4 points on this topic:
The local AP sports stringer made the comment to a group of us that when
the action was fast, both he and his partner felt that they could manually
focus both faster and more accurately than could their Canon and Nikon
wunderbricken. They both also mentioned carrying 1 and sometimes 2 backup
bodies at most events, partially due to fears of equipment malfunctions.
When I went on a brief field excursion with these guys, I never once saw
either one of them use the autofocus features on their cameras. Perhaps
that's because they were with a bunch of us using manual focus cameras, and
perhaps it was something else. (I didn't think to ask.)
When my Dad complained of the difficulty he had learning to use the
controls on his Minolta autojunk, and the number of times he felt that he'd
done everything right and still gotten lousy results due to the camera
picking a different focal point than his, I sent him a starter OM kit. Bit
by bit, I'm sending him what will be an OM system. He's already commented
on the comparitive ease of using the manual system with bifocal glasses, as
compared to the Minolta. The funny part is that he got the autofocus camera
because he feared that his vision wasn't up to a manual camera and he
thought that it'd make his church project photos easier.
The local Olympus dealer and his assistant have both commented that the
majority of repairs they do are to Minolta autos, and Hassle-bads. His
comments about both Olympus and Nikon manual bodies is that with the very
occasional CLA, they last for decades.
For me the issue isn't whether autofocus CAN ever be as good as manual
focus, it's more of a comparison of what's available at what price points
and at what size tradeoffs. For a pocket sized, relatively inexpensive
autofocus camera like my Yashica T4, or OM Stylii, autofocus makes a good
deal of sense. If it breaks, the cameras are basically disposable and serve
a different niche that more serious cameras. For more serious work, one has
to get into the really high end and relatively huge autofocus capable
cameras to really get good performance, and at that level, I question the
need. In a lot of respects, Olympus made what is perhaps the best merger of
size, pricepoint and performance in it's IS-3 DLX, and I don't question
that at it's best it's capable of images every bit as clear as from a zoom
equipped OM manual camera. I do question it's reliability and it's other
inherent tradeoffs. Yet I've often considered buying one, primarily to get
it's convience and reportedly excellent lens.
Mike Swaim
< 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 >
|