Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] reasonably priced 3Ti 270400363196 you know where

Subject: Re: [OM] reasonably priced 3Ti 270400363196 you know where
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:11:26 -0500
>
> And hey, here's an idea! They could make the sensor move forward and
> back to allow AF with the old OM lenses! ;-)
>


LOL, Yes, that would be nice, I guess.

The reality is, I have cameras with autofocus, Personally I feel that for
nearly all applications auto-focus is overrated. (weezel words r us)

A large, bright viewfinder with accurate and high-quality focus aids, such
as is found in an OM body with a 2-13 focus screen gives more confidence
than any auto-focus has ever given me.

If I never had auto-focus again, I'm not sure I'd miss it. Auto-focus makes
me lazy and dependent upon it. It's nearly impossible to use two cameras,
one auto-focus and the other not. When you pick up the non-auto-focus camera
you stand there like an idiot poking away at the shutter-release trying to
get the lens to focus.

One primary reason why cameras today NEED autofocus is because the
viewfinders and focus screens are so raunchy. Also, the entire shape of
cameras have changed which make manual focusing less than comfortable.  With
a traditional SLR body, the left hand cradles the lens with the fingers
landing directly on the focus ring from underneath. A modern body shape puts
most of the action in the right hand and the left hand doesn't cradle the
lens the same way and to put your fingers on the focus ring means that the
left hand has to suspend next to the camera/lens (with fingers going over
the top of the lens, not under the lens. At best, the most cradeling of the
lens which occurs is your thumb. and that's trying to move the focus or zoom
rings.  Which brings me to my last point:

Most modern lenses are zoom lenses. Most zooms now are a form of "Varifocal"
design. As such, you cannot zoom in on a subject, manually focus (or focus
lock) and zoom back out and expect the focus to stay put. The focus will
shift and the lens will need to refocus. As anybody who has ever used the
old Vivitar Varifocal zooms will attest, it's a pain in the neck without
auto-focus.  Furthermore, with rare exception, today's zoom lenses have the
focal-length ring at the proper finger position, not the focus ring. And the
focus ring is generally of such a large diameter that it is uncomfortable to
use! With the 14-54 on my E-1, I actually turn the focus ring with the tip
of a finger. Fortunately, as it has "fly by wire" the focus ring turns very
easily.

So we "need" autofocus. But is this a case of form following function or
function following form?  When I'm shooting motorsports, it is very
surprising how many pros have their lenses on manual-focus. Of course, with
one particular model of popular camera, this is pretty much a requirement,
but I digress.

The point is, with a quality viewfinder and screen combined with decent
optics, I'm not really missing anything at all with the non-auto-focus OM
system.

I will admit, though, that certain lenses and focal lengths will give you
grief with the 2-13 screen.  At 35mm, the 35-80 is impossible to manually
focus on the "ground glass" part of the screen, the 35/shift is worse, but
the 35/2.8 is not a problem.  Three lenses, one focal length, one body,
totally different viewing experiences. I believe the 35/2 is also
problematic on the 2-series screens.  Trying to focus the 24/2.8 on my 2-4
screen is a lost cause.  When working macro, the older 1-series screens (of
which, the 1-4 was my alltime favorite) was a dream to use.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz