Re: Question for the AF guys?
--- David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: Do you all only use the AF for moving subjects/action and switch it off for static subjects? It depends upon the situation and the lighting condition. Here is the problem with AF systems in general. AF systems track a moving subject and will try to keep the lens in focus . It does not make forecasts of where the subject will move next. The point I am trying to make is this, you must know your subject well. This has made many great photographers very competent and very good at what they do without the aid of the latest and greatest AF systems. Do I use AF? Yes on static subjects using spot AF and trap focus with AF assist on moving subjects.. I rarely use servo with my PZ-1 to track my subjects though since I pan a lot.. Rick.. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Do you all only use the AF for moving subjects/action and switch it off for static subjects? Yes Pål
Re: Question for the AF guys?
On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote: Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not using AF. Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better with manual focus. That's my experience too, AF really upsets my work-flow. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Having multiple AF sensors, and a quick way of being able to manually select them, lets you go back to compose then focus. Maybe Pentax will will incorporate a version of the now standard selector pad on their new camera. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote: Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not using AF. Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better with manual focus. That's my experience too, AF really upsets my work-flow.
Re: Re: Question for the AF guys?
For me, i bought AF so i can shoot horse's,dog's,cat's (sorry Mike) and flying geese with a bit more confidence.I still have 5 mf bodies(Pentax) for macro,'scapes and BW stills. Can' get rid of mr that easy:) :) Dave Begin Original Message From: Gary L. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:17:24 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Question for the AF guys? J. C. O'Connell wrote: Seems like with static subjects, using AF would be leaving things to chance. Yup, that's what I feel. With very few exceptions, on a static object I'm going for I always use MF. About the only exception would be doing candid shots of the grandkids or the like which would be more or less snapshots -- Later, Gary End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Bruce wrote: Maybe Pentax will will incorporate a version of the now standard selector pad on their new camera. They will if what I'm told is true... Pål
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Hi, Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote: Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not using AF. Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better with manual focus. That's my experience too, AF really upsets my work-flow. Maybe the thing you guys need is a combination of two more focusing points, eye-controlled AF-sensor selection and full-time manual override? Just a thought... Boz
RE: Question for the AF guys?
Even if I had the ability (long enough AF lens) I would still use MF for my action shots. While shooting rugby, for example, I follow the action and change the focus according to who may come into my viewfinder... Just cannot do that with AF. Not even with the sensor following your eye. I find that I will adjust focus using my peripheral while composing and having my eye straight ahead. It sounds pretty complicated the way I said it, but it isn't really. Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:23 AM -- -- That is true. But many times I will slowly move the focus back and -- forth within the composition to see the effect, or my composition is -- such (commonly portraiture) that no AF sensor would be right over the -- eye. AF is great, but it isn't necessary for some types of shooting. -- It is almost essential for other types. Knowing your own style, the -- capability of the equipment and lots of practice helps you to get the -- most from the technology. Having the capability to use AF is very -- nice. -- -- -- Bruce -- -- -- -- Friday, February 14, 2003, 4:40:40 AM, you wrote: -- -- BR Having multiple AF sensors, and a quick way of being -- able to manually -- BR select them, lets you go back to compose then focus. -- Maybe Pentax will -- BR will incorporate a version of the now standard selector -- pad on their -- BR new camera. -- -- BR BR -- -- BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote: -- -- -- -- Another difference is that when using manual focus and -- the matte area, -- I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to -- lock focus -- and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not -- using AF. -- Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better -- with manual -- focus. -- -- -- -- That's my experience too, AF really upsets my work-flow. --
Re: Question for the AF guys?
The way I work now is plenty accurate and adequate. I use AF when needed and MF the rest of the time. Just because AF exists doesn't mean it needs to be used all the time. I can't see how my workflow would improve any more by more AF points. My eye wanders around the frame looking at composition and annoying background elements. I can just see eye control Bruce Friday, February 14, 2003, 5:45:38 AM, you wrote: BD Hi, BD Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote: Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not using AF. Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better with manual focus. That's my experience too, AF really upsets my work-flow. BD Maybe the thing you guys need is a combination of two more focusing BD points, eye-controlled AF-sensor selection and full-time manual BD override? BD Just a thought... BD Boz
Re: Question for the AF guys?
For weddings, I mostly shoot manual focus. Once in a while, I'll shoot AF (of course then I have to use my 35mm MZ-S), but mostly it is MF on MF (medium Format). Wedding are actually quite static for what I shoot. I am a bit more traditional. Tom may have a different use as he shoots a more photojournalist style. Don't get me wrong, I would never consider buying a 35mm without AF, but there are many, many times when it is not better and sometimes worse than manual focusing - with the caveat that you have good eyesight and good technique and a good viewfinder. AF for me is wonderful when I am shooting moving subjects that have no obvious, predictable pre-focus locations. I've done a lot of youth sports - turned into slideshows for the end of season. AF has been indispensable for that (come to think of it, a DSLR would have been perfect!). The rest of the time, I haven't found it to be an improvement over manual focus. Bruce Friday, February 14, 2003, 7:35:08 AM, you wrote: SD Even if the camera is on autofocus, you can still see what's in focus. SD If it's a problem, I switch to MF. (It's a static subject, so speed is SD not essential). I'm also one of those folks that finds the point, SD focus lock, recompose a comfortable and natural approach. This is SD probably because I was away from photography for a while, and came back SD into it with an AF camera. Don't forget, the focus right is loose on AF SD lenses, so MF is not as comfy as my old SP500. SD I know there's a number of wedding guys on the list. What do y'all do? SD That's an interesting combo of static and moving candid. SD Steven Desjardins SD Department of Chemistry SD Washington and Lee University SD Lexington, VA 24450 SD (540) 458-8873 SD FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/03 10:56PM But I wonder about your comment. Why would you say AF would be SD leaving things to chance? SD Well its just that with manual focus, I know exactly what SD I want to focus on and dont have to hope the camera/lens SD focusses properly. SD JCO
RE: Question for the AF guys?
Because of my eyesight, and the low light level in many churches (or other wedding venues) I depend on AF, fast lenses (at least f/2.8) and the AF assist light provided by my flash. So far, I have been very happy with the results. Remember guys, I'll be 67 next month. It's a method that works for me. Younger people, with better eyesight, may find other methods more satisfactory. Len --- I know there's a number of wedding guys on the list. What do y'all do? That's an interesting combo of static and moving candid. Steven Desjardins _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: Question for the AF guys?
-Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] For weddings, I mostly shoot manual focus. Once in a while, I'll shoot AF (of course then I have to use my 35mm MZ-S), but mostly it is MF on MF (medium Format). Wedding are actually quite static for what I shoot. I am a bit more traditional. Tom may have a different use as he shoots a more photojournalist style. I don't really have a recipe, gut generally: - When it gets dark, AF is close to useless. - I'm more prone to use AF with a wide angle than a telephoto - I often use AF for group shots - It's possible I've never used AF with the FA 85/1.4 - I use AF more often with the MZ-S than with the 645n I use AF maybe 15% of the time. I just don't think it's that fast or accurate, or maybe I just don't trust it. tv
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Yes, I do that too, in good light with plenty of time to shoot. It's good technique with portraits. Len --- That is true. But many times I will slowly move the focus back and forth within the composition to see the effect, or my composition is such (commonly portraiture) that no AF sensor would be right over the eye. AF is great, but it isn't necessary for some types of shooting. It is almost essential for other types. Knowing your own style, the capability of the equipment and lots of practice helps you to get the most from the technology. Having the capability to use AF is very nice. Bruce _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Question for the AF guys?
For me, it's long, fast lenses (wide open, or 1 stop down) with shallow DOF, that I absolutely depend on AF. You can get burnt with group shots (particularly with rows of people) with AF: you need to focus about 1/3 way back into the group. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really have a recipe, gut generally: - When it gets dark, AF is close to useless. - I'm more prone to use AF with a wide angle than a telephoto - I often use AF for group shots - It's possible I've never used AF with the FA 85/1.4 - I use AF more often with the MZ-S than with the 645n I use AF maybe 15% of the time. I just don't think it's that fast or accurate, or maybe I just don't trust it. tv
Re: Question for the AF guys?
I guess one way to think of it, is that when you need AF, you REALLY need it. When you don't need AF, it becomes one's own style to use or not. Like Bruce, I have found my greatest need at 200mm+. Bruce Friday, February 14, 2003, 10:25:33 AM, you wrote: BR For me, it's long, fast lenses (wide open, or 1 stop down) with shallow BR DOF, that I absolutely depend on AF. You can get burnt with group shots BR (particularly with rows of people) with AF: you need to focus about 1/3 BR way back into the group. BR BR BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really have a recipe, gut generally: - When it gets dark, AF is close to useless. - I'm more prone to use AF with a wide angle than a telephoto - I often use AF for group shots - It's possible I've never used AF with the FA 85/1.4 - I use AF more often with the MZ-S than with the 645n I use AF maybe 15% of the time. I just don't think it's that fast or accurate, or maybe I just don't trust it. tv
RE: Question for the AF guys?
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:59:19 -0500, tom wrote: - When it gets dark, AF is close to useless. The MZ-S is a lot better about that. It can autofocus in light low enough that I can't do a good job focusing manually. - I'm more prone to use AF with a wide angle than a telephoto Opposite for me. The DOF usually takes care of the wide angle shots for me. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Question for the AF guys?
-Original Message- From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:59:19 -0500, tom wrote: - When it gets dark, AF is close to useless. The MZ-S is a lot better about that. It can autofocus in light low enough that I can't do a good job focusing manually. Yeah, it's better than a PZ-1p or 645n, but if it's dark, it's dark. :) Another problem is that placing a 500 on a bracket will mess with the focus assist enough to make it useless within about 15 feet. tv
Re: Question for the AF guys?
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Do you all only use the AF for moving subjects/action and switch it off for static subjects? Seems like with static subjects, using AF would be leaving things to chance. My only AF body is a Z-1p and I find the focussing screen to be hopeless for manual focus. While manually focussing I am forced to rely on the in- focus indicator which uses the AF system anyway. I'd love an AF body that had a good screen from an MF body. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Ditto for me. Basically, use AF only when MF isn't working - you can't quite keep up. Bruce Thursday, February 13, 2003, 7:17:24 PM, you wrote: GLM J. C. O'Connell wrote: Seems like with static subjects, using AF would be leaving things to chance. GLM Yup, that's what I feel. With very few exceptions, on a static object GLM I'm going for I always use MF. About the only exception would be doing GLM candid shots of the grandkids or the like which would be more or less GLM snapshots
Re: Question for the AF guys?
When you get the AF sensor on what you want in focus, then it focuses properly. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well its just that with manual focus, I know exactly what I want to focus on and dont have to hope the camera/lens focusses properly. JCO
Re: Question for the AF guys?
Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when not using AF. Doesn't mean you can't, just that my percentage is better with manual focus. Bruce Thursday, February 13, 2003, 7:56:27 PM, you wrote: But I wonder about your comment. Why would you say AF would be leaving things to chance? JCOC Well its just that with manual focus, I know exactly what JCOC I want to focus on and dont have to hope the camera/lens JCOC focusses properly. JCOC JCO
