you're picking a few samples and making the statements. the entire PUG is more representative, but not entirely. you are asserting that it can't be as good without trying to show counterexamples where it fails to be as good. did someone with an MZ-S try taking the same pictures with AF and comparing using the same lens? it has focus confirmation. assuming enough light, none of the three examples you showed demonstrate anything that i haven't done with AF. unfortunately, none of the my pictures qualify for PUG because they were taken with non-Pentax equipment. near field obscuration and distracting backgrounds? that is what macro and landscape focus priorities were invented for. does that mean that AF is perfect? no, but as i said in my first response, there are specific circumstances where MF will consistently outperform AF, but they are limited. the rest of the time, there is no advantage to MF and lots of disadvantages.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 21:53 Subject: Re: AF vs. MF [was: Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount] > But let's evaluate these: > > http://pug.komkon.org/99may/reflec2.html > http://pug.komkon.org/99jul/red2.htm > > They're just some humble PUG contributions, not some intricate > "laboratory tests". >
