The cameras in question were 70s and 80s SLRs, not DSLRs. An OM-G, an
OM-2s, a Minolta SRT, a Mamiya-Sekor and I don't know what else. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Chris Barker wrote:
> Chuck, I've just remembered what I meant with that comment.
>
> Most lenses on cameras these days don't have apertures as wide as 1.8
> or 2.2. Those who do, I was thinking, have paid a lot of money for
> their kit and would surely know better?
>
> Chris
>
> On 12 Aug 2010, at 12:22, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, I don't think that's always true. I've known many
>> people who own/owned SLRs who never got the camera off program or
>> whatever auto mode the camera provided because they didn't have a
>> clue about apertures or shutter speeds or ISO ratings for that
>> matter. And they remain clueless because they have no desire to
>> learn. My son, my daughter and several close friends all fit the
>> description. They can't be bothered to read the manual or even ask
>> for help even though they know I'd be happy to teach them. Just
>> push the button is good enough.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> Chris Barker wrote:
>>> For example, the author makes the point that the best pictures
>>> have a very shallow depth of field with the explanation "meaning
>>> that the subject is in crisp focus while the rest of the picture
>>> is blurry". They go on then to explain what large aperture means
>>> with ƒ numbers like 1.8 or 2.2. Surely someone with a camera
>>> that could set such wide apertures would be fully aware of the
>>> term and of the effect.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|