Joe, no arguements.. It's just that, I don't care if you have a mirror
adjusted or not... you are the wedding photographer, it's your JOB that's
right, it's your __JOB__ that is what we pay you to do, give us razor sharp
pictures.. and if that means sending your N*kon in for adjustments, then do
so... saying the mirror is not adjusted might be the definition of the
problem, but is by no means an excuse..
Also, would an out of whack mirror, effect auto-focus? There was an article
that said MF is like 3x sharper than AF, I don't know how they came to these
numbers...
But again, she was using it like a point and shoot.... I mean, if you
believe the ads, that's what it is, isn't it? AF? A bigger point and
shoot?
Albert.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 8:48 AM
Subject: [OM] Which is sharper, autofocus or manual focus?
> Comments at bottom.
>
> At 3:56 PM +0000 12/31/01, olympus-digest wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 04:42:24 -0800
> >From: "Olympus" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: [OM] AF vs. MF.. Proof!!
> >
> >Well, I saw my sister's wedding pictures taken by the wedding
photographer..
> >She was using a N*kon F5. I took the same shots as she did..
> >
> >I was using Fuji NPC 400, she was on Kodak 200Gold. (Don't you love how
I
> >make film sound like illegal narcotics? "She was on Kodak 200's at the
> >time.. " hehehe) well, we compared.. I thought she would have the upper
> >hand, I figure Kodak 200 would be a bit less grainy than my 400..
Well...
> >
> >First, my color was much more neutral... Shooting asians with kodak is
not
> >that great, everybody turns out more brown and yellow than they should.
> >Second, mine was a LOT (Let me repeat) a LOT sharper. Her's from an AF
> >didn't look that focused. You can't tell from her pictures... UNTIL you
> >put mine next to hers. Same shot, we stood side by side... My mom's
> >friends just asked for reprints, and they picked mine over hers...
> >
> >Mine was in focus, and was just razor sharp. Her's looked sharp, until
> >people saw mine, then her's looked a bit soft and blurry.. While AF is
very
> >convient... I have to admit that part... But when it's all said and
done,
> >AF cannot focus as well as an MF. I was not sure about that (as the
> >THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS) of C*non and N*kon commercials and ads tell me
> >otherwise... which contradict what I read on the internet... but now
that
> >I had proof in my hot little hands...
>
> One thing strikes me here -- the Ni*on F5 might need some adjustment. My
first Olympus, an OM-1 bought new in 1975 with the 50mm f/1.4 lens, was very
soft when used above f/4 or so. I always thought it was operator error,
until I read a book on camera repair (by George Romney, if memory serves),
which commented that cameras often had a difference between true focus and
focus indicated in the viewfinder. Hmm! I went out and tested it with a
bit of 35mm wide groundglass taped to the film plane, frosted side towards
lens. Focus points don't match. Damn! So that's why! Off to Olympus for
adjustment. Turned out that the mirror wasn't resting at quite the right
angle, throwing the indicated focus off. This was true of the camera as
received from Olympus, and may be quite common, if my experience and
Romney's comments are any evidence.
>
> I later learned that the f/1.4 lenses weren't that good either, and got a
f/1.8 instead.
>
> It strikes me that the lens tests published at
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm> may suffer from
this, as one would expect that a given lens (same serial number) would
always perform the same regardless of which camera body (by model or serial
number) it's installed in, if and only if those bodies are all correctly
adjusted. And yet the results differ from body to body.
>
> Now, back to that Ni*on F5, the top of the line. I bet the F5's autofocus
system is capable of perfect focus under most situations, but also I bet
that a wedding photographer's camera takes quite a beating, and doesn't get
sent in for CLA until it just won't work anymore.
>
> So, it's hard to draw a conclusion unless we do the tests on two properly
adjusted cameras.
>
>
> Joe Gwinn
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|