07-17-2010, 10:22 PM
[quote name='Pinhole' date='17 July 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1279325221' post='1054']
Actually, I would second this. While I am not on any political side when it comes to AF vs MF, I would say that there are situations where manual focus is the best choice. For example, if you have a subject (such as a musician on a stage) and you want to decide instantly to focus on the instrument, the hand, the arm, the eyes etc. manual focus is probably faster.[/quote]
Somehow I doubt that. I honesltly do think that AF plus final MF adjustment, if required, is faster than MF only. I do this a lot, and it means I overshoot much less and less often than with MF only.
I don't necessarily agree here either. In the past , before the advent of AF, we only had 1 real MF point, the split prism wedge in the middle of the screen. And to be very honest, it isn't more precise than whatever you could see. I also had a simple precision matte focusing screen, especially for macro work etc., but that was even slower to use, for MF. BTW, to this day, unless I use tracking mode, I only use a single AF point, the one in the centre.
I can still remember that my wife always was complaining for me to hurry up with taking a photograph, it took so darn long - that was purely because of MF. These days she never complains, but we never stop for very long anymore when I take a photograph, thanks to AF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
With FTM lenses you don't have to switch to MF, so that part is as easy, especially as I have dedicated my *-button to AF. Better mechanics, yes, for a purpose. AF lenses have to be less tight because the AF motor is not as powerful as our hands. However, if you use fast lenses and the right focusing screens, I dare say AF lenses are easily as easy to MF with as any other non-AF lens.
That you find it more satisfying is fine, and clearly important to you, but that is subjective..<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Kind regards, Wim
Actually, I would second this. While I am not on any political side when it comes to AF vs MF, I would say that there are situations where manual focus is the best choice. For example, if you have a subject (such as a musician on a stage) and you want to decide instantly to focus on the instrument, the hand, the arm, the eyes etc. manual focus is probably faster.[/quote]
Somehow I doubt that. I honesltly do think that AF plus final MF adjustment, if required, is faster than MF only. I do this a lot, and it means I overshoot much less and less often than with MF only.
Quote: You've framed your shot, and all you have to do is choose your focus point and turn the ring. The limited number of AF points means that you are restricted to certain points in the frame, so this is not possible.
I don't necessarily agree here either. In the past , before the advent of AF, we only had 1 real MF point, the split prism wedge in the middle of the screen. And to be very honest, it isn't more precise than whatever you could see. I also had a simple precision matte focusing screen, especially for macro work etc., but that was even slower to use, for MF. BTW, to this day, unless I use tracking mode, I only use a single AF point, the one in the centre.
I can still remember that my wife always was complaining for me to hurry up with taking a photograph, it took so darn long - that was purely because of MF. These days she never complains, but we never stop for very long anymore when I take a photograph, thanks to AF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Quote:But of course, you can do this with any AF lens by switching to manual ... the main difference is, Zeiss/Voigtländer lenses have better mechanics so this operation is easier and more gratifying.
With FTM lenses you don't have to switch to MF, so that part is as easy, especially as I have dedicated my *-button to AF. Better mechanics, yes, for a purpose. AF lenses have to be less tight because the AF motor is not as powerful as our hands. However, if you use fast lenses and the right focusing screens, I dare say AF lenses are easily as easy to MF with as any other non-AF lens.
That you find it more satisfying is fine, and clearly important to you, but that is subjective..<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
