Automatic or manual (Page 7): I think a lot of us “older guys and gals” are in the same boat. Although my first SLR in 1967 had a TTL light meter, the rest of the camera was all...

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

rgmichel wrote:

I am one of those people that grew up with a light... (show quote)

I think a lot of us “older guys and gals” are in the same boat. Although my first SLR in 1967 had a TTL light meter, the rest of the camera was all manual, so I’m not uncomfortable with manual, either. Knowing how to have total control over the camera and have an image turn out well is a joy. I will admit, though, that using one of the semi-auto modes, mostly aperture priority, is mighty convenient at times, and I do appreciate auto focusing.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rgmichel wrote:

I am one of those people that grew up with a light meter and a manual camera, so I am uncomfortable with anything but manual.

My first adjustable camera, a Yashica rangefinder camera, had a lightmeter built in, but I had to transfer readings from the meter to the camera; my next camera, a Canon rangefinder, had the camera directly linked to the meter. I have cheered every step of automation since then. I need to be manager of the camera, but I have no need to manipulate it myself.

rgmichel Loc: Connecticut

Auto-focus and auto-focus tracking are different animals from auto-exposure. Even though I use manual exposure in conjunction with auto-iso, I depend on auto-focus a lot, because I am rarely in situations where I have the time for manual focus. Auto-focus tracking has really improved in recent times, and is great for moving subjects, whether people or wildlife.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rgmichel wrote:

Auto-focus and auto-focus tracking are different animals from auto-exposure. Even though I use manual exposure in conjunction with auto-iso, I depend on auto-focus a lot, because I am rarely in situations where I have the time for manual focus. Auto-focus tracking has really improved in recent times, and is great for moving subjects, whether people or wildlife.

Conceptually the same, though, because each is doing something I could do, but does it faster, allowing me to adjust to changing circumstances faster and focus my mind on perspective, framing, and timing, rather than on mechanics that can be automated

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I think the auto feature I appreciate most is auto focus. I remember, with all my manual cameras, my wife frequently complaining to “hurry up and take the picture,” while I was trying to get the focus just right before taking that shot. I was very happy (or she was) when auto focus came along.

JPL

linkadv5 wrote:

I am a novice apprentice, I can set my nikon 3200 to automatic and it shoots wonderful pictures, so I have to ask, can I improve the picture taking by leaning all the manual procedures that I read about on this forum. Are folks just trying to learn the capabilities of the manual setting, or is there a real advantage to shooting pictures by using manual procedures.

It is much easier to learn all the manual procedures than to learn all the automatic procedures. Everyone who can learn to use the automatic features and settings on his camera can easily learn the manual settings. If it will make your photographs better or not is another story. It is 100% up to you and how talented and dedicated you are in your work.

BebuLamar

JPL wrote:

It is much easier to learn all the manual procedures than to learn all the automatic procedures. Everyone who can learn to use the automatic features and settings on his camera can easily learn the manual settings. If it will make your photographs better or not is another story. It is 100% up to you and how talented and dedicated you are in your work.

It's easier to learn the manual procedures than to learn all the automatic procedures but I have seen so many who have only used the automatic procedures having a hard time learning how to do it manually. People who started with manual don't have problem learning the automatic procedures.

JPL

BebuLamar wrote:

It's easier to learn the manual procedures than to learn all the automatic procedures but I have seen so many who have only used the automatic procedures having a hard time learning how to do it manually. People who started with manual don't have problem learning the automatic procedures.

Yes, I know. The real problem arises when people start at the wrong end.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

rgmichel wrote:

I am one of those people that grew up with a light... (show quote)

Well said

BebuLamar

JPL wrote:

Yes, I know. The real problem arises when people start at the wrong end.

And that is the primary reason why I recommend beginner to start with manual although it doesn't deliver any better pictures. It just make the process or learning much faster and easier.

rgmichel Loc: Connecticut

Thanks BebuLamar. Now, I know why I don't use the automatic modes; I already knew about the manual modes and the automatic modes were too difficult to learn. I have avoided them for years. Plus the little symbols on each automatic mode on the camera are inscrutable. Maybe if I switched to automatic modes I would have better pictures..... ;-)

BebuLamar

rgmichel wrote:

Thanks BebuLamar. Now, I know why I don't use the automatic modes; I already knew about the manual modes and the automatic modes were too difficult to learn. I have avoided them for years. Plus the little symbols on each automatic mode on the camera are inscrutable. Maybe if I switched to automatic modes I would have better pictures..... ;-)

I use automatic ( mainly A mode, never P or even S and of course not the green A) when I know I would manually set my camera in similar fashion to that the camera automatically does. When I use automatic mode I know exactly which settings it would set the camera in which condition. If I don't know that I wouldn't use it.

rgmichel Loc: Connecticut

BebuLamar: I guess I follow, but why bother if you can do it manually? Is this just a convenience: "I don't want to think of it right now" type of thing? To me manually coming to my exposure, especially with auto-iso, is easy. Its the focusing that is a challenge in demanding high speed situations combined with small depth-of-field for example. Try following a hummingbird. Exposure is no problem, but stopping it in its tracks is the hard bit, for me anyway.

BebuLamar

rgmichel wrote:

BebuLamar: I guess I follow, but why bother if you can do it manually? Is this just a convenience: "I don't want to think of it right now" type of thing? To me manually coming to my exposure, especially with auto-iso, is easy. Its the focusing that is a challenge in demanding high speed situations combined with small depth-of-field for example. Try following a hummingbird. Exposure is no problem, but stopping it in its tracks is the hard bit, for me anyway.

You're right as the exposure actually doesn't need to change as much as the meter makes us to believe. A lot of times the meter indicates different exposure only because either the background or subject changes color but the exposure actually is best to keep it the same.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Wingpilot wrote:

I think the auto feature I appreciate most is auto focus. I remember, with all my manual cameras, my wife frequently complaining to “hurry up and take the picture,” while I was trying to get the focus just right before taking that shot. I was very happy (or she was) when auto focus came along.

My wife never complained about my manual focusing, which never took more than seconds. About my composing, which could take many minutes, on the other hand ....