From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon N90 technobabble
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:12:42 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep4.142654.28132@research.nj.nec.com> markl@research.nj.nec.com (Mark Lee) writes:
>
		<stuff deleted>
>
>So is it just me, or do other feel that the zillion-plus-one whiz-bang
>high tech features being packed into cameras like the Nikon N90 or the
>Minolta xi series to be more distracting and intimidating than useful?
>
	I tend to agree with this, much of what the Minolta 'xi' does
    is of no interest to me. I have one zoom lens, a Tokina AT-X
    28-70, and I am in no hurry to change it for a xi lens. I am not
    interested in auto zoom, or 1/12000 top shutter speed. I don't
    think the remote TTL gains me anything either, as to use it I can
    just as well set up flash slaves and use my existing units. I
    will stay with my 8000i's, since the 9xi won't TTL my Sunpak 622
    (sigh).
>
>(and I make a living out of high tech electronic stuff).  Does this
>stuff really lead to better photos?
>
	Better photos? No. I am often amused by the number of people
    that see me looking at an area, with all of my equipment, and
    then take a snap of the area that I am looking at. I would imagine
    that they are disappointed when the prints come back :-)

	Anyway, the point here is that better photos aren't produced
    by better electronics (Minoltas "auto composition" feature aside)
    You still have to know f/stops, shutter speeds and their effects
    to produce a photo. Do the electronics make a better exposed,
    focused snap? Most likely. Is that what people are looking for?
    I assume that the camera companies think so (still trying to convince
    John Q. Public that ANYBODY can make pictures like ____________).
		  fill in your favorite photographer   ^^^^^^^^^^^^

	However, AF does help in some cases, but to be fair I would
    think that AF has helped me as much as it has interfered. Just for
    the record, I also use a Minolta Auto Meter III-F, rather than the
    camera meter. It does make me warm and fuzzy when the meter and the
    camera agree (while looking at a "neutral" scene) but I still 
    prefer to use the meter. I got tired of subjects improperly exposed
    because of the fore/background skewed the meter reading...
>
>				     I imagine that in the time it takes
>to read the N90's manual, a novice could fully understand f-stops and
>shutter speeds and get a good feeling for the characteristics of a
>simple center-weighted meter and be off taking really good pictures.  Or
>am I just too old-fashioned?
>
	I think you are being unrealistic. The average person buying
    photo equipment doesn't WANT to read ANYTHING. It is much easier 
    to put the film and batteries in, and when the film comes out in
    typical fashion, put the blame on the camera, rather than admit
    they don't know a damn thing about what they are doing. And face 
    it, there are the people that keep the cameras "reasonably" priced
    for us that do know what we are doing.

	How much used equipment have you seen that "was never used",
    or "my _____ didn't want to read the manual", etc? Much of that
    winds up for sale in papers, or traded in for "better" or "simpler"
    equipment (hey, so much the better for us!)



							Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden            bruceb@mpd.tandem.com         Tandem Computers Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.photo