OK - DOF preview is not perfect but it is a LOT easier than having DOF tables for every focal length you have, especially with zooms. Where would you get them? Where would you put them? Another bag to carry? Perhaps you should review your technique? DOF preview makes the viewfinder dark so you have to look it a bit longer so that the eye can adjust to it. DOF preview is not absolutely necessary, I have many cameras that do not have it but are excellent picture takers, like Pentax ME, Leica M6 and Rolleiflex 3.5F (which has the best DOF indicator IMO). All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: Pentax List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 24. marraskuuta 2002 20:22 Aihe: Depth of Field Preview (was: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S) >>I can't imagine anyone claiming to be remotely professional who don't use >>DOF preview. The Z-1p don't have DOF preview when using the AV wheel. I >>have no problems setting the aperture on any lens and grossly prefer it to >>pokig my eye with my right thumb every time I tried to set the aperture >>with the Z-1p's Av wheel. > >Warning: the following statement will start a huge argument, but it's >about time we had a decent technofight ;-) > >I'm sorry Pal, but I have always believed (and still do) that the depth >of field preview on any camera is a complete and utter waste of time. If >I want to use focus and aperture to achieve wide (or indeed narrow) depth >of field, I certainly wouldn't use the DOF button on a Pentax, Canon or >any camera. I would use the distance scale on the lens. If it didn't have >one I would use tables. > >How anyone would tolerate stopping the lens down to try and see what the >focus is like on the foreground (say) of a poorly-lit, grainy focussing >screen is beyond me. How could anyone possibly see the subtle nuances of >the fringe area between focus and out-of-focus down the viewfinder? Sure >you can start to see the effect, but certainly not for judging DOF to any >extent other than as a minor hint. > >Disclaimer: my method requires that I be very good at estimating >distance. Which I am. > >Anyone care to take up the challenge? I'd love to read your explanations >in favour of DOF preview. > >Respectfully, >Cheers, > >Cotty >
