bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> With the exception of very high end AF, I think MF out performs AF
> every time. Even with high end AF, I think the two are only
> comparable. I shoot basketball and baseball, and the pre-focus
> method, combined with good instincts and use of DOF does a fine job.
> My wife occasionally shoots sports with an AF, and routinely ends up
> with shots that focused on the goal instead of the face, the player
> in back instead of the player in front, or some guy in the stands
> instead of the player on the sideline.
>
>
I would tend to disagree that MF outperforms AF every time. A real quality
high-end AF like a Contax will surprise you.
Your wife's experience proves nothing other than she hasn't yet mastered her
equipment, recognizing all of it's plusses as well as it's shorcomings. You,
OTOH, apparently get all that you can out of your equipment, and have
mastered same.
The sports you mention, basketball and baseball, as well as a car race, allow
you to successfully pre-focus and wait for the action to arrive at that
point, which it will, 80 or 900f the time. Try something a bit faster,
such as hockey, soccer, or even football, and I'll bet you have trouble with
getting the shots when you have to focus manually while "following the ball"
rather than "predicting" its path.
George S.
|