Read my post again ... I did not denigrate AF other than to say that at times it's not needed or that it's inappropriate. Peter's photo is a perfect example of when autofocus is worthless, or at least not necessary. You've got a person willingly posing for a pic, no fast action, and all the time needed to manually focus precisely. I agree with you, never disagreed with you, and support your point that there are probably times when autofocus can be useful and helpful.
As for spending the money on a camera with interchangeable screens - I never said that was something to do. What I did say was that one should choose the proper camera for their circumstances. I'm fortunate in that I have a few cameras, but if I could only have one you could be sure it would have an appropriate finder for my vision, both photographic and physical. So sorry you're feeling miffed ... you probably feel that way because you're taking some comments personally and with the belief, as Herb says, that my attitude is elitist. Well, it ain't - certainly no more so than those that advocate autofocus, and fancy whiz-bang features as mandatory for making good photographs. IMO, those people are losing sight of many of the creative aspects of photography when they allow some engineer half a world away to write a program for their camera that will determine focus, exposure, lens aperture, and the like. Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/12/2005 11:44:40 PM > Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room > > Sorry, Shel, Bruce, et al, I think you're missing the point of AF. IMHO, I > think it is there for exactly the times when the human eye/hand combination > is just not quick enough to adjust the focus accurately, particularly when > you have a relatively short time-frame in which to do it. While I would > agree that one should use the appropriate tools for the job, and in > conjunction with one's own abilities, I fail to see what other tool I might > have selected in the circumstances I described (a wedding, if you've > forgotten). TLR? Rangefinder? MF lens and manual focussing? MF lens and > trap focussing? I have all of these and I wouldn't guarantee to have done > better, except perhaps with trap focussing. But even that would only give > me one certain shot, and another if I happened to adjust the focus point in > time, to the right distance, and in the right direction! > > There is also the point that not everyone has camera bodies where the > screens can be changed, or may not wish or be able to spend the necessary > dollars to do so. > > WRT having one's eyes tested, I do - every six months, and update my > prescription as necessary. I still have trouble with fine detail focussing, > and I am sure there are others like me. Maybe it's the viewfinder - but I > don't think so, as I am no better off with my SP's or SV. > > Finally,I would just like to draw attention to my other comment - that I > have found the MZ-S AF to be nearly flawless, and I guess I would just like > to see the same standard maintained in all Pentax SLR's - IMV, if you can do > it once you can do it every time. > > > John Coyle > (feeling slightly miffed at some of the comments!) > Brisbane, Australia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:34 PM > Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room > > > > 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
