Winsor wrote:
>I was thinking of the big ads by retailers that feature new "student
>cameras" which the student buys for him/herself for the schools
>which do not supply the equipment which is more typical in the US.
OK, fair enough.
>It just seemed a bit pointless to teach to a manual camera when it is
>unlikely that the student will want to use an manual camera for his
>personal use afterwards thinking like some of us that they are too
>expensive( Leica, Contax, Olympus) or old designs with no current
>ongoing development(OM, Pentax, Yashica).
If a student enrols on a photography course it's fair to assume they want to
learn about photography. That means nuts and bolts. Using an AF wonderbrick
in program mode well not help you at all. Michael Johnston (late of PT
magazine) argued recently for the use of 6x6 TLRs for photography students.
Now there's a formula that has had no development since the 1950s. That lack
of development doesn't make them any less useful tools for a photographer
though, just like our "old fashioned" manual SLRs. And what about large format?
>like having a course in word processing taught on a typewriter.
I respectfully disagree, I don't think it's a suitable analogy. Using a
manual camera requires that the operator makes decisions, rather than let
the camera do it for them. Automation of exposure and focussing can get
results, but it's a gamble.
Simon E.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|