Optical Quality: AF vs MF

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED writes:

Generally speaking which category has better optics:
Auto-Focus or Manual Focus?

In 35mm camera lenses, neither is a reliable indication of quality,
and junk comes in both types.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:37:56 +0000, PGG_ wrote:

You are talking to the wrong guy here. My 2000 Maxima has a 5-speed
manual transmission. I love it. Even my 60-year old mother drives a
manual in her Mazda Miata. I guess it runs in the blood.

Yeah, automatic transmission is for sissies!

Every car I have ever owned has been manual. I don't think I would know
what to do with my left foot if I ever drove an auto.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com

Dallas wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:37:56 +0000, PGG_ wrote:


You are talking to the wrong guy here. My 2000 Maxima has a 5-speed
manual transmission. I love it. Even my 60-year old mother drives a
manual in her Mazda Miata. I guess it runs in the blood.


Yeah, automatic transmission is for sissies!

Every car I have ever owned has been manual. I don't think I would know
what to do with my left foot if I ever drove an auto.

When I travel to Europe, I can rent a manual. When I travel to
the US (or elsewhere in Canada) renting a manual is pretty much
impossible.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:hDcYc.78681$Fg5.42918@attbi_s53...

"columbotrek" wrote in message
...
However the old axiom of you get what you pay for helps. Don't expect a
$99 zoom lens to give pro quality results. It is not going to happen.

This is not always true.....The 75-150 mm "E" type Nikkor zoom, used in
the
80's by professional fashion photographers in New York, can be had used
today for $99. (approximately) If you are willing to do some research, and
look for what you want with some patience, you can get really good buys,
but
it helps to have a camera that can work with old glass.......

It is *always* true... of *new* lenses. And assuming the pro in "pro
quality" is a pro involved in photography that, for whatever reason, demands
high resolution low distortion low falloff imagery. And assuming you didn't
just get incredibly good discount on a Leica 35-70 f2.8 R lens.

--
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...."

I can pick holes in his approach and conclusions in numbers of
s on about AF 'focusing on an eye and getting the
chin', and other critical focus situations - but these are usually
portrait or even studio shots, where AF is inappropriate. Nobody who
knows what they are doing would use AF in that scenario.

He prattles on about sensors that are only able to resolve about 25
lpmm, let alone 50 lpmm. Here's something you might like to think
about. Since the screen in an slr is the same size as the film frame,
greater than 50 lines per mm on the film is also greater than 50 lpmm on
the viewing screen. Given that the viewfinder optics provide some
magnification, you are asking the screen to be able to show such fine
detail, and your eye to resolve it. I think the truth is that one
*can't* see such detail, and the act of focusing consists of adjusting
the focus both ways until one *can* see the image is just out-of-focus,
then guessing the midway position where hopefully it will be sharp.

Conversely, he totally ignores the situations where AF is useful -
'grab' shots, sports, fast-moving subjects, even ordinary general
photography where, because there is no absolute pinpoint that *needs* to
be in focus (a group shot - whose eye are you going to focus on?). And,
many modern AF cameras, certainly my Canons, have a 'dep' setting, where
the camera figures out the required depth of field and sets the
resulting aperture and focus point, far faster than any human could do
it. Not used often, but it's there if you want it.

Lastly, a very valid point that has been made many times, and I make no
excuses for making it again. Manual focus, especially on 35mm cameras,
is good only *IF* the user has very good eyesight. There are many
camera users, like me, who are not 21 anymore, and whose sight is simply
not good enough to focus the damned camera manually. It's also slower -
there aren't many who can snap the image into focus without some racking
back and forth to ascertain the focal point. Remember seeing those MF
users screwing the focus ring backwards and forwards a dozen times
before taking the shot? Then, a moment later, because someone moved,
doing it all again? Subjects calling out 'Hurry up, take the shot'?

Colin D.
Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.
As a 62 yr. old guy whose eyesight is about as good as can be expected, I
find it much, much easier to focus an MF camera, w/ the correct diopter than
an AF. By the time I get done argueing with the stupid thing, it's all over.
I will agree that the finders are much brighter than a fresnel screen, but
the fresnels "snap in". No doubt about in or out. The AF mirrors just slowly
get better. Plus, of course, they tend to look for something vertical and
contrasty, which may be great for football, but not so good for scenery. As
far as racking the focus back and forth on a med. format, that becomes a
habit. No matter what you tell them, people move. They just do. And the
closer you stand, the faster they go. Between the blinkers, the spinners,
and the guy who had a couple for breakfast, racking becomes more of an art
form than the shot. And you can't teach an AF to get a bigger lite and focus
in front of the shot. As far as lenses go, I just don't see plastic being
as good as glass, period. Bob
Hickey www.pbase.com/bobhickey/galleries

Bob Hickey wrote:

Colin D wrote:
Lastly, a very valid point that has been made many times, and I make no
excuses for making it again. Manual focus, especially on 35mm cameras,
is good only *IF* the user has very good eyesight. There are many
camera users, like me, who are not 21 anymore, and whose sight is simply
not good enough to focus the damned camera manually. It's also slower -
there aren't many who can snap the image into focus without some racking
back and forth to ascertain the focal point. Remember seeing those MF
users screwing the focus ring backwards and forwards a dozen times
before taking the shot? Then, a moment later, because someone moved,
doing it all again? Subjects calling out 'Hurry up, take the shot'?

Colin D.
Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.

As a 62 yr. old guy whose eyesight is about as good as can be expected, I
find it much, much easier to focus an MF camera, w/ the correct diopter than
an AF. By the time I get done argueing with the stupid thing, it's all over.
I will agree that the finders are much brighter than a fresnel screen, but
the fresnels "snap in". No doubt about in or out. The AF mirrors just slowly
get better. Plus, of course, they tend to look for something vertical and
contrasty, which may be great for football, but not so good for scenery. As
far as racking the focus back and forth on a med. format, that becomes a
habit. No matter what you tell them, people move. They just do. And the
closer you stand, the faster they go. Between the blinkers, the spinners,
and the guy who had a couple for breakfast, racking becomes more of an art
form than the shot. And you can't teach an AF to get a bigger lite and focus
in front of the shot. As far as lenses go, I just don't see plastic being
as good as glass, period. Bob
Hickey www.pbase.com/bobhickey/galleries

OK, Bob, I guess you're somewhat better off with your sight than
others. If a correction lens (diopter) fixes it for you, that's great.
The great majority of people who need correction lenses also suffer from
some degree of astigmatism, and no simple 'diopter' can correct for
that. They need a prescription lens from their optician, and that
raises problems when rotating the camera from landscape to portrait. Or,
they just wear their glasses with the camera, which can be a damned
nuisance.

Due to early cataract formation (too much RF from my ham radio days?) I
have had the lenses replaced in both my eyeballs, so now they are 'fixed
focus' eyeballs. With the proper correction at the proper distance, I
can see better than most - but if things are out of focus, then that's
it. AF is my saviour. Having said that, though, it doesn't often miss,
and the camera (300D) will focus well down to about EV 0.5 without
supplementary light.

Colin D.
Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.29.05.39.34.783000@southafrican.. .
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:37:56 +0000, PGG_ wrote:

You are talking to the wrong guy here. My 2000 Maxima has a 5-speed
manual transmission. I love it. Even my 60-year old mother drives a
manual in her Mazda Miata. I guess it runs in the blood.

Yeah, automatic transmission is for sissies!

Every car I have ever owned has been manual. I don't think I would know
what to do with my left foot if I ever drove an auto.

Do what most automatic transmission drivers do.....Let your left foot drag
on the brake pedal so your brake lights keep flashing on and off to annoy
everyone behind you, (especially me) while you drive down the
freeway...........

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:hDcYc.78681$Fg5.42918@attbi_s53...

"columbotrek" wrote in message
...
However the old axiom of you get what you pay for helps. Don't expect
a
$99 zoom lens to give pro quality results. It is not going to happen.

This is not always true.....The 75-150 mm "E" type Nikkor zoom, used in
the
80's by professional fashion photographers in New York, can be had used
today for $99. (approximately) If you are willing to do some research,
and
look for what you want with some patience, you can get really good buys,
but
it helps to have a camera that can work with old glass.......

It is *always* true... of *new* lenses. And assuming the pro in "pro
quality" is a pro involved in photography that, for whatever reason,
demands
high resolution low distortion low falloff imagery. And assuming you
didn't
just get incredibly good discount on a Leica 35-70 f2.8 R lens.

Yes, if all of those conditions are the case, then you've got no choice but
to throw lots of money on the table to do what you want. But there are a lot
of photographers who work with a lot less, and some of them are
pros.....What's wrong with a good Pentax body and a bunch of the very fine
Takumars that have been made during the last thirty years? Unless you do
extremely specialized work, I bet you couldn't tell the difference.........

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:hDcYc.78681$Fg5.42918@attbi_s53...

"columbotrek" wrote in message
...
However the old axiom of you get what you pay for helps. Don't expect
a
$99 zoom lens to give pro quality results. It is not going to happen.

This is not always true.....The 75-150 mm "E" type Nikkor zoom, used in
the
80's by professional fashion photographers in New York, can be had used
today for $99. (approximately) If you are willing to do some research,
and
look for what you want with some patience, you can get really good buys,
but
it helps to have a camera that can work with old glass.......

It is *always* true... of *new* lenses. And assuming the pro in "pro
quality" is a pro involved in photography that, for whatever reason,
demands
high resolution low distortion low falloff imagery. And assuming you
didn't
just get incredibly good discount on a Leica 35-70 f2.8 R lens.

Yes, if all of those conditions are the case, then you've got no choice but
to throw lots of money on the table to do what you want. But there are a lot
of photographers who work with a lot less, and some of them are
pros.....What's wrong with a good Pentax body and a bunch of the very fine
Takumars that have been made during the last thirty years? Unless you do
extremely specialized work, I bet you couldn't tell the difference.........

I just had my second eye done for cataracts - Like you I have artificial
lenses and now must use reading glasses for anything closer than about 3
feet. From there on out the universe looks good - I can even see stars
again, and each leaf on a tree WOW! Some of this is stuff I haven't seen for
15 years.
I can now focus a camera for the first time in about 5 years. I can't
see any improvement in the pictures over what I was doing with AF and the
cataracts except for stuff in the last year or so before the operation, when
my eye was so bad I couldn't even tell what I was focusing on -- I got a lot
of shots with well focused trees and such in front of my subject. Now that I
am 20/20 again, I think I'm gonna stick with AF - it is faster and, quite
frankly surer than a 20/20 eye.

--
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 my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Colin D" wrote in message
...
Bob Hickey wrote:

Colin D wrote:
Lastly, a very valid point that has been made many times, and I make
no
excuses for making it again. Manual focus, especially on 35mm
cameras,
is good only *IF* the user has very good eyesight. There are many
camera users, like me, who are not 21 anymore, and whose sight is
simply
not good enough to focus the damned camera manually. It's also
slower -
there aren't many who can snap the image into focus without some
racking
back and forth to ascertain the focal point. Remember seeing those MF
users screwing the focus ring backwards and forwards a dozen times
before taking the shot? Then, a moment later, because someone moved,
doing it all again? Subjects calling out 'Hurry up, take the shot'?

Colin D.
Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.

As a 62 yr. old guy whose eyesight is about as good as can be expected,
I
find it much, much easier to focus an MF camera, w/ the correct diopter
than
an AF. By the time I get done argueing with the stupid thing, it's all
over.
I will agree that the finders are much brighter than a fresnel screen,
but
the fresnels "snap in". No doubt about in or out. The AF mirrors just
slowly
get better. Plus, of course, they tend to look for something vertical
and
contrasty, which may be great for football, but not so good for scenery.
As
far as racking the focus back and forth on a med. format, that becomes a
habit. No matter what you tell them, people move. They just do. And the
closer you stand, the faster they go. Between the blinkers, the
spinners,
and the guy who had a couple for breakfast, racking becomes more of an
art
form than the shot. And you can't teach an AF to get a bigger lite and
focus
in front of the shot. As far as lenses go, I just don't see plastic
being
as good as glass, period.
Bob
Hickey www.pbase.com/bobhickey/galleries

OK, Bob, I guess you're somewhat better off with your sight than
others. If a correction lens (diopter) fixes it for you, that's great.
The great majority of people who need correction lenses also suffer from
some degree of astigmatism, and no simple 'diopter' can correct for
that. They need a prescription lens from their optician, and that
raises problems when rotating the camera from landscape to portrait. Or,
they just wear their glasses with the camera, which can be a damned
nuisance.

Due to early cataract formation (too much RF from my ham radio days?) I
have had the lenses replaced in both my eyeballs, so now they are 'fixed
focus' eyeballs. With the proper correction at the proper distance, I
can see better than most - but if things are out of focus, then that's
it. AF is my saviour. Having said that, though, it doesn't often miss,
and the camera (300D) will focus well down to about EV 0.5 without
supplementary light.

Colin D.
Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.