If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rudi Cheow wrote:
...you should avoid it even to the point of paying extra not to have it. Forgive my beginner naïvety, but why is this? Some people are more anti autofocus than others, though it is not without reason. Will explicitly avoiding AF at a greater cost mean greater pictures? I think what Ted was referring to were the few cameras that are still made as manual focus cameras in 35 mm are of generally fairly high quality. Those would be Contax, Leica, and a couple of Nikon cameras still available as new (FM3A, F3 (very few new), and FM2 (harder to still find new)). Of course, there are others, or lots more for used choices. A broad generalization about all these is that they have focus screens (in the SLRs) that make manual focus very easy to accomplish. All else being equal, will a MF lens that costs more than its AF counterpart (if such a thing exists) produce better results? The only ones I can think of like that are a few of the Nikon lenses. If you only look at the 50 mm choices, the optical formula is nearly the same. The lens barrel construction is different, and manual focus feel is fairly even, while manually focusing an autofocus lens seems very loose. Under similar conditions, the results of manually focusing either type would be nearly indistinguishable. Is this just some form of photography elitism (apologies for the cynicism but as a newbie to these groups I've come across a lot of this)? Sometimes an elitist attitude, though not always without some truth, or reasoning. In general again, a fixed focal length lens could provide better image quality than a zoom, but it is such a subjective measure, few people really notice the differences. If something is so subtle, does it really make much difference? Anyway, the basic idea behind autofocus is that the sensor compares contrast differences to choose a focus plane. In some situations, a change of contrast, or lighting, can slightly alter that autofocus choice of plane of focus. While the DoF might cover that slight variation, sometimes it can result in a somewhat softer image. Imagine that the autofocus can change distance slightly, even when the subject has not changed distance. Most of the time, you are likely to never notice it, while looking through the viewfinder. Of course, you can manually focus an autofocus lens. The issues with that are some SLRs do not have a viewfinder screen that makes manual focus easy. Some of the newer lenses barely have any area to place your fingers to manually focus the lens (Nikon G series kit zooms are really bad like this), which makes manually focusing a pain. Also, many zoom lenses are not very bright in the viewfinder, which can be made worse by a mirror set-up instead of a true prism in the SLR, making focusing manually under lower light conditions even tougher. While I am generally against autofocus, there is at least one instance in which it replaces an action almost impossible with manual focus. If an object is moving directly towards you, trying to follow that changing focus point can be very tough, especially if that object is moving fast. With autofocus, many SLRs allow for quickly following focus automatically. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rudi Cheow wrote:
...you should avoid it even to the point of paying extra not to have it. Forgive my beginner naïvety, but why is this? Some people are more anti autofocus than others, though it is not without reason. Will explicitly avoiding AF at a greater cost mean greater pictures? I think what Ted was referring to were the few cameras that are still made as manual focus cameras in 35 mm are of generally fairly high quality. Those would be Contax, Leica, and a couple of Nikon cameras still available as new (FM3A, F3 (very few new), and FM2 (harder to still find new)). Of course, there are others, or lots more for used choices. A broad generalization about all these is that they have focus screens (in the SLRs) that make manual focus very easy to accomplish. All else being equal, will a MF lens that costs more than its AF counterpart (if such a thing exists) produce better results? The only ones I can think of like that are a few of the Nikon lenses. If you only look at the 50 mm choices, the optical formula is nearly the same. The lens barrel construction is different, and manual focus feel is fairly even, while manually focusing an autofocus lens seems very loose. Under similar conditions, the results of manually focusing either type would be nearly indistinguishable. Is this just some form of photography elitism (apologies for the cynicism but as a newbie to these groups I've come across a lot of this)? Sometimes an elitist attitude, though not always without some truth, or reasoning. In general again, a fixed focal length lens could provide better image quality than a zoom, but it is such a subjective measure, few people really notice the differences. If something is so subtle, does it really make much difference? Anyway, the basic idea behind autofocus is that the sensor compares contrast differences to choose a focus plane. In some situations, a change of contrast, or lighting, can slightly alter that autofocus choice of plane of focus. While the DoF might cover that slight variation, sometimes it can result in a somewhat softer image. Imagine that the autofocus can change distance slightly, even when the subject has not changed distance. Most of the time, you are likely to never notice it, while looking through the viewfinder. Of course, you can manually focus an autofocus lens. The issues with that are some SLRs do not have a viewfinder screen that makes manual focus easy. Some of the newer lenses barely have any area to place your fingers to manually focus the lens (Nikon G series kit zooms are really bad like this), which makes manually focusing a pain. Also, many zoom lenses are not very bright in the viewfinder, which can be made worse by a mirror set-up instead of a true prism in the SLR, making focusing manually under lower light conditions even tougher. While I am generally against autofocus, there is at least one instance in which it replaces an action almost impossible with manual focus. If an object is moving directly towards you, trying to follow that changing focus point can be very tough, especially if that object is moving fast. With autofocus, many SLRs allow for quickly following focus automatically. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rufio wrote:
I own a Nikon 6006 - one reason I chose it was because it has the option of manual/single/continuous AF. Seems like a simple option & I don't understand why some cameras DON'T have this choice. Personally, I probably wonld NOT choose any camera that doesn't offer this. I bought the 6006 about 10 years ago. I wanted AF because I'd had numerous pictures out of focus using a manual focus camera (Nikon F301) , prior to that time - my eyesight isn't so good. As the years have gone by, I've found that I use AF less - but I still wouldn't give it up. I use manual for Eyesight challenges are indeed a very valid reason to get AF. However, as another poster pointed out, understanding how the AF functions (and doesn't) is important to achieve desired focus plane. landscapes, where I would be on infinity anyway. I also use manual for motorsport, where AF isn't fast enough (and has a tendency to focus on the background, behind the subject). But I still use AF alot of the rest of the Later bodies (such as mine) do a fine job with motorsports and AF. time, as it's one less thing to think about & I can concentrate on other aspects of the picture - probably a good thing for a beginner to think about While it is true that more is gained by approaching an image for compositional value first, the technical expertise is often what makes that composition shine. For virtually all static subjects, AF is a hinderance, not an asset. (not a brand-name bigotry flame - I genuinely believe they're the best choice), my advice to anyone newbie, that asks is "get a Nikon". If I do get a D70, I may well be using the same lenses on my D70 digital & my 30 year old Nikon FE (obviously, the AF doesn't work on the FE). I love my NikonS. And Nikon love you for falling into their carefully and brillantly established marekting ploy. (Whenever you hear someone with an F65 referring to Nikon as "what the pros use" then you know it's a success). So - just my opinion but - don't buy a camera that has permanent autofocus - you gotta be able to turn it off. For me, the autofocus options are more important, when buying a new camera, than it's metering options, for example (you can always buy a separate light meter if you need one. But if you buy a camera with AF always on or with no AF, you have no choice about focus). AFAIK there are no AF SLR's where AF cannot be turned off. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Beginning amateur SLR - Canon Rebel | Kapsee | 35mm Photo Equipment | 26 | September 14th 04 06:29 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |