Well, my opinion is that a "Behind The Lens" meter is useful. On the other hand I have no liking for auto-this and auto-that, which includes auto-exposure, auto-focusing, etc. (I don't really like automatic transmissions in my vehicles either.) I do not like to have to fight my equipment to get it to do what I want. And, at the least, these cause us to lose hard-acquired skills through lack of practice.
I can imagine that anti-shake would be helpful to folks like me with a bit of a motor control problem; but even that is a skill that can be learned by normal people. Good technique can give someone two or three stops over the untrained person. However, unlike the auto-gizmos, anti-shake should improve even the experts ability to handhold a camera. Comments on this list show that most of the folks demanding these auto-functions never even imagined that you could do some of these things manually, and they do not believe it when you tell them that it is so. Some things are worthwhile, others are useful conveniences, but most of the features on modern cameras are useless crap there only to impress the ignorant into buying it because it as 2 more features than the competition. I believe that AS probably falls into the worthwhile category, if you shoot with long lenses, in low light, or have motor control issues, otherwise it is just another useless feature to the skilled photographer. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Bob Shell wrote: > On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Cotty wrote: > >> S is available on some Canon lenses, and others (by another >> name) ;-) >> >> Funny, I can remember a time when just about every listmember here >> poo- >> pooed image stabilisation, decrying it as an unnecessary gimmick. >> Now it >> seems that if you're not into shake reduction, you're nowhere. >> >> Funny how things change! > > Ain't that the truth! > > I'm old enough to remember when in-camera meters were decried as an > unnecessary gimmick. No "real" photographer would use such a namby- > pamby, sissy thing. Why, the idea was just plain silly. > > Years later the same comments were heard about autofocus. Who needs > it? I can focus better/faster myself! No "real" photographer would > use such a silly-ass idea. > > This seems to be a regular cycle with any new technology in > photography. Today I still know people who think that digital is > just a passing fad! > > Bob > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
