Lets say you stack a few filters on a new-to-you lens AND you have a finder with about 95% view. Stopping down may let you see vignetting. Use DOF.
Want to know how ghosts or flare look at the TAKING aperature? Use DOF. Want to stack a 50 on a 200 for gonzo closeups and check vingnetting? use DOF. Want to use one of them aperature-dependant soft focus filters and see its effect? Use DOF. Want to see if there is a tree growing out of Aunt Maudie's haid (that thar's 'Murican for "head") with that fast 50 f1.2? Use DOF. Want to do Macro? Use DOF. I flick that little bugger often, usually to avoid the haid problem. -Lon Cotty wrote, in part: > > > 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.
