Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,012   Posts: 1,524,695   Online: 767
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,590
    OFF TOPIC
    The unamended version of my post, which CGW quoted, from 3:35 AM remained up after I edited it to the 3:43 AM version, which I again edited slightly a few minutes ago. Bizarre. I just deleted it.
    Last edited by lxdude; 12-31-2011 at 08:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #32
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    What about top of the line, or even mid-market Nikon body/lens pairings? My objection to his under-documented assertions remains the absence of a large accumulation of negative reviews and anecdotal reports concerning AF inaccuracy linked to bodies or lenses. Too many people have used Canon and Nikon professionally for these problems to go unreported or unremedied if indeed they actually existed.
    Maybe top of the line products do perform better.

    Look on photo.net and other places for people talking about problems like front/back focusing or poor focusing. As for anecdotal reports, well, I gave mine; rolleiman and Rol_Lei Nut gave theirs. You'll find many more if you look.
    AF has its limits which are well known. Macro, for example. Pros need to produce a product, and it needs to be adequate. They accept that tradeoff. But there are many more amateurs than pros, and many more amateur/prosumer cameras sold than pro-level ones.

    I have heard complaints from pros regarding AF failures, though often with the additional statement that they would have missed a lot of shots trying to manually focus, too. For sports they feel they get more keepers, but are less confident that any one shot will be good. The old skill of anticipating and pre-focusing seems to be fading.
    Similar is firing a burst to be sure of getting a shot that's adequate, rather than anticipating the peak moment and getting the shot that's perfect.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #33
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Maybe top of the line products do perform better.

    Look on photo.net and other places for people talking about problems like front/back focusing or poor focusing. As for anecdotal reports, well, I gave mine; rolleiman and Rol_Lei Nut gave theirs. You'll find many more if you look.
    AF has its limits which are well known. Macro, for example. Pros need to produce a product, and it needs to be adequate. They accept that tradeoff. But there are many more amateurs than pros, and many more amateur/prosumer cameras sold than pro-level ones.

    I have heard complaints from pros regarding AF failures, though often with the additional statement that they would have missed a lot of shots trying to manually focus, too. For sports they feel they get more keepers, but are less confident that any one shot will be good. The old skill of anticipating and pre-focusing seems to be fading.
    Similar is firing a burst to be sure of getting a shot that's adequate, rather than anticipating the peak moment and getting the shot that's perfect.
    Yup. The best is better. Poor technique, simple ineptitude, and reluctance to learn how AF patterns work on an F100, F5, D7000 or D3 get my vote for poor results, not the hardware alone. Pro sports film shooters back in the day relied on burst shooting, too. Why do you think high firing rates were key features on pro film Nikons and Canons? So much for anticipation. AF was a godsend for sports and PJ.

    Back focus is user-adjustable on the D7000. Friends have used film and digital Nikon bodies professionally for years with few if any problems attributable to what some here argue is a baked-in deficiency. Sample variation is part of using mass-produced items. But so far I'm not seeing sufficient incidence to suggest a pattern.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,917
    I've done my own tests with my body, lens combinations.

    It IS true that with all lenses, auto-focusing isn't exact. But, except cases where there were mechanical problems, differences were very small.

    For example, with my D200 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8VRII. On a tripod with remote release, shooting a test target, I can see the focusing variations at 100% magnifications. But the differences are so small, in more reasonable magnifications such as 16x20, it just doesn't matter. I mentioned this when I sent this lens in for some other thing and the note from tech says "within spec." I have other lenses in this class that perform very similarly.

    Another example, (not Nikon) Tokina lens exhibited much bigger variations. Sent it in. Tech replaced the whole optical train and calibrated. Came back performing much better. In fact, there are virtually no variations

    Yet another example, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D. This was an interesting one. Ordered something like 3 to 4 of these and kept the best. Still did pretty badly wide open. Sent it in. Tech replaced the front element (this WAS a brand new lens!) and calibrated. Now it's good.

    I also have all-plastic-consumer lenses. Many of them have plastic mounts. I actually have no complaints on focus accuracy or optical performance. Of course, them being not f/1.8 or 2.8, DOF is bigger so focusing errors affect less. Surprisingly, I had no mechanical problems either. They have proven to me they are quite durable despite pretty much everything being plastic. I fully expect these lenses won't last another 10 years, not less 30 years like some old pre-ai lenses. But I didn't pay that much money either. In old days, there were no such thing as consumer grade lenses. (except for E-series). Inflation adjusted, these old lenses were expensive.

    Of course, in sub-par lighting conditions, accuracy do suffer. I have experienced this as well. But I wouldn't be able to do that by eyes much better either. Personally, I'm quite satisfied. Results are the same with my three F-100s as well.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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