At 18:49 17/02/01, you wrote:
>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?
Ok, Shel.
If we are talking current Pentax cameras the best we have is 3 point AF,
with the only choice being wide or centre AF selection. If you use wide the
camera will choose the best AF point. You don't really have any control on
what it'll choose. In centre AF you should be able to focus on an eye, but
it is dependant on there being enough contrast to get the AF to lock. It is
also dependant on how close you are, as the AF sensor takes in a specific
amount of the image.
The trouble with using the centre AF sensor for portraits is that you can
end up with images that you wouldn't take if you were using MF. Things
change when the MZ-S is released, but whether it gets better or not is
something that people will discover when they use the camera.
I can't comment on the AF offered by the different manufacturers, as I
haven't used them.
In general I find myself using a combination of AF and MF with just about
anything I'm doing. The exception is macro work, where it is all MF. When
photographing horses racing it's almost always AF work, but I do switch
over to MF on occasion.
Why don't you borrow an MZ-5n and have a play with it for a week or so?
You'd probably be in a better position to answer your own questions that
way. :-)
Cheers
Jon
Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind
-
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 .
