AF definitely does have its place (like the
aforementioned long telephoto) as well as large range
zoom lenses. However I think that unless you are a
sports photographer etc. AF is not needed and if you
want something like it a good P&S will fill in better
than an SLR. I mean its a snap to focus a 50mm normal
lens under any circumstances barring complete darkness
(where AF would be competely useless anyway) and
anything up to say 200mm is a snap as well. Wide angle
is even more of a 'joke' since they have such enormous
depth of field. For lenses in the 8-150mm range AF and
IS and such is a gimmick designed to drive up the
price of lenses. Beyond 200-300mm however AF and IS
and such do have a very valid use however. Of course
this is all IMHO.
Mark Lloyd
--- Roger Wesson <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> AG Schnozz wrote:
> >
> > > Autofocus? But hasn't it been shown that no
> autofocus can yet
> > > match the
> > > focussing accuracy of a good human eye? And
> isn't it easier
> > > to control
> > > what's in focus by eye than by machine?
> >
> > Have you tried follow-focusing a pair of
> dog-fighting eagles
> > with a 600mm manual focus lens lately?
> >
>
> Er, no... so I was thinking of still subjects,
> really. But still, I
> don't like to surrender any of the control of the
> camera to any
> circuitry. That's why I love my OM-1! And anyway,
> doesn't Mike Veglia
> do OK with some pretty fast-moving subjects?
>
> Roger
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|