Will anyone countenance an agreeing position? I find that DOF estimation is extremely difficult for me, _seemingly_ because my eyes/brain combo compensates for the out-of-focus image that's entering my eye, and says, "Hey, this can't be! Let's make the best from what we're presented and 'pretend' it's in focus!" So, try as I might, whatever or whenever I view something slightly out of focus, it very quickly appears very close to the adjacent scene parts that are IN focus. In other words, it doesn't work for me!
This is why I try to obtain bodies (or VF screens) that have a diagonal (preferred) or horizontal split image for focusing! When those adjacent hemi-circle images line up, I know I'm on as good a focus as the camera can give me. If it's too dark or the lens too long, I refer to the tables, and guesstimate! That's my take on it... keith whaley Cotty wrote: > > >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
