Comments interspersed:
Thanks,
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Ed wrote:
> >But in critical conditions, in
> > every case with every lens and camera used, AF failed to provide enough
> > accuracy to match a carefully manually focused lens when comparing them
with
> > lines/mm tests. Sometimes the results were staggering.
>
>
> Sorry for being rude but it isn't personal. You can take that test and
wipe your ass with it.
Wow.....
>What is critical situations? Shooting test targets? If thats your prefered
shooting, by all means use manual >focus. Anyone who uses AF for shooting
test targets is mentally retarded.
I agree, but the tests also support my findings too, and for more important
subjects - not test targets.
> I can give you an example of "critical conditions". I have a roll with out
of focus images of a swimming mallard all shot with the A* 300/2.8 at F.5.6.
with manual focus. I also have 12 razor sharp frames (all I shot) of a
swimming long tailed duck shot with the FA* 600/4 wide open, hand held
(at1/1500s) from a moving (slight) Zodiac inflatable boat. Every single
image was out of focus when the mirror slapped but everyone turned out pin
sharp (on the birds eye who far smaller than a human eye) due to the Z-1ps
predictive AF. The lens was focused close to the minumum focusing distance.
This is critical focus. Should I (or anyone lese for that matter) pay
attention to some armchair tests with absolutely no relevance for any real
life conditions?
Your "real life conditions" are different than mine. Yours involve moving
subjects where AF is a big help and better than you (or I could do). Mine
often are relatively stationery subjects, and in those conditions, AF is
often not as accurate as MF. If my subject's eyelashes are in focus, I've
succeeded. but if it's the tip of their nose instead, I've failed.
>Should I discard my good image just because a web page or even Herbert
Keppler has found out that AF >isn't accurate enough. These kinds of tests
are good for philosophical debates and maybe for justifying >staying with
their old camera ge!
> ar.
Keppler does not write all the articles, and keep whatever gear you want or
buy whatever new you want - that's not pertinent to the discussion. It was
about AF, and specifically, when to use it and when not, when it's better
and when it's not.
> The point is to know when theres a point of using AF and when its not.
Right. So if the article says it's not as accurate "sometimes", and some
people (specifically people who shoot portraits) can testify to this, then
wouldn't those people benefit from knowing that's a situation when you maybe
shouldn't use it? Or should they just ignore it and continue wiping their
asses with this information?
>
> Pål
>
> -
> 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 .
>
>
-
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 .
