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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"S. S." wrote in message
om... Dear Gurus, Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon over an AF Nikon. I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier and heavier than an MF one, Not true- many budget AF Nikons are lighter than many MF Nikons, the N/F55 and N/F75 in particular. and the MF lense speed is faster. Not necessarily true- while there have been faster 35mm and 50mm (and marginally faster 105mm and 135mm) lenses for MF Nikon, AF lenses are mostly just as fast (and the 28mm f1.4 is available only in AF) But in addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF Nikon? Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF body? Thanks in advance for help! Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were never brought over to AF (and some, such as the 180mm, were apparently improved on). The benefits of a Nikon manual focus camera are mostly ergonomic- to those with a more patient approach, twiddling dials and knobs can be far more satisfying than assuming that once the button is pressed everything will just whirr into place. If you prefer to focus manually, an autofocus lens in MF mode will feel somewhat loose and unpleasant. If I may use an analogy (as I am known to), the manual/automatic issue is something like climbing a mountain versus taking the chairlift- you get the same result, and the view is still nice, and you can even spend the ride marvelling at the technology that is getting you there so easily- but when you get to the bottom again, it's easy to feel like you haven't actually done anything. OTT maybe, but a lot of people feel this way. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were
never brought over to AF (and some, such as the 180mm, were apparently improved on). Clarification- the 180mm was improved on in the transition to AF, which should indicate that manual focus lenses, despite their many merits, aren't always top of the tree. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were
never brought over to AF (and some, such as the 180mm, were apparently improved on). Clarification- the 180mm was improved on in the transition to AF, which should indicate that manual focus lenses, despite their many merits, aren't always top of the tree. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"S. S." wrote:
Dear Gurus, Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon over an AF Nikon. Since the obvious difference is the method of focus, the most noticeable difference to the user of either is the differences of the viewfinder and focusing screen. The autofocus lenses can be manually focused, though the throw is often shorter, and the feedback seems very loose (not very precise). I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster. In general, the autofocus bodies are all bulkier. However, the lower priced autofocus SLRs are largely plastic construction, making them lighter than many of the manual focus bodies. Most of the older manual focus bodies are very compact, though the mostly metal construction makes them heavier. While there is a level of mechanical complexity to older manual focus bodies, often many are very reliable, and quite simple to use. With the lenses, there are a few manual focus lenses with autofocus matching lenses. The 50 mm choices of the same lens speed offer a slightly lighter autofocus version, since they are mostly plastic. The focus helical on a manual focus lens is metal barrels, which adds to the weight. Some manual focus lenses have no autofocus equivalent, like the 35 mm f1.4, all the shift lenses, all the f1.2 lenses, somewhat legendary 105 mm f2.5, 300 mm f2.0, all Medical Nikkors, all Reflex Nikkors, and a few others. With the zoom lens choices, the manual focus versions are generally heavier than the autofocus choices. It should be noted that most of the zoom lenses are newer construction in autofocus versions, and generally better lenses than manual focus zoom choices. If you want to use mostly zoom lenses, stick with autofocus. But in addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF Nikon? One thing to consider is that autofocus works by comparing changes in contrast to pick a plane of focus. Under subtle variations in lighting, a subject or object at a fixed distance could actually cause the lens to continue to shift focus. Of course, this is when the autofocus lock, or even just manually focusing the autofocus lens can work better. With a manual focus only lens, you choose the plane of focus, based upon your eyesight, and the feedback in the viewfinder. If you have bad eyesight, then you would probably do worse with manual focusing. Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF body? Thanks in advance for help! SS Okay, some of the autofocus bodies allow changing the viewfinder, or just the viewing screen. Those that allow that change have screens with manual focus aides, like a split screen view, or fine ground screen. The contrast is generally very good, and makes manually focusing fast and intuitive. The kit zoom autofocus lenses, and some of the lower priced Nikon G series lenses, have almost no manual focus grip area, making them very difficult to manually focus. Combine that with a lower priced camera body, like the N65, and doing anything manually focused would be questionable. One thing that none have mentioned so far is that shutter lag is much longer in autofocus. Even if you manually focus an autofocus lens, often the autofocus body is much slower to react to your finger pushing the shutter button. Many of the manual focus only bodies are actually quite fast responding, making them good for using your reflexes while shooting. There is one aspect of autofocus that is very difficult to copy using manual focus. That is follow focus of an object moving towards you, or away from you. As the speed increases, it can be tough to follow the plane of focus, though some of the better autofocus bodies are very good at this. I am one of the few people on this news group who is largely anti-autofocus. I do not like the lack of precision, or the lack of control. I have rented autofocus cameras, though I largely use them in manual focus. Of those, I like using the F100, F4, and F5 (in that order). My mom has an N65, which works great for her, though it has a somewhat dark viewfinder, and not a very good screen for manually focusing. I also do quite a bit of night and low light photography, using fairly fast manual focus lenses, and manual focus bodies. In general, that type of imagery would often make autofocus useless, or hopelessly slow to react, or throw the autofocus assist light onto my subjects (distracting, ruining spontaneous nature of the images). My uses are quite specific, and rarely match how others take photos. I hope I answered some questions for you. In general, the better autofocus bodies allow you to easily use manual focus lenses, and really are more versatile than just a manual focus body. If you want zoom lenses, stick with autofocus. Hope that helps. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"S. S." wrote:
Dear Gurus, Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon over an AF Nikon. Since the obvious difference is the method of focus, the most noticeable difference to the user of either is the differences of the viewfinder and focusing screen. The autofocus lenses can be manually focused, though the throw is often shorter, and the feedback seems very loose (not very precise). I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster. In general, the autofocus bodies are all bulkier. However, the lower priced autofocus SLRs are largely plastic construction, making them lighter than many of the manual focus bodies. Most of the older manual focus bodies are very compact, though the mostly metal construction makes them heavier. While there is a level of mechanical complexity to older manual focus bodies, often many are very reliable, and quite simple to use. With the lenses, there are a few manual focus lenses with autofocus matching lenses. The 50 mm choices of the same lens speed offer a slightly lighter autofocus version, since they are mostly plastic. The focus helical on a manual focus lens is metal barrels, which adds to the weight. Some manual focus lenses have no autofocus equivalent, like the 35 mm f1.4, all the shift lenses, all the f1.2 lenses, somewhat legendary 105 mm f2.5, 300 mm f2.0, all Medical Nikkors, all Reflex Nikkors, and a few others. With the zoom lens choices, the manual focus versions are generally heavier than the autofocus choices. It should be noted that most of the zoom lenses are newer construction in autofocus versions, and generally better lenses than manual focus zoom choices. If you want to use mostly zoom lenses, stick with autofocus. But in addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF Nikon? One thing to consider is that autofocus works by comparing changes in contrast to pick a plane of focus. Under subtle variations in lighting, a subject or object at a fixed distance could actually cause the lens to continue to shift focus. Of course, this is when the autofocus lock, or even just manually focusing the autofocus lens can work better. With a manual focus only lens, you choose the plane of focus, based upon your eyesight, and the feedback in the viewfinder. If you have bad eyesight, then you would probably do worse with manual focusing. Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF body? Thanks in advance for help! SS Okay, some of the autofocus bodies allow changing the viewfinder, or just the viewing screen. Those that allow that change have screens with manual focus aides, like a split screen view, or fine ground screen. The contrast is generally very good, and makes manually focusing fast and intuitive. The kit zoom autofocus lenses, and some of the lower priced Nikon G series lenses, have almost no manual focus grip area, making them very difficult to manually focus. Combine that with a lower priced camera body, like the N65, and doing anything manually focused would be questionable. One thing that none have mentioned so far is that shutter lag is much longer in autofocus. Even if you manually focus an autofocus lens, often the autofocus body is much slower to react to your finger pushing the shutter button. Many of the manual focus only bodies are actually quite fast responding, making them good for using your reflexes while shooting. There is one aspect of autofocus that is very difficult to copy using manual focus. That is follow focus of an object moving towards you, or away from you. As the speed increases, it can be tough to follow the plane of focus, though some of the better autofocus bodies are very good at this. I am one of the few people on this news group who is largely anti-autofocus. I do not like the lack of precision, or the lack of control. I have rented autofocus cameras, though I largely use them in manual focus. Of those, I like using the F100, F4, and F5 (in that order). My mom has an N65, which works great for her, though it has a somewhat dark viewfinder, and not a very good screen for manually focusing. I also do quite a bit of night and low light photography, using fairly fast manual focus lenses, and manual focus bodies. In general, that type of imagery would often make autofocus useless, or hopelessly slow to react, or throw the autofocus assist light onto my subjects (distracting, ruining spontaneous nature of the images). My uses are quite specific, and rarely match how others take photos. I hope I answered some questions for you. In general, the better autofocus bodies allow you to easily use manual focus lenses, and really are more versatile than just a manual focus body. If you want zoom lenses, stick with autofocus. Hope that helps. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"S. S." wrote:
Dear Gurus, Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon over an AF Nikon. Since the obvious difference is the method of focus, the most noticeable difference to the user of either is the differences of the viewfinder and focusing screen. The autofocus lenses can be manually focused, though the throw is often shorter, and the feedback seems very loose (not very precise). I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster. In general, the autofocus bodies are all bulkier. However, the lower priced autofocus SLRs are largely plastic construction, making them lighter than many of the manual focus bodies. Most of the older manual focus bodies are very compact, though the mostly metal construction makes them heavier. While there is a level of mechanical complexity to older manual focus bodies, often many are very reliable, and quite simple to use. With the lenses, there are a few manual focus lenses with autofocus matching lenses. The 50 mm choices of the same lens speed offer a slightly lighter autofocus version, since they are mostly plastic. The focus helical on a manual focus lens is metal barrels, which adds to the weight. Some manual focus lenses have no autofocus equivalent, like the 35 mm f1.4, all the shift lenses, all the f1.2 lenses, somewhat legendary 105 mm f2.5, 300 mm f2.0, all Medical Nikkors, all Reflex Nikkors, and a few others. With the zoom lens choices, the manual focus versions are generally heavier than the autofocus choices. It should be noted that most of the zoom lenses are newer construction in autofocus versions, and generally better lenses than manual focus zoom choices. If you want to use mostly zoom lenses, stick with autofocus. But in addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF Nikon? One thing to consider is that autofocus works by comparing changes in contrast to pick a plane of focus. Under subtle variations in lighting, a subject or object at a fixed distance could actually cause the lens to continue to shift focus. Of course, this is when the autofocus lock, or even just manually focusing the autofocus lens can work better. With a manual focus only lens, you choose the plane of focus, based upon your eyesight, and the feedback in the viewfinder. If you have bad eyesight, then you would probably do worse with manual focusing. Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF body? Thanks in advance for help! SS Okay, some of the autofocus bodies allow changing the viewfinder, or just the viewing screen. Those that allow that change have screens with manual focus aides, like a split screen view, or fine ground screen. The contrast is generally very good, and makes manually focusing fast and intuitive. The kit zoom autofocus lenses, and some of the lower priced Nikon G series lenses, have almost no manual focus grip area, making them very difficult to manually focus. Combine that with a lower priced camera body, like the N65, and doing anything manually focused would be questionable. One thing that none have mentioned so far is that shutter lag is much longer in autofocus. Even if you manually focus an autofocus lens, often the autofocus body is much slower to react to your finger pushing the shutter button. Many of the manual focus only bodies are actually quite fast responding, making them good for using your reflexes while shooting. There is one aspect of autofocus that is very difficult to copy using manual focus. That is follow focus of an object moving towards you, or away from you. As the speed increases, it can be tough to follow the plane of focus, though some of the better autofocus bodies are very good at this. I am one of the few people on this news group who is largely anti-autofocus. I do not like the lack of precision, or the lack of control. I have rented autofocus cameras, though I largely use them in manual focus. Of those, I like using the F100, F4, and F5 (in that order). My mom has an N65, which works great for her, though it has a somewhat dark viewfinder, and not a very good screen for manually focusing. I also do quite a bit of night and low light photography, using fairly fast manual focus lenses, and manual focus bodies. In general, that type of imagery would often make autofocus useless, or hopelessly slow to react, or throw the autofocus assist light onto my subjects (distracting, ruining spontaneous nature of the images). My uses are quite specific, and rarely match how others take photos. I hope I answered some questions for you. In general, the better autofocus bodies allow you to easily use manual focus lenses, and really are more versatile than just a manual focus body. If you want zoom lenses, stick with autofocus. Hope that helps. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message . com...
Actually the MF will be the heavier given similar models. They tend to be old designs with mechanical linkages and metal bodies. The only advantage to them is that some equipment snobs will tell you that you'll learn more about photography from them - they are wrong, and in fact actually don't have the vaguest idea how wrong they are, but that's the way they are, and no amount of evidence is gonna change them. Go for AF - and take a look at Canon and Pentax while you're at it. Nikon has been running on empty for a while now. As the late-for-all-intents James Doohan's character, Scotty, said, "Ye canna change the laws of physics." You don't get something for nothing. When you have a camera body with more functions, more subsystems, more complexity and yet it weighs less, and we can safely bet costs less to make, then, it's like Johnny Mercer said-"Something's Got To Give". What gets left out is simplicity, ruggedness, and straightforwardness of operation. You won't necessarily learn more about photography from the MF camera, because the AF Nikons go both ways. You can turn the autofocus off and in fact most of the time you will. But autofocus is something a lot of people just never will need-I'd say among people who are any good, more than not. Unless you are going into a field where autofocus has made a demonstrable improvement, I'd avoid it. I'd take advantage of the favorable used market in mechanical manual still-supported SLRs and their optics, with the idea you can always add an autofocus body and a couple of lenses to the system if you go Nikon. Autofocus is just not an improvement _for most people_, and it presupposes an electronic camera that puts you out of business with a dead battery or electronic failure. If you can provide evidence that this isn't so, I'd say you might change us diehards. But it is so, and as long as it is, we're going to uphold the standard. The vast majority of M Leicas ever made are still operational and you can seriously consider an old M3 that isn't mint as a user camera. That isn't remotely true of the vast majority of cameras made back then, and the same standard shouls be applied to new purchases today-Is this thing going to be usable in twenty, thirty, fifty years? Otherwise, buy a disposable. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message . com...
Actually the MF will be the heavier given similar models. They tend to be old designs with mechanical linkages and metal bodies. The only advantage to them is that some equipment snobs will tell you that you'll learn more about photography from them - they are wrong, and in fact actually don't have the vaguest idea how wrong they are, but that's the way they are, and no amount of evidence is gonna change them. Go for AF - and take a look at Canon and Pentax while you're at it. Nikon has been running on empty for a while now. As the late-for-all-intents James Doohan's character, Scotty, said, "Ye canna change the laws of physics." You don't get something for nothing. When you have a camera body with more functions, more subsystems, more complexity and yet it weighs less, and we can safely bet costs less to make, then, it's like Johnny Mercer said-"Something's Got To Give". What gets left out is simplicity, ruggedness, and straightforwardness of operation. You won't necessarily learn more about photography from the MF camera, because the AF Nikons go both ways. You can turn the autofocus off and in fact most of the time you will. But autofocus is something a lot of people just never will need-I'd say among people who are any good, more than not. Unless you are going into a field where autofocus has made a demonstrable improvement, I'd avoid it. I'd take advantage of the favorable used market in mechanical manual still-supported SLRs and their optics, with the idea you can always add an autofocus body and a couple of lenses to the system if you go Nikon. Autofocus is just not an improvement _for most people_, and it presupposes an electronic camera that puts you out of business with a dead battery or electronic failure. If you can provide evidence that this isn't so, I'd say you might change us diehards. But it is so, and as long as it is, we're going to uphold the standard. The vast majority of M Leicas ever made are still operational and you can seriously consider an old M3 that isn't mint as a user camera. That isn't remotely true of the vast majority of cameras made back then, and the same standard shouls be applied to new purchases today-Is this thing going to be usable in twenty, thirty, fifty years? Otherwise, buy a disposable. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message . com...
Actually the MF will be the heavier given similar models. They tend to be old designs with mechanical linkages and metal bodies. The only advantage to them is that some equipment snobs will tell you that you'll learn more about photography from them - they are wrong, and in fact actually don't have the vaguest idea how wrong they are, but that's the way they are, and no amount of evidence is gonna change them. Go for AF - and take a look at Canon and Pentax while you're at it. Nikon has been running on empty for a while now. As the late-for-all-intents James Doohan's character, Scotty, said, "Ye canna change the laws of physics." You don't get something for nothing. When you have a camera body with more functions, more subsystems, more complexity and yet it weighs less, and we can safely bet costs less to make, then, it's like Johnny Mercer said-"Something's Got To Give". What gets left out is simplicity, ruggedness, and straightforwardness of operation. You won't necessarily learn more about photography from the MF camera, because the AF Nikons go both ways. You can turn the autofocus off and in fact most of the time you will. But autofocus is something a lot of people just never will need-I'd say among people who are any good, more than not. Unless you are going into a field where autofocus has made a demonstrable improvement, I'd avoid it. I'd take advantage of the favorable used market in mechanical manual still-supported SLRs and their optics, with the idea you can always add an autofocus body and a couple of lenses to the system if you go Nikon. Autofocus is just not an improvement _for most people_, and it presupposes an electronic camera that puts you out of business with a dead battery or electronic failure. If you can provide evidence that this isn't so, I'd say you might change us diehards. But it is so, and as long as it is, we're going to uphold the standard. The vast majority of M Leicas ever made are still operational and you can seriously consider an old M3 that isn't mint as a user camera. That isn't remotely true of the vast majority of cameras made back then, and the same standard shouls be applied to new purchases today-Is this thing going to be usable in twenty, thirty, fifty years? Otherwise, buy a disposable. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"S. S." wrote in message om... Dear Gurus, Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon over an AF Nikon. I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster. But in addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF Nikon? Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF body? Thanks in advance for help! SS If you are taking pictures of people in a crowd, such as people on the street, or walking down a boardwalk, it is very easy for the Auto Focus mechanism in your camera to become confused, and not know exactly who to focus on. I find that manual focus is much more reliable in a situation like this.....I can always crop out what I don't like in the photograph later, and just get the particular individual that I had in focus for the shot, or use the other people as a sort of, "background" for the individual that is in focus, and is therefore, the real subject of the shot. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Need Nikon FG Instruction Manual | Amit Joneja | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | August 6th 04 01:39 PM |
Nikon D70 (and my 35mm Nikon equipment) | Matt Clara | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 2nd 04 11:58 AM |
What's the "leica look"? | TP | 35mm Photo Equipment | 68 | June 24th 04 05:05 PM |
Nikon SF-200 Auto slide feeder (like new) for sale | Ronald Shu | Photographing Nature | 0 | January 31st 04 07:46 PM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |