[IHS]

Interesting theory, do you realise that the bird was flying about 80 km/h so low that I could barely see it? And I didn't have motordrive, otherwise I would have shot the entire sequence as I shot him landing and taking off, does autofocus give you the magical capacity to shoot was you don't see? I'm curious to hear.


No it doesn't...but with an AF camera with continuous shooting, you don't need a motor drive, and as you say you could have shot the entire sequence.

And for today's "pro" photographers, they are a shadow of what they used to be, that's the reason why the big names belong to the past and not to the present,

That could be said about any art form...substituting nostalgia for quality though is subjective at best.

http://satnam.ca/cameras/Canonf1worldbook1.pdf

Ans see the pictures in page 25,30,41,42,43,43,44,45 (the pages dedicated to action photography with motordrive)...how could they do pictures like that without autofocus? Were they magicians?

The only shot that was truly unpredictable was the bird shot with the 400mm. He was lucky...we all get lucky. The rest were all on closed courses where the photographer set up and waited for something to happen or not. Entirely predictable...(practically posing)

[Cuthbert]

The only shot that was truly unpredictable was the bird shot with the 400mm. He was lucky...we all get lucky. The rest were all on closed courses where the photographer set up and waited for something to happen or not. Entirely predictable...(practically posing)

Yes sure the snow at page 21 was posing the the F1 car that took off too...perhaps the photographers also asked them to repeat the sequence to choose the best shot!

[IHS]

Yes sure the snow at page 21 was posing the the F1 car that took off too...perhaps the photographers also asked them to repeat the sequence to choose the best shot!

Yes and yes and I'm sure they would have if they could!

[aurele]

Ans see the pictures in page 25,30,41,42,43,43,44,45 (the pages dedicated to action photography with motordrive)...how could they do pictures like that without autofocus? Were they magicians?

To me, just smart photographer

I do some sport climbing photography (so basically, during the summer i spent days hanging in a harnest, on a rope, photographing friends climbing hard stuff). I try to take picture of fast action (not as fast as F1 of course) from 17mm to 300mm on film, and i've even tried with longer telephoto 400/5.6 from Canon (a damn beast from a friend).

Do you know that for picture with the 300mm / 400mm lenses, we used something very old school ? DoF table We determine in the VF the distance, then use the table to calculate the DoF, we change the focusing distance. All that assure us that the subject will be in focus, all during the course of action, no mater if he goes further of us during the climbing.

When hanging in a rope with the 35-50-70/200mm lens, i do more or less the same, i predertmine focusing distance before the action.
When the climber come, i set the right focusing distance for the part i'm interested in, shoot, then change focus, waiting for the next part i want, and so on.

All is about preparation.

Sure AF allows us to do some part faster, and/or more spontaneously. But the basics remain : preparation.

On the Olympic Games, for the 100mm (that goes in less than 10 sec, once every 4 years), many SLR and now DSLR are pre-set up on various focusing distance. When the run starts, they just press the shutter continuously and hope to get good picture in the pre-focused zone (because no, they don't rely on AF during the burst). In the old days, photographer used to run 250 frames per body* just to get one shot for the news paper.

*you know, backs that looks like ammo magazine for some sort of helicopter gun, and that use 250 frames film rolls.

[ChrisPlatt]

Cuthbert...That's a fine shot of a condors BUTT. If you'd been using an AF camera, you probably would have had 5 or 6 more shots of that same flight. (maybe even one of it's head?) In any case, the shot you posted would probably have been one of the worst and wound up on the cutting room floor. Kudos on freezing the feathers though...

AE, AF and now today's digital wondercams - have given us a "run and gun" mentality.
Photographers no longer need develop the skill to anticipate the decisive moment.

What's next? Perhaps we should all shoot continuous HD video and just grab the best frames.
Surely someone must be developing an app that will do that editing for us, too...

Chris

[IHS]

AE, AF and now today's digital wondercams - have given us a "run and gun" mentality.
Photographers no longer need develop the skill to anticipate the decisive moment.

No argument there...but it's fun to develop it just the same.

What's next? Perhaps we should all shoot continuous HD video and just grab the best frames.
Surely someone must be developing an app that will do that editing for us, too...

Chris

A lot of people already do that, and I'm sure someone is working on such an app even as we type. There's no putting the Genie back in the bottle, as much as we may want to.

[ChrisPlatt]

There's no putting the Genie back in the bottle, as much as we may want to.

Then we are no longer photographers but merely camera operators.

Someday all this work could be done by drones, thus freeing us completely from the burden of photography.

Chris

[hks_kansei]

I still shoot film because I prefer the cameras, and I also prefer the tactile nature.

Currently I shoot about 90% film and 10% digital. If I could get a DSLR that was as uncomplicated as my ME or MX I would be all over it and probably drop the ratio down.

[IHS]

Then we are no longer photographers but merely camera operators.

Someday all this work could be done by drones, thus freeing us completely from the burden of photography.

Chris

Someday...In the meantime I'll just continue to enjoy both digital and film while I can. We live in a golden age of photography.

[6BQ5]

My local camera store came a across an old roll of opened expired film. It's two months past the date. The sales associate behind the counter handed it to me saying, "Here you go. I can't sell it so I might as well give it to you."

Can't do that with a digital sensor!

"Here's an old sensor you can put in your camera. It's two months past its expiration date. Want it?"

[LesDMess]

I get that a lot of you love manual photography and I myself am starting to get into it but to suggest that shooting fast moving and unpredictable targets is as easy with MF as it is w/AF is just reaching.

With enough knowledge from practice and learning techniques, you will get the hang of it too. It will be easier if you don't fight it before the learning begins.

[stevebrot]

I get that a lot of you love manual photography and I myself am starting to get into it but to suggest that shooting fast moving and unpredictable targets is as easy with MF as it is w/AF is just reaching.

I would suggest that you do it for 45+ years before telling people who have been doing it for that period of time that it cannot be done. I know that sounds blunt.


Steve

---------- Post added 12-05-14 at 12:28 PM ----------

Ans see the pictures in page 25,30,41,42,43,43,44,45 (the pages dedicated to action photography with motordrive)...how could they do pictures like that without autofocus? Were they magicians?

No, they were time travelers.


Steve

---------- Post added 12-05-14 at 12:30 PM ----------

The rest were all on closed courses where the photographer set up and waited for something to happen or not.

Ummmm...I do believe that is exactly how it is done today. BTW...I have not seen any of your work, but have you actually ever shot bird-in-flight, sports, or motor sport? All three are damn hard even with the best AF and high FPS.


Steve

---------- Post added 12-05-14 at 12:33 PM ----------

When the run starts, they just press the shutter continuously and hope to get good picture in the pre-focused zone (because no, they don't rely on AF during the burst).

Yep, that is how it is done. In the old days, a motor drive was usually paired with a 100' bulk film magazine and the whole thing was mounted on tripod. Or...you simply trained your eye/finger to the decisive moment.

Did anyone see the photos taken with the 4x5 Speed Graphic at the London Olympics?


Steve

---------- Post added 12-05-14 at 12:38 PM ----------

We live in a golden age of photography.

Absolutely!

No question about that!


Steve

[Cuthbert]

To me, just smart photographer

I do some sport climbing photography (so basically, during the summer i spent days hanging in a harnest, on a rope, photographing friends climbing hard stuff). I try to take picture of fast action (not as fast as F1 of course) from 17mm to 300mm on film, and i've even tried with longer telephoto 400/5.6 from Canon (a damn beast from a friend).

Do you know that for picture with the 300mm / 400mm lenses, we used something very old school ? DoF table We determine in the VF the distance, then use the table to calculate the DoF, we change the focusing distance. All that assure us that the subject will be in focus, all during the course of action, no mater if he goes further of us during the climbing.

When hanging in a rope with the 35-50-70/200mm lens, i do more or less the same, i predertmine focusing distance before the action.
When the climber come, i set the right focusing distance for the part i'm interested in, shoot, then change focus, waiting for the next part i want, and so on.

All is about preparation.

Sure AF allows us to do some part faster, and/or more spontaneously. But the basics remain : preparation.

On the Olympic Games, for the 100mm (that goes in less than 10 sec, once every 4 years), many SLR and now DSLR are pre-set up on various focusing distance. When the run starts, they just press the shutter continuously and hope to get good picture in the pre-focused zone (because no, they don't rely on AF during the burst). In the old days, photographer used to run 250 frames per body* just to get one shot for the news paper.

*you know, backs that looks like ammo magazine for some sort of helicopter gun, and that use 250 frames film rolls.

That's what I did with the condor, I checked there was light enough to shoot at f5.6 and a decent speed (1/250s), then when I saw it coming I shoot in hyperfocal setting infinity at at right notch of 5.6 on the lens. Then I prayed it wasn't coming too close...if I had a 100mm it would have better but I wasn't prepared and I used what I had.

[IHS]

Ummmm...I do believe that is exactly how it is done today. BTW...I have not seen any of your work, but have you actually ever shot bird-in-flight, sports, or motor sport? All three are damn hard even with the best AF and high FPS.Steve

Yes I have and yes it is...That's why I know I never could have gotten these shots with manual focus. The distance of birds on the ocean are difficult to judge and at the speeds they reach diving well...lets just say I want to see this type of shot taken manually by anyone no matter how long they've been doing it. (I know these suck btw) But w/out AF they wouldn't have happened at all. Like I said...I'm willing to ck out anyones manual efforts at something like this. Feel free to impress me.

[stevebrot]

Yes I have and yes it is...That's why I know I never could have gotten these shots with manual focus. The distance of birds on the ocean are difficult to judge and at the speeds they reach diving well...lets just say I want to see this type of shot taken manually by anyone no matter how long they've been doing it. (I know these suck btw) But w/out AF they wouldn't have happened at all. Like I said...I'm willing to ck out anyones manual efforts at something like this. Feel free to impress me.

You were at the hyperfocal for the first shot. Any softness is camera motion. Panning is hard.


Steve