I don't feel elitist. As Shel states, AF can be very useful in some cases. Those cases are generally when the person can't focus fast enough. What I did say was when I view pictures that used AF when not necessary, they tend to not be critically focused (and I include your MZ-S in this) and quite often the composition is not quite as good as it could have been. You end up spending more time trying to pick the right AF point, or focus locking and then recomposing, etc to not be optimal. In practice it usually isn't much of any faster for those situations.
When I bought the *istD, one of the biggest reasons was because of the viewfinder - It was the best of the bunch for allowing me to manually focus. When I buy lenses, the manual focus feel is important to me. That isn't to say that I don't buy AF lenses (about 80% are AF), but I do plan on manually focusing. It probably has more to do with a critical eye, just like someone who fully relies on the matrix meter in all cases, because most of the time it is ok. That doesn't mean it is ever optimal, just that it is liveable. It could also be that DOF is covering up your focusing errors in many cases. Sorry to ruffle feathers - I don't think less of you as a person because you like AF more than MF. Feel free to continue down the path you are going and hopefully Pentax will improve their AF. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, January 13, 2005, 7:58:59 AM, you wrote: SB> Read my post again ... I did not denigrate AF other than to say that at SB> times it's not needed or that it's inappropriate. Peter's photo is a SB> perfect example of when autofocus is worthless, or at least not necessary. SB> You've got a person willingly posing for a pic, no fast action, and all the SB> time needed to manually focus precisely. I agree with you, never disagreed SB> with you, and support your point that there are probably times when SB> autofocus can be useful and helpful. SB> As for spending the money on a camera with interchangeable screens - I SB> never said that was something to do. What I did say was that one should SB> choose the proper camera for their circumstances. I'm fortunate in that I SB> have a few cameras, but if I could only have one you could be sure it would SB> have an appropriate finder for my vision, both photographic and physical. SB> So sorry you're feeling miffed ... you probably feel that way because SB> you're taking some comments personally and with the belief, as Herb says, SB> that my attitude is elitist. Well, it ain't - certainly no more so than SB> those that advocate autofocus, and fancy whiz-bang features as mandatory SB> for making good photographs. IMO, those people are losing sight of many of SB> the creative aspects of photography when they allow some engineer half a SB> world away to write a program for their camera that will determine focus, SB> exposure, lens aperture, and the like. SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> >> Date: 1/12/2005 11:44:40 PM >> Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room >> >> Sorry, Shel, Bruce, et al, I think you're missing the point of AF. IMHO, SB> I >> think it is there for exactly the times when the human eye/hand SB> combination >> is just not quick enough to adjust the focus accurately, particularly SB> 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 SB> 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 SB> done >> better, except perhaps with trap focussing. But even that would only SB> give >> me one certain shot, and another if I happened to adjust the focus point SB> 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 SB> focussing, >> and I am sure there are others like me. Maybe it's the viewfinder - but SB> 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 SB> like >> to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can SB> 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 SB> 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 SB> 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 SB> proper >> > camera, viewfinder, screen, diopters, or whatnot in order to assure SB> 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 SB> 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 SB> compromised >> > by the limits imposed by many autofocus cameras. If my photos are going SB> 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 SB> some >> > marketing maven's idea of a neccessary feature. That's not to say SB> 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
