Rebel XT Hack?

[smittymike19]

has anyone heard of a proposal to make a hack for the xt. Namely the 3200 iso would be nice. im sure there is room for some other improvements too.

[Rob612]

Hmmmm.... not really convinced about hacks...

[FlyingPete]

I don't think so this time. The 300D was almost the same as the 10D electronically (there are other differences such as frame rat/buffer etc), it just had different firmware to remove some functionality, so it was easy to re-enable the functionality.

The 350 is a different camera from the 20D, heck it even has a different sensor (perhaps that is why Canon did it), so as for ISO3200 and firmware hacks, my money is on you being out of luck. ISO3200 is over rated anyway, there is a reason it is a Custom Function and not standard, it messes with all the colours and is noisy as.

[bauerman]

Not convinced about hacks? Are you kidding me? The 300D hack is worth it for the FEC ALONE - the hack is a no brainer. Mirrir lock up can save lowlight low shutter speed shots.

Nothing wrong with the hack.

[booggerg]

Hmmmm.... not really convinced about hacks...

Rob612 is Canon's customer of choice..

[Hellashot]

has anyone heard of a proposal to make a hack for the xt. Namely the 3200 iso would be nice. im sure there is room for some other improvements too.

From what I've heard and read, probably ISO 3200 is about the only option not put on the XT. The Drebel had a lot of features/options removed from the 10D which had identical hardware. The XT and 20D are different cameras this time.

[tzalman]

If you want 3200 ISO, shoot Raw, underexpose by 1 stop, bump it back up in the Raw converter.
Elie

[Rob612]

Rob612 is Canon's customer of choice..

No, not really. But its a kind of professional attitude. Especially when it comes to software, I always want someone to complain with in case I have problems. If I use the Canon firmware, I can have at them in case of problems. With hacks, who are you going to complain with ?

Its the same reason why I never suggested Linux systems to my customers until some big name started offering professional services on that platform.

[ssim]

If you want everything the 20D has to offer you should buy one. This hack stuff really bugs me, in case you didn't notice.

[robertwgross]

The Drebel had a lot of features/options removed from the 10D which had identical hardware.

This is not true.

The Digital Rebel and the 10D had very similar hardware, but not identical by any means.

This is proven when you compare the hacked Digital Rebel and the 10D. Similar, but not identical, in function.

---Bob Gross---

[bauerman]

If the hack had caused any discernable problems with the 300D - we would hear about it. I don't think that it has. This is the firmware that all-knowing Canon SHOULD have included with the 300D. Good on the person that decided to provide it to us.

I'm not sure why the "hack stuff" would bother anyone - especially someome that does not have a 300D.....I say keep the hacks coming.......

[DocFrankenstein]

What are you gonna hack on the XT? Besides ISO 3200?

[roanjohn]

I'm pretty happy with my XT............it does everything I want it to do...........and I wouldn't wanna use ISO 3200.............or I probably would never use it even if this there.........so there. :-)

About the only thing I would like changed is the pressing of the SET button when changing ISO/WB/metering etc..........I would like that eliminated...........or changed in the status LCD.

OH.........and if they can hack so that the ISO shows in the viewfinder........and the status LCD at all times............

Ok..............

Ro1

[CyberPet]

I'm all for not having to press the Set-button and the ISO showing somewhere in the viewfinder and the status LCD. Other than that.... I'm happy with my little puppy. :)

[FlyingPete]

A hack for the 350D has about as much chance of appearing a one for the 20D, 10D or 1 series!

[FlyingPete]

I'm all for not having to press the Set-button and the ISO showing somewhere in the viewfinder and the status LCD. Other than that.... I'm happy with my little puppy. :)

Yeak the ISO thing is high on many of our wish lists, I believe the fact it isn't shown on the DSLR's is a leagacy of SLR's in general, they only showed the ISO when you loaded the film only.

A Custom Function to have it appear on the LCD (not enough room on the view finder display unless you consider shutter speed not to be important ;) ) would be nice.

After a while you get a feel for wht your ISO is set to by how the meter responds in different lighting.

EDIT: Actually come to think of it you might be able to get the view finder display to do it, use the frame counter instead. It is only a single digit display though. ISO100 to 800 would be easy, just use 1 for 100, 2 for 200 etc, those with ISO3200 could still use an H, not sure what to do with 1600 unless you used a 6, which is a little confusing, you could use H if the camera didn't have 3200. Being digitally minded F for 1600 did cross my mind!

[Rob612]

Yeak the ISO thing is high on many of our wish lists, I believe the fact it isn't shown on the DSLR's is a leagacy of SLR's in general, they only showed the ISO when you loaded the film only.


Relatively young ? I remember when you had set the ASA manually :D

EDIT: and when there was only a needle in the viewfinder. Actually I do remember also older cameras with no metering at all... :D

[FlyingPete]

Relatively young ? I remember when you had set the ASA manually :D

EDIT: and when there was only a needle in the viewfinder. Actually I do remember also older cameras with no metering at all... :D

Yep done that too with my old OM-1, I don't go back to no metering though, ans it was ASA back then too :D

I had to appeal to the wider audience with the DX coded automatic setting of ISO ;)

[Rob612]

I had to appeal to the wider audience with the DX coded automatic setting of ISO ;)

:D :D :D :D :D

[KurtKuhn]

I'm all for not having to press the Set-button and the ISO showing somewhere in the viewfinder and the status LCD. Other than that.... I'm happy with my little puppy. :)

Ditto. Been burned a couple of times by not pressing the set button. Otherwise, I'm good to go.

-KK

[bauerman]

So from what I am reading - you have to press the SET button to 'confirm' any change to WB, ISO or metering mode on the XT? Yeah - is that is the case - I would not dig that either. Glad the 300D is not the same..........

[DxHatchback]

i just use the 10d firmware in my 300d

3200 iso and mirror lock ;)

[rssfhs]

I'm all for not having to press the Set-button and the ISO showing somewhere in the viewfinder and the status LCD. Other than that.... I'm happy with my little puppy. :)

I hear that! I just got back from a morning shoot, got some great landscape shots (I thought), started my slide show and realized that I had left my ISO on 1600 from the previous night. Needless to say, all of those "great shots" ended up in the trash bin. :-(

[CyberPet]

rssfhs, yeah I know that feeling! Have you tried Noise Ninja or Neat Image? I find NN does a great job with the 350D/XT's 1600 ISO images. Was forced to use my kit-lens for a while and it was fairly dark and with NN I actually got a few really good shots after all.

[FlyingPete]

rssfhs, yeah I know that feeling! Have you tried Noise Ninja or Neat Image? I find NN does a great job with the 350D/XT's 1600 ISO images.

I second that, great savers for high ISO images on all digicams, been using NeatImage since my G3 to make ISO400 actually usable!

ISO3200 pushes it a bit though, it is hard to denoise an image and retain its sharpness without using edge masks, which can become time consuming.

[critofur]

If you want everything the 20D has to offer you should buy one. This hack stuff really bugs me, in case you didn't notice.

What a swell idea, I'd love to, when can I expect a check in the mail from you so that I can afford to do that? Thank you.

[tsaraleksi]

I wish there was a hack between the 20D and 30D-- everything I've seen indicates that they are nearly identical technically, and the majority of the improvments they made were software based (like the deeper buffer). Clearly there's not one forthcoming, so oh well.

[gjl711]

Guys, this argument dies out nearly 2 years ago. The OP hasn't even posted in 6 months. Let's let this one go back to sleep. ;)

[critofur]

I heard some Internet noise about people working on XT hacks, but no solid news yet.

I would really appreciate these features, which I believe could certainly be implemented by firmware:

Spot metering.
3200 ISO.
Some kind of "auto ISO" mode, or does the XT have that?
I was confused when I couldn't find such a mode, odd that it
wouldn't have it?
Things like focusing speed, and the number of focus points, are those controlled by firmware perhaps? I mean, if it's got the same Digic chip, maybe it can do more and it's just "dumbed down" for marketing reasons.

What if the camera was actually capable of more shots per second, but they set it slower?

Who knows what all could be improved via firmware? I'm all for: overclocking, enabling disabled hardware, tweaks, mods, flashing with a better BIOS, etc. I remember when the 1 day Bausch & Lomb contact lenses were actually the exact same as their long term soft lenses, only they cost WAY less.

After using my XT for a few days (just got it) I feel like Canon REALLY cheaped out on the lens, even my 4 year old point & shoot camera has an f/1.8 lens, it seems rediculous to me, that on a > $500 DSLR it wouldn't AT LEAST come with a f/2.8 lens! Cheap bastards, anything I can do to squeeze a little more value out of my camera is a good thing. :cool:

[Jonathan]

After using my XT for a few days (just got it) I feel like Canon REALLY cheaped out on the lens, even my 4 year old point & shoot camera has an f/1.8 lens, it seems rediculous to me, that on a > $500 DSLR it wouldn't AT LEAST come with a f/2.8 lens! Cheap bastards, anything I can do to squeeze a little more value out of my camera is a good thing. :cool:

LMAO - you really have no idea do you? Take a quick look at how much an f2.8 Canon zoom costs. What you are saying is that you want the "cheap b*stards" at Canon to put a $1000 lens on a $500 camera. Anything else you'd like? Maybe they could bring Ansel Adams back from the dead and teach you how to use it? :D

[Bill Boehme]

Yeak the ISO thing is high on many of our wish lists, I believe the fact it isn't shown on the DSLR's is a leagacy of SLR's in general, they only showed the ISO when you loaded the film only..........

ISO? What's that? My old Yashica TL Super showed the ASA setting all of the time whether film was loaded or not. It is on a round knob with the film speeds marked on it. I think that it was called an automatic camera back in 1970 because no light meter or calculations were needed. You set the shutter speed and then adjusted the aperture until the TTL sensor centered the needle in the viewfinder. Alternately, you could set the aperture and the adjust the shutter speed and then fine tune the aperture setting. What could be simpler. No complicated menus and a single silver-chloride button battery would last for at least a year. If you wanted a higher ASA speed than any available film, then just change the ASA dial to what you want then tell the lab to push process the film for ASA ??? (whatever you shot the film at). Also, focusing was automatic -- you just turned a ring that had distances marked on it and the viewfinder had various focusing screen available.

[critofur]

LMAO - you really have no idea do you? Take a quick look at how much an f2.8 Canon zoom costs. What you are saying is that you want the "cheap b*stards" at Canon to put a $1000 lens on a $500 camera. Anything else you'd like? Maybe they could bring Ansel Adams back from the dead and teach you how to use it? :D
I'm not actually being unreasonable or absurd at all.

Well, Tamron sells a decent f/2.8 zoom for under $500. But that still seems overpriced for a lens with a "noisey" focusing motor, but according to tests the sharpness is "excellent" not just in the center.

They've been building these lenses for so many years, it's rediculous you have to pay $1,000 today.

It's perfectly reasonable to complain when the XT's original retail price was what, $800? and they ship it with a lens that often fails to be capable of delivering handheld indoor shots with natural light, even when it's open as wide as possible and the camera's ISO is turned up to it's highest setting!

My Olympus compact camera which is several years older than the XT came with an f/1.8 zoom lens that I like very much.

So, after having several more years to develop and research, and for the market to expand (which it has) in order to get a decent camera with f/1.8 zoom, we should now have to pay over $1,000 when, when the market was smaller, and when digital cameras were newer, such a camera could be purchased for less than half that?

Greater volume of sales should (and almost always does) equate to lower prices to the consumers, I'm sure the Rebel XT body is cheaper to manufacture than my made in Japan Magnesium body Olympus C-5050 was, and I bet it's also more popular, so new technology like increased sensor performance could be delivered to the consumer for a lower price.

I understand an SLR lens is larger, more robust, and, since there is a mirror which has to flip out of the way, in between the sensor and the lens, the lens must be farther away from the sensor. But, bearing that in mind, a couple hundred dollars should be more than enough to make up the difference. I'm not even asking for f/1.8, only f/2.8!!! The simple fact that the lens might be manufactured in China, rather than Japan, as my Olympus was, is MORE than enough to reduce the cost to make this possible. It is CLEARLY simply a marketing decision. SLR lenses, while not sold on the same scale as printer ink, are similarly a cash-cow ripoff.

What makes my argument even more solid is how Canon has crippled the G7 with: an inferior lens compared to previous models, removed features such as tilt/swivel LCD, and they even removed RAW mode!

"Canon caused a ruckus among digital-camera enthusiasts when it announced this fall that its new PowerShot G7 lacked support for "raw" images. But the company now has offered an explanation for the move: increasing the number of megapixels led to more noise per pixel and meant raw was no better than JPEG." (news.com)

The explanation simply makes it worse. There's no need for 10 megapixels, particularly lower quality pixels. By removing RAW mode Canon is clearly sending the message: if you're the kind of person who needs that, just buy an SLR model instead. And oh, by the way, even if you do give us an extra $1,000 for your lens, you STILL won't be able to get an f/2.0 wide zoom like the one that came with the G5 back in 2003!

Please notice, I have refrained from ANY personal insults/attacks and expect the same consideration and respect from you. Thank you.

[threelegsdog]

I did hack for previously owned and sold 300d to make ISO to 3200, mirror lock etc. very nice indeed! check out my galleries about 300d shots with ISO 3200 : http://www.pbase.com/yhphotography/test_iso_only_please_ignore

[kumicho]

are you just *trying* to be argumentative? what was the size of the sensor in the g5? what is the sensor size of the XT? the sensor size in the g5 is 1/8 the size of the sensor in your XT. with a much (much) smaller sensor its easier for the manufacturers to build wide-open lenses. what ISO did your olympus top out at? what did it look like at ISO400? you're looking for a "grand conspiracy" but failing to even take a cursory look at the facts. yes it's a shame that Canon doesn't have a 17-50/55mm 2.8 lens for less than $1000, but you *can* get lenses from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina in this focal length...

Canon is in this to make money, just like everybody else.

[DocFrankenstein]

The explanation simply makes it worse. There's no need for 10 megapixels, particularly lower quality pixels. By removing RAW mode Canon is clearly sending the message: if you're the kind of person who needs that, just buy an SLR model instead. And oh, by the way, even if you do give us an extra $1,000 for your lens, you STILL won't be able to get an f/2.0 wide zoom like the one that came with the G5 back in 2003!

Please notice, I have refrained from ANY personal insults/attacks and expect the same consideration and respect from you. Thank you.

You're a funny guy.

Giving that G5 looks as noisy at ISO 200 like XT looks at ISO 3200.

You can shoot with f/2 at iso 200. Or you can shoot with f/5.6 at 1600... in the end you'll get less noise with the rebel. There's also less shutter lag, no delay in the viewfinder, better AF and all the other cookies that come with an SLR camera.

Moreover - you can put f/2 and f/1.4 prime lenses on your XT. With that huge sensor the G series will never compare.

They put a kit lens on the camera cause it's cheap... and BTW. You saw that you were buying an f/5.6, didn't you?

[critofur]

You're a funny guy.

Giving that G5 looks as noisy at ISO 200 like XT looks at ISO 3200.

You can shoot with f/2 at iso 200. Or you can shoot with f/5.6 at 1600... in the end you'll get less noise with the rebel. There's also less shutter lag, no delay in the viewfinder, better AF and all the other cookies that come with an SLR camera.
Moreover - you can put f/2 and f/1.4 prime lenses on your XT. With that huge sensor the G series will never compare.
I addressed that in my post, or didn't you notice (the newer better sensors). The low noise is precisely why I chose the XT.

I could get some decent natural light shots with my 5 year old Olympus C-5050. You seem to be implying that it's not reasonable to hope for improvements in sensor technology after 5 years. That, I think, is more rediculous than any of the things I've said in my posts, is it not?

They put a kit lens on the camera cause it's cheap... and BTW. You saw that you were buying an f/5.6, didn't you?
Yes, the kit lens was the only thing making me hesitate about choosing the XT, there are other missing features that are a dissapointment, but in the end, the single most important factor about a camera body to me is the image quality that the sensor can give you.

I was really itching to get the Pentax K100D, but it's high ISO performance just looked too dissapointing. Combine that with the fact the built in image stabilization, while a very nice feature, will not help when the SUBJECT is moving.

I borrowed a 300D for a day and got many very nice sharp shots from the (kit)lens, so I figured I can live with the lack of sharpness that others complain about.

I will get a 50mm f/1.8, which to me, is Canon's only reasonably priced lens, and that will let me do more of the natural light shooting that I want to do, but I will surely miss not having a wider angle.

The camera I really wanted to get doesn't exist: 6 good megapixels instead of 10 mediocre ones, virutally noise free at ISO 800 and still sharp at ISO 1600, at least f/2.0 lens, full manual, RAW, spot metering, auto ISO modes where you can specify the max. Basically, what I want is an improved version of the $150 Fuji F20. I would gladly have paid double the price and accepted a slightly larger camera for improved ISO performance, and other features which simply require different firmware (no extra cost to the manufacturer).

I would jump at the chance to pay $300 for just a better sensor to put in my old Olympus 5050 camera. EDIT: Though the lack of shutter lag, and particularly, the fast startup time ARE big improvements of the XT over this, and other similar P&S camers, as you mentioned.

Oh, I should ask, to get the equiv. of ISO 3200 shooting with the XT, do you just turn the exposure compensation (is that what you call the adjustments you get when you press the "Av" button and turn the dial?) down 3 clicks then push it up in post processing? Wouldn't that also kind of give you the equivilant of higher model Canon's 1/3 step ISO settings?

[dziuggy]

well if you need low light lens get 50mm 1.8 they are $70 now and will do lowlight pictures all day long. and quit your whining go try out nikon slrs and other brands and shoot high ISO then you will see what image noise means

[critofur]

well if you need low light lens get 50mm 1.8 they are $70 now and will do lowlight pictures all day long. and quit your whining go try out nikon slrs and other brands and shoot high ISO then you will see what image noise means
Who's whining about high ISO noise? That's where the XT really shines! I don't understand where you came up with the idea that I was complaining about ISO noise? We WERE discussing high ISO noise in relation to older P&S cameras, not the XT. I think everybody agrees, the XT's image quality is great, and (compared to other cameras) it excels particularly well at higher ISO settings.

I'm only complaining about how crappy it is that the kit lens on the XT only opens to f/3.5, which, in my opinion, is simply patheticly poor. It feels to me that Canon is intentionally providing a limited lens on the camera to push people to buy other lenses.

I understand that lens prices would be high when they only sell a small volume, but now that every joe schmoe is buying a digital SLR prices could fall by as much as 90% due to volume.

With the quantity of 20D, 30D, Rebel, XT, and XTis sold, if they had chosen to include a 16-50mm f/2.8 lens with them, then that volume could have brought the price for such a lens down to $200, easily.

But, I don't think Canon wants DSLR buyers to be happy with "just" the kit lens.

are you just *trying* to be argumentative? what was the size of the sensor in the g5? what is the sensor size of the XT? the sensor size in the g5 is 1/8 the size of the sensor in your XT. with a much (much) smaller sensor its easier for the manufacturers to build wide-open lenses. what ISO did your olympus top out at? what did it look like at ISO400? you're looking for a "grand conspiracy" but failing to even take a cursory look at the facts. yes it's a shame that Canon doesn't have a 17-50/55mm 2.8 lens for less than $1000, but you *can* get lenses from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina in this focal length...

No, not trying to be argumentative, I just took a little offense that people dissmised what I was saying as foolish and being somewhat insulting.

What it really boils down to is this: in the five years since I got my Olympus 5050, couldn't they have developed lower noise sensors and given us the same kind of quality camera with those sensors for the same price? Or maybe at least figured out that noise is something that's really the annoying issue to enthusiast P&S users and done something to address the issue without simply abandoning that market segment? As the market expands production cost can be significantly reduced by the volume, they could have made a camera like the G5 with a 20% - 30% larger sensor combined with improved sensor technology and given us a camera that takes beautiful natural light shots that arent' blurry. They've addressed this issue some by making IS common. The push for more megapixels, to satisfy marketing demands, is to a large part, responsible I suppose.

It's clear that they want people who would have previously bought a compact camera like: the Canon G5 or the Olympus 5050, with features like full manual control and a nice f/1.8 - f/2.0 zoom lens, to instead, buy a Camera like the Rebel XT. Well it sucks that we're stuck without the option of getting a nice camera with features like RAW and manual control with a bright lens for around $500 or less.

If I had a little more money to spend on my camera, I could have gotten the XT body and the Tamron 17-50mm for a total of about $900. But even then I'd be stuck with a lens that's noisey when it focuses.

[Steff]

16-50 2.8? Why not throw IS in there while we're at it! Asking for a little much here aren't we? Plus, why bother going that wide? What was the wide angle setting on your Olympus? I can garuntee that it was not 16, or even the 18 of the kit lens. So right there, the "shi**y Kitty" offers more that your Oly ever did.

[critofur]

16-50 2.8? Why not throw IS in there while we're at it! Asking for a little much here aren't we? Plus, why bother going that wide? What was the wide angle setting on your Olympus? I can garuntee that it was not 16, or even the 18 of the kit lens. So right there, the "shi**y Kitty" offers more that your Oly ever did.No, not really. Are you just playing "devil's advocate" here? What is your point?
The Olympus zoom range? "35-105mm focal length (35mm equivalent.) It's an all-glass, aspherical lens constructed of 10 elements in 7 groups..." (steve's digicams) a greater overall range of zoom than the 18-55mm (approx 29 - 88 35mm equiv) Canon kit lens.

Why NOT include IS, indeed. It's practically std. on most models recently, available on the Pentax K100D for under $500 (built into the camera, no less), and available on "P&S" cameras costing as little as $200.

There are lots of different zoom lens ranges offered in sub $300 P&S cameras, only a small portion of them are particularly wide angle. "4x" range is typical, some offer far more such as 10x or even 12x.

Why I said 17-50 is because that's approximately what seemed to be the most common option and, since that's already about the range which is used for the kit lens (18-55mm) which people refer to as "cheap", and, it adds less than $100 to the cost (body only vs kit street price), it seemed an appropriate starting point.

A slightly newer model (than my 5050) Olympus C series camera, the C-8080 has an f/2.4 lens with a range of (equiv) 28-140mm and: "[Olympus] stated that it was as of the same quality as the Zuiko lenses made for the E System (the E-1 digital SLR), and to support that it's made in the same factory."..."The lens is made up of 15 elements in 13 groups, 2 of which are aspherical and 3 ED." (steve's digicams)

This was a 2004 model camera.

There was also the less expensive F2.8, 4X optical zoom lens, equivalent to 27 - 110 mm lens equiped 7070 "wide zoom".

So, although 28mm equiv is available on several models of P&S cameras, if that HAD to be bumped up to 35mm equiv. in order to make an f/2.8 kit zoom lens affordable, then ok, make that comprimise, then at least the standard lens (and the lens which will be the ONLY lens that many owners have) will be fairly "bright".

[FlyingPete]

Casts memory waaaayyyy back to this thread...


I would really appreciate these features, which I believe could certainly be implemented by firmware:

Spot metering.
3200 ISO.
Some kind of "auto ISO" mode, or does the XT have that?
I was confused when I couldn't find such a mode, odd that it
wouldn't have it?
Things like focusing speed, and the number of focus points, are those controlled by firmware perhaps? I mean, if it's got the same Digic chip, maybe it can do more and it's just "dumbed down" for marketing reasons.

What if the camera was actually capable of more shots per second, but they set it slower?

Who knows what all could be improved via firmware? I'm all for: overclocking, enabling disabled hardware, tweaks, mods, flashing with a better BIOS, etc. I remember when the 1 day Bausch & Lomb contact lenses were actually the exact same as their long term soft lenses, only they cost WAY less.

After using my XT for a few days (just got it) I feel like Canon REALLY cheaped out on the lens, even my 4 year old point & shoot camera has an f/1.8 lens, it seems rediculous to me, that on a > $500 DSLR it wouldn't AT LEAST come with a f/2.8 lens! Cheap bastards, anything I can do to squeeze a little more value out of my camera is a good thing. :cool:

Most of the features you are asking for there are limited by physical hardware such as the exposure sensor being able to support a spot metering "pattern" and focus points being a specialised sensor.

As for the lenses you are not comparing apples with apples, SLR lenses at larger apertures are far more difficult to make that a P&S due to the sensor size, larger sensor means more glass, more glass means higher manufacturing costs, heck even my cell phone has a f/2.8 lens!

ISO? What's that? My old Yashica TL Super showed the ASA setting all of the time whether film was loaded or not. It is on a round knob with the film speeds marked on it. I think that it was called an automatic camera back in 1970 because no light meter or calculations were needed. You set the shutter speed and then adjusted the aperture until the TTL sensor centered the needle in the viewfinder. Alternately, you could set the aperture and the adjust the shutter speed and then fine tune the aperture setting. What could be simpler. No complicated menus and a single silver-chloride button battery would last for at least a year. If you wanted a higher ASA speed than any available film, then just change the ASA dial to what you want then tell the lab to push process the film for ASA ??? (whatever you shot the film at). Also, focusing was automatic -- you just turned a ring that had distances marked on it and the viewfinder had various focusing screen available.

From memory I was referring to the display of ISO (or ASA) in the viewfinder, as nowadays you can change the ISO on the fly (OK you could in the days of fully manual cameras too but it was not a good idea!), so when I loaded a ISO200 film I knew that was what was loaded for the until I loaded another film, now I can change it per shot!

As yes no complicated menus etc my old Oly would even run if the battery was flat! I had to meter manually though (good ole f/16 rule :D ).

It is a shame that many people new to photography are not forced to learn this stuff, it will be a lost art. We had a GKPE outing a while back where we had a challenge to set our DSLRs to full manual, those of us from the 'old school' had fun, the newer guys just looked at it as a waste, why would I spend $1000's on a automated camera just to turn it all off?

[Bill Boehme]

......... we had a challenge to set our DSLRs to full manual, those of us from the 'old school' had fun, the newer guys just looked at it as a waste, why would I spend $1000's on a automated camera just to turn it all off?

Ah yes, the good old days! I actually preferred the Yashica to my automatic Canon AE-1. I could set everything in manual faster than operating the automatic camera.;)

You are right that one should get an intuitive understanding of what you are doing by learning on a fully manual camera. It also gives a sanity check to exposures that the automatic cameras come up with. Intuition can tell you when the automatic isn't doing what you want.