Are Cameras Becoming TOO Sophisticated?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- In this video I look at the various camera features, that although are there to help us with our photography, may in fact, be helping to ruin it instead!
I'm Craig Roberts and e6 vlogs is my channel. For more videos and content check out e6, the the subscription service I run from my website. e6 offers videos, eGuides, eBooks, podcasts and more.
Website: craigrobertsphotography.co.uk...
City Photo Walks: craigrobertsphotography.co.uk...
Online Photography Course: craigrobertsphotography.co.uk...
My e6 Subscription: craigrobertsphotography.co.uk
Instagram: / craigrobertsphotography
Contact me: craig@craigrobertsphotography.co.uk
![mgk - Sun to Me (Zach Bryan Cover) [Live from Cheshire Cottage]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ZnbTEs4O6U/mqdefault.jpg)
excellent presentation if you do a video on spot meter use, add exposure compensation and how to use it effectively PLEASE!
Great video as always. Lots of food for thought. By taking photos in the manner you have described, you slow the process down and give it more thought. This must be a good thing!
I completely agree. I have been shooting with manual mode for many years. In very rare occasions do I use aperture priority or auto ISO. I meter in center weighted mode and on not too many circumstances spot meter mode. Alas, I shoot with auto focus, I can't trust my eyes to see if I have focused correctly, and I can't use glasses to see in the view finder. I do chimp but only to see if I got the composition right or the horizon straight and to check the histogram.
I love that you still have the T-90. So do I, it was my second camera. Love to press the shutter button and listen to the mechanical workings do their dance. Ahhh, what memories!!
I use AWB Auto Focus etc and sometimes but not often Auto.
I go fully Manual, when required. I don't apologise for any of this either because I get the photo, my way
I do object to paying extra for complex video modes on cameras because I don't do video
I suppose to each their own 📷👍
Ps did I mention that I mostly use the LCD screen because of a recent eye stroke in my right eye 😂
As you did, I started in the film era with an all manual SLR (Praktica, then moved to Nikon ever since). I personally don't think retro cameras work in the digital medium, I've tried a few and always end up back with a 'modern' layout...and yes I still shoot in manual or aperture priority. As to the new technology I embraced AF (but often override it) I like a rear LCD (because it shows me live what I'm doing wrong), ISO is always my choice, WB is usually in auto because I shoot RAW (but not always). I think the biggest foul step in modern cameras is the inclusion of video technology, It is this one move that has changed the layout, the interface, added uncessary complication and menus, added expense, and changed the way digital images are captured and processed in camera. Adding video to stills cameras changes the priorities in camera design and their 'focus' on the creative process of still image capture. This change of priority has continued into the mirrorless era, and mirrorless cameras could be so much better without it!
That why I've gone back to manual lenses, in fact I've even bought some old film SLR cameras, much more enjoyment feels like 'i've' taken the photo rather than fire off a hundred shots on a modern all singing dancing modern camera!
My kit is a Sony A7RII with a variety of vintage lenses👍
I mostly use full manual, but leave WB on auto. I use the histogram to expose to the right and correct the image in post. As someone who started on SLR photography in the early 1970s, I had to understand it all, and I do. On the other hand, the little Canon G7X that I use as a pocket camera is more often than not on P, to ensure I get an acceptable image when in a hurry. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Wow now this is the best photography advice I've heard in years ! Personally I stopped upgrading my cameras every year for extra features when I got to 2012 and got my Olympus EM5 and EP5 . Nothing more required and when they die I'll then buy a camera because I actually need one and not just want a newer model .
you point something, there is no need of more than 24 MP by the way
When I'm using digital (oly em5), I use EVF only. I think there are a few reasons:
- I mostly shoot film, so there's some habit.
- save battery life
- avoid chimping, it doesn't completely solve that, but I find I'm much less likely to do it.
It now feels pretty odd putting to camera to my eye and having the back of it all blinking and glowing at me.
I don't think any of this makes me a better photographer, but it keeps me more involved (so maybe it does for me at least?)
Great advice! I think I am going to try a little "old school" experiment. I'm going to go out shooting and set my ISO to 400 and shoot 36 frames only, focussing manually and setting exposure manually. This will involve discipline and using the camera as if it were a film camera (in some ways). It will feel like 1983 all over again!
go beyond, get an film camera, get a development kit and get a HP5+ film and enjoy
I agree with a lot of what you discussed for a certain style of photography. I do however think that there is something to be said about other styles like street, life documentary, sports and wildlife, etc; where there is a great chance that you do NOT have the ability or option to anticipate every possible situation and manually adjust the settings each time you change from subject to subject.
I have a camera that is extremely slow. It's huge, there is a slight shutter delay, sensor readout is quite slow so I can't use electronic shutter on anything moving, autofocus is so bad that I chose to adapt manual lenses to it, etc. But it has just the right amount of physical buttons and dials that I have no issues getting as manual as I want with it, and I admit I do feel very involved in the process when I shoot with this camera, which is why I love shooting it so much; But it's just not the right camera for the other kinds of photography that I'm interested in. For more casual daily life I have found great love for these tiny almost pocketable point and shoot cameras, and I've been loving it. Sure I lose out on tons of resolution and detail but it has been a dream for capturing moments that I would have missed while I was dialing in settings on my beast. These are no where near the most technically impressive photos I've ever taken but it is far more important for me to have a piece of this moment rather than let it pass me by while I'm trying to nail focus.
Interesting discussion. I still have the first proper (SLR) camera I bought in 1969. A Pentax Spotmatic with, as the name suggests, a Spot meter. It still works and I do use it from time to time. Of course, I have a DSLR with all the bangs and whistles. Most of which I never use. Some, like the 'Artistic Scenes" function that I used just once to see what they do. For the most part, kill the battery. I never use the EVF for framing a photo. Just haven't got the hang of it/. Going back to my early days of film photography, it would take a week or more to get the films processed. So, I can wait to get back to the computer to see if any are work keeping. One thing that digital photography has made much easier is wildlife photography. Using burst mode you are likely to have a few good shots from the thousands you take in less than a minute! Happy holidays to you and your family!
Not everything new is negative. As someone who wears glasses, I often (not always) find photographing with a display very pleasant. AWB has the advantage that I get correct colour reproduction - even if I can of course correct everything later with raw images on the PC. Matrix metering is the most practical metering in many cases; knowing what you can achieve with spot and centre metering is very helpful. And ISO... no, I no longer like to use the film that happens to still be in the camera as I did in analogue times. Grain was just a shortcoming of the film anyway, which was then artistically glossed over.It's good to have more than just "point & shoot" on it. But sometimes you get the best photos with just that. Because the subject doesn't wait.
Pentax P30n was my first slr, great video😊
Totally agree with you. My way back to that love of photography we felt back in the 1980:s was a Leica M. Much can be said about Leica - but it gave me the joy back. That joy came from the challenge of using the M-camera. But I took it a bit too far - a digital M with no LCD. I thought that would be the ultimate digital camera for an old film shooter - but I did miss the LCD in some occations. Landed in an M10 with a Zeiss 35mm lens. All manual control with some small auto features if I need from time to time. Love it! Not because it is a Leica - but because it gave me back the love of photography!!
I had this very same discussion with another YT channel photographer only a week ago. He advocated that I "move with the times & the tech..."; I responded that in digital post production, it is the software that creates that 'final image'; moreover, I made the point that the image no longr belonged to the photographer - rather, it became the property of the software producer; hell, I even quoted & referenced Ansel Adams & John Garrett - & by canvassing appreciation for their contribution to the art of photography, 75% had never heard of either; therein lies the problem, & you are right in asserting that fundamental photographic principles are insignificant. Not only the Exposure Triad; the Rule of Thirds,; Reciprocity Law Failure et al. To me, if you're serious about what you create, then work to control your camera - & not the other way round. I use both Analogue & Digital SLR's, but for real enjoyment, I tend to grab the former off the shelf.
Wishing you & yours a happy & peaceful Christmas !
Andrew.
The stuff one does in editing software is no different to what was done in the darkroom in the film era. If you think people like Ansel Adams didn't crop, burn, dodge, play with contrast, etc. you have another think coming.
You sum up the situation many of us face very well. I shop AP , and adjust ISO , White balance and compensation, Let the camera deal with shutter speed and autofocus. perhaps I need to move on and taken more manual control . Great and thought provoking piece thank you
Well, Auto ISO is a necessity, because it has become rather cumbersome to change ISO. Some few models have a dedicated dial for that, but most don't. Yes, there's often a button somewhere to switch to the appropriate setting (then to be done with some dial normally used for something else), but this I find really distracting. What I do appreciate with digital cameras is the A mode with fast exposure compensation. Manual focus is also no fun with digital cameras, as the MF rings are often not well coupled with the function, and lenses with an MF "clutch" are rare (and with those, like some Olympus MFT lenses, manual focussing is fun again, and I gladly use it if provided by the lens).
Well said. I am still using my 6-year-old fully manual digital camera with its old manual lenses and will continue to do so. It is an immersive experience. Thanks
Interesting post, Craig. For my taste, camera evolution reached it's zenith with the Olympus OM-2n, my all time favorite. I would dearly love a perfectly digital version of that camera - simply replace the film with a sensor and leave everything else as is, especially that lovely shutter sound. Probably need a way to adjust white balance - but that's it. The split prism focus was so easy to use - better (imho) than focus peaking on digital cameras. To be honest - the reason I got into Olympus digital cameras is because they looked like twins of my old film SLR. But I sin now and rely on auto-ISO and auto-focus and auto-white balance and aperture priority mode most of the time - just so easy to pick it up and go - and I end up taking more photos than necessary and culling so many on the computer later. You're right - slow down and make the most of each image - like the old days when every shutter snap cost money, lol. Thanks!!
Very good enjoyed it.
For focussing, I use auto focus in manual mode using the back-button focus. I put the camera in manual focus mode, point to my subject, push the back-button focus, recompose the frame and take the shot. Best of both worlds. Very fast and accurate in most circomstances.
Same here, but it’s still AF! Why not use that manual mode and focus yourself?
@@e6Vlogs It is a lot faster. Important in many situations
I enjoy shooting with my Fuji XT2… the manual dials encourage me to be deliberate …. The tactile nature encourages me to think what and why I am doing something …… and this intention flows to other aspects of my photography …. I’m now using manual options more as I seek to control the output….. it feels like it is my creation, and subsequently has meaning.
This is why I love my broken Camera, it has no live view, broken autofocus, the aperture blades don't move, no auto ISO, and I use auto white balance just with a color shift. This means I have to shoot in full manual or aperture priority to not get a big ERR 99 on the top screen, it is also a very old camera so it has a sort of film look.
i am fast becoming a gear fool -- i get caught up in collecting cameras and gear -- and I find myself shooting less and less -- sure I get great shots with the mirrorless but where is the challenge.
Good discussion
These are interesting comments. In my opinion these features are driven by competition by camera manufacturers to sell cameras, photographers in general haven’t asked for them.
One of your comments struck a chord. I’m a film shooter with fully mechanical cameras but I have a DSLR for digitising negatives. You said that you can be 2 to 3 stops out and still get a usable digital image. I thought digital was like shooting slide film, which is my misunderstanding no doubt to thinking about blown highlights. So as an experiment I’m going to shoot with my DSLR as if it was a film camera including guessing exposure as I do with Tri-X and HP5+ and see how that goes. ISO set to 400, no chimping, and camera set to manual. Wish me luck. Cheers.
Yes.. its has killed off what was left behind the camera phone.
But the cream will rise to the top... If your good, talented "have the eye" then ya are good
If you do landscapes or architecture or street photography, yes modern cameras are "over the top". But if you do sport or action/wildlife photography, the new autofocus and subject detection algorithms helps a lot to obtain in focus images. Even the global shutter technology can be a game changer for some sports photographers. For portrait, the eye autofocus can also help. But yes, these are mainly niche photography usages, which are imposed to everyone... (same for video). I personally really enjoy film photography in parallel to my digital photography (mainly used for wildlife), the pleasure to shoot film, with film camera, and films rendering, suspens of the result, unique real object you obtain...etc, makes it a more enjoyable experience for me than digital. It gave the impression to create real art, instead of only 0 and 1 data on a hard disk, which AI can also do well now (but film prices are going crazy high these days !) But digital photography helped me a lot to makes quick progress when (re)learning photography (you can see immediately your errors), which was not the case when I started photography in the early nineties with film.
Very interesting and thought-provoking. I started out with film in the 1980s so your point about chimping struck a chord with me. I try not to do it now and find that the flippy screen on my GX8 really helps to take away the temptation. The nearest tool I have to providing a filmic experience with digital is a Sigma DP2 Merrill. It has maybe two useable ISO settings, limited dynamic range (like slide film), about 20 frames per battery, and image review is too painful to bother with. It is a real challenge to get the best out of it as there is so much to think about when creating an image, but the results are worth it, both in terms of satisfaction and image quality.
Great video. The main reason I started shooting with film on my 35mm and medium format cameras. When I do use my digital camera (mainly for color), I generally shoot in manual mode, allowing the ISO to float a bit . Great idea, putting the white balance in "daylight" mode. Going to give that a try. Thanks. KB
it's a good habit because it's easier to handle after in editing, just slide to 5500 K
That's great, as I do shot in raw. @@chriscard6544
I just have to say that you are one of, if not the best yourube channel on youtube and i love the way you see compositions. You deserve and should have 3xs the subscribers.
Technological advancements can only compensate for the lack of skill, not for the lack of artistry.
There are two ways of looking at it - firstly yes cameras are getting very sophisticated because manufacturers are not actually targeting ‘photographers’ , their TA is the general public so the more features they pack into a model the better the sales. So who can blame them - they’re in the business of selling cameras. Now secondly, from a ‘photographer’s’ perspective, the camera is a tool used to create an artful or representational image of their subject. To do this photographers use the various settings in their camera to obtain the best version of this. But the question to ask is - are we then getting so mired in the technical aspects of the photos we shoot that we are losing sight of the three main objectives and reason for photography - subject , composition and story telling. So if a photographer can do that with the least bit of hassle with a modern camera why not then just let the camera do its thing and we can focus on the subject , composition and story telling. Taking the car example a little further , if the aim of using a car is to get from point A to B, why should I use a car where I have to crank the engine on, then shift gears etc when I can just press a switch and drive myself to my destination while still enjoying the scenery and the experience of the drive ?
Hi Craig, this was a great topic, there are to many useless features in cameras these days. Cameras are becoming to sophisticated, soon cameras will be able to do everything except take photos 🤣. With the Metering Mode i only use Spot Metering when shooting the Moon. Nice Film photos you took Craig, good old fashion, old School style photography, and i mean that in a good way. Another great Album from R.EM. The Great Beyond. Thank you, very enjoyable video, and also Nostalgic in a way. 😊
Definitely as I would improve the things you narrated in the video Craig, it means that all the excess features are irrelevant the more I practice the basics of a camera in creating images and composing them well. Also no need to upgrade often or never, unless the is a very compelling reason that I see would improve my photography results to a need based rather than just a feature to add on. Yes, a good advice to ponder.
Excellent thoughts again.
Being fully manual except autofocus and, metering & WB still I‘ll take your advice on Spot Metering (as often advised by Derek Force also) and Sunny WB.
Just manual focus is rare - lack of good eyesight 🙄.
What you say is like walking a nice area or taking the train. In both cases you see it, but do you experience it on the train?
Oh, and as an Olympus user (yes, here to stay) I turn around the screen and hide it 90% of the time. Really helps.
I started with a Zenith E back in the mid 70s, I now have a Canon R3, Just a bit different 😮 I use manual shutter speed, manual aperture and manual ISO but metering is set to evaluative and I tend to use auto white balance, having watched this I'm going to try using sunny wb for a while, however I do tend to use more automatic features at airshows etc when things are coming thick and fast
Got an OM1 but my favourite camera is an old Olympus E3, nice optical viewfinder, small uncluttered lcd panel on top to tell me what ive got set, never use the lcd screen to look at what ive taken, its a joy to use unlike the OM1, second favourite is an Olympus OM1N film camera, i would love a digital version of it , purely manual, no lcd screen and a split/ fresnel screen to focus
Fascinating content (and an excellent video). Think I will definitely try being more "old school" in future (and on that note why do camera manufactures insist that cameras must be video capable?). Cheers.
What Fuji does with some of their cameras, that are popular for a reason, makes sense to me. Give us dedicated controls for the things, that define the exposure, right at our fingertips and leave the rest in the menues. For those, who start with a digital camera, it becomes difficult to understand what really matters. I know tons of people, who bought a DSLR, before smartphones became acceptable in photography, but only used it in Auto mode, before they abandoned it.
I would rather say that modern cameras can do too many thing, maybe sophisticated is the word, but there must be a reason why Leica still sell their M cameras which are very manual.
(btw. the background music is not helpful for people who have a hearing problem).
My settings - auto WB , auto focusing and I mostly shoot AP. Chimping only if, say, the lighting is unusual and I want to check. Settings are altered sometimes, if it's twilight for example.
With my 12 year old Nikon D7000 I get acceptable results most of the time and as I always shoot RAW, I can tweak these in the software (ON1) if necessary.
The pleasure in my hobby is seeing a finished, edited photo that I'm pleased with. The camera is a tool that gets me there; nothing more.
I started taking photos in the 1960s and I no more want to go back to the '24 or 36 exposures only, and waiting several days til the prints come back from the processor' era than I want to drill a hole with a hand drill or mow the lawn with an old pusher cylinder mower.
An obsession with film or an all-manual camera is fine if that floats your boat. But saying I should do this or I should try that - Hey, Get Off of My Cloud 😃
I’ve been using a Canon 5D Classic for the past few months and it has been a refreshing change with no live view, Auto ISO, EVF etc.
Man! I love this video. All well said. I want to do photography not carry a device that does it for me. My phone does that. I want to be a part of the process.
My Panasonic GX9 was by no means the most sophisticated camera on the market when I bought it 5 years ago. Even so, it has dozens of menu items for features that I would never use and some of them I just don't understand, even after reading the manual! I have recently weaned myself off Auto White Balance (even experimenting with setting Kelvin) and I'm trying to get off Auto ISO. Manual exposure would be a bold step but I'm sure it would be good for me! If manufacturers could put back the dials and rings we used to have for shutter speed and aperture it would be less of a challenge.
Yes please, can we have a video about spot metering?
The main reason I switched to Fuji from Canon was the old school control it offered and made me feel more engaged. Sure there's plenty of features and options on my camera, and if I'm honest, I still haven't worked out what most of them do, but I control what I do with camera.
Okay I admit I leave mine on auto WB and ISO, use AF and predominately shoot AP, but then I can change this when I want to. But this video is a good prompt to take a look at some of those options.
The funny thing is, I remember back when I had my Olympus OM2sp, wishing I had AF, that could review the image I'd just taken and wouldn't it be great if there were some way of storing the image on the camera, instead of having to send off the film to be processed.
Careful what wish for, you may just get!?
Totally agree, modern digital cameras in themselves are confusing, too many features, then there is post processing, another story. All perhaps designed to make us feel inadequate? 😮
No. This is like saying that the rubber wheel is ruining our driving skills.
The fact is that cameras are way more accessible. Just like cars, compared to one hundred years ago.
Still. I fully understand and agree with the intention of the video😀
❤
The autofocus issue is a problem. I remember my Pentax K-1000, focusing that was a snap, the Fresnel ring did a great job. But these days, especially with LCD viewfinders, it's much harder to tell if you nailed the focus, and the highlighting feedback isn't always quick enough or accurate enough to rely on. So it's not that digital is becoming more sophisticated, it's that they traded a decent feedback system for a vastly inferior one, and are still playing catchup.
you are right, they removed clear viewfinders. Im wondering if Leica viewfinders are better, I never tried one
Interesting video. And unusual in that I nearly always agree with most of what you say, but in the case of this video, I agreed with almost nothing you said. Unique for me.
I feel I have to say something about ISO and auto ISO. Camera makers and most photography tutorials love to go on about the exposure triangle as if it were a thing. It was a thing in the film era but it most definitely isn't in the digital era. Despite the ubiquitous presence of ISO settings and auto ISO, digital sensors have one fixed sensitivity. The ISO dial cannot change that. Mostly, all it does is lighten the midtones in jpegs or set a meta data tag in raw files to try and disguise the fact that raising the ISO is the same as underexposing.
The absolute best case scenario is that the ISO dial changes the analogue gain, amplifying the signal. With older sensors this can sometimes be beneficial because older cameras had high read noise. Read noise is added after digitisation, while analogue gain happens before. Boosting the analogue gain before digitisation boosts the signal before most of the read noise is added, so the later addition of read noise post digitisation means read noise is a lower proportion of the signal. But the penalty you pay is reduced dynamic range, because the analogue gain boost pushes the highlights into clipping sooner.
With current generation cameras, most have ISO-less sensors and very low read noise, most noise is photon shot noise. There is no analogue gain boost at all needed, and no benefit from raising ISO. The ISO dial is smoke and mirrors with modern cameras. If you leave the ISO dial alone and underexpose by 5 stops, then boost the midtones in post to compensate, you'll end up with the exact same noise level as changing the ISO, but without the highlight clipping, benefiting dynamic range.
If you use a modern camera, stick it permanently on ISO 100 and if there isn't enough light for your required shutter speed, just set it anyway and deliberately underexpose, then lighten in post. Same noise levels as boosting ISO, but you'll enjoy better dynamic range.
I get your theory, but, you want me to sift through and edit images that are five stops underexposed rather than set them up correctly in-camera?!
@@e6Vlogs Craig, it's not my theory, it's how digital cameras work. Don't just take the word of some random commenter on your blog for it. DPReview editors have written multiple articles explaining this, as has Jim Kasson, Bill Claff, Lens Rentals etc. In modern cameras, the ISO dial is essentially a lie. Rather than "setting them up correctly in-camera" as you think, all using it does is dramatically throw away dynamic range - essentially every 1 stop bump of the ISO dial results in a 1 stop loss of dynamic range for little or no reduction in noise. The ISO setting is really there for jpeg only shooters, so their files look right out of camera.
Cameras that only have a single gain (most modern sensors) only have base ISO: all other ISO settings are simply underexposed ISO 100 with a lightness boost applied. What actually happens is very camera dependent and you are never told what happens under the hood. Some cameras do still apply analogue gain, while some apply digital multiplication to all photon values. Some just tag the raw file and do nothing. Most do a mixture of all three at different settings. It's complex. Any camera that applies analogue gain or digital multiplication drives the sensor into highlight clipping 1 stop earlier for every ISO bump. If you have a camera that does either of these things, your (raw) image quality will be better leaving it at base ISO and deliberately underexposing and lightening in post.
But don't listen to me, this is an excellent article explaining the technicalities and suggesting appropriate shooting strategy: photographylife.com/iso-invariance-explained and here Jim Kasson explains the background: blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a-new-way-to-look-at-isolessness-2/ There are many other resources if you google "ISO invariance". You owe it to your viewers to look into this, there is much misinformation on the web about this topic because the tech has changed over the last decade or so but so many people are stuck on the "exposure triangle" idea they were exposed to in the 1970s. Actually, even this is not true. I googled 'exposure triangle' and there are references all over the web, but none of them are old. Somewhere, at some time, this idea got created but it wasn't Ansel Adams, it was an internet thing, and it is repeated so often now most don't know that there is no such thing as an exposure triangle or that the ISO dial does not do what you think it does. It's a rather similar situation to the "telephoto lenses compress perspective" myth (perspective is nothing to do with focal length). Once these things take hold in journalists and authors, they get repeated endlessly, even though they are not true.
"Hi Craig, why cant a manufacturer create a simple digital camera 'Like a' 🙂 canon ftb/f1 or nikon fm2! just the basic controls to keep you airbourne, no autopilot. the canon 5d1 comes close, if they could just update that sort of camera! no vid no backscreen😱maybe higher resolution! Anyway, nice back to my roots vid, Oh and good choice of music album in the background, The Beyond, One step to far , which I think relates to all new released cameras! (just sayin), Cheers," Kev.
a discussion we had 20 years ago
Actually, I prefer to use my manual spot meter if I am spot metering for my digital camera. I do want to say that one can be an artist without twiddling the dials on a camera. However, it becomes more difficult to be an artist if on needs to use the controls to bring a certain look to an image, e.g., high-key or low-key look, etc.
Many menus and options but it does not mean you have to use them, we don't. So it not killing anything!
The answer to your question is yes. Intentionality is everything.
This is exactly why I have not upgraded from my XT2, altho I would like exactly the same camera with an improved sensor and why must I pay for video when I have never used the function.
Not too many features but maybe too many features that are not consistent between brands or worse yet between models from the same brand. This makes reading the manual more important, except often you now get a short one, where the details are on a pdf on the disc or more commonly by download now.. with so many options it's often possible to block some options with no help of why they are grayed out.. but some cameras now tell you why. I use many brands and cannot already remember every combination. Most recent example was on a x-e1 I couldn't figure out why the dial would not allow "program shift" it was due to iso/DR setting.. generally I find my Pentax and Olympus most consistent even if they have a lot of options. In the future the AI modes which used to be a newbie super auto program mode will soon mean AI does it better than you mode.. as I pick up my old LC1 or Nex5 and just do it myself, or use my modern Sigma fp's
I don't think digital is ruining photography, it's certainly giving people more tools, which is neither good or bad.
I usually shoot with a fixed ISO on Aperture priority, rarely switching the ISO while shooting, but paying special attention to what the camera is choosing for shutterspeed.
I use the LCD screen when shooting macro because often times I need to position the camera in positions where it'd be impossible for me to comfortably view through the viewfinder.
If I need fast and effective focusing, I'd go for autofocus, if I'm shooting something more stationary I don't mind switching to manual focus.
If I need to do something very specific I go full manual, but if I can leave the camera do some of the heavy lifting and I'm able to supervise it, I don't see no problem on using my tools.
Is the art of photography is all about being able to manually twist and turn dials? Absolutely not! It's about using the tools at one's disposal to capture your vision. Being able to frame and compose, craft a mood and a story, show an aesthetic is way more important than turning dials.
Just because it's old it doesn't make it good, and just because it's new it doesn't make it evil.
I've been shooting for only 4 years and I mostly use manual.
Respect! ✊
Come on, the first camera in my hand was an Exacta.
Additional equipment: Metering for light and distance, tripod and flash, dark room an chemistry, ...
Regardless, It's what you point it at that matters
I'm now using a GFX. Really not interested in the ridiculous fps and focus speed the modern full-frames can do. To me it's pure art, and I haven't enjoyed a camera this much in a long while.
I agree, GFX made me feel like film photography but I decided to get a large format camera for some projects, but yes GFX rock with the 80mm specially
At the end of the day, the camera is just a tool. Its the photographer who is in charge of the tool. Digital cameras of today, have certainly dumbed down the skill and craft of photography for sure. Probably why I still use film in all formats.
My friend, you wouldn't know who Ansel Adams was even if he turned up to say hello to you. Just go play with your toy, never mind Ansel Adams.@@djstuc
Dumbed down the skill? 😂 c'mon. There's so many photography youtubers out there saying don't do this or that. Yet are making a good living out of the very thing they are telling photographers not to do?
I really don't understand what you are trying to defend. Give a full manual camera to these You Tube gurus, and watch how many of them would know one end of the camera from the other. Without the computers doing all thinking and decision makings for them, most of them would be lost. @@cyrilstheone
The camera manufacturers, who produce retro cameras with manual ISO settings for example, don’t produce them because they want us to become better photographers. They do it, because there is a demand for it. Otherwise those cameras would be ignored by the customers.
I think you are right in many things, if people want to use their cameras for more than just vacation and / or random snapshots. It’s a bit like (oh here comes one of those car analogies again,haha) when you use a car just to bring you from A to B. You don’t really want to know, how this thing works in all details. It's different if you are a race driver.
But I get your point, people watching videos on your channel or channels like yours want more than just their vacation shots getting right. I think metering is one of the most overlooked things, even with advanced photographers.
I think doing more manually has advantages, but in the beginning it's painful. We are so used to let the camera do things for us, it takes us more time to do this ourselves. But then again, it slows everything down, which is a good thing.
You’re damn right. It’s just part of deskilling society which comes under the name of progress.
Cameras are becoming too expensive. My best camera is the Canon M6 mark II. I like it because I still use my EF lenses from my SL2 with an adapter. I learned in manual mode so I use FV mode. I do use auto ISO but I control shutter speed and aperture.
I have a fuji xt1 with analog lenses, never used auto anything, it began as a budget limit, now i will never use auto focus.
Do you think just pointing and shooting makes one a photographer?
Yes. In the end, it’s the final result that matters.
I am definitely going backwards, and on purpose. I want to shoot my 4x5 and 8x10 cameras in 2024. Digital has left me wanting for over 20 years now, and every new generation I keep hoping for something better. I think it's as good as it gets from an image quality perspective and has been for 10 years already. If anything digital cameras are getting worse, much worse. The images already look like CGI, wait until AI starts demosaicing your "captures" in camera. But I print my work, A LOT. For me personally, it's not a photograph unless it's printed. And comparing a 19x13 inch print made from a quick and dirty flatbed scan of an 8x10 negative (or 4x5 negative) to a 40+mp print from raw, film is where it's at. But that's just my opinion, and what works and doesn't work for me. I'll use my digital gear for when I can't shoot film, for video and for my fur family, and any commercial work that comes along that doesn't want film photography. But I am going to pursue film a lot more in future for my art.
I agree, the art and thought process can get lost when things get too easy to achieve "good enough". I worry the situation is even more dire than you think.... one day an AI system will sort through our collections, pick out the "best" images, crop them, sharpen them, and alter them until they look artistic. Scary thing is it will probably be good at it... it just makes our human input feel so valueless.
I don't think AI will ever be very good at it because it will be based on popular preferences which aren't necessarily your own. I use Google photos and at the end of every month it automatically creates a suggested 'highlights' slideshow which invariably comprises the photos with the brightest colours or the greatest number of human faces. (Don't think it would like Craig's pictures) If I create an album it picks a cover photo for me, again with exactly the same criteria. If some system in the future does not allow me to ignore its suggestions I will go back to keeping all my pictures on a USB, where AI can't get them!
Is it ruining the "art" of photography or the "craftsmanship" of photography? Using all manual lenses will but you in a space that addresses many (not all) of the issues raised here. Focusing by wire has a very negative feedback loop for me.
A lot of cameras now have to much tech that you don't need or use. Photographers who use these expensive cameras still spend hours overprocessing their images.I bought a $35 Nikon Film last year and it takes better pics than a expensive mirrorless.
I am not very keen on your argument about ISO. There is a huge difference in meaning of ISO between film and digital. Of course, a film camera limited you physically to what speed film was loaded. However, ISO as far as electronic gain is concerned on a digital sensor, I think if it allows you to shoot on a bright sunny day and also in a shaded alley moments later, I don't see why not use different ISO, or auto-ISO.
Aperture, shutter control, and manual focus are important aspects for artistic control, and knowing whether using fixed ISO or an auto ISO range will help with your other settings becomes essential.
I am not sure that I agree with you. The camera, and its settings, are merely a tool. No matter how good your camera, you are not going to take great photos unless you have the skills to compose etc. The camera is merely helping the beginner camera user to produce a well exposed etc photo. This doesn't mean that their photos will be any good but at least it gives them a head start.
I’m sure artists give up ‘painting by numbers’ once they get good enough. Maybe us photographers should take more control once we’re more experienced too.
But things move on. If they didn't we would all be still driving horse and carts 😂
Its worse than u think. I think a.i. Will be the end of digital photography and eventually film. Going out in the world with clunky expensive gear, even phones, will become an inconvenience when you can tell you computer to create perfectly exposed and composed photography with any lens of your choice in a fraction of a second. The futures grim. I purposely take my slrs and dslrs out to photograph. Never use my phone apart for practical reason. I even take out my old stuff out on occasion just for the fun of it and purposely use cheap or vintage lenses. Like my eos 300d paired with a 50mm yongnuo or a zukio 1.4.
Yes and no ….. while it may mean anyone with a computer can generate great looking images, we can choose to go out and enjoy the experience of creating our own images - these will have meaning and I enjoy the experience more than the result
It does seem now that most camera users are just that , people that shoot away at subjects only to illustrate what the latest camera feature can do rather than becoming true photographers .
Surely its better to look for original compositions and take real images in their own right rather than just churning out gabbage basically test driving features on a new camera .
nope. i want a newerer camera. so i can use more of my vintage lenses.
my pinhole has no autofocus and no program mode and my life is not better. My life is a cookie box with an hole made with a needle. And do you know what I made the hole myself
👏👏
Too many features that 95% of the time you will not use.
No.
I’m an old and crusty guy that uses full manual film cameras almost daily, and my hand held light meter is well worn. I am all about controlling the technical aspects of the image. So I come from a similar place as you do, but totally disagree with your assertions. Here are some other ways to think about it: If photography is an art form (which it might not be) what makes it an art form isn’t knowing how to use the camera, that is merely a technical skill that anyone can learn; at best what you describe here could be considered a certain approach to the “craft” of photography but it’s not art. Second, what matters is the images not how they are made. No one looks at a photograph and says “this photographer is rusty because they used autofocus for this shot.” No one cares how the images are made, what we care about are the emotions, the ideas, the history, the conceptual basis, the social commentary, the drama, the beauty, the ugliness, etc of the images. Yes, at times, Technical knowledge can be a GREAT help in capturing these things but it is by no means required.
The most important images in the world today are being created on cell phones which give the user very limited control. For real, it just doesn’t matter at all how Darnella Frazier captured the video (from which stills were pulled and published around the world) of George Floyd’s murder, her images changed the world because of what they captured about the callousness of one man toward another in the social context of contemporary America. It’s what her images said about power, and cruelty and racism that sent millions of people into the streets. If we want to help people become “better photographers” It doesn't have anything to do with the camera, it must be about how one thinks and engages with the world. I will never give up my fully manual Pentax 67, but I also don’t believe that my ability to use it well makes me a better photographer than someone who can’t because I am no where near good enough at pointing it at the right stuff!
You just HAD to shoe horn politics into this. George Floyd wasn't murdered. He was dying of a drug overdose. If those police had gotten there a bit later they'd have been met with the corpse. Recall the trial. The medical examiner said that Floyd had significant blockage of the arteries, significant hardening of the arteries, elevated blood pressure exacerbated by the fact he was high on drugs at the time. That speaks volumes. But the jury didn't see through the contradiction of it when it was said that NONE of that contributed to Floyd's death.
Floyd wasn't starting a new life as is claimed, he left Texas because he was up against his third strike there.
Mate the art of photography is long gone. If you watch other RUclipsrs especially landscape it’s pray and spray then edit out all the imperfections in LR or whatever and hey presto there is your perfect photo. I would bet my last quid that if you hand them a roll of velvia 36/12 shots they would not have a clue.
Have just stopped following any blog or watching any video that talks about new gears. Someone said correctly that photography as an industry is full of distractions.
I only watch wet plate channels
@@chriscard6544
I completely disagree. The camera is just a tool, and the less you think about it and fiddle with settings, the better it is for art. You have your concept, your idea, and in the end, you have the result. A camera is just a tool, and it doesn't matter what it does there; what matters is what comes out in the end. Of course, you should know what terms and concepts mentioned mean and understand how your instrument works, but to say that convenience or automation destroys the art of photography is not correct. Similarly, one could say that an electric starter destroys the spirit of driving, and one should use a manual starter, or that Google Maps kills the spirit of adventure, or that an electric drill destroys the art of woodworking, and so on.
you are kind of late to the party. digital cameras are with us for at least 20 years, even more. not to mention the fully programmable film cameras .
film photography is back, roots of photography are back. This is why they build and sell digital 'vintage' cameras. Because they killed the fun and the magic of photography and people go to films and they are losing customers. why do you pay 1500 for a camera that basically uses 3 settings ? all the other features are useless
Nah, don't buy it. Yeah, learn how to use the camera obviously, but as for everything else photographers are looking way to much into things. Same goes for manual (yeah learn how to use it) but if there's professionals out there using just p mode and making a good living out if it. Why complicate things even more. Take street photography. Give me a way to shoot quickly and not miss what I'm after, by faffing about. I would be more than happy. Get rid of video would be a massive game changer. Cameras would be cheaper for a start. Bur they would find a way of adding some other pointless thing to may the high price worthy.
Blah, blah, blah...
The usual, useless chatting about gear
You’re right! Don’t worry, my next video is all about aubergines.
Thought provoking..