Will phase focusing go the way of the dinosaur?

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:27:01 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:04:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?


Only one brand has significant, systematic problems with AF accuracy
and repeatability, and that is Canon. With all brands, there are of
course the usual quality control issues, especially with tolerances
that can cause problems. But only Canon has a system in which the
problems are inherent in the design of the AF system.

Canon has worked very hard to minimise these problems with firmware
updates and more careful calibration of cameras and lenses. They
haven't been eliminated, but they have been minimised to the extent
that the vast majority of Canon users are not even aware of them.

I disagree. Every last DSLR photo posted by every participant of these
newsgroups using all brands of DSLRs has shown focusing errors. More often
due to having too shallow DOF but still compounded with poor auto-focusing.
If they are unaware of these issues it is because they are either
physically blind or mentally blinded in trying to justify why they spent so
much money. Trying to justify why their camera will only create photos that
can be printed no larger than 5x3 inches before the blurriness shows. Even
smaller than that. If the blur easily shows in an 800x600 web-page image
then it can only be printed to less than 3x2 inches. They might as well
have bought a bubble-pack Barbie-Cam from Walmart to get that image
quality. It would have easily done a better job than that.

Enjoy your having spent about $1000-$15,000 in camera gear to get images
that can't stand up to printing larger than 3x2 inches.

Who's the fool?

Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:51:13 -0500, James Nagler
wrote:
Every last DSLR photo posted by every participant of these
newsgroups using all brands of DSLRs has shown focusing errors. More often
due to having too shallow DOF but still compounded with poor auto-focusing.

You have a point,

No he doesn't.

Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:31:39 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:51:13 -0500, James Nagler
wrote:
Every last DSLR photo posted by every participant of these
newsgroups using all brands of DSLRs has shown focusing errors. More often
due to having too shallow DOF but still compounded with poor auto-focusing.
You have a point,
No he doesn't.

Unfortunately for you, he does have a point. If you want to disagree
with him, please do it directly - in other words, with him.

Well, now, tony, I disagree with you on this: Why disagree with a
pest/troll?
And it's perfectly fine to disagree directly with those who second a
"point".

His statement is so broad as to be meaningless. How unusual.

--
john mcwilliams

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:31:39 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:51:13 -0500, James Nagler
wrote:
Every last DSLR photo posted by every participant of these
newsgroups using all brands of DSLRs has shown focusing errors. More often
due to having too shallow DOF but still compounded with poor auto-focusing.

You have a point,

No he doesn't.


So speaks the self-appointed macrophotography "X-Spurt" ("X" the unknown
quantity, and "spurt", a drip working under pressure) who couldn't do
decent macrophotography if his life depended on it.

LOL!

LOL! wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:31:39 -0700, Paul Furman
Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:51:13 -0500, James Nagler
wrote:
Every last DSLR photo posted by every participant of these
newsgroups using all brands of DSLRs has shown focusing errors. More often
due to having too shallow DOF but still compounded with poor auto-focusing.

You have a point,

No he doesn't.

So speaks the self-appointed macrophotography "X-Spurt" ("X" the unknown

Go away, asshole troll.

--
Ray Fischer

LOL! wrote:
"spurt"

What species of moth you think we got here?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...41922/sizes/l/

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:08:29 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

LOL! wrote:
"spurt"

What species of moth you think we got here?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...41922/sizes/l/

Seems to be one of the Tussock family (/Lymantriidae/), but with so much of
it blurred due to too shallow DOF from using that PIECE OF **** CAMERA AND
LENSES OF YOURS it would be impossible to make any kind of positive
identification.

That image couldn't even be printed at 5"x3" without the overwhelming haze
and blurriness detracting from anything interesting because of your CRAPPY
photography skills. When are you going to learn that you REALLY SUCK and
are a TOTAL LOSER at macrophotography?

LOL!

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT), Vance
wrote:

On Jun 9, 2:08*pm, Paul Furman wrote:
LOL! wrote:
"spurt"

What species of moth you think we got here?http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...41922/sizes/l/

Nice job, Paul. I like the translucency you captured and the blue is
a very good compliment to the warm tones of the moth.

Vance

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, someone with your even lamer skills WOULD think that.

LOL!

On 10-06-09 17:08 , Paul Furman wrote:
LOL! wrote:
"spurt"

What species of moth you think we got here?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...41922/sizes/l/

No idea. But the photo is pretty cool. Looks like it should be cover
art for a sci-fi paperback.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-06-08 13:18 , John A. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:05:15 +0100,
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:24:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Many of us refuse to respond to the P&S troll of many names regardless
of what he has to say, or point he might have.
Hell we all have "points", some of them are quite disagreeable. Most of
his are.


But not all of them, as you well know. Perhaps he makes you feel
uncomfortable, in which case don't reply to him. Your choice.

But those of us who feel he has something to say, and/or don't feel in
the least uncomfortable about having our buying decisions questioned,
can choose for ourselves whether or not to reply. Our choice.

When someone happens to hit a bull's eye with a pellet from a
sawed-off shotgun do you say "nice shot"?

Chances are that some of the shot was nice. (shot as in pellets).n

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.