Nikon 35mm SLR: manual focus vs. auto focus

Dallas wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:30:32 +1000, DGENR8 wrote:


As I uderstand it, the F4 has no idea what to do with an AFS lense.
Indeed, it is less "hot" on account of AF not working at all :-)


You understand wrong. All AF-S lenses will AF on an F4, even the DX lenses
(albeit with a weird kind of tunnelvision).


Also, G type lenses will only work in the Program modes; so no A,S, or
M.


I thought about that before I bought my 70-200mm G lens and decided that
on most occasions with that lens I would be looking for faster shutter
speeds, so Ph mode does me fine.


Proud F4s owner.


But not an AF-S owner?

For the time being ;-)

I stand corrected, and delighted.
Makes me lust after the AF-S wallet-unloaders even more so ;-)

Cheers,

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just peachy!
;-)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:57:55 +1000, DGENR8 wrote:

But not an AF-S owner?

For the time being ;-)

I stand corrected, and delighted.
Makes me lust after the AF-S wallet-unloaders even more so ;-)

Same here. My ideal zoom lens collection would be the 17-35mm, 28-70mm and
the 70-200mm (which I have). All AF-S.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:57:55 +1000, DGENR8 wrote:

But not an AF-S owner?

For the time being ;-)

I stand corrected, and delighted.
Makes me lust after the AF-S wallet-unloaders even more so ;-)

Same here. My ideal zoom lens collection would be the 17-35mm, 28-70mm and
the 70-200mm (which I have). All AF-S.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

Canon had MF stuff for about 40 years - I thought it was nice but never
bought any myself - although the 12 years I spent with two Nikon dogs
eventually convinced me I would have been better off with any other brand.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
news

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just peachy!
;-)

Canon had MF stuff for about 40 years - I thought it was nice but never
bought any myself - although the 12 years I spent with two Nikon dogs
eventually convinced me I would have been better off with any other brand.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
news

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just peachy!
;-)

Yes, I'll believe I'll nominate you as the Canon troll of the year.
Congrats! ;-)

All this incredible bitterness over a scanner. My, my.

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
Canon had MF stuff for about 40 years - I thought it was nice but never
bought any myself - although the 12 years I spent with two Nikon dogs
eventually convinced me I would have been better off with any other brand.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
news

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just
peachy!
;-)

Yes, I'll believe I'll nominate you as the Canon troll of the year.
Congrats! ;-)

All this incredible bitterness over a scanner. My, my.

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
Canon had MF stuff for about 40 years - I thought it was nice but never
bought any myself - although the 12 years I spent with two Nikon dogs
eventually convinced me I would have been better off with any other brand.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
news

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just
peachy!
;-)

After I put two grand down the Nikon black hole of Melville. I've learned
the lesson. Reasonable people don't let reasonable people waste money on
Nikon.
This is a lesson you apparently haven't or can't learn - I find most
Nikon fanatics tend to be a little weak in the logic department and tout the
cameras bugs as features (ie no miror lock up because in the situation
wherre you could use it you would be better off buying a used F than having
a F100 that could do all you want it to do.
Of course then there are the pure trolls like you who don't even defend
Nikon - simply attack me - because you know there is no defense for Nikon.
The company is selling third rate shi-tuff that you can't defend. But
admitting that would be admitting you paid more to see the admiring faces of
the people who will admire your good taste. Even there, Nikon is second rate
when compared to Leica.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
link.net...
Yes, I'll believe I'll nominate you as the Canon troll of the year.
Congrats! ;-)

All this incredible bitterness over a scanner. My, my.

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
Canon had MF stuff for about 40 years - I thought it was nice but never
bought any myself - although the 12 years I spent with two Nikon dogs
eventually convinced me I would have been better off with any other
brand.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
news

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just
peachy!
;-)

After I put two grand down the Nikon black hole of Melville. I've learned
the lesson. Reasonable people don't let reasonable people waste money on
Nikon.
This is a lesson you apparently haven't or can't learn - I find most
Nikon fanatics tend to be a little weak in the logic department and tout the
cameras bugs as features (ie no miror lock up because in the situation
wherre you could use it you would be better off buying a used F than having
a F100 that could do all you want it to do.
Of course then there are the pure trolls like you who don't even defend
Nikon - simply attack me - because you know there is no defense for Nikon.
The company is selling third rate shi-tuff that you can't defend. But
admitting that would be admitting you paid more to see the admiring faces of
the people who will admire your good taste. Even there, Nikon is second rate
when compared to Leica.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
link.net...
Yes, I'll believe I'll nominate you as the Canon troll of the year.
Congrats! ;-)

All this incredible bitterness over a scanner. My, my.

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
Canon had MF stuff for about 40 years - I thought it was nice but never
bought any myself - although the 12 years I spent with two Nikon dogs
eventually convinced me I would have been better off with any other
brand.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Wesley Jansen" wrote in message
news

"Tony" wrote in message
om...
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.

And I'll wager if Canon HAD any MF stuff, you'd think it was just
peachy!
;-)