Peter N. wrote:
> With all-automatic cameras, you are forever unsure whether the
> device's heuristics are in synch of your vision, and therefore are
> perpetually worrying about technicalities all the MORE. Working
> manually, you simply say what you mean.
Although I can sympathize with opposing points of view, Peter's comment sums
up my experience. There was a very interesting comment I read somewhere
recently--the writer said that as cameras get more automated, they get MORE
clutter in the viewfinder, when they ought to get less--since the camera's
doing everything for you anyway, why do you have to be distracted by all the
blinking lights and scales and symbols?
I guess when I take pictures I look on it as a good thing if I can think of
the mechanics of a camera as little as possible. A camera like the LX is
just about perfect for me in this respect. That may simply have to do with
what I'm used to--I grew up with cameras of the LX's era.
One thing that really flummoxed me once was when I was doing a shoot with an
EOS and the battery died. I replaced the battery quickly enough, but the
changeover wiped out all the custom-functions and camera settings I'd had
entered. So I'm in the middle of a shoot, I don't have the manual, I
couldn't really remember what-all I'd had set or even what-all HAD TO BE
set, and I'm trying to reset all the functions to get back to where I was so
that the camera would act like I expected it to. For the rest of the shoot,
I didn't really have any idea where the camera was relative to my
intentions. I suppose this is a good example of "the device's heuristics
being out of synch with my vision." It was a disorienting experience, almost
as if somebody had handed me an unfamiliar camera in the middle of an
important shoot.
--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 .
