As a long time photographer I have rarely used the autofocus on my DSLRs, preferring to manually focus my lenses. None of my film cameras have ever had autofocus. Early autofocus seemed like a solution in search of a problem to me since it worked best in bright light when focusing manually was easy and fell down in low light when it could have been useful. Things have improved in that regard, but old habits die hard. All of my commercial work happens in a studio with flash, so auto exposure isn't something I use either--my trusty Sekonic L 718 tells me what the exposure will be since none of my cameras will communicate with my White Lightning X series strobes. If I shot sports for a living I'm sure I would feel differently.
As for the equipment treadmill, my newest digital camera came out in 2016. It makes great images and I see no reason to upgrade. I learned long ago that equipment has to be good enough and feel right in the hands, and that newer isn't always better. The newest film camera that I regularly use is a Nikon SP that came out in 1957. Film is basically a hobby at this point, and I enjoy using the older rangefinder cameras and lenses that I have collected over the last 12 years.
While I agree with your perspective on unnecessary bells and whistles, I disagree with your dismissal of autofocus as unnecessary. Having your subject or point of interest in sharp focus is essential to making a meaningful photo, and I'm glad my camera *usually* takes care of this aspect with no problem and allows me to "focus" on other elements such as light, composition, and mood. I bought one of Minolta's early autofocus film cameras back in the 90s and it instantly improved the quality of my photos, especially when I started enlarging and selling them.
I tend to state things with more than a bit of hyperbole. Sure AF is fine but I've found with MOST subject matter I personally tend to approach it the wrong way around with AF cameras if I use AF to "chase the picture" rather than anticipating the picture that I really want to see, hence my use of "preparedness". I guess growing up with manual focus I developed a way to get in-focus pictures very reliably and AF didn't do much to help with that with anything but very long lenses. (which I tend not to use much)
addendum: Don't get me wrong: I embrace digital tech. Long gone is the need to pack Kodachrome or Fujichrome along with a dozen rolls of Ektachrome and Hi speed Ektachrome or for that matter a few rolls of Tri-X, simply with Kodachrome the two finest film stock ever made...but now, with the advanced low light sensors on many digital cameras, one nearly dials in a new ISO. And I am happy to no longer breathe in fixer and dektol in a wet darkroom, no matter how good the ventilation may be....so yeah...i'm good, but the camera designers still should understand that manual vs auto focus levers ought to be free of accidental toggling, (yeah yeah..i do use tape to ensure they stay in place)...but it took time for Canon to keep "indent" stops on the main control dials...Maybe the camera designers have only known studio photography? never been in hostile, fast moving photo assignments, with vests, pfds, radio cords and cables: all designed to snag on a camera's controls. Just saying.
Beginning with Nikon F cameras, that were indestructible, nearly, worked in the rain, could withstand a bit of impact damage, that's normal as a working photojournalist, were tanks...Then I switched eventually to Canon as I was doing more aerial work, taping cameras to the underside of balloons, gliders (Sailplanes) and more...sadly Nikon did NOT have shutter priority. Canon did. But Canon manual focus was the entire different rotating direction than 10 years of eye hand motor auto muscular thinking. I never regained the immediate eye hand motor swiftness I learned on NIKON. I was always less efficient due to ingrained focus memory. However, the Canon F1 bodies were again, like Nikon real tanks. With few bells and whistles and simply worked. As Canon developed auto focus that solved my eye hand motor problem..to some extent but the new Canon gear now had far more bells & whistles than necessary in my view. Today, I am working with Canon's mirrorless gear, weaning away from my trusted Canon 5DSr bodies...notably the mirrorless bodies and lenses are indeed sharper, but the learning curve to using the mirrorless bodies is vexing to say the least. All the bells & whistles are unnecessary unless one finds them necessary. It should be more intuitive. It ain't.
I still use my two 5Ds and 5DsR's the most. Great cameras. I even use manual focus a lot with those cameras. I think they are among the pinnacles of DSLR's.
Thanks for pointing me to the Raying Photo Exhibit as it's in my area. I will plan on going up the Gaithersburg to see it.
While you are right that there was a world before auto focus, I'm more than happy with advances in digital cameras. I've progressed through a number of different Nikon digital bodies until I arrived at the Z6. Once you realize that you don't need 90% of the bells and whistles that Nikon engineers have put on the camera, things become simplified. I have found the auto focus on this model far better which is good for one with aging eyesight😉. Those of us brought up in the pre-digital days probably take more time to compose and get exposure right. There is always the inclination to be sloppy, figuring out that you can fix things in Lightroom!
As a long time photographer I have rarely used the autofocus on my DSLRs, preferring to manually focus my lenses. None of my film cameras have ever had autofocus. Early autofocus seemed like a solution in search of a problem to me since it worked best in bright light when focusing manually was easy and fell down in low light when it could have been useful. Things have improved in that regard, but old habits die hard. All of my commercial work happens in a studio with flash, so auto exposure isn't something I use either--my trusty Sekonic L 718 tells me what the exposure will be since none of my cameras will communicate with my White Lightning X series strobes. If I shot sports for a living I'm sure I would feel differently.
As for the equipment treadmill, my newest digital camera came out in 2016. It makes great images and I see no reason to upgrade. I learned long ago that equipment has to be good enough and feel right in the hands, and that newer isn't always better. The newest film camera that I regularly use is a Nikon SP that came out in 1957. Film is basically a hobby at this point, and I enjoy using the older rangefinder cameras and lenses that I have collected over the last 12 years.
While I agree with your perspective on unnecessary bells and whistles, I disagree with your dismissal of autofocus as unnecessary. Having your subject or point of interest in sharp focus is essential to making a meaningful photo, and I'm glad my camera *usually* takes care of this aspect with no problem and allows me to "focus" on other elements such as light, composition, and mood. I bought one of Minolta's early autofocus film cameras back in the 90s and it instantly improved the quality of my photos, especially when I started enlarging and selling them.
I tend to state things with more than a bit of hyperbole. Sure AF is fine but I've found with MOST subject matter I personally tend to approach it the wrong way around with AF cameras if I use AF to "chase the picture" rather than anticipating the picture that I really want to see, hence my use of "preparedness". I guess growing up with manual focus I developed a way to get in-focus pictures very reliably and AF didn't do much to help with that with anything but very long lenses. (which I tend not to use much)
addendum: Don't get me wrong: I embrace digital tech. Long gone is the need to pack Kodachrome or Fujichrome along with a dozen rolls of Ektachrome and Hi speed Ektachrome or for that matter a few rolls of Tri-X, simply with Kodachrome the two finest film stock ever made...but now, with the advanced low light sensors on many digital cameras, one nearly dials in a new ISO. And I am happy to no longer breathe in fixer and dektol in a wet darkroom, no matter how good the ventilation may be....so yeah...i'm good, but the camera designers still should understand that manual vs auto focus levers ought to be free of accidental toggling, (yeah yeah..i do use tape to ensure they stay in place)...but it took time for Canon to keep "indent" stops on the main control dials...Maybe the camera designers have only known studio photography? never been in hostile, fast moving photo assignments, with vests, pfds, radio cords and cables: all designed to snag on a camera's controls. Just saying.
Beginning with Nikon F cameras, that were indestructible, nearly, worked in the rain, could withstand a bit of impact damage, that's normal as a working photojournalist, were tanks...Then I switched eventually to Canon as I was doing more aerial work, taping cameras to the underside of balloons, gliders (Sailplanes) and more...sadly Nikon did NOT have shutter priority. Canon did. But Canon manual focus was the entire different rotating direction than 10 years of eye hand motor auto muscular thinking. I never regained the immediate eye hand motor swiftness I learned on NIKON. I was always less efficient due to ingrained focus memory. However, the Canon F1 bodies were again, like Nikon real tanks. With few bells and whistles and simply worked. As Canon developed auto focus that solved my eye hand motor problem..to some extent but the new Canon gear now had far more bells & whistles than necessary in my view. Today, I am working with Canon's mirrorless gear, weaning away from my trusted Canon 5DSr bodies...notably the mirrorless bodies and lenses are indeed sharper, but the learning curve to using the mirrorless bodies is vexing to say the least. All the bells & whistles are unnecessary unless one finds them necessary. It should be more intuitive. It ain't.
This might amuse you...
https://camera.fashion/p/ode-to-the-canon-5d-series
I still use my two 5Ds and 5DsR's the most. Great cameras. I even use manual focus a lot with those cameras. I think they are among the pinnacles of DSLR's.
Thanks for pointing me to the Raying Photo Exhibit as it's in my area. I will plan on going up the Gaithersburg to see it.
While you are right that there was a world before auto focus, I'm more than happy with advances in digital cameras. I've progressed through a number of different Nikon digital bodies until I arrived at the Z6. Once you realize that you don't need 90% of the bells and whistles that Nikon engineers have put on the camera, things become simplified. I have found the auto focus on this model far better which is good for one with aging eyesight😉. Those of us brought up in the pre-digital days probably take more time to compose and get exposure right. There is always the inclination to be sloppy, figuring out that you can fix things in Lightroom!
Let us know if you get a chance to see the exhibit. Les was there during the opening.