> 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 AF cameras. This is because
the AF modules have a finite resolution much less than that of the human
eye and the camera's optics. (I seem to remember that AF modules have
<50 lines/mm resolution, while a good lens/viewfinder combination has >
100 lines/mm ). They backed the article up by taking pictures with a Nikon
in both AF and manual modes using the same target subject and same
setup with a fast lens (shallow DOF). I think in every case, the MF negatives
were sharper under a microscope. 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
accuracy also has a lot to do with subject (sufficient light & 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. Bottom line
of the article was that given all the other possible focus inaccuracies, AF
was good enough.
Zig
