For many types of photography, especially with certain cameras and lenses, autofocus may not be the best choice. Bruce, I don't think you're being the least bit unkind - if someone wants to make a certain type of photograph, then the proper camera and lenses are in order. If one is the least bit serious about photography, then they should at least have their eyes and glasses checked to be sure they can see properly, and then use the proper camera, viewfinder, screen, diopters, or whatnot in order to assure proper focusing. Autofocus is not always the solution. Methinks you're being quite realistic. I have had trouble with my vision, and I will not use autofocus to make up for getting my eyes examined and using the most appropriate screens and viewfinders for my needs, nor will I allow my creativity to be compromised by the limits imposed by many autofocus cameras. If my photos are going to be OOF, then let them be so because I screwed up not because the camera couldn't do the job required of it and because I became dependent on some marketing maven's idea of a neccessary feature. That's not to say there's no place for autofocus, for there certainly is, but, like every other feature and accessory, it's not always appropriate or worthwhile.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[email protected]> > Date: 1/12/2005 10:25:56 PM > Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room > > Sorry, nursing a nasty cold today and am in a grumpy mood. Didn't > mean to offend. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 9:58:59 PM, you wrote: > > etn> Quoting Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> If you can't see to focus, > >> either get a camera that you can see out of, or get your eyes > >> corrected enough to see. > > etn> Bruce, I think that last remark might have been just a little bit unkind. > > etn> ERNR > > > >
