Nobody said AF is bad, in fact it is great for some things like action/sports, but for landscape it is best turned off IMHO.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Responding to myself now... and I know someone will come in through the back door and beat me over the head with "and how many of those photos do you want hanging on your wall?". If AF is so bad... why are 99% of the cameras sold today AF? Why are there so many abominable in focus snapshots (and there's nothing wrong with snapshots if that's what one wants)? The fact is AF works and works reasonably well. It may not be the way some here shoot... but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. As before, I'm not immune to making a focus error. If I were my name would Jesus. Tom C. >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:31:59 -0600 > >> >>I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo >>effect of sorts, you can take the same time and care formatting a 110 >>film shot as a 10x8. I suspect it just boils down to what respect you >>have for the media which I guess is a function of cost per frame vs >>perceived enlargement potential basically. Quite bizzare really. >> >> >>Rob Studdert > >Bizarre yes... To me, if I'm going to spend a significant amount on a >camera system... specifically to reap the benefits of a larger format... >with each shot costing commensurately more... I suspect I will change the >way I shoot. Not that I don't usually take the time to survey my >surroundings, carefully compose, expose and the rest. I choose to use AF >and sometimes AE because of the convenience... in a way that can tend to >hasten one through the process. It is the deliberate forced lack of these >that I think (hope) will push me into an even more disciplined approach. > >Tom C. > >
