She brought a Contax 645, which she used once in a while.. When and where,
seemed at odd times.. but whatever. Also, she ADMITTED to me that she was
not sure of how the contax worked.. she said it was "Complex" and that she
hadn't learned the ins and outs of the camera yet. Is THAT a good thing to
admit to the brother of the bride??? In case you are wondering what her
skill level is..
Also, if I had a toy that $$$, you KNOW I will know everything about that
toy, I'll have tried everything else out too.. Because I'll actually HAVE a
manual with it, yes? And, what are you doing using a camera you don't know
about?? Again, I am not request to scan in all the negatives, and "doctor"
them up. I told my mom, blurry out of focus pics on crappy film, I'm good
with Photoshop, but when you start off with bad film, there's only so much
you can do...
Hmm. I will be getting my hot little hands on the negatives soon. Soo...
I'll scan a few side by sides of mine vs. hers, and then you all be the
judge. I'll do an "A" "B" side by side of shots that we both had, and let
you see which is mine, and which is hers..
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Which is sharper, autofocus or manual focus?
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|