Re: [Leica] RE: AF & auto exposure

["Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>]

I agree with Jim that for those who want full control of the situation
manual everything may be important, but I have to disagree with Jim on his
reasoning that to use AF and "whistles and bells" is to give up control.

Like Jim, I am in my sixties, I went to Brooks, I use 35 (4 different
systems) and 4x5.
Unlike Jim I am not an absolutist.

One of my 35mm cameras is a Canon EOS with eye control, AF and AE exposure.
Most of the times I use it in manual mode because I am accustomed to manual
systems. At times however, I allow the camera to perform certain tasks.
The AF is very accurate and quick. For fast moving subjects it is hard to
beat.
The metering system is very accurate and, unless I want to expose for a
particular effect, it does the job nicely. For flash photos at parties it is
hard to beat the combination of AF and TTL flash.

Finally, just as there are  "award winning View Camera, Hasselblad, Leica"
photographers, so there are award winning  Canon and Nikon photographers.

To each his own and to each occasion and mood one's own camera.

Joseph Codispoti


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:26 PM
Subject: [Leica] RE: AF & auto exposure


> If you do not understand the science of photography, you will want a
> computer programmer in Japan to form the image on your film.
>
> If you do understand the science of photography, you will want to control
> all aspects of forming the image onto your film.
>
> This is why moving back and forth between Leica 35 and Linhof 4x5, is a
> piece of cake.
>
> People too often forget the basics of photographic science. They "think"
> that they need AF when normal DOF will work better. They "think" they need
> autoexposure, when a simple dumb meter will tell them far more than they
> ever need to know.
>
> Most of the "bells and whistles" that the EOS/F5/M9/etc. tout are sales
> gimmicks. Someone who really understands the science of photography, knows
> instinctively how to produce magnificent images of all subject matter,
with
> basic photographic instruments.
>
> Look at all of the award winning View Camera, Hasselblad, Leica, etc,
> photographers.
>
> Autofocus is a good thing. For that "very rare" occasion that it could be
> the difference between getting a usable image or not. I contend that this,
> in reality, is indeed a rare situation.
>
> I believe that the majority of successful professional
> industrial/commercial/illustrative/fine art photographers still use the
> science of photography to create the majority of their images. It is the
> amateur photographers who do not understand photographic science, that
> drive the "auto" photo Modus Operandi.
>
> Computers are good, when used intelligently. Use them as an assistant, not
> as the absolute. When we give up control of our basic knowledge, to a
> computer, we have fallen for the marketers hype.
>
> No thanks. I'll use the most basic equipment that I can get away with
> using. That way I'm in complete control. Not some computer programmer in
> Japan. If I make a mistake, it is my mistake. I won't be pointing fingers
> and distributing blame.
>
> My simple oratory is "Learn the science of photography. Apply the science
> of photography. Control the making of your images." You'll be much happier
> knowing that the work you produced, is actually your work.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> At 06:52 PM 6/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >Those car analogies have never made any sense to me. People, (boomers,
> >their parents and their kids) still queue and wait three years for a
> >Morgan. The fact that big US cars have lost their soul, size and shining
> >exuberance somewhere in the Seventies did not translate that well in
market
> >shares. Many people I know are ready to pay a high premium for an exc
> >Fifties US convertible, nobody I know is ready to pay a premium for an
old
> >Toyota. So what ? So nothing ! Or, let us say that it would be a huge
> >mistake for Leica to loose its soul. I know you refute the idea of soul
in
> >machinery. You'll therefore probably never understand why anyone would
pay
> >a 15 year old Citroen 2CV more than what it was worth new. Not comparing
> >the Leica to the 2CV though: those analogies make no sense ;-)
> >
> >Alan
>
>