On 2/27/2013 8:14 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Chuck and Moose both have expressed the "logical thinking " aspect to
> Canon-OM hybrid shooting. From a logical thinking perspective, I would
> agree that it's a clutz method and doesn't make any sense since you
> can get native EOS mount lenses that auto-focus, provide conveniences
> and so forth.
A modest disagreement. I bought into Canon fully expecting to use my OM lenses
on an adapter for most photography.
Before I bought a camera, I compared the 300D to the E-1, for my needs, and
made what turned out to be the right choice
for me. I also bought an OM=>EF adapter and borrowed a Canon D60 for a few days
to try it out with OM lenses. I got some
results I quite liked.
Ultimately, though, I moved on to EF mount AF lenses through direct experience.
Playing around at home, with lots of
time, handy tripod on level ground, etc. is a lot different that walking a
rough trail through a park or preserve.
For me, and this is only about how it is for me, carrying enough MF lenses and
equipment and taking the time to use them
to photograph what I want to capture is physically hard and quite time
consuming. By choice, I am most often walking
with Carol and/or friends, often not photographers.
Given the choice between slow, solo and few images vs. sharing the experience
of place, moderately fast and more images
of more different things, I simply enjoy the later more. {I'd probably pair
nicely with Bob Adler. While he sets up and
takes a handful of shots of one thing, I could wander around and take lots of
shots of lots of things. Then we could
move on to the next spot. Complementary opposites :-) }
And that has meant happiness with AF lenses, although I not uncommonly fine
tune the focus manually. (The µ4/3 lenses on
E-M5 and E-PLs are, if possible, even better for this than Canon's full USM
lenses, BTW.)
> Both individuals have since been migrating on to smaller
> cameras because of the conveniences they offer. Applying the same
> logical thinking, it only makes sense to totally dump all vestiges of
> Canon and the OM system.
Indeed. However, having already disowned logic as how I got here, I don't have
to be logical now. ;-) I've started
inventorying the Canon stuff - Mercy, I do accumulate Stuff! And I'm going
through trying to evaluate the sense of
keeping the 5D to use with my Oly Macro stuff.
I've often thought about thinning the OM herd. But the truth is that the core
won't be leaving anytime soon, and the
rest isn't worth much on the market. How much is laziness and how much
logically inappropriate attachment, I don't know.
(What the heck does one do with a really nice looking OM-4, with later, Ti
circuit, that needs repair? The repair costs
more than the camera is probably worth after it, and I already have another
with new circuit and a new looking 4Ti.)
> One hazard to any form of automation advance is that you become
> dependent upon it.
Two sides to everything. Failure to fully embrace new technological
capabilities may mean not getting their full, useful
benefit.
> Sure, I CAN use manual focus any time I want. But I
> don't WANT to use it. The missed shots because you've become a slave
> to the camera doesn't matter because logical thinking says that you
> miss a lot of shots or opportunities anyway, so what's one more?
Oh Pshaw! MF is a finger touch away, and I use it when appropriate. I only
occasionally use full manual exposure (it's
been a week, now, but is usually much longer), but only because EV control in A
Mode allows the same degree of control
more easily.
MF fine tuning is available after an AF half press, but mostly, I use full MF,
as I find it less kludgy. I have MF on
the Fn button next to the shutter release, and I use it often. I use Magnify,
too, but need it less often - the ol'
eagle eye, you know.
> Over the past year, I would be very conservative in stating that less
> than 5% of my photos were taken with auto-focus.
For me, probably the reverse, 5-10% MF.
But you avoid the real question - was correct focus achieved? Were any shots
missed taking the time to manually focus?
My image of pelicans skimming the water has been a BIG hit with friends and
family, as well as well received here. That
shot doesn't exist without AF.
Did you achieve focus that was better more often that you would have using AF
more? That you enjoy using MF is relevant
to your experience, but doesn't necessarily generalize to most photographers.
Might you be sailing a little close to
your own wind here?
-----------------------------------------------
On 2/27/2013 9:49 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I'm going to channel Moose here. For you and your unique circumstances,
> going the route you did was the best approach. Claiming it to be the
> universal solution or preference is problematic. Just as it would be if I
> claimed universality for my methods and preferences.
-----------------------------------------------
> Less than 20% where I wasn't directly involved in the exposure calculations.
Same question. Were your exposures better, overall than if you had overruled AE
only 20% of the time? Are you doing
anything more than someone who uses AE with liberal EV adjustments? Does a half
press to get the exposure I want, then
re-framing to shoot count? If those count, I'm probably directly involved as
much or more than half the time.
> Granted, I'm an overachiever and have all sorts of compensation techniques to
> overcome
> the weaknesses of the cameras,
Does your choice of quirky cameras with multiple weaknesses get results that
are any better than using cameras that
don't many need compensations for weaknesses? If yes, would the majority of
other photographers agree?
Some people enjoy, often immensely, setting up otherwise unnecessary obstacles,
and overcoming them. Nothing wrong with
that. Exhorting others to live likewise, well ... Proposing, or even implying,
that it is somehow a superior, the
'right' or only 'real' way, is wrong.
> but no worse than shooting any medium-format camera I've ever owned.
And that's relevant how? Your most immediate focus, Chuck and Moose, don't use
medF, in my case, by informed choice. I
am sure as well that there are photographic things that can be done with LF
that I would like to be able to accomplish,
just not enough to put up with the hassle. :-)
> I've been using the EOS-7D a lot this year. I REALLY like that camera.
> But even with the latest/greatest lenses, the camera really doesn't
> hit focus or exposure any better than me.
As above, any worse, overall, than you? If that answer is no, then your use of
MF/ME is a personal preference, for
personal enjoyment, and not about the quality of the resulting photographs, No?
I'm not disagreeing with anything you choose to do in your enjoyment of
photography or your search for fine images. You
are a fine photographer, in fact, IMO, harder on yourself than is justified. I
am saying that your posts more often seem
to me to skate toward generalized advocacy of particular, sometimes quirky,
choices in equipment and technique than I
'hear' in Chuck's
As Chuck says "Trouble is I don't have any love of film. Too much trouble and I
don't see any magic color there as you
seem to do." I do often see differences in color, and sometimes prefer the film
version, but it's not anywhere near all
the time, and not worth the other shortcomings - to me. And the same sort of
thing is true of most of our other
photographic choices
Moose D'Opinion
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|