: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount]
I use my Z-1p on tripod too sometimes but time and again the pictures didn't
came out as sharp when compared to those taken with the MX. For this reason,
I use my MX more these days when I use tripod.
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42
mount]
Greene wrote:
*In dim, home lighting situations, with
consumer
grade lenses, AF beat MF for speed and accuracy
nearly
every time
if there is a sharpness difference for landscapes focused manually at
basically hyperfocal distance or AF at infinity, there is something else
going on.
I think you have made too many assumptions. Using tripod doesn't mean I must
be shooting landscapes. Shooting landscape doesn't mean I must be
you said that your landscapes were sharper.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 04:56
Subject: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount]
I think you have made too many assumptions. Using tripod
Yes, but landscape is not the only subject I do, and I don't always use
hyperfocal, and rarely set the lens to infinity and shoot.
regards,
Alan Chan
you said that your landscapes were sharper.
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail
the article selects its data to support its argument and ignores the rest.
What rest? Seriously - I'm really curious.
Lukasz
PS. I finally did it - I changed the name of a thread! Yippie! ;-)
stopped down performance, not on a tripod, not using slide film, subject farther away
than a few feet.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Lukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 18:33
Subject: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount
stopped down performance,
I don't really understand - you mean that if the lens is stopped down, then
the AF inaccuracy is neglible? If that's what you're saying, I can't agree.
Something is either sharp or not. Even when stopped down, there's a definite
plain of focus that you can see on the
Herb Chong wrote:
stopped down performance,
not on a tripod, not using slide film,
subject farther away than a few feet.
Snapshots ?
cheers,
caveman ;-)
stopped down performance,
not on a tripod, not using slide film,
subject farther away than a few feet.
Snapshots ?
LOL :-)
Lukasz
The data is derived from shooting resolution charts. When you shoot 3
dimensional objects, particularly moving ones, AF does much better, for
most people.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the article selects its data to support its argument and ignores the rest.
What rest? Seriously - I'm
The data is derived from shooting resolution charts. When you shoot 3
dimensional objects, particularly moving ones, AF does much better, for
most people.
Agreed.
Lukasz
The concept of AF accuracy is more theoretical than empirical. If you go
here: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html you will understand why it is
so hard to get past 50 lp/mm. The thing that really counts is having
your subject sharp. For many subjects, AF will you more sharp
pictures than MF.
, then focusing accuracy isn't going to be your main
determiner of sharpness.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Lukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 19:10
Subject: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount]
But closer distances bring
read the article.
I read it - it's not new to me.
gives several things you have to do to achieve super resolution (equated
to sharpness here): superb lens wide open performance, tripod, slide film,
ideal lighting, nearby subject. if you don't shoot slide film, use a tripod,
have a nearby
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 20:10
Subject: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount]
Sure. But that's why there are things like field tests. I think the main
point is that in something close to laboratory environment AF is worse than
MF, but in practice it may
--- Lukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
read the article.
I read it - it's not new to me.
gives several things you have to do to achieve
super resolution (equated
to sharpness here): superb lens wide open
performance, tripod, slide film,
ideal lighting, nearby subject. if you
Greene wrote:
*In dim, home lighting situations, with consumer
grade lenses, AF beat MF for speed and accuracy nearly
every time.
Snapshots ?
cheers,
caveman ;-)
: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount]
Take a look here:
http://pug.komkon.org/00july/JulyOO/pollen.html
The viewfinder was so dim that I doubt that any AF system would have
ever worked. And even if it worked, I doubt it would have helped. On the
contrary. Having to move
Macro work, in general, doesn't lend itself to AF. First off, it's
usually done with the camera mounted on a tripod, and if what you want
to focus on isn't covered by an AF sensor LOL. MF just makes more sense
for this.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take a look here:
Herb Chong wrote:
the pollen grain is right in the middle of the center sensor.
Not exactly.
But let's evaluate these:
http://pug.komkon.org/99may/reflec2.html
http://pug.komkon.org/99jul/red2.htm
They're just some humble PUG contributions, not some intricate
laboratory tests.
cheers,
caveman
, there is no advantage to MF and lots of
disadvantages.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 21:53
Subject: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount]
But let's evaluate these:
http://pug.komkon.org/99may
Here's more:
http://gemma.geo.uaic.ro/~vdonisa/palm1.html
Guess what you get in AF mode.
I don't say that AF is not useful. It is, but it's not always the best
alternative.
Herb Chong wrote:
you're picking a few samples and making the statements. the entire PUG is more representative, but not
23 matches
Mail list logo
