex6. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted April 4, 2015 Share #75 Posted April 4, 2015 Once again, we come back to personal preference. I don't use the EVF on my M and find nothing easier or more accurate than the dual image rangefinder for focusing. But I suppose I should also mention that my car has a six speed manual transmission. Maybe I'm just a control freak. Incidentally, 1967 is also when I got my first SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 4, 2015 Share #76 Posted April 4, 2015 The issue is that as cameras have become higher res, we pixel peep at 100% and our standards have gotten higher. This pushes all focusing methods to their limits. I adjust focus very critically even when using a 17mm lens at f8 viewing tethered at 100%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 4, 2015 Share #77 Posted April 4, 2015 .......... Automatic features have made action photos as common as dirt. I agree and understand, but don't you think that sometimes (quite often, I'd suggest) we value skill for its own sake, and mistake this for a love of what it can produce? We look at a photo and admire the craft involved rather than the subject far too often in my opinion. I don't believe photography is about how hard an image is to obtain, or how clever the photographer has to be to get a certain photo. There might well be merit in accomplishment, but it's a very small part of what I believe photography ought to be about. I certainly don't see it as a competitive affair. If auto features have made previously rare photos commonplace, and if we lose interest in those photos as as a result, doesn't that say a lot about what we truly value, which is skill rather than the subject matter? (The extent to which auto features actually help us to produce better photos is a different matter.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted April 4, 2015 Share #78 Posted April 4, 2015 ... If auto features have made previously rare photos commonplace, and if we lose interest in those photos as as a result, doesn't that say a lot about what we truly value, which is skill rather than the subject matter? ... On the other hand, could it be scarcity which determines demand and value or, at least, price? When it used to be that only a few skillful (or stubborn or rich) photographers succeeded in taking some kind of photographs, those photographs were more highly regarded. Nowadays, when it only takes a run of the mill camera and the press of the index finger, the same kind of photograph might have become as common as dirt. Swiss photographer Eduard Spelterini comes to mind; he pioneered aerial photography using balloons. Nowadays, no one could be bothered looking at aerial photographs just for the fact that they are taken from above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 4, 2015 Share #79 Posted April 4, 2015 On the other hand, could it be scarcity which determines demand and value or, at least, price? .............. Certainly that is very largely the case. And I'm sure we all get tired of things that become over familiar, and intrigued by things that are novel. But subjects that are of genuine interest to each of us individually have staying power. What I'm trying to say is that we often regard the craft more highly than the subject, which means that in photography, something that is difficult to achieve attains a higher place in our estimation than its subject may merit. And this feels wrong to me, although I'm sure I do it as much as anyone. I want to look at a photos that stimulates my imagination in some way that is to do with the subject of the photograph. I don't want to think about how skilful the photographer must have been, or how fine his equipment was. I want to think about what's going on in the photo, whether it's a bird in flight or a soldier in action or whatever. So in this regard, whether the photographer was a master of every single step in the process of creating the photo, or on the other hand relied heavily on automation, these would be irrelevant to me. I might later want to know how the photo was made, but that ought to be a very secondary concern shouldn't it? Otherwise, aren't we becoming too inward-looking, and forgetting what the essence of photography is; the stuff that's on the other side of the lens from us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 4, 2015 Share #80 Posted April 4, 2015 Hey, folks, if I can do this wildlife photography with my M and a 50mm f 1.4 just a block from my home, surely you can do the same with wild lions, jackals, hippos and alligators on a safari in Africa. I know where you live, and those Turkeys are tame, and protected. Regardless, when I live on a huge agricultural land Turkeys were easy game for lenses or firearms. We shot none of them with either method because it was a cheap shot. I would never compare you tame experience with others. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.