04-01-2014, 07:43 AM
Nowadays it seems every camera company except the stubborn leica is focusing on AF systems and trying to improve AF abilities with every effort. They want AF can do everything. But, I doubt, is AF really that important for every kind of photography?
Yes, I understand that for some kind of photography AF is very important, e.g. for sports photography and bird photography.
But, for many other kinds of photography (I would call them regular photography), I feel that AF is not very important, maybe not needed at all. For example, for candid photography, I definitely think MF is more convenient than AF---of course with a good MF lens with a good MF ring, a precise distance scale, and precise DoF marks. Since in candid photography basically you use zone focus technique. With an AF lens you can also do zone focus, but it is far not convenient as with a good MF lens.
For landscape photography, you can use AF but AF is not necessary. With a good MF lens with a gprecise distance scale and precise DoF marks you can do a lot better.
For portrait photography, AF is not enough at least. You need MF to do critical focus.
With an emphasis on AF performance, I am sad to see that many or most modern lenses have no or very crude distance scales, no or very crude DoF marks, with only very rare exceptions like Leica and Zeiss. And many or most modern DSLRs have their view finders/focus screens optimized for AF but not good for MF, though on some mirrorless cameras focus peaking and image splitting exist in their EVFs.
I don't know why there is no company (except the luxury leica, again) dare to make a camera designed purely for MF lenses...if they do for some high level cameras I think they would sell them well at least not as bad as they may think.
Of course, design and production of a new line of MF lenses may be an issue...but I think it deserves.
With AF being so popular nowadays I think people and companies may have forgotten and ignored MF...and have forgotten that MF is at least as useful as AF and in some situations better than AF.
Yes, I understand that for some kind of photography AF is very important, e.g. for sports photography and bird photography.
But, for many other kinds of photography (I would call them regular photography), I feel that AF is not very important, maybe not needed at all. For example, for candid photography, I definitely think MF is more convenient than AF---of course with a good MF lens with a good MF ring, a precise distance scale, and precise DoF marks. Since in candid photography basically you use zone focus technique. With an AF lens you can also do zone focus, but it is far not convenient as with a good MF lens.
For landscape photography, you can use AF but AF is not necessary. With a good MF lens with a gprecise distance scale and precise DoF marks you can do a lot better.
For portrait photography, AF is not enough at least. You need MF to do critical focus.
With an emphasis on AF performance, I am sad to see that many or most modern lenses have no or very crude distance scales, no or very crude DoF marks, with only very rare exceptions like Leica and Zeiss. And many or most modern DSLRs have their view finders/focus screens optimized for AF but not good for MF, though on some mirrorless cameras focus peaking and image splitting exist in their EVFs.
I don't know why there is no company (except the luxury leica, again) dare to make a camera designed purely for MF lenses...if they do for some high level cameras I think they would sell them well at least not as bad as they may think.
Of course, design and production of a new line of MF lenses may be an issue...but I think it deserves.
With AF being so popular nowadays I think people and companies may have forgotten and ignored MF...and have forgotten that MF is at least as useful as AF and in some situations better than AF.