Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,927   Posts: 1,522,142   Online: 930
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53
  1. #21
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    but with manual focus, a less then bright view finder, and human error, you can be sure this introduces a much wider margin for error.
    BS. It almost always takes longer to compose and focus with AF than it does with MF - unless the composition is dead simple or the subject matter has a lot of contrast. Obviously there are cases where AF excels, but it is not the pillar of perfection.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #22
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Suffice it to say that if God made a lens any better than the Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L, he kept it to himself.
    You mean Zeiss users are God?!???
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  3. #23
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    Our EOS bodies have many focus points to manually choose from, so picking and choosing the one to put on an eye is as easy as ABC-123...so not sure what you're talking about ;-) With AF there is no error...
    Blind faith and technology worship...

    I've always found MF to be more accurate (at least with a decent viewfinder) than AF, even if one of the 19 gazillion "magic focus points" is dead on the subject.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  4. #24
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    Blind faith and technology worship...

    I've always found MF to be more accurate (at least with a decent viewfinder) than AF, even if one of the 19 gazillion "magic focus points" is dead on the subject.
    You call the fact that myself and tens of thousands of pros that use and rely VERY HEAVILY on AF blind faith?!?

    Why is it that I have shoot 100,000+ wedding pictures using AF and all of them are tack sharp? AF often works a heck of a lot faster then focusing manually, and it is very, very accurate especially on the later EOS 1 series bodies.

    You use your computer to post your ill thoughtout responses, so then that means you're participating in "technology worship"? Of course not! That car you drive probably has several CPU chips so does driving it mean you worship that technology?

    If the technology is there and it benefits the photographer, why not use it? To say that users of technology are "worshipers" is ill conceived to say the least.

    Hey if you prefer manual focus, that is cool. But to suggest that users of AF are somehow wrong is irrational at best.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Sorry I have been away, but in response to some of the questions:

    I cannot compare it to the FD lenses as I have only used EOS canon kit.
    I use mine on film alone. I only use digital to copy darkroom prints.

    As for the weight, it is not too bad if you are not carrying too much other kit, but if you are it makes its presence felt. My other kit is normally a pair of Ms (sometimes three) with 24 lux, a 35 and ZM 50 planar in the bag. If one compares that outfit with the weight with the Eos 1n and 85 1.2 included it does make it very much heavier. Still, it appears to be worth it...

  6. #26
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    You mean Zeiss users are God?!???
    No , I mean Canon.
    Ben

  7. #27
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    You call the fact that myself and tens of thousands of pros that use and rely VERY HEAVILY on AF blind faith?!?

    Why is it that I have shoot 100,000+ wedding pictures using AF and all of them are tack sharp? AF often works a heck of a lot faster then focusing manually, and it is very, very accurate especially on the later EOS 1 series bodies.
    Has it occurred to you that some of us (and possibly more of us than you might think) don't really care what tens of thousands of pros use? Has it occurred to you generally base your arguments on "industry knowledge" and commodity photography?

    You're on a site where the majority of people are going to be oriented towards or enamored with fine-art, documentary, or other non-sports, non-fast-paced, non-dime-a-dozen photography.

    You use your computer to post your ill thoughtout responses, so then that means you're participating in "technology worship"? Of course not! That car you drive probably has several CPU chips so does driving it mean you worship that technology?

    If the technology is there and it benefits the photographer, why not use it? To say that users of technology are "worshipers" is ill conceived to say the least.
    The argument is that it only benefits for the lowest common denominator type of photography, get it?

    Hey if you prefer manual focus, that is cool. But to suggest that users of AF are somehow wrong is irrational at best.
    I don't think that's what was necessarily suggested. You got on here and pointed out how awesome AF was and how much more accurate/fast it was than the human operating the camera. I simply refuted it by pointing out that it's only faster in the best of situations and the second you need to change the focus point, the advantage is lost.

    Going to argue that you never have to change your AF focus point now?

    I think the reason you get so much gruff on this site is because it's not the medium you choose to use - it's that your general approach to cameras and photography, or at least the way you present it, resembles a technology driven approach - something that people on this site seek a reprieve from.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #28
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Has it occurred to you that some of us (and possibly more of us than you might think) don't really care what tens of thousands of pros use? Has it occurred to you generally base your arguments on "industry knowledge" and commodity photography?

    You're on a site where the majority of people are going to be oriented towards or enamored with fine-art, documentary, or other non-sports, non-fast-paced, non-dime-a-dozen photography.



    The argument is that it only benefits for the lowest common denominator type of photography, get it?



    I don't think that's what was necessarily suggested. You got on here and pointed out how awesome AF was and how much more accurate/fast it was than the human operating the camera. I simply refuted it by pointing out that it's only faster in the best of situations and the second you need to change the focus point, the advantage is lost.

    Going to argue that you never have to change your AF focus point now?

    I think the reason you get so much gruff on this site is because it's not the medium you choose to use - it's that your general approach to cameras and photography, or at least the way you present it, resembles a technology driven approach - something that people on this site seek a reprieve from.
    I don't care if I get gruff or not.

    AF is NOT for the lowest common denominator of shooting. And in fact, the exact opposite is true; that AF usage is for nearly all types of shooting. Get it?!?

    Also, my arguments are not based on "industry knowledge" and commodity photography", as you say.

    My arguments are based on first hand knowledge, AND reading about the camera workflow of many, many others.

    I'm cool with others going full manual, and I don't knock that.

    However when you bring up untrure issues for using AF, that are outright untruths, then I will speak to that. You write stupid things like "technology worship" that indicates unsound thinking, and incomplete reasoning at best.

    Regardless of the tool we make pictures with, we need to learn THAT technology and to write that this bad is wrong.

    Sure I manually pick and choose the best focus point for a given composition, but having mastered the camera workflow of my EOS SLR, I can do this very fast, and this allows the MORE ACCURATE focusing to be done by the high speed processor, and in a fast paced wedding, there is no faster more accurate way to focus, save for the extremely dark shots. Additionally, using a manually choosen focus point and AF benefits evaluative meter too; as it is tied to the choosen focus point.

    Lastly, you continue to put words in my mouth, because IN FACT film is my choice in medium, not digital.

    You jab digital. You jab automatic features on film bodies. You are just an unhappy person and you make yourself feel better by lashing with untruths.

    When are you going to learn that there is no need to belittle and jab other mediums nor certain features that others use with film bodies, in order to "elevate" film. Film don't need it. The awesomeness of film is self-evident and this is why film continues to stay relevent and sought out even in these days of advanced digital.
    Last edited by SilverGlow; 06-21-2010 at 11:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    394
    Having been one who lived through the manual focus to AF mayhem, all this is rather dispiriting.

    Shooting sports we used to take great pride (and a lot of experience) in being able to manally follow focus with 200mm 1.8s 400/2.8s and 600/4 or to be able to predict focus on fast stuff such as downhill ski-ing, F1 etc. AF was for wannabe chancers who hadn't put the time in to learn the craft. :rolleyes: Then we started to use it!

    It is fair to say that the AF revolutionized the type of pictures we could get - like all technology; when used with some knowledge. We could get an F1 car sharp head-on but still get a mugshot muzzy as the focus point picked the nose rather than the eye!

    AF is a brilliant tool that can produce really sharp pictures faster then the eye/hand can react in some situations, but careful manual focussing can also produce a sharp more accurate focus in some situations - I think 'tis horses for courses.

    Perhaps this may be the technological equivalent of "should I pre-soak my b/w film?"

    *awaits flak or the death of the thread*
    Sim2.

  10. #30
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Responding to Silverglow's rant:

    First, you should decide who the "you" is you're responding to.

    Since you continuously post about the superiority of AF, ect., it is only fair to point out that your arguments are arguably faulty and not shared by all.

    It is also about the type of photographgy one is interested in: I have abosolutely no (zero) interest in shooting off 100,000 frames at an average of 6 fps or collecting the "frozen action" sport shots which seem to be all the rage now.

    Other people also have "first hand knowledge", in my case that means having used all major (and many minor) camera brands, AF and not. And I definitely do not share your tastes, insights and choices.

    As for your other comments, they speak for themselves....
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin