Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:56:42 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:
:
: 2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Not quite, because camera bodies don't support them as well as they used to.
My Nikon F-2 had an angled split image and a Fresnel ring; I'd have to install
a third-party screen to have anything remotely similar on my Canon 7-D's. The
manufacturers don't bother, because almost everybody now uses autofocus
lenses.

Bob

On 4/8/2014 1:56 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

For macro & landscape, I use MF most of the time. I have the antiquated
belief that the camera does not know what I want in my image.

--
PeterN

On 4/8/2014 2:31 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses - autofocus lenses.

1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

there is, but like most snobbery, it's not based on facts. autofocus
can focus faster and more accurately than humans can in most
situations.

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

but still stuck with manual focus and old lens designs. modern lenses
are not only autofocus, but of a better design and produce sharper and
better quality images.

you can always disable autofocus for the rare situations in which it's
not desired.

It's a matter of enabling autofocus.


--
PeterN

On 4/13/2014 1:52 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:56:42 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:
:
: 2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Not quite, because camera bodies don't support them as well as they used to.
My Nikon F-2 had an angled split image and a Fresnel ring; I'd have to install
a third-party screen to have anything remotely similar on my Canon 7-D's. The
manufacturers don't bother, because almost everybody now uses autofocus
lenses.

Both my D300 and D800 have focus indicators that work quite well with MF
lenses.

--
PeterN

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: 2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Not quite, because camera bodies don't support them as well as they used to.
My Nikon F-2 had an angled split image and a Fresnel ring; I'd have to install
a third-party screen to have anything remotely similar on my Canon 7-D's. The
manufacturers don't bother, because almost everybody now uses autofocus
lenses.

that too, but the autofocus system can be used for focus confirmation,
which is more accurate than a split image or microlens would have been.


and then there's the issue of lens mounts. canon manual lenses are not
useful at all since they don't fit anything anymore and they're hard to
sell because nobody wants them. on the other hand, manual focus nikon
lenses can still be used, although the non-ai lenses may be an issue
with some cameras.

On 4/11/2014 6:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-11 21:50:52 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 201404111226536915-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2014-04-11 19:02:18 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

go find something that comes close to nikon's 14-24mm. you can't.
even
nikon said it's better than all fixed focal length lenses in its
range
(namely the ones made 20+ years ago) and independent tests confirm
it.
the real kicker is that it's a zoom lens that's better than a
bunch of
fixed focal length lenses, busting that myth too.

How does it compare for aperture?

it's a constant f/2.8

Do you actually understand what that constant f/2.8 means?
That is the maximum aperture which can be maintained over the entire
zoom range.
That fine Nikkor can be stopped down to f/22.

But it will never hit 1.4 or 1.2 or 1.0 or .95.

I guess that's what maximum aperture means in this case, f/2.8.


And it's a heavy piece of glass. I decided that the 16-35 would be
better for me. Yes, I would have liked that extra bit of width, but the
16-35 is a lot easier to carry, and I will get a lot more use oout of it.

--
PeterN

On 4/13/2014 2:18 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: 2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

Not quite, because camera bodies don't support them as well as they used to.
My Nikon F-2 had an angled split image and a Fresnel ring; I'd have to install
a third-party screen to have anything remotely similar on my Canon 7-D's. The
manufacturers don't bother, because almost everybody now uses autofocus
lenses.

that too, but the autofocus system can be used for focus confirmation,
which is more accurate than a split image or microlens would have been.


and then there's the issue of lens mounts. canon manual lenses are not
useful at all since they don't fit anything anymore and they're hard to
sell because nobody wants them. on the other hand, manual focus nikon
lenses can still be used, although the non-ai lenses may be an issue
with some cameras.

The converson to Ai is trivial.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The converson to Ai is trivial.

no it isn't. if it were trivial, it could be done in minutes by anyone.

On 4/13/2014 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

The converson to Ai is trivial.

no it isn't. if it were trivial, it could be done in minutes by anyone.


It took me over an hour to do the first, no more then a couple of
minutes for several others. Once again your logic is fawed.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 4/13/2014 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

The converson to Ai is trivial.

no it isn't. if it were trivial, it could be done in minutes by anyone.

It took me over an hour to do the first, no more then a couple of
minutes for several others. Once again your logic is fawed.

maybe it's trivial for you, if you have the proper tools and know where
to cut. most people have neither.

that's why there are services that do it, namely john white's.

if it really was trivial, no such service would be necessary.