[wim]

[quote name='Pinhole' date='15 July 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1279152641' post='1010']

This is an interesting topic, and it often (sadly) descends into a purely technical discussion about resolution, distortion, and so forth.[/quote]

Well, looks like this is taking a different, more interesting direction anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.

But there is a certain magic about using any kind of equipment which demands a more active participation from the user which is hard to describe.

I do think that that is about the photographer, not about the equipment. I think this is about what you want to achieve, and I also think it doesn't matter what type of lens you use in that case, or other equipment. As long as you have a vision of what you want to achieve.

Just as the magic of hand-developing prints creates an excitement that using Photoshop cannot ... though it will not necessarily guarantee better results.

I don't necessarily agree with you here, having done both extensively. hand-developing only brings excitement if you are trying to coax the most out of it. Otherwise, it just becomes like any other print from a fast turnaround store. The same is true for Photoshop et al. I can assure you that if I want to create exactly that which I visualized, I often spend hours behind the computer, just like I used to do in the darkroom, for a single print that is. Often it takes more time on a computer than in the darkroom, basically because you need to pay extra attention for different formats, to have those optimalized for the different formats and viewing conditions (screen, web, print, large print, etc.).



I think there is easily as much magic, if not more, in seeing a perfect 40 cm X 60 cm or 60 cm X 90 cm print rolling out of a photoprinter as is a similar sized print from a darkroom. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Well, I do get excited, at least <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Personally I am much more content to pit myself against 'basic' equipment, and to see if I can grab the moment I want at just the right time. This does indeed require practice, and it also means frustration at 'lost' shots. On the other hand, you as a photographer are not just an operator of an automatic machine that will (these days) capture perfectly any scene at which you point it - you are required to anticipate, wait, and consider what you will photograph.

Not only anticipate, but also visualize. Why would this be different with equipment that is more automated BTW? I think this should be true for any photography sessions.

The use of manual lenses does bring you closer to the feeling that it is 'this moment' that is important, because in the next moment, your subject may have moved.

I don't think it makes a difference at all, MF or AF in this regard. It si just as easy to miss a moment with MF as it is with AF, and actually, you can miss it faster with faster equipment <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I think that what is really important is how a lens renders. What is a good lens for one subject, may well be less so for another, either because of its specific direct optical characteristics, or because of the way such a lens renders differently. This is actually one of the reasons why some photographers have different lens brands in their bags of lenses with the same FL.



I don't think it matters a lot if a lens has AF or MF in that case. Essentially, AF offers great convenience over MF, especially if and when ones eyes are getting worse. The concept of focusing really stays the same, even though many don't necessarily think this through. The rendering doesn't. And this is really another interesting part of lens choice, because we all like things differently <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

For landscape photography, focus is a purely technical function, so if you have good eyesight, the movement of the lens can be either mechanical or manual without affecting the results. However, no sport publication will thank you if you turn up for a basketball game with a Zeiss 100mm on your Canon 1D.

Funnily enough, that is what we used to do 30 years ago <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. It is possible, just a little harder. I reckon that if you give a talented sports photographer a manual lens, he will still bring home the goods, but maybe just a few less shots <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Many of the better photographs are exactly that because th ephotographer knew what he was doing, and was on the right spot at the right moment, becaus eit was more or less planned, and (pre)visualized.. Personally, I like to go back to the same spot over and over again, at different times of the day, walk around it, look around for the best angle, etc. That way I know when it is the best time to be there, and also what teh best spots are.

In terms of focus accuracy, I don't notice any major differences between manual/auto lenses - I've had some AF lenses that focus wrong 50% of the time, but it depends on the lighting and the subject.

Well, that's also true for MF. When it gets too dark, the human eye can't be relied upon too well either, where often a focus assist on the camera will allow accurate focus for an AF camera <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim