[JJ_SO]

... I would personally always rely on focus and recompose and an OVF, for sure. No issues at all with that approach, either, for decades now.

Now, does that prove one of us right or wrong? Certainly not. There is a system that fits your needs and wishes, and there is another one fitting mine. Why does it need an ongoing and never ending battle to prove the other side wrong or inferior?

Read it again. Then tell me, if it's clear from your sentence that you say "for my pictures focus and recomposing works perfectly" or if it can be read - like I did, because you didn't care to specify for whose needs it works - like "in general and for all subjects focusing and recomposing works and I personally rely on" (so everybody else also can rely on).

Can I see some of your sports pictures, stage pictures, kids in play, some birds in flight where this method was even remotely successful? You don't need to wonder when I call this statement BS because you were sloppy and generalized something. And after that you just made the jump to the systems...

I think we agree that on each system we can get proper focus? My point is not to prove one system is reliable, the other not. It's about feasibility, ease of use and getting good results with less attempts.

And I just tried your "focus-and-recompose" technique. It doesn't work* and you lie to yourself. No problem with that, but if you publish these kind of misleading stuff, I will continue to call it BS, not matter what, because it's wrong. Especially because the recomposition can bring metering issues into your shot, depending at which moment the camera meters.

*Try for yourself: take the Z 7, put the focus point with the 85/1.8 @f/1.8 into center. Aim at a structure within a 1.5 m range. Recompose and bring the structure into one corner. Repeat that shot but this time move the AF-spot to this corner. Aim again and shoot. Now compare. Which is sharper? Not your recomposed, I bet.

And if I'm doing it again with a lens with more field curvature, I get into deeper troubles with this technique. That was okay when there were only 5 or 9 focus points available, but only because we had no choice. Now we have. Denying that leads to troubles.

You can always go back to equivalence-discussions.

---

I didn't say it it changed the reliability either ..... but it does change the point of focus ..... within it's reliability.

......... and I know it was the 100-400mm is not faster at the long end ....... they are both F6.3 ...... which is why I said it!

Got it.