Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • That is an interesting article that is probably new information to many people who enter photography with a modern DSLR as their first good camera - but for some of us, who grew up with manual focus lenses, black and white film, and even non-auto aperture lenses, it really is not new information - but 60-70 year old information that has been lost or discarded by manufacturers. Most lenses these days don't even offer a depth of field scale and I know a lot of shooters who have no idea what a depth of preview button on the side of their lens mount is for.

      In the rush to build cameras with faster and faster ISOs, it seems that lots of camera manufacturers have forgotten how interesting it can be to shoot with an ISO of 5 or 10 or 12. To do that with a modern camera requires neutral density filters - wouldn't it be nice to just dial your ISO back to 4 or 6 instead of adding neutral density stacks to the front of your lens?

      As for manual focus, I suspect modern AF on my 1DX Mk II is far more accurate most times than I am. I do restrict myself to a single small AF point that I decide where to precisely place, unless the light or subject movement prevents me from doing that. Or one can grab a 16mm lens and an f8 aperture and skip worrying about focus entirely 😱

      I do use manual focus for shooting stars at night - for that I use Live View and 10x magnification. But then stars move pretty slowly at night.

      I have a good friend who says he always shoots ( tongue in cheek ) with his camera in P mode - for pretty!

    • I hear you on all of this, I did my degree in B&W using lots of split screen manual focus lenses and plenty of darkroom time...most don't know what that is like either!

      I liek to shoot in 'P'retty mode too!

    • to me weight is a big factor for my kind of shooting, and my 70-200/2,8 sees extremely rare use due to weight. I actually sent back to the US due to that simple fact.

      For the time i used it taking a cost/ weight analysis it really wasn't worth my time to have in my bag. I swapped it out for a cheapo 70-300 that is half the weight and a 1/10th of the value, again i use it rarely but it does come in handy for knocking tents pegs into the ground...thats how much i value it.

      The other thing is (for me) in the areas i shoot, that king of equipment makes you stand out, and for as much as i try, i prefer to try and blend into the crowd...250lb white guy in remote Peruvian villages thats not always easy

    • I do miss split image range finders in modern DSLRs, not sure why they can't still be in our viewfinders. I have almost forgotten about them its been so long since I've used one. I still possess several film SLRs, not sure why, I just can't get myself to give them up I guess.

      As for shooting in "P"retty mode, I have always said that one of the differences between a professional and a newbie/amateur/affiiciando is that a real pro knows far more than just one way to skin a cat and why one might use a different means to obtain that cat skin. No one wants to carry a lot of heavy tools all day long just to skin a cat.

      I fully support the use of Av, T, P or M or bulb or other modes of camera exposure and shutter management if the individual knows what they are are, AND, chooses them specifically for a purpose - unlike a newbie who wants to just push a button and expect the camera to know what they want done.

      Michael Reichman had a nice article on the Luminous Landscape years ago where he spoke of the "heretical" use of P mode for street shooting in Toronto, since "wink, wink" everyone ( web posters on the site) "knew" all pros shot "all the time" in Manual Mode. Well.....not really! I've never had a non-photographer ask me what mode I shot an image in, have you?

      When I was travelling on two wheels, I had one small DSLR body with a 28-300 usually, and a smaller point and shoot in a pocket, i just didn't have room for a suit case full of glass and bodies. Nor would I have wanted the attention they would have created for me either, and I see you are of a similar mind.

      I do understand ( and share ) Chris' desire for the shallow DOF and bokeh the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art would let you capture, just the same. It just means carrying around a large, heavy hunk of glass for the few times you would use it - family get togethers would be an ideal setting. And maybe some astro-photography also - a use that is made of it by some folks with great success.

    • For the time i used it taking a cost/ weight analysis it really wasn't worth my time to have in my bag. I swapped it out for a cheapo 70-300 that is half the weight and a 1/10th of the value, again i use it rarely but it does come in handy for knocking tents pegs into the ground...thats how much i value it.

      Agreed. I kept my Canon 70-200 2.8/II as I transitioned from Canon DSLRs to Sony Mirrorlesses. It worked fine on the mirrorless with a Metabones adapter. It may seem counterintuitive, but I found myself using the 70-200 less and less as the rest of my gear got lighter. I got spoiled by ultralight Sony gear and my tolerance for lugging around heavy stuff dwindled. So I sold it.

      I picked up the Sony FE 70-200 f/4. Went from a 3.28 lb to a 1.85 lb lens. Lost a stop, but I actually use a telephoto again! And it's much much sharper. But still, the Sony 70-200 f/4 is a heavy lens, so I rarely take it with me on trips that involve air travel.

    • I just received an email ad from Sigma Optical about their holiday sale on many of their prime and their zoom lenses. Their 100mm f1.4 Art is $100.00 off as are most of other their lenses until January 7 - convinced me to join the bokeh fray, so I ordered one. It should arive Wednesday - I'm going to have to spend more time in the weight room I think, but I am looking forward to the lens.