From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:45:56 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> I agree with your point.... but then again why buy an autofocus
camera body
> and not use it?
Lets put this in perspective.
I bought myself a 600rpm 1/2 inch Makita drill, primarily for mixing
concrete mortar for tiling, and drywall mud.
Nice tool.
I decided to use it for screwing my stair railings together, since I
was drilling self tapping screws into steel, and I thought the extra
torque and low drill speed would be an advantage.
My first screw stripped because I couldn't control when the drill
would stop turning accurately enough (it has tremendous flywheel
effect).
Nice tool, wrong one for the job.
Back to your AF question.
They put a lot of "tools" onto cameras.
They have to, or they wouldn't sell.
Do you think anyone would have anything good to say about the istD if
it didn't support AF lenses?
However, the craftsman chooses his tools wisely.
He doesn't use a big overpowered drill to do a job requiring some
finesse.
I learned this lesson the hard way.
He picks and chooses which tools are suited to the job at hand.
If auto focus isn't the tool suited to the job, then by default,
manual focus must be. It's the only other choice, other than what
Frank does (does he ever focus a picture).
If auto exposure (in any of it's three permutations) isn't the right
tool, then by default, manual exposure must be. It's the only other
option.
William Robb
