Ed wrote:
>But in critical conditions, in
> every case with every lens and camera used, AF failed to provide enough
> accuracy to match a carefully manually focused lens when comparing them with
> lines/mm tests. Sometimes the results were staggering.
Sorry for being rude but it isn't personal. You can take that test and wipe your ass
with it. What is critical situations? Shooting test targets? If thats your prefered
shooting, by all means use manual focus. Anyone who uses AF for shooting test targets
is mentally retarded.
I can give you an example of "critical conditions". I have a roll with out of focus
images of a swimming mallard all shot with the A* 300/2.8 at F.5.6. with manual focus.
I also have 12 razor sharp frames (all I shot) of a swimming long tailed duck shot
with the FA* 600/4 wide open, hand held (at1/1500s) from a moving (slight) Zodiac
inflatable boat. Every single image was out of focus when the mirror slapped but
everyone turned out pin sharp (on the birds eye who far smaller than a human eye) due
to the Z-1ps predictive AF. The lens was focused close to the minumum focusing
distance. This is critical focus. Should I (or anyone lese for that matter) pay
attention to some armchair tests with absolutely no relevance for any real life
conditions? Should I discard my good image just because a web page or even Herbert
Keppler has found out that AF isn't accurate enough. These kinds of tests are good for
philosophical debates and maybe for justifying staying with their old camera gear.
The point is to know when theres a point of using AF and when its not.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
