Greetings,
The question regarding AF vs. MF lenses is interesting to me. I made
my decision some years ago when I "expanded" (I won't say "upgraded")
my equipment. I didn't have a fortune in MF equipment, so it was an
easy choice to keep everything. I still find uses for all of it.
The question that this thread brought to mind comes from statements I
have heard in the past. When the point of AF vs. MF is
discussed/debated/argued as a one-is-better-than-the-other issue, I
tend to see the pro-MF side cite quite firmly that MF is "more
accurate" than AF. I DO NOT want to reopen the battle of auto/manual
anything. However, I would like to know if this in fact true, and
why.
I understand how AF sensors work, how digital equipment evaluates
differences in ones and zeroes, that the human brain and eye work in
an analog and "fuzzy" manner. It would seem to me that as advanced as
our equipment has become these days (N90, F100, F5, and the other
brands' competition to these), that focus can be digitally evaluated
with more precision than a normal person with 20/20 eyesight. But
that is just my conclusion and I want to hear from those who know more
about it.
Regards
V Newman
USA
