Field-dressed Moose wrote:
>It sounds technically possible. Why anyone would do so remains a mystery
>to me, as I believe AF to be more accurate than a mechanical rangefinder.
I'm not sure what you mean by "AF to be more accurate than a mechanical
rangefinder". More accurate how? More precise? Faster? More reliable?
Less human factor?
Two cameras sitting side-by-side on a shelf are neither better than the
other. It is only through the application of said cameras to the purpose of
taking pictures which you find one to be more accurate in operation than the
other. Let's see how this "accuracy" plays out in two real world
situations:
1. Sports Photography or other photography where the subjects are
moving--usually rapidly. Modern AF is definitely more accurate provided
that the camera has an opportunity to prefocus and track prior to the actual
shutter-release. Anticipitory photography (taking a picture of a racecar
cresting a hill) almost always requires you to prefocus and "trap" the
subject as it passes into the focus plane. Normal sports photography--is a
bit of a chore with manual focus, and near impossible with a tiny
rangefinder dot. All those wonderful sports pictures from the '50s and '60s
had a dirty little secret--zone focusing.
2. Portrait Photography. Would you mind telling me how AF is going to
figure out that the eyes are the focus point (which one?) and not the nose
or hair or ears or ear-hairs? Oh yes, "face-recognition" software. All of
these nifty software advances all make up for the inherent limitations of
the AF systems not having a clue what they are pointing at. Nothing that
another 40 AF points can't take care of.
Now, I will freely admit that AF is a wonderful asset and nothing that I
wish to be without in many circumstances, but I'd prefer to have a camera
that has the best of both worlds--outstanding AF as well as an outstanding
rangefinder or split-image focus-aid. Unfortunately, in the mad rush
towards AF and then Digital, we have given up on the outstanding focusing
ergonomics and features of the older cameras. Disposable "my AF is faster
than your AF" cameras, tiny, cramped viewfinders or rangefinder-style optics
with inaccurate and horrid views rule the day.
It would be one thing if modern cameras had viewfinders and rangefinders as
good as the "good old days", but that doesn't matter anymore--features and
sensors are the only thing that anybody concerns themselves with. Meanwhile
we're seeing entire generation of top-of-the-heap lenses and camera systems
draw dust not because the cameras aren't as good anymore, but we
photographers aren't as good anymore. Modern technology, including AF, is
to cover up our own weeknesses and of course to administer comfort to those
who like the "new shiny".
Is AF more accurate than RF? Maybe, maybe not. But without defining the
scope of the comparison we are making assumptions which are true sometimes,
but not always.
I alluded to the human-factor. Technology is a way to bring up to an
acceptable standard what would have been a trashed photograph, but at the
same time it is also the leveler in being able to bring down the outstanding
to the same "acceptable" standard. How many of us choose to manual-focus,
focus-override, choose manual exposure, etc in select circumstances? A
camera's ability to get out of the way of the photographer is as important
as its ability to assist the photographer. Unfortunately, today's cameras
(even the $8000 1DsMk3 or the D3) present significant roadblocks in the way
of the photographer choosing to do something as simple as manually focus the
camera.
AG
http://www.zone-10.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|