Having never owned an AF camera, I was rather amazed at all the tiny buttons
and switches on one I had a chance to handle recently. Afterward, I asked a
sampling of pro shooters how often they turned AF off. The replies
surprised me - for the majority of the dozen or so I asked, said it was
"most of the time". It seems they want the newest bodies and optical
technology, but AF itself is sort of something they accept but not really
use. I thought that odd. Now granted, the sample set was of hard-core
photojournalists specializing in motorsport, but I still think it's
(contractive form, not possessive <g>) a little counterintuitive. Why is AF
so totally dominant if so many turn it off in "normal" use?
I have to admit I was most pleased with my Olympus gear when some of them
noticed and commented how good it was to see an OM again.
John P
______________________________________
My Grandfather taught me to live by two rules. Rule #1: Don't tell folks
everything you know.
Shawn Wright <swright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> triggered the question when he wrote:
>Makes you wonder what they could do if they redesigned some of the 20+ year
old
>primes which are still considered fine performers by today's standards...
>Obviously this lens must have required some big $$ to design, so why did
they
>stop at this?
>Wouldn't a handful of new lenses which perform this well, combined with a
new
>OM-5/6 get some real attention? Or is everyone so sold on AF that such a
move
>is too little too late?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|