Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room

[John Coyle]

Sorry, Shel, Bruce, et al, I think you're missing the point of AF.  IMHO, I 
think it is there for exactly the times when the human eye/hand combination 
is just not quick enough to adjust the focus accurately, particularly when 
you have a relatively short time-frame in which to do it.  While I would 
agree that one should use the appropriate tools for the job, and in 
conjunction with one's own abilities, I fail to see what other tool I might 
have selected in the circumstances I described (a wedding, if you've 
forgotten).  TLR? Rangefinder? MF lens and manual focussing? MF lens and 
trap focussing?  I have all of these and I wouldn't guarantee to have done 
better, except perhaps with trap focussing.  But even that would only give 
me one certain shot, and another if I happened to adjust the focus point in 
time, to the right distance, and in the right direction!

There is also the point that not everyone has  camera bodies where the 
screens can be changed, or may not wish or be able to spend the necessary 
dollars to do so.

WRT having one's eyes tested, I do - every six months, and update my 
prescription as necessary.  I still have trouble with fine detail focussing, 
and I am sure there are others like me.  Maybe it's the viewfinder - but I 
don't think so, as I am no better off with my SP's or SV.

Finally,I would just like to draw attention to my other comment - that I 
have found the MZ-S AF  to be nearly flawless, and I guess I would just like 
to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can do 
it once you can do it every time.

John Coyle
(feeling slightly miffed at some of the comments!)
Brisbane, Australia
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room


For many types of photography, especially with certain cameras and lenses,
autofocus may not be the best choice. Bruce, I don't think you're being 
the
least bit unkind - if someone wants to make a certain type of photograph,
then the proper camera and lenses are in order. If one is the least bit
serious about photography, then they should at least have their eyes and
glasses checked to be sure they can see properly, and then use the proper
camera, viewfinder, screen, diopters, or whatnot in order to assure proper
focusing. Autofocus is not always the solution. Methinks you're being 
quite
realistic.

I have had trouble with my vision, and I will not use autofocus to make up
for getting my eyes examined and using the most appropriate screens and
viewfinders for my needs, nor will I allow my creativity to be compromised
by the limits imposed by many autofocus cameras. If my photos are going to
be OOF, then let them be so because I screwed up not because the camera
couldn't do the job required of it and because I became dependent on some
marketing maven's idea of a neccessary feature.  That's not to say there's
no place for autofocus, for there certainly is, but, like every other
feature and accessory, it's not always appropriate or worthwhile.
Shel

[Original Message]
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Date: 1/12/2005 10:25:56 PM
Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room
Sorry, nursing a nasty cold today and am in a grumpy mood.  Didn't
mean to offend.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 9:58:59 PM, you wrote:
etn> Quoting Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If you can't see to focus,
>> either get a camera that you can see out of, or get your eyes
>> corrected enough to see.
etn> Bruce, I think that last remark might have been just a little bit
unkind.
etn> ERNR