Ed Mathews wrote:
Hi Ed ...
> AF is not for everything, especially
> for us people shooters. I prefer to
> use it as a feature I resort to when
> manual focus is difficult
What MF bodies are you using? The LX (and, I suppose, the MX to
a degree) with its interchangeable screens seems to work well
for me, as the lens can be matched with the screen. I've pretty
much stopped using the ME S because there's but one screen, and
it doesn't work well for all lenses.
> many of the smaller center zone
> AF brackets in cameras are very
> adequate at being able to focus
> on an eyeball, another problem
> lies in that you seldom place
> the eyeball in the middle of the
> frame, so you need to recompose after
> focusing.
Depending on various factors, one can get acceptable results (at
lest with MF gear - not tried this with AF equipment) by
focusing on something other than the eye. Mafud noted that it's
best to focus slightly behind the eye in order to be sure the
eyes are sharp. That seems so obvious now that he's mentioned
it, but I've never thought about that before. Definitely
something to try.
> 1) You might find it ounter-intuitive
> to focus and then compose, as opposed
> to focusing WHILE you compose;
> 2) Your focus then is locked after you
> recompose, and so if your subject or
> camera moves just a little, then you
> have to go through the whole process again;
Yes, sometimes that's a PITA, although, as you know, being aware
of DOF and your shooting aperture can be helpful in those
situations. But it is sometimes frustrating, especially if
you're trying for a very specific final result, and precusion is
important.
3) Even if your subject and camera
> remain in perfect position, the
> differences in the lens field of
> flatness can often make the focus
> point you achieved in the center of
> the viewfinder wrong to begin with,
> especially when close to the subject
> an/or using very limited DOF.
That's something I've not considered before. Thanks for giving
me something more to think about while focusing <g>.
> It's amazing how different the
> true plane of focus can be at
> close distances on axis vs.
> slightly off axis for all but
> macro lenses.
You've answered what would have been my next question. What
you're suggesting then is that using a macro lens for some
portarit and people shots, like one of the Pentax 100mm lenses,
might allow for better focus accuracy in certain situations.
Very interesting, and it makes absolute sense.
> And in the ZX5N (besides not being
> able to choose the AF sensor), the
> outer AF brackets are only sensitive
> to horizontal lines so in the portrait
> position, they don't see the eyeball well.
That's good to know. Since the MZ-3 is essentially a 5n, I
suppose the AF is the same for both cameras. I'd been thinking
about a '3, but will now wait to see what the MZ-S is like.
> Thanks,
> Ed
Thank ~you~!
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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 .
