Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
Automatisms only are needed in circumstances when one has not the time to think about exposure and focus. Those situations never happen in LF or ULF because the time it takes to set up the frame and the movements is long and, in general, the concept of "focus" with LF is on an entirely different plane (pardon the mediocre pun) and cannot be made automatic. Exposure is a matter of seconds.

If there ever had been a need for an autoexposure LF camera it would certainly exist.

If one has those few seconds at his disposal necessary to establish focus and exposure, manual setting is much less prone to mistakes or unintended results than any automatism.
I disagree Fabrizio.

Automated functions can and are used very accurately and very reliably. What automation cannot fix is sloppy use, that is a completely different issue.

Automation can also improve exposure placement of the subject and background. Fill flash is a prime example. The reason I own an F5 and F100 is for TTL matrix balanced fill flash, something my FM2 simply can't do.

Auto focus helps make up for my old eyes vastly improving focus.

And while LF is not near as fast as 35mm and can include a long contemplative setup, that is far from required.

Many LF cameras include stops that can be set for certain focus distances, infinity or zone focusing and a step or two handles many situations very quickly.

Yes many of the f64 type crowd do end up with long shutter speeds but it isn't required. I regularly shoot LF as fast as the shutter will allow, like 1/400.

LF press cameras regularly have rangefinders, use Grafmatic holders, and even focal plane shutters, these automations make for very quick shooting.

4x5 cameras were the mainstay of the news industry for years, heard of Weegee?

One of the most famous photos ever was done in an incredible hurry on an 8x10 camera IIRC, Ansel Adams Moonrise.