> 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.
Pop Photo once did an article that came to the conclusion that the human
eye can focus more accurately than current AF cameras. This is because
the AF modules have a finite resolution much less than that of the human eye
and the cameras optics. (I can't remember the numbers). They backed the
article up by taking pictures with AF and manual using the same subject and
setup with a fast lens (shallow DOF). I think in every case, the MF negatives
were sharper. This was a few years ago, so I don't know if AF modules have
gotten better in terms of resolution. Of course, AF focus also has a lot to do with
subject (sufficient contrast for AF module to detect), optical alignment (AF
module can be on a different optical plane than the film), etc., etc, but this is
also true for MF.
