Are your images better with newer gear?

I have had a few photogs with me for small workshops around the Great Salt Lake. Most have newer auto everything whiz bang electronic marvelflexes. Most do not know how to use the darn things and are constantly slowed by this fact. I know their gear has the capability of nearly everything with high quality, but I am not seeing it from them. A lot of lost shots of birds, macro, etc because the newer stuff is so complicated. For those using the newer stuff, are you getting better images? Are your autofocus birds in flight sharper? Are your macro mushrooms crisper? Are you able to follow moving animals and other subjects, focus properly and then re-compose for better composition or living with 'bullseye photos"?

Dio you think your nature images are getting better with the newer gear or is the learning curve way too steep as more & more gets crammed into a camera that you just want good results from?

Dan,

I know by some of your answers on other nets that you must be an accomplished photographer. Photographers photograph. Tourists tour. Sometimes we get them mixed up. Especially when they sign up for photo tours!!!!!!!

 

<p>

 

I am 61 years old and have been active since I was 12 when I developed my first roll of film. I have had dozens of cameras. Rarely does the equipment make a difference except in special situations. I love matrix metering - it's almost impossible to blow a shot. I love the EXTREMELY fast autofocus of my Nikon 90s. There is no way I could do that manually. It will focus on a bird coming at you, figure it's rate of speed, and focus in front of the bird for the next shot, all at 5 frames a second!!! Try and do that manually. I love the 1/8000th of a second. It freezes a humming birds wings! For fill flash I can synch at 1/250. This gives me much greater control and 2 stops of options I wouldn't have at 1/60 synch. The list goes on. And there are cameras that avoid "bulls-eye" focusing. For me it hasn't been a problem. And of course I can instantly go manual if the situation calls for it.

 

<p>

 

Yes I am a better and FASTER photographer because of these new cameras. If I want to work slow I use my Pentax 67. If I really want to work sloooooooow I use my Toyo 4x5. God how I have learned to hate that camera. It is as simple as it gets but it takes me an hour to figure out the shot and then go through the ritual.

 

<p>

 

It takes about 50 rolls of film to get really comfortable with a new Nikon or Canon. Once you are there, you will never go back. Kind of like automatic transmissions and television clickers!!!!!

 

<p>

 

However, I am seeing the same thing you are. For the average photographer that only breaks his camera out during vacation or Christmas time, these cameras can be very confusing. These people have the money, they want the best or near best, so they buy a Nikon F5 or 90s. Geeeezz. These are cameras designed for PROFESSIONALS.

This usually ends up being a disaster for them. Better they should stick with entry level SLRs, or a used Canon A-1 (what a great mechanical camera).

 

<p>

 

Steve

Dan,

 

<p>

 

Yes, I am getting better pictures with my newer gear. The advances in electronics the past few years have allowed camera manufacturers to design light meters for sub $500 cameras that are far more accurate than the meters in top-of-the-line professional cameras of the 1980s. This alone makes the new gee-whiz do-everything cameras worthwhile. However, your point on complexity is well taken. I use a Canon EOS Elan II for my 35mm work. Because I am shooting landscapes, I don't use autofocus. I set the camera on a tripod, hit the timer, let the camera lock up the mirror and bracket my exposures, and then go merrily to the next subject.

 

<p>

 

However, my newest acquisition is a Yashica Mat 124G. This has relegated the Canon to the role of a cumbersome light meter. As soon as I get a hand-held meter the Canon goes to my wife and I will be back in the dark ages, getting better enlargements than possible from 35mm film. I guess this means I answer your last questions "yes." I don't need all the bells and whistles the new cameras have.

 

<p>

 

Mirror up and auto bracketing are nice, but I can do that manually. Autofocus is useless for landscapes, but essential for moving subjects. (Hey, my refelexes were never great and my eyesight isn't what it used to be.) One of my coworkers recently took a trip to Alaska with his A2E, and came back with some incredibly sharp photos of bald eagles in flight. No way he could have done that with his T90. So he would answer your last questions "no."

 

<p>

 

Guess it comes down to what you need. That Toyo 4x5 would be excellent for my uses.

Yes, my images are getting better, but I don't know if it's

the gear or me. I hope I'm getting better with experience.

 

<p>

 

I'd say it's quite possible that the complexity of some current

equipment could be a drawback to those who are not prepared to

learn how to use it. However for those who are, there's not much

doubt that it is <em>capable</em> of yielding a higher percentage of

"keepers" then the generation of "manual everything" cameras

of previous years. Whether that capability is realised depends,

as always, on the photographer behind the camera.

i think the biggest difference is weather you have "upgraded" to new gear or started with it.

 

<p>

 

if you learned how to take pictures with a manual camera, then got a new auto-everything camera, i think you can take better pictures with the new camera. it has more features and you understand how/when/why to use them.

 

<p>

 

if you started photography with a auto camera you have a much higher learning curve to confront. not only do you have to learn the complex way to set an aperature on your camera, but you have to learn when to choose which aperature. keeping the "learning photography" and "learning how to use the camera" ideas apart is important to the process.

I tend to stick with what works. I don't have the time or interest to learn subtle nuances of various pieces of equipment, or to learn to predict how the electronics in that equipment will operate on my behalf. It isn't worth the effort, since next year there'll be a new camera or whatever that does things differently, and all the peculiar stuff one learned with this year's model will have to be unlearned. There simply isn't time for indecisiveness in the field: it's tough enough to get wildlife on film in the first place. So when I buy a new piece of equipment, say, a camera, I concentrate on learning how to duplicate my own set of tried and true methods with it, and ignore the whiz bang stuff until I have a specific problem I need to solve.

 

<p>

 

That said, there are some things that are just plain requirements. The most obvious is long and fast optics. Selective area or spot meters are pretty much standard fare nowadays, and I think are a necessity to know how to use well. The area of closeups brings in a whole new opportunity to go broke buying equipment, but again, I think is best handled by a few select good quality pieces which constrains the techniques to be mastered. And, I still maintain that the best thing I ever did for image sharpness was to buy a Gitzo 410, so equipment in that vein helps also.

 

<p>

 

As for autofocus, it has helped me make several images, but by no means is it critical to what I do. It improves the in-focus ratio only slightly...if subjects are really moving that rapidly, it helps one to concentrate on composition but still there are a lot of throwaways. But putting the area of the subject you'd like to be in critical focus under one of the AF sensors seldom gives you the composition you'd like. I hear good things about the F5 but it's one helluva expensive chance to take...and I still don't like it's AF sensor pattern. Plus, I really am not inclined to sell the lenses I have to upgrade to AF-S at thousands of dollars more expense.

 

<p>

 

The bottom line I think is to keep the equipment repertoire as small as conceivable to get the job done, rely on a few tried and true techniques which yield predictable outcomes, and bias expenditures to spending time in the field, and on film and processing.

I started with AF and new whiz-bang gear 8 years ago, I have upgraded bodies since then and am now with the top of the line "pro" body. Every time I upgraded I have learned to use as many of the features as I could for the new body. As I have upgraded and learned how to use the new bodies my images have improved. Can this be contributed directly to the new gear? Only some of it, the majority has been due to shooting more film.. As I have upgraded and learned photography my images have improved.

 

<p>

 

I have learned my equipment. That means I have taken the time and effort to do just that. Learn what my equipment is capable of, practicing and putting it to good use. The reason I upgrade is for the additional features on the body over what I had. Dan Smith is right in that the majority of photographers(?? maybe wannabes is correct) do not learn their equipment prior to going into the field. In another thread Bob Atkins mentioned spoonfeeding answers to questions. Maybe it is a sign of our times.

 

<p>

 

The number of keepers in shooting waterfowl has gone up, once I learned how the AF system in my bodies worked. I tried manual focus on incoming or passing waterfowl because initially my keeper numbers were low. Keepers in manual focus was even lower and composition was lousy. Once I learned how the AF system worked the keepers went up and it allowed me to concentrate on composition. Do I like it, yes. Does it work in all situations, No. But as I continue to learn (hopefully that never stops) what I can do in MF and AF becomes easier and compositions become a little easier. I know my creativity has increased.

 

<p>

 

In short, I like what technology has done in cameras and lenses but part of that may come from my engineering background also. So I will keep burning film and enjoy the hell out of it.

Could it be that people who put in the time and effort to learn how to use their new gear (or existing gear for that matter) and learn all of it's subtle nuances are also the people who take the time and effort to learn about their subject, their film, and there artistic preferences? Perhaps it's the willingness to put in time and effort to learn that makes the difference.

Yes, since I wouldn't be into photography at all if there weren't AF, auto-exposure electronic wonders out there. The few times I have tried a manual focus camera, I have hated it. I hate squinting and concentrating on the little circle; it gives me a headache. On my Elan, it isn't really that easy to focus manually because of the dim screen, and less-than-ideal split screen (or circle). In any case, I think the AF "revolution" in SLRs has certainly created a lot more interest in SLRs and the photo hobby in general amongst the public, and definitely, a certain number of these will go on to become good at it. Some of them may eventually even venture into 4x5s and MF (like me) after being drawn in. If you didn't have these innovations, the field would remain stagnant, and would only attract a few die-hards who knew a lot about it from before...

<P>Praveen,

 

<P>Point-and-shoot cameras have fueled the consumer enjoyment of photography, not cheap 35mm SLR cameras. That's why companies like Canon and Nikon release new P&S cameras every year, yet let pro-grade SLRs fester for years.

 

<P>My Yashica T4 Super is so much better than the family camera from twenty years ago. Materials technology (lens coatings, polycarbonate bodies, aspherical lenses, reliable microprocessors) has vastly improved and many cameras are better designed (especially user interface). In addition, the user manuals have improved from barely readable to real English (or other local language). In particular, flash metering on consumer cameras is much better than before (and film exposure latitude has improved).

 

<P>It is much easier (and cheaper) for Nobody to get a decent picture today than twenty years ago.

I use both modern AF cameras and "old" professional models. Basically, the main difference is that the never cameras makes it easier to make snapshots; ie. AF, programs, multipattern metering systems. AF cameras also makes it easier to shoot fast moving subjects, eg. birds in flight (the main problem, however, may be keeping the bird in the finder, not focusing). However, my older camera makes possible to work in areas difficult or impossible with modern AF cameras, such as autoexposure under extreme low light conditions (eg. aurora borealis) with shutterspeeds from minutes up to hours. Also better performance under extreme cold. In addition, my old cameras also have a far more sensitive and accurate (more predictive) meter than any modern camera I have used. Less battery consumption means that the older camera is more likely candidate for mountain trips. Finally, the older cameras (at least mine) are far better built. It all depends on what you want to do.

If you have learned exposure and how to effectively use an "old" type camera the only thing you gain with a modern auto-everything camera is speed.

Well, first, Paal, I can't believe anyone doesn't think an F5, F4 or EOS-1 is as well-built as earlier cameras. You can pound nails with any of them. You need to learn to announce your biases as such, rather than state them as fact. Frans Lanting has photos from Antartica in the latest "Nature's Best", shot with an N90S. I'll take his endorsement as being more valid than either yours or mine - I don't see either of us with a credit from Antartica in that magazine.

 

<p>

 

Dan, in regard to your original question, I would guess that these folks would've been equally clueless with an old F3 and MF 600/4, like you shoot with. My Canon system, at least, is very easy to use as a manual camera, and I use it as such probably 2/3 of the time. Spot meter, manual exposure, manual focus or AF followed by manual touch-up. Despite this, personally I find the Canon interface easier to use than the traditional one, despite having shot with the latter for 12 or so years (I still do, actually, as my Mamiya 7 has a traditional interface). The body remembers the aperture when changing lenses or adding converters, for instance - this isn't a new, whiz-bang feature to remember, but rather an old encumbrance I'm personally glad to NOT have to remember. My past history was one of switching lenses excitedly and sometimes spacing out and not setting the aperture...

 

<p>

 

I also really like the three-speed MF settings on the big Canon teles, something I'd scoffed at as gimmicky when I first got the system. On the shorter lenses, it's not all that useful, but on the 600/4 (and I imagine the 400/2.8 and most certainly the 1200/5.6!) it really is. Since all the fast telephotos share a common focus module, the shorter lenses sort of inherit this feature, too.

 

<p>

 

Predictitive AF is indeed a help with flying and swimming stuff.

 

<p>

 

Regarding the comment that old cameras had better meters, I don't buy it. Paal's comments certainly don't reflect those of full-time, working professionals I've spoken to out in the field. If anything, some tend to use matrix (or evaluative) metering much more often than I do. The new F5 meter gets very, very high marks from working professionals.

 

<p>

 

Battery usuage is, of course, an issue, but there are solutions for this. I've never quite understood why folks get so upset about batteries. After all, I never hear anyone complain that they have to keep feeding their camera film. The weight and bulk and rate-of-reload for film when I'm out shooting is far more inconvenient than any battery problem...

 

<p>

 

Anyway, the trick with modern cameras is to learn when to use the additional tools, and when they get in the way. This may make it more difficult for one to become a "compleat photographer". It certainly makes it harder, though, for the tour leader, as there's no longer a single user interface to use/teach, even within one manufacturer's line!

I use both new programmable electronic (Nikon 6006) and old mechanical technology (Nikon F2) for different purposes.

 

<p>

 

The new technology allows me the flexibility to "point and shoot" while travelling, but with manual, spot meter, lens changing, full SLR capability immediately available in a light weight package. It is not, however, weatherproof.

 

<p>

 

The old technology allows me total control in all weather and temperature conditions through mechanical operation without batteries using a hand held meter. It also forces me to compose and control the exposure of my pictures.

 

<p>

 

The newer lenses are, in many cases, superior design, better multicoating technology, more compact, lighter weight with better zoom lens performance than older (pre AIS Nikon models).

 

<p>

 

To address your other question, many prople purchase technology for it's own sake, without investing the time and learning required to master this technology. It requires a modicum of technical reasoning skills to master and understand the logic contained in each of the program modes available in an electronic SLR. These people will not or can not master this technology. They just wish to own the latest "whiz-bang" camera for the sake of possessing the "latest and geatest".

Sean,

 

<p>

 

It's true that the P&S market is the most lucrative one. But lucrativeness is a largely continuous, montonically decreasing function as you go towards the more expensive SLRs, and certainly, an approach like Olympus's, of almost abandoning the SLR market in favor of P&Ss would not help those in between die-hard, photo-nuts, and those who want to get in at a higher level than the P&S crowd (actually, now I am probably a die-hard photo nut...). I had a Nikon P&S for 12 years before getting an AF-SLR, but I would have been less enthusiastic about getting an MF SLR, having used my Dads and hating it.

I don't know much about photo workshops or how they are run, but I would assume that the folks that attend them are looking for a photographer with experience to guide them around a area and help them solve their photographic problems. The workshops I have seen advertised have different experience levels for photographers from novice thru advanced? I wouldn't expect a novice with a "new do all camera" to get real good results, and to be slow operating their equipment. They are there to get some experience. But I would expect an advanced photographer with one of these "electronic marvelflexes" to get great results, because he/she "knows" how his equipment is going to operate before they get in the field with a workshop group.

 

<p>

 

I don't think that the new cameras are that difficult to use, but there "is" a learning curve from old to new, but it's not all that bad (the Nikon F5 made "Moose Peterson" a autofocus fan)! The metering systems are wonderful, even in AF cameras of seven or eight years ago. And for ol' tired eyes autofocus is a godsend, I don't care where the sensors are, I'll recompose!

 

<p>

 

As far as macro work, I do not use autofocus, or autoexposure. Infact it might work, I must admit I haven't tried it, I do this kind of photography in the manual mode. Old habits are hard to break!

 

<p>

 

I do think that my photography is better as far as the new camera systems. The manufactures are making it very easy for us to take great photographs, if we "learn" how to put these new camera systems to use. I read somewhere "It's not the camera/lens that makes the great photographs, it's the gray mass three inches behind the viewfinder". I think this quote still holds true even in todays "do all cameras".

I also have both an old manual focus camera(F3T) and a newer AF camera (N90s). If I can only take one body alone, I almost always take the N90s. The F3 goes if I'm in the mood for it or it will better accomplish what I need to do because of one of its features.

 

<p>

 

I find that I really like the interface of the N90s and, like Don and his EOS, find that the N90s works great as a manual camera. In fact, in one big way, it's better than any manual camera I know of because it has 1/3 stop shutter increments. I admit that the N90s isn't as well built as my F3T, but I don't think many manual focus cameras are either. I do think my N90s is better build than a lot of other MF cameras like an AE-1 or K1000.

 

<p>

 

The other thing that newer bodies give is convenience. It's mighty nice on my N90s to be able to hit a button and have it ready to do autobracketing(I have the MF26).

 

<p>

 

To Paal, I believe you're manual camera is a Pentax LX. Correct? The only other camera that has a comparable meter is an Olympus OM4 and the only advantage of these two is for long exposures. So, generalizing manual focus cameras as having better meters based on the LX is wrong. Generally speaking, I'd say that the meters in newer AF cameras are much more accurate. At very least it's nice having a choice of spot, center or matrix metering and some of them(the F5 for example) can probably out think most photographers.

In response to: "Could it be that people who put in the time and effort to learn how to use their new gear (or existing gear for that matter) and learn all of it's subtle nuances are also the people who take the time and effort to learn about their subject, their film, and there artistic preferences? Perhaps it's the willingness to put in time and effort to learn that makes the difference."

 

<p>

 

I don't think so. I think just the opposite, in fact. I have met many nature photographers all over North America who have a deep catalog of memorized information, mostly heresay and magazine crap, about all the equipment: lenses, flash units, whatever...and I've met very few who have even a basic language developed around what separates good photography from great photography. Given the limits and time constraints of modern society, would a person limited in that knowledge be better off spending time studying an SB24 manual or studying Karsh?

 

<p>

 

I contend it's better to master the vital few number of techiques that will allow you to reach your artistic vision consistently than to fumble around trying to remember which button does what while the light changes or the subject moves. Just my opinion.

I think Don is reading something in my posting that simply isn't there. I was refering to my own system and experiences to illustrate the pros and cons of modern AF cameras and older models, and reasons for using one or the other under different circumstances. Others may have different preferences. There are no simple answers to the original question.

Those of us who use camera systems where you can use both AF or MF cameras, eg. Nikon, probably have some preferences what camera is best suitable under different conditions.Yes, some may take an AF model any day. It depends on what you are going to do. I prefer my AF camera for macro and telephoto (wildlife) work because it has a better user interface, a comfortable grip and has a convenient built in motor drive (my telephoto lenses 300 + 1000mm are MF. I would like to have had AF on these lenses). For landscape and low-light work I prefer my MF camera because it is better suited for the job.

I'm always surprised when someone claims that battery consumption is of no importance. If you do low-light work it is. In the worst cases you use several batteries per roll of film. A camera that is kind to the batteries and even works without them means less hassle.The same is true in extreme cold (not to mention low-light wotk in extreme cold which is usually the case for me). Its about using the right tool for the job.

Re: Paal's comments about battery longevity --<p>

 

Several batteries per roll of film??? What camera/batteries are you using? About the only situation I can think of that might cause this is if you were doing multi-minute time exposures for every frame on a roll of film (as in astrophotography). I agree that if this is your goal, a manual-everything camera is the way to go.<p>

 

I've used my EOS Elan for unguided astrophotos with exposure times on the order of 20 seconds - 2 minutes, and never noticed a substantial drain on the battery. I'm sure if my exposures were dozens of minutes long, though, I'd notice it.<p>

 

I do find it hard to believe that your old MF cameras have a "far more sensitive and accurate" meter than newer cameras. I've noted the exact opposite -- that most older cameras have meters that are in dire need of adjustment. And once adjusted, they are no better nor worse than those in modern cameras.

Re: Paal's comments about battery longevity --<p>

 

Several batteries per roll of film??? What camera/batteries are you using? About the only situation I can think of that might cause this is if you were doing multi-minute time exposures for every frame on a roll of film (as in astrophotography). I agree that if this is your goal, a manual-everything camera is the way to go.<p>

 

I've used my EOS Elan for unguided astrophotos with exposure times on the order of 20 seconds - 2 minutes, and never noticed a substantial drain on the battery. I'm sure if my exposures were dozens of minutes long, though, I'd notice it.<p>

 

I do find it hard to believe that your old MF cameras have "far more sensitive and accurate" meters than newer cameras. I've noted the exact opposite -- that most older cameras have meters that are in dire need of adjustment. And once adjusted, they are no better nor worse than those in modern cameras.

I think that the key part of your question/comment is this:

 

<p>

 

"Most do not know how to use the darn things and are consistently slowed by this fact."

 

<p>

 

There is no question that, if you don't know how to use your new gear, you are in deep trouble. My experience is that it takes several months of serious, dedicated effort to move from an older, logically organized, mechanical/manual system over to a modern "whiz bang electronic marvelflex." I think that for some subjects, you gain nothing from the transition. You've given a few good examples... macro for instance. Good macro work is slow and deliberate. Focus is critical, and best handled manually, at least in the end. Mirror lockup and depth of field preview can both influence results significantly here, yet some camera manufacturers refuse to include these essential features on any but their most expensive professional models.

 

<p>

 

The first few times I went to use the mirror lockup on my marvelflex, I had to look up the custom function to activate it. I eventually figured out how to set up the marvelflex to activate it immediately with just two presses on a single button, so it is just as fast as my old mechanical mirror lock up. One of my marvelflex bodies allows me to activate dof preview with a simple glance. This is actually faster than fumbling for a button.

 

<p>

 

I do think that there are places where the new cameras offer an advantage, particularly for fast action. Autofocus is not intuitive, and you have to pay attention to what the camera is doing. For some subjects, I like focus tracking, for others I just make sure I activate focus at the right moment. It is often critical to pick the right focus cell too. Since focus and exposure are typically coupled, I often find myself setting exposure up manually so that my exposure decision won't be second guessed by the camera when focus is activated. Some subjects just don't benefit from autofocus at all - like if I am trying to capture someone dunking a basketball, I will typically prefocus, deactivate autofocus, set exposure manually, and wait for the right moment. I gain nothing from the modern camera for this particular shot.

 

<p>

 

You know, these guys who are getting lousy results with their marvelflex might get lousy results with manual gear too. If you don't know how your equipment works, your sunk - whether you've got an N90s or a Pentax H3V.

 

<p>

 

To answer your question: A qualified yes - for many subjects I am getting more keepers per roll. How much of this is due to the gear, and how much is due to my renewed high level of interest, I can't say. I know that I had intended to keep my old mechanical/manual gear when I first bought the marvelflex, but that I shipped it out after extensive side by side work with both systems. I like the Marvelflex because if I want it to behave as a manual camera, I know what buttons to push to make it happen. If I want some level of automation, its there for me. If I want to hand a body off to my wife or one of my kids, I can stick it on full auto, and they will get decent results for the subjects they're interested in. Different people need/want different things.