Subject: Re: Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run
On 1/19/2018 2:19 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <email@example.com>, Neil<firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
>>>> since they're all less efficient than film cameras.
>>> digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
>>> having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
>>> need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
>>> can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
>>> repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
>>> or just make a smaller camera.
>> Those aspects describe flexibility, which I agree are where digital
>> cameras excel. Efficiency is about how easily one can get the shot
>> they're after, and having too many variables is a detriment to efficient
> they also describe efficiency.
> no need to stop to change film, waiting for processing, needing to
> bring sufficient film and of the correct type (daylight/tungsten,
> etc.), keeping it cool, etc.
For the pro, there is no need to do any of that anyway because they
don't shoot willy-nilly, and if they need to shoot a lot of frames on a
job, they buy a special back which can hold enough film for hundreds of
frames. So, let's just drop that straw man and focus on efficiency as a
matter of composition and execution.
>>>> So, control
>>>> placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
>>>> most important factors to me.
>>> that applies to every product.
>>> there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
>>> as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.
>> I already covered that, which is why I prefer Olympus cameras to my
>> Nikon digitals.
Go back and read it. I don't repeat posts.
>>>> I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
>>>> hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
>>>> camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
>>>> least frustrating kits!
>>> autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
>>> benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.
>> There are two aspects of this where I'd disagree with you. First,
>> autofocus presumes what you want to focus on, sometimes fights with you,
>> and even in the best of cases screw up with varifocal lenses because the
>> location of focus changes with focal length.
> only when improperly used.
It's a property of every varifocal lens I've used over several decades.
>> Manually, I can focus much
>> more quickly with a zoom lens because the focal point remains constant
>> with focal length. YMMV.
> autofocus automatically adjusts with varifocal lenses, making it
> effectively equivalent to a true zoom. it 'just works'.
That has not been my experience.
> also, you can't focus quicker than autofocus no matter what lens you
> use. autofocus can maintain focus on a moving subject coming directly
> at you or away from you, even adjusting focus as you shoot multiple
> shots while it moves. human reaction time is much too slow to keep up.
I don't need to focus quicker, I need to focus where I want the focus to
be and have it stay there during composition.