He's just engaging in hyperbole, what he means is there is no 'effective' manual focus due to the characteristics of the viewfinder coupled with the lens...
At 11:30 PM 2/4/04, you wrote:
"On the D100 and D70, there is no manual focus. You just don't see what's in-focus and what's not. Everything looks infocus with a wider lens, so small the finder is."
Really? No MF? I'm really surprised by this. Do you mean it's so hard to do that it effectviely doens't exist or that it really i not an option. Boy, and we complained about K/M lens stuff . . .
I believe he meant that he can't tell what is in focus because the viewfinder is so bad. It's got MF, if you can call that a "feature" rather than just the disengagement of the AF motor.
Now, I'll agree that SLR finders, especially DSLR finders, could be improved, but..
I, at least, can MF my 14mm sigma and 18-35 nikkor, both f/3.5 lenses, without trouble on the D100. Can't get much wider than that. The D70 could be much worse, of course.
There is always the little "in focus" circle too, although I was surprised to discover that the D100 does not have the "turn this way to focus" arrows as well (tells you how often I use them...) I was rather disappointed to find that the *istD did not have the "turn this way to focus" arrows that I am used to from top-of-the-line AF Nikons. That, coupled with the lack of a split-image finder and a focusing screen designed more for light transmission than ground-glass effect makes it (and the D100) harder to focus manually than a camera designed for MF. I put split-image focusing screens in my F4s even though they get AFed a lot, and I'd put split-image screens in my D1s and D100 if I could even though they get AFed almost all the time.
DJE
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan
