I see tons of average golfers using the most expensive golf clubs and non race car drivers driving expensive cars and non musicians listening to expensive audio equipment and many people who buy way more computer than they need...why should it be different or a surprise that people spend 3000 dollars on a camera even if they aren't pros?
jonbrach wrote:
Would you believe that 90% of seemingly experienced photographers I meet on my photo outings use Av or even TV mode only ? I think many of them really do not understand the way manual exposure works. But they all shoot RAW, or at least that's what they say.
why would there be anything wrong with shooting in either AV or TV mode?
Nothing wrong with shooting in an auto mode where appropriate, such as when the scene/environment is static. However, as an example, photographing birds in flight against rapidly changing luminance backgrounds (typically water-vegetation-sky sequence or v.v.) using an auto mode is not effective, and that is where M mode is decidedly superior.......unless one enjoys spending hours fixing exposure problems in photoshop.
PetKal wrote:
Nothing wrong with shooting in an auto mode where appropriate, such as when the scene/environment is static. However, as an example, photographing birds in flight against rapidly changing luminance backgrounds (typically water-vegetation-sky sequence or v.v.) using an auto mode is not effective, and that is where M mode is decidedly superior.......unless one enjoys spending hours fixing exposure problems in photoshop.
Interesting. I would expect manual to be the wrong choice in that situation because as the light on target changes (flies from sun to shade) the manual setting would be off. In auto mode with spot metering the camera should adjust to ensure the target is properly exposed.
jonbrach wrote:
I see tons of average golfers using the most expensive golf clubs and non race car drivers driving expensive cars and non musicians listening to expensive audio equipment and many people who buy way more computer than they need...why should it be different or a surprise that people spend 3000 dollars on a camera even if they aren't pros?
its thinly veiled jealousy and inferiority complex
jonbrach wrote:
I see tons of average golfers using the most expensive golf clubs and non race car drivers driving expensive cars and non musicians listening to expensive audio equipment and many people who buy way more computer than they need...why should it be different or a surprise that people spend 3000 dollars on a camera even if they aren't pros?
and what EXACTLY is wrong with any of that? if you can do it, why not? where's the harm? the truth is many "amateurs", be it car enthusiasts, audiophiles, golfers, or photographers, are actually MORE passionate about their hobbies than their professional counterparts. Are they as good as the professionals? Almost always not. But that doesn't mean they can't try. Do you love your job? I mean, really LOVE your job? Hobbyists spend a lot of money, time and effort devoted to a particular interest because they want to, not because they have to. They don't have to get that perfect shot to pay the bills.
I think people are being a bit presumptuous, cynical, and perhaps even a bit jealous when they assume "amateurs" who buy very expensive "toys" are inadequate, not very knowledgeable consumers with an inferiority complex.
And let's be honest. If everyone on this forum had the means to comfortably and responsibly purchase the best out there, be it cameras, golf gear, cars, etc...why WOULDN'T you? Because that gear should only be reserved for the "pros"?
AND besides, what do you make of the pimply 20 something year old "pro" who shoots the same staged goofy family portrait at places like "The Picture Place"? Should I feel guilty that I have better equipment than their rebel xti with a kit lens?
That being said, i am one of those "amateurs" with a 1DX, 5DIII, an audiophile stereo, and some nice cars (which I also track). But I don't golf
jerrykur wrote:
Interesting. I would expect manual to be the wrong choice in that situation because as the light on target changes (flies from sun to shade) the manual setting would be off. In auto mode with spot metering the camera should adjust to ensure the target is properly exposed.
Generally, the light on the subject doesn't change due to land topology, or it shouldn't if the shooting theatre has been chosen with some forethought. What does screw up MF most often are clouds which block the sunlight intermittently.
Now, one can postulate that in theory one can partial/spot meter on a flying target and use the Av mode advantageously. Hawever, in practice that generally doesn't work well at all. Firstly, on a smaller bird in VF, the metering area keeps slipping on/off the bird constantly resulting in largely uncontrolled exposure. On a flying bird which is large in VF, another interference type happens: many birds have body parts which are coloured very differently, say, black head and white flanks, which can also play havoc with exposure if a small area metering/AV mode is used.
Chriswong1973 wrote:
AND besides, what do you make of the pimply 20 something year old "pro" who shoots the same staged goofy family portrait at places like "The Picture Place"? Should I feel guilty that I have better equipment than their rebel xti with a kit lens?
-c
Does anybody, including such photographers themselves, actually refer to them as pros? I knew a guy who got hired at a place like that, in his twenties, didn't know the first thing about photography. They told him that didn't matter, what was important was the ability to interact well with people (which he was no standout at), and he just needed to buy a camera. In the end, or maybe the beginning, they let him go because he showed up for the first day of work after being up all night, in dirty clothes, having had no shower and spending the night in the police station. Never did figure that one out.
PetKal wrote:
Generally, the light on the subject doesn't change due to land topology, or it shouldn't if the shooting theatre has been chosen with some forethought. What does screw up MF most often are clouds which block the sunlight intermittently.
Now, one can postulate that in theory one can partial/spot meter on a flying target and use the Av mode advantageously. Hawever, in practice that generally doesn't work well at all. Firstly, on a smaller bird in VF, the metering area keeps slipping on/off the bird constantly resulting in largely uncontrolled exposure. On a flying bird which is large in VF, another interference type happens: many birds have body parts which are coloured very differently, say, black head and white flanks, which can also play havoc with exposure if a small area metering/AV mode is used....Show more →
Thanks that makes a lot of sense. I guess you can tell I don't shoot birds very often.
PetKal wrote:
Nothing wrong with shooting in an auto mode where appropriate, such as when the scene/environment is static. However, as an example, photographing birds in flight against rapidly changing luminance backgrounds (typically water-vegetation-sky sequence or v.v.) using an auto mode is not effective, and that is where M mode is decidedly superior.......unless one enjoys spending hours fixing exposure problems in photoshop.
