Simon Worby wrote:
>That makes it nothing more than a snapshot
>camera, not a serious photographer's camera.
>
Are you being silly? Or just looking to stir things up like Walt and
Andrew have been known to do?
I don't really mind not being considered a serious photographer. And I
would certainly prefer being un-serious to being pretentious.
But as to the vast generalization you make: Can making one's living be
considered serious? Then what about the thousands of Pro photographers
using AF? There are hundreds of thousands of amateur (in the sense of
not making money at it) photographers who take their efforts very
seriously who use AF.
Silly me, I just try use the tool best suited to the job at hand,
sometimes MF, sometimes AF. There are situations where AF is more likely
to result in a well focused image than MF and vice versa. I have a whole
bunch of tools for working on anything from cars to cameras to
electronics and choose the tool based on the job. I view my many
different cameras, lenses and accessories the same way.
Your very narrow view of what constitutes a serious photographic tool,
as apparently uninformed with knowledge of and experience with many of
them as it appears to be, is of course valid for you. Any extent to
which it may limit your photographic possibilities is none of my
business. To extend it to all the rest of the world is, well, at least
as judgmental as I would be if I finished this sentence the way I
envisioned it when I started it.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|