> IMO, focusing scales on contemporary lenses are indeed
> useless.
Call it technological advancement or dumbing of the masses?
I definitely make use of the scales. In fact, that's one main
reason why I prefer using the old Zuikos on the E-1! It's a DOF
thing for me. How else are you supposed to even have a clue
what the DOF of a given aperture and focus distance is supposed
to be? Lookup tables, charts and Palm software? I use those
with large and medium format because a have to--not because I
want to.
The DOF markings started disappearing from lenses during the
auto-focus revolution. As an attempt to cheepen the lenses they
started removing certain features and capabilities. Tell me how
many of your Zuikos have rotating front elements? No way. They
were built so the front element (and filter ring) stayed in a
fixed position. In order to reduce cost several of the
manufacturers changes the focusing helicoids so the entire lens
rotated. Then Canon came out with their ultrasonic lenses and
found that it was impossible to include DOF marks even if they
wanted to. The buying public swallowed up this "advancement"
hook-line-and-sinker. Eventually most manufacturers did fix the
rotating ring situation but there is still a ton of junk being
produced that spins the filters.
Canon did provide a nice DOF workaround on many of their
cameras. The DOF feature allowed you to focus on two points and
then it would automatically calculate hyperfocal for the scene.
I'll hand it to Canon on this, they took a weakness and turned
it into a strength. That feature was a world-class advancement.
However, how many of their DSLRs have this feature in them?
(Same with eye-control focus-point selection). Oh, and what
about the "silent mode" that many of the Canon SLRs had? You
could operate those in any environment and they were as quiet as
any rangefinder. Compare that to the 20D's earthquake which is
like a Bronica firing off in an echo chamber! Just think, Canon
could reintroduce the Pelical mirror in the EOS RC. Now THAT
would be an advancement because it not only would satisfy the
mirror slap issues, but would also completely address dust on
the sensor! BUT WHERE IS IT? Canon must be heavily invested in
the sensor cleaning product industry. You know what? If Canon
came out with a full-frame DSLR with the Pelical mirror, the DoF
feature, and eye-control AF points, I'd be talking to my loan
officer today!
We've taken many steps backwards in this uncontrolled
technological advancement. The loss of the DOF scale is a prime
example. Olympus dropping OTF type exposure/flash control is
another. Nikon finally retiring the rewind knob on their pro
bodies is another. ;)
How about the fact that our viewfinders today absolutely pale in
comparison to the viewfinders of our SLRs? Would you consider
focusing aids to be "useless" too? Hey, we've got autofocus
with 45 points, what do you need split-image or microprism spots
for?
And then my biggest grouse: Who were the IDIOTS that decided to
do away with the metering scales in the viewfinder and give us
digital F-Stop, Aperture readouts instead? Oh, wait. Was that
Canon with the A1? No matter how hard I try, I just can't come
to grips with this. In tricky lighting you've got to READ the
display and interpret what you are reading to what you are
seeing. With a moving needle (or digital scale in the OM-2S,
OM-3x, OM-4x) you can see movement and general relationship
values. You don't even need to look AT the display, you can
just see it moving and also know where it's at. If I see the
needle drop to the bottom I know I've got to add more light. If
it hammers the top I know I'm going to overexpose. As long as
it's somewhere in the middle I'm happy as a clam. Nothing to
read, nothing to interpret. Sometimes I don't have time to READ
a display, I've just got to know where the exposure is at. Light
isn't measured in F-stops/Shutter speeds, but by brightness
values. The old-style scales would tie in a shutter speed with
the brightness values (aperture priority mode). I'm no spring
chicken when it comes to photography, but I still have not clue
what the exposure relationship is between F-7.1 at 1/320 and
F-8.0 at 1/250. With moving scales this is obvious.
Great. We've got instant review with histograms to make sure
that we've got the exposure correct. What is all this about?
Wouldn't you rather have a camera that worked with you a little
better in making sure the exposure was correct before you took
the picture?
Today's cameras are nothing more than Point-and-Shoot with
enough self-intelligence to allow us to not have our own
intelligence. Manual mode? What stinking manual mode? Have
you actually TRIED to use manual mode on today's cameras? Yes
it can be done, but definitely not by feel. For crying out
loud, in the E-1 the dials go in the OPPOSITE direction from the
movement of the exposure meter! Want to increase exposure?
You've got to go against the direction of the meter. Intuitive?
Not on your life. This is the most unforgivable sin that
Olympus has made with the E-1. Totally unacceptable and an
obvious indication that manual exposure was an included
"feature" not an essential design criteria. At least the
exposure compensation "dial" goes in the correct direction.
Count the number of buttons on you camera which exist solely to
override the P&S nature of the camera. It's this stinking PASM
dial that has done it to us. Worthless! Classic example of
marketing over usability. By now we've swallowed the LIE long
enough that we actually believe that it's an advancement and an
improved life. You can't even buy a new camera (except for the
Epson/Cosina rangefinder) that doesn't have PASM anymore.
Advancement is good. I have no problem with advancement of
technology and technique. However, it burns me to see
"advancements" occur through the cheepening of the products.
Plastic cases an advancement? Porofinders an advancement?
Infrared releases an advancement while the cable-release socket
is removed? Tiny viewfinders that can't be focused on is an
advancement? Incompatibilities with older lenses an
advancement? I have an automatic aperture function in my OM
bodies with manual-focus lenses. Not even an $8000 1DsM2 will
do that.
And the removal of the DOF/focusing scale on the lenses is an
advancement?
Not in my world!
AG
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|