manual vs automatic

[manojit_pusty1]

<p>Is the notion correct that with manual camera like the nikon FM2 capturing moments in street photography is difficult as compared to an automatic camera??</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I would just preset the FM2 for the lighting conditions that I would be likely to encounter. May be hit or miss if the light is changing fast, though. Some automatic users may also preset exposure since they may not have time to take a spot reading under difficult light.</p>

[manojit_pusty1]

<p>got the point.....but what about focussing??</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>MF is quick and easy once you get used to it.</p>

<p>You can also zone focus if you're using an adequately small aperture (F/11 and smaller for best results).</p>

<p>RS</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>It's not like street photography didn't exist before the advent of modern automagic everything cameras. You learn to use your tools, judge exposure and distance, preset and shoot.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Automation does speed up your street shooting...and guarantees a higher level of acceptable shots under most conditions. So, technically at least, automation helps lots......Robert</p><div></div>

[lachaine]

<p>In the context of "street photography":</p>

<p>There's no way that it's not faster and more reliable with AF and AE, no matter whether it's digital or film. Not that is was that hard to use a manual camera, but it was a little more uncertain and approximate.</p>

<p>In the past, you pretty much had to pre-focus somehow so you wouldn't have to when a potential picture came along, and also pre-set exposure to something that would be close enough. And even then, it was often necessary to do extra work in the darkroom when printing the negative. I don't care how fast a person claims to be able to focus in the viewfinder, unless you were shooting still street scenes, you did not have time to start fiddling with these things without missing the picture. Multi-segment AE and AF on modern cameras equal or more likely beat that every time.</p>

<p>The only exception is if you're using a digital camera that takes too long to focus when you press the button.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Exposure wise, preset exposure generally results in better exposure than automatic exposure. Automatic exposure system reacts to a lot of things that really don't require a change in exposure.<br>

A lot of times, AF is faster but not always as it can latch on to the wrong subjects when you're in a hurry.<br>

Everyone has a different way of doing thing. But if I have to do street shooting I would do it in fully manual mode, MF and manual exposure.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>It depends on experience.<br>

When I was younger and shooting a LOT, shooting a full manual camera I could usually beat an auto camera. But not shooting a lot, I lost that quickness and the ability to look at the subject and be able to set the exposure and distance to the subject w/o looking at the camera within seconds, so the camera was ready to go when it came up to my eye.<br>

BUT if you use auto, you also have to learn all the issues and traps, and how to avoid them. Both AF and AE can be fooled or otherwise be unable to properly do their job for various reasons. I was burned MANY times when I got my first digital camera and relied on its AF and AE only to have a botched shot. </p>

[patrickwells]

<p>I prefer manual when street shooting especially MF. I have had to many shots ruined by the camera searching ,or shifting focus at the last second . I have found that I like using AV , letting the camera pick the shutter speed.<br /> Till about 3 years ago when I bought my first DSLR, all I had was a full manual (K1000) and old habits die hard.I have a newer film camera . It's on manual most of the time. I don't care for a camera/computer deciding what my shot is going to look like. When it's bad it's me not the camera :). Occasionally I use full auto but not often. I used full auto for a while but have gone back to at least MF. I am faster most of the time,thus miss fewer shots</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just a note, "automatic" has always been a selling point for cameras, and so its usage is highly ambiguous in the context of any generation of older cameras. I once posted an explanation of the term as used in different periods at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00RTpg .</p>

<p>Here's what 'automatic' meant some time back</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>JDM- I've seen that ad a few times in some of the back isssues I inherited from my dad. Now, for a twin lens reflex I think automatic meant that advancing the film also cocked the shutter.<br>

Why mention twin lens? The right angle viewing has some advantages for street photography.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>My fathers Exacta was the first SLR that I used. :-)</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>A manual camera with the exposure set correctly and zone focused to the right distance will be about as fast as you can get. However fast lenses wide open don't lend themselves to this kind of shooting.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I love the Aperture Priority setting on the shutter speed dial of my FE2 and my old F3HP (now sold). I don't have to mess with settings, just set the desired aperture, compose and focus and CLICK! </p>

[bob_riley1]

<p>I would use any of the following in preference to a Nikon FM (2 or 2n).</p>

<p>Nikon F90, N80, F100, or F5. You merely have to frame and press the shutter release.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>And auto ISO... and I wish I wouldn't have to fiddle with the aperture ring or exposure compensation... maybe someone else can take my pictures for me?</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Yeah sure! it's called the photographer. You can always hire one. Expensive but works extremely well.<br>

I always know all manuals is the easiest way to take pictures but automatic can speed it up when you need to be fast but now I have serious doubt about how much automation can speed up the process.</p>