A. Pissy Schnozz wrote:
> 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.
>>
First, allow me to wonder why I have been chosen to receive so much free
floating hostility about things far beyond the scope of what I wrote
about. Sort of like the first random victim of a shopping mall multiple
homicide?
> 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?
>
Yes. No. No. No.
I thought about commenting on those last three factors you mention in
both the post to which you reply and the one in a similar vein
responding to Andrew's post. However, as evinced in the content of those
missives, I chose not to do so. Had I meant to address them, I would
have done so directly. You neglected to mention another important factor
that I also chose to ignore, ability to focus in poor light.
By more accurate, I indeed mean more precise in setting the focal plane
of the lens so as to obtain the best focus on the desired part of the
subject.
> 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.
Well, Duh.
> Let's see how this "accuracy" plays out in two real world situations:
>
You've chosen two types of photography that aren't far removed for me
from theoretical discussions of focal systems of cameras sitting on a
shelf. Nevertheless, I press on.
> 1. Sports Photography ...
In summary, you agree that AF is better than a mechanical rangefinder in
almost all instances of sports photography but perhaps those that use
prefocus.
>
> 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?
OK, lets get down to it. I only, and very carefully so, addressed myself
to mechanical rangefinders vs. AF. Didn't you notice how often in
today's posts on the subject I carefully repeated the phrase "mechanical
rangefinder"?
Are you going to tell me that a mechanical rangefinder can make those
fine distinctions? Assuming mechanical accuracy and repeatability, I
can't see that fine a distinction in a rangefinder. But I have not used
a Leica - and they are magic, right?
Since you wander, both explicitly and by implication, as here, outside
of the strict mechanical rangefinder vs. AF boundary, I have a bit more
to say here. I assume here from your title, that good light may be
assumed. As it happens, I can see focus fairly well in half decent light
even on the 300D. On the 5D, it's quite clear.
As I say, I do virtually no formal/posed portrait photography. I imagine
the fine focus requirements are similar to close-up/macro photography. I
do a lot of that. Depending on lens, phase of the moon and other less
clear factors I sometimes try AF up to several times with small changes
in the central AF point location and sometimes use MF. In either case,
final focus is determined from the viewfinder image.
Obviously, I can't speak for others, but I assume poor visual acuity
would also negatively impact the ability to use a mechanical rangefinder
accurately.
> 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 you are being a bad Schnozz. You know me well enough to know that I
only use the central AF point. And I repeated that assertion again
today. I can imagine situations where multi point focus systems might
work, although I can as readily imagine where they would miss the point.
In experimenting, I have encountered the later and not the former. I use
one point and focus lock.
I don't believe I have a camera that does face and/or smile recognition
focusing. If the A650 happens to do so, I assure you I have never used
it. You write as though AF were a mystery, perhaps evil, as well,
without any clues. I don't find that to be true.
AF is a tool and each AF system at least slightly different than others.
As with other tools of photography, study and practice will improve the
results one obtains. Knowing in which situations it works well, in which
it works poorly or not at all and how to use it to best advantage is the
mark of serious technique.
> 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
C/hacun/ à /son goût./
> or split-image focus-aid.
Nope, nope, nope. You don't get to refer to focusing aids on SLR
viewfinder screens in this narrowly defined topic. I was very careful to
stay away from that. Too broad a subject and not germane to what I was
talking about.
> 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.
What you mean "we"? I have never liked rangefinders. I continue to use
SLR viewfinders to focus. Cast your rant in somebody else's direction.
> Disposable "my AF is faster than your AF" cameras, tiny, cramped viewfinders
> or rangefinder-style optics
> with inaccurate and horrid views rule the day.
>
Again, a matter of taste. I really, actually, for real, LIKE LCDs as
viewfinder on small cameras. I think they are better than the optical
viewfinders on so many comparable film cameras. Exact framing and no
parallax error are a joy to me. And with the extended, often too deep,
DOF of the short focal length lenses, the difficulty of seeing exact
focal plane before enlarging the shot in review mode is not much of a
limitation. Nose, eyes, ear, chair back and the guy watering his lawn
across the street are all in focus. :-)
I don't know how I will like them on a DSLR, as I've never used one with
"A" type live view other than to peer at for a few moments in a shop.
> 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.
Speak for yourself. Don't throw it at me.
> 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".
>
Would you mind taking your religious discussions elsewhere. Or at least
not using my posts as targets. Had you chosen to say at the beginning
that my post had led you off into thinking about other related things
and the way photography is leading the decline of civilization into
chaos and destruction, you wouldn't be getting all this response from me.
Sure, the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. Moral decay is
destroying us all, and Satan will be the victor. Can you see how close
your last couple of paragraphs sound to that? If you believe that, fine,
but keep it away from me, please.
> 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.
>
Quit including me in your "we", if you don't mind. As above, I believe
my statement was simple and clear. Tossing a bunch of your baggage out
to muddy the waters needn't, and shouldn't, include me.
In fact, why are you using "we" at all? All this sloth and decay doesn't
accord with my experience of your photography. Are you confessing your
secret sins from which you have shielded us? Or using the rhetorical
devices of tent meeting preachers?
> 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.
And what's new about that? Have you looked recently at a pile of film
P&S 4x6s from the average camera user? There will always be only a few
with the interest and skills to carry out any craft at a high level of
quality.
> How many of us choose to manual-focus, focus-override, choose manual
> exposure, etc in select circumstances?
Me, on all counts, and you as well. And many, likely a majority, on this
list. Who is all this aimed at?
> A camera's ability to get out of the way of the photographer is as important
> as its ability to assist the photographer.
I'm still shooting film, although it's a small minority of my shots.
Wonderful as they are, and much as I like them, my OM-1 and 4 bodies get
in the way more, overall than does the 5D. I was shooting in a botanic
garden on Friday. Out of 119 shots, virtually all have focus spot on. A
handful are motion blurred where ISO 1600 and IS couldn't handle deep
shade or a bit of breeze moved the subject.
On the other hand, as I spun the ISO dial up and down between 100 and
1600 as I went from direct sun through various amounts of shade and
back, I remember thinking more than once how happy I was not to have
brought a film camera for that outing. I guess I could have carried
three, each with a different film speed ...
I don't like the 5D as I have always liked my OMs. But at the level of
getting the shot, they are all tools, with their own strengths and
weaknesses.
> 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.
>
That is not my experience. Especially with the 90/2.8 macro, I find MF
rather useful and mostly enjoyable. When I say mostly, I'm thinking of
various small pieces of vegetation that have insisted on moving around
as I try to photograph them.
The two cameras cited would indeed get in the way of me getting a sharp
image, by being too heavy to hold still for long.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|