Of course, if you are working for an editor who wants to see 16,000 frames to select a cover and two inside shots from, you had better be shooting 8 frames a second. I think, even you, Mr. Edwin, will admit you got a higher percentage of sharp shots with manual focus. Then again I admit that occassionally a high frame rate, AF, and a little luck will get you a killer shot you would have missed without them.
As with everything, it is a trade off. As a working photographer, though, what is going to make you the most money is what you want to use, as your experience points out. However, as Paul said, you don't need AF to get sharp shots, millions of photographers managed to do so for over a hundred years. Then even managed to get by without autoexposure, and TTL flash, hard as that is for the young guys to believe. I will admit that my Speed Graphic does not make good photos without film, but that is another story (grin).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NO! Every sports shooter I know uses AF, and they all say it is better
than they are--surer, faster, better tracking, etc. I shot sports as a photojournalist with manual focus cameras for 9 years, and have been shooting AF for about 9 months. I have replaced almost everything in my
sports portfolio because AF is SO MUCH BETTER.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
