--- Lukasz Kacperczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > read the article. > > I read it - it's not new to me. > > > gives several things you have to do to achieve > super resolution (equated > to sharpness here): superb lens wide open > performance, tripod, slide film, > ideal lighting, nearby subject. if you don't shoot > slide film, use a tripod, > have a nearby subject, or shoot wide open, then > focusing accuracy isn't > going to be your main determiner of sharpness. < > > Sure. But that's why there are things like "field > tests". I think the main > point is that in something close to laboratory > environment AF is worse than > MF, but in practice it may be faster and more > reliable than MF. And I agree > with that. I only opposed your claim that this is no > way to conduct such a > test. We have to remember that there are tests and > there are tests. > > Regards, > Lukasz > _____________________________________________ In the "field", where /speed/ and accuracy count, AF is faster. There may be some obscure persons with superior eyes, 100% veiwfinders and fast primes who may do as well focusing manually in the field as an ordinary AF camera body. But "where the rubber meets the road", AF outdoes MF. As for "accuracy" on static targets, especially as was specified, and as has been noted, it was a "test", not the real world. *In dim, "home" lighting situations, with "consumer" grade lenses, AF beat MF for speed and accuracy nearly every time. *Even while "hunting" for the focusing point, an autofocus body will be more accurate than MF.
===== I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
