><< Having never owned an AF camera, I was rather amazed at all the tiny
>buttons
> and switches on one I had a chance to handle recently. Afterward, I asked a
> sampling of pro shooters how often they turned AF off. The replies
> surprised me - for the majority of the dozen or so I asked, said it was
> "most of the time". It seems they want the newest bodies and optical
> technology, but AF itself is sort of something they accept but not really
> use. I thought that odd. Now granted, the sample set was of hard-core
> photojournalists specializing in motorsport, but I still think it's
> (contractive form, not possessive <g>) a little counterintuitive. Why is AF
> so totally dominant if so many turn it off in "normal" use?
>
> I have to admit I was most pleased with my Olympus gear when some of them
> noticed and commented how good it was to see an OM again.
>
> John P >>
>
>There was (is) a thread on this subject in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. The
>opinions were by and large similar - most said they don't use autofocus that
>often.
>
>Paul Schings
>Coventry, RI
I have been helping a co-worker get his first 35mm camera. I could NOT convince
him to go with the OM-system because he insists he has to have autofocus.
He ended up wanting to probably get an EOS Elan II. We went to a local Ritz
camera store where we found (surprise!) a competent and knowledgable
salesman. It turns out he uses the Canon EOS system as his own system
and when I told him I had an OM system he said that what he likes better
about the EOS is that when he uses manual focus that it is faster, because
there is virtually no resistance in the lens to rotating the focusing ring
( which is true ). I wonder if that is a "feature" that is really and advantage
or not -- as it seems to me you want a little resistance so that the lens holds
its focus once set.
Mark Hammons
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|