Ken Norton wrote:
> Am I the only one that sees the stupidity in "progress?"
Not at all. It may just seem so, as you are the one complaining about it
"out loud" all the time. :-)
> My old Zuikos of very useful DoF marking all over them. Granted, my
> preference is to go 1-stop farther than the markings indicate, but nearly
> every lens has something to go by. No guessing, no cheat sheets.
>
> I realize I'm starting to sound like an old coot: "They don't make cameras
> like they used to". But for crying out loud, we call this an improvement?
>
I know you hate it when I explain why things have changed, but ... AF,
particularly in it earlier incarnations, required short focal throw and
very light focus touch to get speed and accuracy with relatively weak
motors. With short throw, the amount of rotation of the focus ring is so
small that there simply isn't room for a DOF "table". The lines and
aperture markings would only be readable with a magnifying glass.
So yes, it's a step backwards, but at least there is a technical reason
for it. It's not, necessarily, or in all cases, intentional dumbing
down. The Tamron 90/2.8 macro has very nice manual focusing with a ring
that seems to have nice throw. It rotates about 270 deg. - but thats for
infinity to 1:1. And they tried. There are DOF markings, but the space
is so tight that they are only for f16 and f32 - essentially useless.
They do at least give some qualitative idea how narrow the DOF is at
higher magnifications.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|