RE: [Leica] Re: AF, a FAD?

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

At 03:01 PM 5/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Yes Father. For I have sinned and move into the forefront of technology.
>Forgive me ......
>
>Now please tell me what is a self-serving simplistic view?  You attempt to
>discredit my e-mail with a strong opening comment yet I am not sure of its
>reference.  After all, wouldn;t you say a LUG group is self serving in
>itself?
>
>Your next comment, "And what percentage of photographers, are photographers
>that make a living
>photographing rapidly moving things that can only be caught via AF?"
>I did not say this, this is a twisting of words on your part in an attempt
>to get me to retract my statements.  Jim, what I am saying is simply that
>there is a greater degree of moving sports photographs that will be in focus
>with a good AF system compared with a MF system. AF is faster than anyone's
>"twist of the wrist!!"  

Perhaps - certainly in terms of sequences. But there were some pretty
spectacular photos taken in the pre-autofocus, and even pre-motor days...I
think particularly of a photo that got a lot of play when Joe DiMagio died
recently...taken, I believe, in the 40s, it showed him in mid-swing, bat
somewhat blurred, ball leaving end of bat...really an amazing photo...And
there was a book I remember from my teenage years of black and white photos
of the famous sudden death OT game between Y.A. Tittles NY Giants and the
Baltimore Colts...the game was played in mud and snow...and some of the
photos may have been shot with motors, but none were shot with auto-focus,
and they were some of the best football photos ever taken...

Sure, there's a time and a place for auto-focus. And, yes, a really good
photographer can probably use it all the time and do as well or better than
he or she would do with manual focus. But....the fact that virtually
everything is autofocus now is guaranteeing that most "amateur"
photographers haven't the foggiest idea about the basics of photography......

IMHO