Well, this is essentially what I was saying, and what is substantiated by
the tests, that AF does not work as well and is not as accurate in some
circumstances. What's wrong with educating people about that and testing to
back it up? Not everyone knows it, especially Shel, who started this whole
thing because he was curious and does not even own an AF camera and wanted
to know about them. And even people that own and use AF often get used to
using it when they should not, and forget they even have the option to focus
manually. It leads to the lazy mentality and when the only tool you think
you have is a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts to look like a nail.
So let's agree and leave it at that, and save the bathroom talk for some
other time.
Thanks,
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Ed wrote:
>
> >Or should they just ignore it and continue wiping their
> > asses with this information?
>
> You should :-)
> Because you then try to use AF in a situation where manual focus works
perfectly well. The point must be to articulate a situation where MF won't
work, and MF works any target that don't move, and then use AF to help
getting the image. I don't see the point of AF for traditional poirtraiture
unless the photographer has severe eye sight problems.
> I can't see the point in tests showing that AF don't work that well under
conditions AF isn't needed anyway.
>
> 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 .
