People that don't shoot in manual...

[rs]

I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .

Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>


For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.

You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...

I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....

LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....

OMGzzzz!!1!!one!1!!!!!! I'd never even drive an automatic! I am British though, and those things are quite rare here. Why would you let the car decide what gear you need to be in?

I'm possibly the only person that will survive when the robots take over, it appears.

I prefer manuals, but I would settle for an F-Type

 

[JohanCruyff]

People that don't shoot in manual...
...annoy me even more than those that don't shoot in raw.

Talking about fetish, I find annoying people who don't use lens hoods.


I shoot AV (+ exposure compensation if needed) 90% of the time on my 5D classic.
Recently, thanks to Auto-ISO on my EOS M, I started to shoot mainly in Manual mode (just because the shutter speed calculated by AV is generally too slow, and because Neuroanatomist suggested so).

 

[LewisShermer]

While I dont think the OP deserves a reply, i will still give one, because like the Raw issue there are a lot photogs who go round misconception that because they insist on shooting raw or fully manual makes them stand out. This is more of a bigoted question rather than one about photography. Photography is not about equipment and settings. But I will respond from the equipment position. I have been in many situations where I have lost the shot due to adjusting the camera. So unless you are in control of the situation - like still life or shooting a model, you want the quickest most convenient set up for each scenario. Personally I only work in manual when i am in control of the lighting. In general I would use AV during the day when the light is good and use TV when the lighting is suppressed. Other than that I would use specific settings beyond that when there is the need for a specific shot - for example depth of field and to show a certain amount of motion or long exposure etc. To believe that you always need to be in manual OR even get annoyed when others do it is truly something else NOT Photography - possibly one that requires psychiatric intervention.

BTW - did you manually apply that 'instagram look' that many of your photos on your website have one by one shot by shot - or did you create a filter and just apply them 'automatically'?

Not only did you give me a reply that I did not deserve, you also gave me your opinion on my character, your life story, your shooting technique, a sleight on my mental disposition and a critique (rather negatively) on my photography and processing skills. I'd like to first of all thank you for your unsolicited advice on the aforementioned but just to clarify, that 'instagram look' is achieved by using curves to mimic the cross processing technique popularised in the 70's fashion world. It's quite a nice look I personally feel as images straight from a digital camera, especially the colours, seem to lack a certain romance. I just try and put the romance back into it

You seem to have taken my light hearted banter a little personally. If you point me in the direction of your online work I can also judge accordingly and give you appropriate feedback?

 

[rs]

Talking about fetish, I find annoying people who don't use lens hoods.

I find it amusing when people shoot with the lens hood reversed on the lens. Is it just me, or are they mostly Nikon shooters? :

 

[BoneDoc]

While I dont think the OP deserves a reply, i will still give one, because like the Raw issue there are a lot photogs who go round misconception that because they insist on shooting raw or fully manual makes them stand out. This is more of a bigoted question rather than one about photography. Photography is not about equipment and settings. But I will respond from the equipment position. I have been in many situations where I have lost the shot due to adjusting the camera. So unless you are in control of the situation - like still life or shooting a model, you want the quickest most convenient set up for each scenario. Personally I only work in manual when i am in control of the lighting. In general I would use AV during the day when the light is good and use TV when the lighting is suppressed. Other than that I would use specific settings beyond that when there is the need for a specific shot - for example depth of field and to show a certain amount of motion or long exposure etc. To believe that you always need to be in manual OR even get annoyed when others do it is truly something else NOT Photography - possibly one that requires psychiatric intervention.

BTW - did you manually apply that 'instagram look' that many of your photos on your website have one by one shot by shot - or did you create a filter and just apply them 'automatically'?

Not only did you give me a reply that I did not deserve, you also gave me your opinion on my character, your life story, your shooting technique, a sleight on my mental disposition and a critique (rather negatively) on my photography and processing skills. I'd like to first of all thank you for your unsolicited advice on the aforementioned but just to clarify, that 'instagram look' is achieved by using curves to mimic the cross processing technique popularised in the 70's fashion world. It's quite a nice look I personally feel as images straight from a digital camera, especially the colours, seem to lack a certain romance. I just try and put the romance back into it

You seem to have taken my light hearted banter a little personally. If you point me in the direction of your online work I can also judge accordingly and give you appropriate feedback?

lol... can we all just hug and get along ?

 

[tpatana]

Lol, that's interesting thing to get mad about.

On my XTi, I used 95% Av.

On my 7D, I used 50/50 Av and M

On my 5D3, I use 90% M (with Auto-ISO), but there's situations when Av is much better. Usually in bright but changing conditions, I set F and ISO on Av, and let the camera deal with shutter speed, e.g. F2.8/ISO100 and then shutter speed around 1/400....1/4000, depending on the shot.

If OP can't do that, it's his loss. Many times you can't freeze the moment to dial in proper exposure, so it's MUCH better to get the shot with the exposure the camera feels good, instead of dialing in the correct exposure and miss the shot.

 

[thepancakeman]

I guess I'm just going to have to annoy you then, unless someone can enlighten me how to manually shoot cyclists traveling at 30+ mph (50+ kph for you non-yanks) going both directions on opposite sides of the street (it's an out-and-back time trial, for you cycling fans) under shifting cloud conditions and alternating shadows with a very near 100% hit rate. ???

 

[RAKAMRAK]

It annoys me immensely when people keep on wasting time on useless forum posts instead of actually taking photographs.... Now I am annoying myself.....

 

[Famateur]

I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .

Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>


For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.

You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...

I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....

LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....

I'm going to have to agree with BoneDoc on this one. When it comes to "high end" sports cars (Ferrari, Aston Martin, et cetera), a good double-clutch auto will usually smoke a manual shift for pure speed. Add the flappy paddles, and you can still choose when the shifting takes place, if you prefer. Along with the fancy gearboxes, there's less and less steel to waste on modern performance cars. Lots of aluminium (aluminum for this yankee), magnesium, carbon fiber...

Of course, I'll probably never own such a machine. That said, I personally prefer a manual transmission. I enjoy feeling more involved in the driving experience and appreciate the extra control on icy winter roads here in Utah. As with camera gear, to each his own.

I do find it funny when someone says one thing is "better" than another, and then moments later acknowledge that they've never owned the other. Perhaps if your next two-seater is a Ferrari 458 Italia, you might decide you like the double-clutch.

 

[Rocky]

I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .

.

Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>


For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.

You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...

I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....

LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....

OMGzzzz!!1!!one!1!!!!!! I'd never even drive an automatic! I am British though, and those things are quite rare here. Why would you let the car decide what gear you need to be in?

I'm possibly the only person that will survive when the robots take over, it appears.

You can always select your gear manually on the automatic transmission

 

[jasonsim]

There is a reason "P" stands for professional. Haven't you ever heard of "f8 and be there?"

Get over it.

why use f8 when f1.4 is available?

This thread is a bit unnerving as some folks seem to think that their way of shooting is the only - best - proper way. Sometimes there is a need to use full manual mode. Other times, I want to have shutter be the priority, especially when shooting birds in flight, where the light on the bird might change as I track it. This is where using DSLR as a tool allows me to concentrate on framing, position of the bird etc.

I am never in fully Auto, but use Av, Tv, and M regularly. Not sure why this would eat away at you that everyone, at varying levels of expertise, would use modes other than M (manual).

BTW, sometimes I have a 35mm f/1.4 on my body and need to get more depth of field for say a group shot. So, stopping the aperture down to f/4, 5.6 or 8, might be appropriate.

 

[Famateur]

For those who have been shooting manually for eons, it might not occur to you that, in addition to the speed and convenience for some situations already covered in this thread, the Av/Tv/P modes serve as baby-steps for beginners who are intimidated by everything they have to juggle: composition, timing, lighting, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, et cetera.

While I shoot mostly manually now, I remember how alien all of these things seemed, and it was overwhelming at the time. Perhaps I'm just a slow learner, but it took a while before I was comfortable knowing immediately how each factor affects the captured image -- at least fast enough to use them effectively in the moment. As long as these "semi-auto" modes don't become a crutch that holds a photographer back, I think they're an excellent way of eating the exposure elephant one bite at a time -- in addition to legitimately useful application by "pros", of course.

Shoot what you have, how you want to, and enjoy the photographs you make. Or don't -- it's none of my beeswax anyway...

 

[schill]

...annoy me even more than those that don't shoot in raw.

What is it that folk find so difficult about choosing an appropriate shutter speed, the DOF they desire and then selecting the necessary ISO?

Obviously you then make off's where necessary...

I actually tried Tv & Av once, what a palava. settings all over the place, complete lack of control of anything. I have a friend that only shoots in fully auto (a Nikon user) and to look at his exif data is painful... he is a beginner and his composure nor his focussing is spot on yet but he refuses to learn even the simplest things about taking control of his own photography and not letting a daft camera take control.

The only non-manual thing I'll accept is the EX580's ETTL and that's only because it's a right bastard to operate.

so yeah, sell me the other options I've got to work with...

You seem to have taken my light hearted banter a little personally. If you point me in the direction of your online work I can also judge accordingly and give you appropriate feedback?

While I would never take a thread like this seriously, there really isn't anything in your first post that implies you are being light-hearted. It's actually pretty antagonistic. You basically insulted a lot of people (telling them they don't know what they are doing) and then demanded that they prove themselves to you.

Reminds me of an ongoing thread right now over on dpreview where the op wants to know why everyone doesn't use an 18-200 superzoom and insists that changing lenses is not a good idea. His replies mostly state that he is talking about "for him" but the original post did not and he keeps defending his position by saying too many people use multiple lenses when they should stick to a superzoom.

Both threads are mildly entertaining, but pretty useless. I don't expect either op really thought they were useful (at least I hope not).

As far as cars go, I'll stick to my automatic. I'm just not that into driving - the car just gets me from one place to the other. Cameras are a lot more interesting.

 

[tpatana]

traveling at 30+ mph (50+ kph for you non-yanks)

A: Most non-yanks know the conversion, although I also tend to include both units to help the readers.

B: The correct would have been km/h, not kph. Just saying.

 

[Wilmark]

just to clarify, that 'instagram look' is achieved by using curves to mimic the cross processing technique popularised in the 70's fashion world. It's quite a nice look I personally feel as images straight from a digital camera, especially the colours...

 

[thepancakeman]

traveling at 30+ mph (50+ kph for you non-yanks)

A: Most non-yanks know the conversion, although I also tend to include both units to help the readers.

B: The correct would have been km/h, not kph. Just saying.

A: Well, that's just because y'all are more globally intelligent. I continue to remain baffled at the American (or is it "United Statesian" since everyone across 2 continents are "American") inability to grasp killermeters.

B: Well, yeah, if you want to be SI compliant, but kph was first (per the source of all truth, wiki): ;D

1889: "k. p. h."
1895: "km:h"
1898: "km/h"
1899: "km./hr."
1911: "K.P.H."
1914 "km. hr."
1915: "km/hour"
1915: "km.-hr."
1916: "km. per hour"
1933: "KPH"

 

[LewisShermer]

...annoy me even more than those that don't shoot in raw.

What is it that folk find so difficult about choosing an appropriate shutter speed, the DOF they desire and then selecting the necessary ISO?

Obviously you then make off's where necessary...

I actually tried Tv & Av once, what a palava. settings all over the place, complete lack of control of anything. I have a friend that only shoots in fully auto (a Nikon user) and to look at his exif data is painful... he is a beginner and his composure nor his focussing is spot on yet but he refuses to learn even the simplest things about taking control of his own photography and not letting a daft camera take control.

The only non-manual thing I'll accept is the EX580's ETTL and that's only because it's a right bastard to operate.

so yeah, sell me the other options I've got to work with...

You seem to have taken my light hearted banter a little personally. If you point me in the direction of your online work I can also judge accordingly and give you appropriate feedback?

While I would never take a thread like this seriously, there really isn't anything in your first post that implies you are being light-hearted. It's actually pretty antagonistic. You basically insulted a lot of people (telling them they don't know what they are doing) and then demanded that they prove themselves to you.

Reminds me of an ongoing thread right now over on dpreview where the op wants to know why everyone doesn't use an 18-200 superzoom and insists that changing lenses is not a good idea. His replies mostly state that he is talking about "for him" but the original post did not and he keeps defending his position by saying too many people use multiple lenses when they should stick to a superzoom.

Both threads are mildly entertaining, but pretty useless. I don't expect either op really thought they were useful (at least I hope not).

As far as cars go, I'll stick to my automatic. I'm just not that into driving - the car just gets me from one place to the other. Cameras are a lot more interesting.

It was that last line in my original post that I thought made light of it... I do shoot mostly (99.9999%) on manual (not manual focus) but my initial wish was that people would say that they shoot a particular way and what the advantages are to that. I know a lot of people like to keep their settings & post production secret but I thought we could discuss it anyway. It certainly appears that I have people's attention. Throw out a wild statement in your opening bit of bravado, then you have your audience...

What we have learnt thus far is that for moving objects in varying out door light Tv is favoured. When situations appear to be constant and bright, Manual is favoured. When certain conditions are required, where a certain Dof and shutter speed are desired then Auto-ISO is the favourite.

There are almost infinite ways of photographing the same scene, personally of late I've exposed for the subject/people of the scene and blown out most of the background as the 5Diii allows this due to the high ISO capabilities. This is something I never would have done with my 7D, maximum 1600iso and then a bounced or non-direct fill-in flash would light the subject. sometimes I'd even have a low ISO, a long-ish shutter speed and direct flash so I'd get points of light and only slight ambient that would cast a colour as if it were floating over a scene. (that technique is particularly good for bands in really small pub type venues).

So my intention was not to insult those incapable ( ) of using manual, nor do I think it's something to show off about (it's something that is now very much second nature to me) I simply wanted to read little anecdotes of what folks prefer and why... hence the "sell me the other options I've got to work with..."

Also, I don't think in any one of my comments, I've insulted anyone... even the Americans

 

[bholliman]

Seems strange to be annoyed at how other people like to shoot.

Anyhow, I usually shoot Av but have been wanting to go M for consistency and control. What is your procedure? Use the built in meter, by eye, or other?

+1

I shoot AV 70% of the time, M maybe 25% and TV 5%. When shooting AV I manually set ISO and am continually watching my shutter speed to make sure it's in the range I want it to be. I use M in low or challenging light conditions and always for flash.

I learned photography on fully manual film cameras, so understand very well how to shoot in M. But AV and TV give me nearly the same level of control and are faster and easier to use, so why not?

 

[KyleSTL]

I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .

Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>


For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.

You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...

I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....

LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....

OMGzzzz!!1!!one!1!!!!!! I'd never even drive an automatic! I am British though, and those things are quite rare here. Why would you let the car decide what gear you need to be in?

I'm possibly the only person that will survive when the robots take over, it appears.

While I agree manuals are desirably for multiple reasons I have to correct an agregious error in cayenne's comment. He is comparing manual to the classic automatic transmission and he is absolutely correct that a synchromesh manual is faster than a 'normal' automatic, however, the original comment was comparing a manual transmission to a dual-clutch auto (similar to transmissions found in almost all forms of high-performance racing nowadays). Even the 'consumer grade' DCATs are faster than their manual contemporaries. Look up almost any modern performance car and the 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, etc will be better with the DCATs, examples:

Porsche 911 Carerra S -
Manual - 4.3 sec (0-60 mph)
PDK - 4.1 sec (0-60 mph)

Ferrari F430 (2005) -
Manual - 21.65 sec (1000 meters)
'F1' Gearbox - 21.60 sec (1000 meters)

Sorry, it's a little hard to come up with cars nowadays that offer both options for a single model, most companies are either going all DCAT (Ferrari, Lambo) or staying with only Manual for each model. Now if we are comparing modern 'normal' automatics to non-synchromesh transmissions I would bet on the new autos, all other things being equal.

 

[JPAZ]

1889: "k. p. h."
1895: "km:h"
1898: "km/h"
1899: "km./hr."
1911: "K.P.H."
1914 "km. hr."
1915: "km/hour"
1915: "km.-hr."
1916: "km. per hour"
1933: "KPH"

And all along, I learned it was "klicks" and not KPH or anything like that. So what about knots (for the nautically inclined)?

As someone who once used an Argus rangefinder with manual everything, I don't know what the big deal is. Yes, with full manual one can achieve an infinite range of combinations to get a photo they want, but using Tv or Av or (heaven forbid) P / Auto has its place. What matters is taking a good photograph and not so much how one achieves that output.