> Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
> seems that, from what I understand you to be saying,
> it may not
> be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
> better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
> portraits, especially if one were to be using wider
> apertures.
> Is that a realistic conclusion?
>
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It depends on the distance to the subject. The closer the
subject, the larger the eye appears in the viewfinder, and the
easier it is to focus on it using autofocus or manual focus. If
you're far enough away to make the eye just a small detail of
the head, then you're likely to get focus lock on the edge of
the head or edge of the body. At that distance, unless you are
shooting at max aperture, the eyes will probably also appear to
be sharp because depth of field will usually cover the
situation. If you have the light, stop down a bit. Or, if you
want more separation between subject and background, get closer
and use a wider aperture.
When my eyes were young and focussing manually was the only
option, I had less problems than I do now. I use autofocus most
of the time but not when I am shooting tight head shots or
macros. I still focus those manually. At close distances the
eyes are sufficiently large enough to judge sharpness without AF
assist, though they are also large enough to be easier to get an
AF lock on them too, if you hold focus locked while you
recompose the picture.
I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.
Len
---
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
