I have just had a thought...
If you set the camera so that the shutter button does not AF and use the
AF button, will that mean that you can now trap focus even with modern
AF lenses? this would be nice, and provided the shutter doesnt fire
without focus confirmation seems to be the way it will work. Now all we
need is a remote that has a 'hold' lock on it!
Here's hoping...
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2001 13:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S, and other ramblings with
arant at the very end.
William wrote and chris responded:
>> I liked where most of the buttons were, but there seems to be a lot
of
>> them. Having the AF fire up from a separate button is kind of cool,
>> though I don't know what purpose it serves.
>
> Try focusing a Nikon F65 without taking a photo... hard to do.
Sometimes
> you need to AF without taking a shot acidentally.
I would say that the best thing about a separate AF button (which I
like,
not that I've shot much with AF in years) is that it increases the
responsiveness of the shutter button. Every time you hit it, it fires.
That
ameliorates the #1 annoyance/frustration of AF cameras for me, which is
that
sometimes the camera will decide that it's not focussed to its
satisfaction
and will not fire when you want it to. This drives me crazy. In fact,
just
the _possibility_ of this happening drives me crazy. A separate AF
button
takes a while to get used to, but once you're used to it, you may really
like it.
> That being said, I wish we carried more primes. It's hard to sell
what
> you don't have.
>
>> How can you take a good picture with that little discipline? Ah well,
>> that is what people want, I guess. Make it fast and easy, no one
wants
>> to work at it now.
>
> Very few people want to walk everywhere, or even drive a 60 year old
car,
> when a newer one can get them where they want to go faster and easier.
> Sure, computerized cars may not be as easy to repair in 10 years, but
some
> people care more about having a tool that gets them from point A to
point
> B as easily as possible than they do about constructing a challenging
> transportation experience so that they can overcome the difficulties.
> Manual photography is similarly a skill that comparatively few people
want
> (or, arguably, need). Does every photography purist use a typewriter
> instead of a computer for word-processing? Why not a goose quill?
All
> you need is black marks on a page. For the record, I agree with the
> points that Bill makes, but I'm not fond of the snobbery that often
creeps
> into the points.
I actually did an assignment with a zoom last year. Wasn't as bad as I
thought it would be. So I no longer say "zooms suck" every time the
subject
comes up. That said, I still basically hate them.
I do think they make sense with telephoto lenses. We did a poll at
_Camera &
Darkroom_ magazine and found that the "average" four-lens news-shooter's
kit
would consist of:
--20mm or 24mm prime wide angle;
--35mm or 50mm fast prime normal lens;
--85mm or 105mm prime short tele "portrait" lens;
--80-200mm f/2.8 zoom tele (or something similar).
To me it makes a lot of sense to combine fast primes with one long zoom.
That must be why basically nobody does it. <s>
Four lenses still seems like a practical maximum to me. Carrying more
than
that does more to confuse your vision than to serve it. Personally I've
never carried more than three lenses, and often get by with two or even
one.
But that's just me.
>> So I won't be buying an MZ-S. It wouldn't make me a better
>> photographer. Just a lazier one. It seems an odd beast.
>> Everything is there for it to be a great modern camera. It has
>> lots of buttons and gizmos. It beeps. It has PF. Lots of PF.
>> None of this will make better pictures. The picture is still
>> between me and the subject. The camera is something in between.
>> I think the less between me and the picture, the better.
>
> Well said. Good argument for a Leica or an Asahiflex. :)
Oh, I dunno. I'm all in favor of simplicity, and I hate "feature creep"
(which is the tendency of manufacturers to pile on additional features
endlessly to satisfy buyers who shop by comparing lists of features),
but
the _lack_ of a feature you personally like or need also comes between
the
shooter and the picture. I used to shoot a lot, and back when I had my
first
Leica it got to be almost invisible (not like Jody's LX, but in the
sense
that I used it efficiently without having to think about it)--a
wonderful
experience and one that I'll always remember with fondness. However,
since I
got my most recent Leica, I notice that, since I don't shoot very much
at
all any more, I can't quite maintain the level of practice needed to
get,
and stay, comfortable with it. I'm still okay with it, just a bit slower
and
a bit more uncertain, which is sometimes enough to divert my attention
from
the subject to the camera. Nowadays, I simply like aperture-priority
autoexposure better than a completely manual meter. For that reason, the
LX
I've been trying comes between me and the picture less than, say, a
Spotmatic does.
Just a few thoughts....
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
