At 8:28 PM +0000 12/31/01, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:57:57 -0800
>From: "Olympus" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Which is sharper, autofocus or manual focus?
>
>Joe, no arguments.. It's just that, I don't care if you have a mirror
>adjusted or not... you are the wedding photographer, it's your JOB that's
>right, it's your __JOB__ that is what we pay you to do, give us razor sharp
>pictures.. and if that means sending your N*kon in for adjustments, then do
>so... saying the mirror is not adjusted might be the definition of the
>problem, but is by no means an excuse.
Absolutely. I quite agree. Between the choice of a consumer snapshot film
(versus pro film) and the choice of a 35mm camera (versus medium-format), this
wedding photographer was no bargin.
My point was only that this story didn't prove or disprove that manual focus
was better than automatic focus. (Hans may have done that; see below.)
>Also, would an out of whack mirror, affect auto-focus?
I don't know the F5 design well enough to answer this. (I don't have any Ni*on
cameras, not even point&shoots.) But my point is more generally that
*something* may be out of whack in that F5.
>There was an article that said MF is like 3x sharper than AF, I don't know how
>they came to these numbers...
The article that Hans pointed out says it's two to one:
At 8:28 PM +0000 12/31/01, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:24:20 +0100
>From: "Hans van Veluwen" <hcvanveluwen@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Which is sharper, autofocus or manual focus?
>
>: Also, would an out of whack mirror, affect auto-focus? There was an article
>: that said MF is like 3x sharper than AF, I don't know how they came to these
>: numbers...
>
>That would be http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/af.html
>
>hnz
I looked at this article. The writer *really* hates autofocus. But, given the
low resolution of the Ko*ak film the wedding photographer used, I'm not sure
that one would be able to tell MF from AF, given the actual lens resolutions
quoted. She probably used a low-end lens as well, given that she used 35mm for
a wedding.
The article did say that Ni*on AF is particularly bad.
>But again, she was using it like a point and shoot.... I mean, if you
>believe the ads, that's what it is, isn't it? AF? A bigger point and
>shoot?
That's right, for sure.
I have been to a number of weddings over the years, and of course I looked at
the photographers' gear with great interest. They all used medium-format, half
of them Hasselblads, the rest a collection of Pentax 645s and some Bronicas.
Big Lumedyne and Quantum flashes with belt-mounted batterypacks were in
evidence too.
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|