Chuck, I've just remembered what I meant with that comment.
Most lenses on cameras these days don't have apertures as wide as 1.8 or 2.2.
Those who do, I was thinking, have paid a lot of money for their kit and would
surely know better?
Chris
On 12 Aug 2010, at 12:22, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think that's always true. I've known many people
> who own/owned SLRs who never got the camera off program or whatever auto
> mode the camera provided because they didn't have a clue about apertures
> or shutter speeds or ISO ratings for that matter. And they remain
> clueless because they have no desire to learn. My son, my daughter and
> several close friends all fit the description. They can't be bothered
> to read the manual or even ask for help even though they know I'd be
> happy to teach them. Just push the button is good enough.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>> For example, the author makes the point that the best pictures have
>> a very shallow depth of field with the explanation "meaning that the
>> subject is in crisp focus while the rest of the picture is blurry".
>> They go on then to explain what large aperture means with ƒ numbers
>> like 1.8 or 2.2. Surely someone with a camera that could set such
>> wide apertures would be fully aware of the term and of the effect.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|