Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
In rec.photo.digital Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...


>>> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full
>>> manual,
>>> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all
>>> the
>>> options mean

>>
>> That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.
>>
>> The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
>> fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
>> significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
>> devestatingly.


> I find the opposite just as often. Trying to set overides every time I move
> the camera even if the light hasn't changed, simply because there is more
> backlight, or some other reason the camera gets it wrong.


Why not simply hit the exposure lock button when it gets it right or
you've adjusted the compensation to get it where you want it? Then
you can move the viewpoint as much as you like without changing
exposure.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:20:39 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> Whisky-dave says...
>
> > > Strange. If they are in live view mode with the histogram enabled, they

>
> > >

>
> > > see immediately is something is over- or underexposed and can quickly

>
> > >

>
> > > adjust the exposure.

>
> >

>
> > Is that's what's called manual as for me I'd call that semi-automatic

>
> > For me manula exposure is looking at the subject the time & place and the amount of light coming from the sun or other objects and setting a suitable shutter speed aperture that goes with the ISO.

>
>
>
> It's still manual, it's just that you get direct feedback about the
>
> exposure by looking at the histogram and the LCD screen.


Sorry I still don;t understand that.
My father had a Cosina CS1 when looking through the viewfinder you had LEDsof red and green representing the exposure you moved either the aputure orshutter speed to get a green light for correct exposure it was called semi-automatic. IIRC. You could buy a servo which attahced to the camera which was a motor which turned the shutter speed dial to get the LED to go greenthis was automatic exposure.


> > > Same with the focus. All they need to do is activate the 10x loupe and

>
> > >

>
> > > life view, then they can easily focus manually.

>
> >

>
> > That isntl; manula focuing to me either manukla focusing is loking at the subject and decideing it's 10ft away and turning the lens barrel accoringly.

>
> >

>
> > Maybe I'm just confused by the terms manual and automatic here. :-0

>
>
>
> Automatic = the camera sets the focus for you.
>
> Manual = you set the focus


And when applying this to exposue.. if teh camera tell you the shutter speed and aperature why is it called manual ?

>
>
>
> Besides, why do it the difficult way, when thanks to modern technology
>
> things are so easy?


I thought it was because the photgrapher knew better than the camera regarding the correct exposure that's why it called manual as the 'man' or women of course sets the exposure and not the camera. ;-0


Morden technology allows for correct exposure without the man or women doing anything other than remberign to point the camera in the right directionand shooting hence P&S cameras.

>
> --
>
>
>
> Alfred Molon
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2012 09:30:33 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>> Unfortunately it
>>also seems to be heavily dependent on having some of those rather rare
>>creatures, excellent art teachers.

>
>My sister attended a university school of art and ended up marrying a
>graduate. I knew a number of their fellow students including, quite
>strangely, several who had gone through school with me. I concluded
>that they didn't teach art. What they did was teach their own
>particular school of art. Differences of opinion led to heated battles
>about what was art and what wasn't. It's amazing how many arguments
>amounted to nothing more than post facto defenses of 'what I like'.



The whole point of art is to convey a message. The viewer may or may
not like the message. Some people may like it while others don't.
There may be strong feelings involved. That's art.


>I can't see how the artistic side of photography can be any different.



It isn't. Why should it be? Surely you don't seriously want
photography to be only about content?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:16:38 +0000, Anthony Polson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On 13 Dec 2012 09:30:33 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately it
>>>>also seems to be heavily dependent on having some of those rather rare
>>>>creatures, excellent art teachers.
>>>
>>>My sister attended a university school of art and ended up marrying a
>>>graduate. I knew a number of their fellow students including, quite
>>>strangely, several who had gone through school with me. I concluded
>>>that they didn't teach art. What they did was teach their own
>>>particular school of art. Differences of opinion led to heated battles
>>>about what was art and what wasn't. It's amazing how many arguments
>>>amounted to nothing more than post facto defenses of 'what I like'.

>>
>>
>>The whole point of art is to convey a message. The viewer may or may
>>not like the message. Some people may like it while others don't.
>>There may be strong feelings involved. That's art.

>
>Different messages are given in different languages. The messages of
>some artists were totally incomprehensible to those who favoured the
>'messages' of others.
>>
>>
>>>I can't see how the artistic side of photography can be any different.

>>
>>
>>It isn't. Why should it be? Surely you don't seriously want
>>photography to be only about content?
>>

>I wouldn't like you to think that there is only the one school of
>artistic 'message' and that it can be taught to all those who are
>prepared to make the effort to learn.



I think I made it clear at the outset that it was extremely difficult
to teach camera owners about art, unless they had some artistic talent
to begin with. The vast majority of camera owners have none. A week
behind the counter of a minilab will confirm that.


>For example, you will find
>little communication between those who understand the 'message' of
>http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...n-cianelli.jpg
>and those who prefer the 'message' of
>http://media.artfinder.com/works/r/v...ll_570x391.jpg
>Without specialist knowledge the followers of either school are going
>to have difficulty with the 'message' of
>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hK299eGLEy...boschcover.jpg
>
>The same applies with photographs and no one has a universal truth.



Except your universal truth, often repeated, which appears to be
"content above all else", with absolutely no effort made to deliver
any message of any kind. Your misplaced praise for the Milan
Cathedral shot, which manages to be an atrocity in multiple ways,
suggests a disregard for any message other than "incompetence".


 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2012
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:48:35 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> Whisky-dave says...
>
>
>
> > Sorry I still don;t understand that.

>
> > My father had a Cosina CS1 when looking through the viewfinder you had LEDs of red and green representing the exposure you moved either the aputure or shutter speed to get a green light for correct exposure it was called semi-automatic. IIRC. You could buy a servo which attahced to the camera which was a motor which turned the shutter speed dial to get the LED to go green this was automatic exposure.

>
>
>
> I'm a bit surprised by this question. It's as if you had never used a
>
> digital camera.


Whether it's digital or film is irrelivent to this question, an expouser based on shutuer speed, aperature and sensitivity to light, in fact the same goes for video too.

> > > Automatic = the camera sets the focus for you.

>
> > >

>
> > > Manual = you set the focus

>
> >

>
> > And when applying this to exposue.. if teh camera tell you the shutter speed and aperature why is it called manual ?

>
>
>
> The camera does not tell you the exposure. It's just that on the LCD you
>
> can see a preview of the image and you will see if it is over- or
>
> underexposed. Some cameras will also display a histogram. You can use
>
> all this to set the exposure.


Which for me tells me the camera is telling me what exposure it is setting.
So that is semi-automatic.



> > I thought it was because the photgrapher knew better than the camera regarding the correct exposure that's why it called manual as the 'man' or women of course sets the exposure and not the camera. ;-0

>
>
>
> In fact in manual mode the user sets the exposure, i.e. chooses aperture
>
> and exposure time.


Yes exacty NOT the camera.



> > Morden technology allows for correct exposure without the man or womendoing anything other than remberign to point the camera in the right direction and shooting hence P&S cameras.

>
>
>
> Also DLSRs have an automatic mode.


And cars too, you do know the difernce nbtween automatical cars and manual cars regading gear shifting I do and I don't drive.


>
> --
>
>
>
> Alfred Molon
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2012

"Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In rec.photo.digital Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>>>> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full
>>>> manual,
>>>> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all
>>>> the
>>>> options mean
>>>
>>> That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.
>>>
>>> The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
>>> fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
>>> significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
>>> devestatingly.

>
>> I find the opposite just as often. Trying to set overides every time I
>> move
>> the camera even if the light hasn't changed, simply because there is more
>> backlight, or some other reason the camera gets it wrong.

>
> Why not simply hit the exposure lock button when it gets it right or
> you've adjusted the compensation to get it where you want it? Then
> you can move the viewpoint as much as you like without changing
> exposure.


Because I don't find that any easier than using manual in many
circumstances. I do use alternatives in cases where I do find them a
benefit. That's what I love about modern pro camera's, the options are there
to be used as you (and I) find appropriate for our own particular needs.
Unlike the full manual film camera's I started with, I rarely find
conditions that can't be easily catered for these days. Life is good,
photography wise at least.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> In rec.photo.digital Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...


>>>>> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full
>>>>> manual,
>>>>> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all
>>>>> the
>>>>> options mean
>>>>
>>>> That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
>>>> fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
>>>> significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
>>>> devestatingly.

>>
>>> I find the opposite just as often. Trying to set overides every time I move
>>> the camera even if the light hasn't changed, simply because there is more
>>> backlight, or some other reason the camera gets it wrong.

>>
>> Why not simply hit the exposure lock button when it gets it right or
>> you've adjusted the compensation to get it where you want it? Then
>> you can move the viewpoint as much as you like without changing
>> exposure.


> Lack of fingers. And I don't know if it even works right -- what
> happens if I change the exposure compensation while holding exposure
> lock?


Never thought to try that ... (fiddle fiddle) ... Wow! It works really
cleverly! The exposure lock (I've set it to toggle) locks it at
whatever the exposure was at that moment. Under the image in the
viewfinder is a range of + & - exposure values with an arrow over the
middle (0) in plan vanilla autoexposure mode. On activating exposure
lock the arrow and scale is immediaely locked, and a seond arrow
appears which tracks how much the actual exposure value has now
deviated from the locked value.

Exposure comepnsation still works, and adjusts the value of locked
exposure setting appropriately. So I can lock exposure, still see
where the real exposure level has moved to, and can indepedently
adjust the locked value without unlocking it to auto. Very useful
intelligent implenentation!

Thanks for raising that question! I've only had this new camera for a
few weeks. It takes me at least six months to discover most of the
useful features of a new camera. Plus maybe another year to discover
that a few of the silly features I never bothered to try are actually
very useful in certain special circumstances.

> (And I'm using that finger, which is my thumb, to control the AF,
> it's not available for AEL.)


Again may depend on your camera, but in order not to use up any of my
digits holding buttons down I have set my buttons to toggle. Means I
can adjust lots of things without taking my eye off the
viewfinder. And I've set my default autofocus to drop into manual
focus once it's found focus, so I don't need to press anything to
start fine tuning with manual focus if I want. In fact some of the
latest lenses drop into manual focus as soon as you move the focus
ring on the barrel anyway, but this works with any AF lens.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>> film auto-exposure cameras.)


> Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
> can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
> before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
> you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
> waterfall effect.


That will cause you to learn to always use the preview mode.

> Not only a much faster learning


Much less learning causes that, yes.

> and selection speed, but avoids
> cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.


How terrible. Can't buy another or a larger card. Can't
delete. Can't format. Can't learn from inspecting a series
of e.g. exposure times.


> (Models with an EVF can do this in the viewfinder as well as on the
> LCD, and can also review the taken shot, along with the usual
> histogram etc choices if wished, without taking the eye from the
> viewfinder.)


Yep, the ultimative crutch. You learn to depend on it.
Soon you're addicted ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Anthony Polson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>One friend did do a photo degree in college; I met him part-way through
>>that. He clearly learned some things in classes there, but it's not so
>>clear they were "technical" things much.



> I should hope not!


> As I have said many times, many of the most capable photographers need
> to know surprisingly little about the technical aspects of
> photography.


Only the parts they need.


> I am deeply disappointed when I read of amateur photographers who
> spend hours learning how to use every single feature of their grossly
> over-complicated digital SLRs, when the same amount of time learning
> about the creative aspects of photography would yield far greater and
> more important dividends.


I am deeply disappointed when people fling the manual of
their new technical toy (of which kind they have no previous
experience with, mostly) far away and then either fumble about,
not knowing what they do, or have to ask questions that a
simple reading of the introduction would have solved.


But according to you, probably amateur should use a simple
camera only having a shutter button. That would be foolproof
simple and they could all spend the time on creative aspects.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>>> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>>> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>>> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>>> film auto-exposure cameras.)


>> Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
>> can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
>> before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
>> you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
>> waterfall effect.


> That will cause you to learn to always use the preview mode.


No, it caused to learn when to use the preview mode, and when to use
other modes.

>> Not only a much faster learning


> Much less learning causes that, yes.


I was referring to the speed up of learning the *same* amount. The
speed up of learning with reduced turn round time between experiment
and result is much stronger than linear. That's been well established
in learning research for at least several decades.

>> and selection speed, but avoids
>> cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.


> How terrible. Can't buy another or a larger card. Can't
> delete. Can't format. Can't learn from inspecting a series
> of e.g. exposure times.


I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously these improved learning speeds may
not happen when learning is impaired.

>> (Models with an EVF can do this in the viewfinder as well as on the
>> LCD, and can also review the taken shot, along with the usual
>> histogram etc choices if wished, without taking the eye from the
>> viewfinder.)


> Yep, the ultimative crutch. You learn to depend on it.
> Soon you're addicted ...


Addicts can't do without their crutch. If you can't do without a
technological aid you can't assess it. You can't discover when it
fails to work optimally. You can't avoid its use when doing so would
improve the photograph.

I was delighted when I got my first exposure meter. Saved a lot of
time and film and taught me a lot. I still use an exposure meter for
non-electronic lenses and for setting up manual flash guns. But I'm
not stuck if I forget to bring it. I'm delighted with the improved
autofocus of my latest camera. But I'm still using manual focus to
find out when and why it fails. No gadget is perfect.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Mort Digital Photography 130 12-25-2012 02:28 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Pat McGroyn Digital Photography 8 11-27-2012 04:38 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 8 11-26-2012 12:13 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 1 11-26-2012 05:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots RichA Digital Photography 1 11-25-2012 09:28 AM



Advertisments