Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]><<(and remember that, if your main purpose is macro photography, autofocus >is of >very little use at all),>> > >This is the second time in a week (maybe 2) that I've seen a statement >like this. >Could someone explain WHY autofocus macro isn't of use. I use it all the >time...from 35mm to 645 and you couldn't pay me to give it up. > >Perhaps the statement comes from people doing a different type of macro >work than >what I do? >Lea Lea, I am, in one part of my life, a table-top studio guy. I do a LOT of macro/close-up. Usually working around 6- 10 inches from the subject. Little tiny objects that have to have EXACT focus or they are not acceptable. Exact meaning whatever the client says is right and they are most often not here to say. Sometimes I shoot "focus brackets" just to make sure, even though I am working with a digital scanning camera and can see quite well on my monitor the EXACT plane of focus. I can say for sure that for my use auto-focus would be a real bother rather than a help. I also doubt that there are any macro pictures that can be made better with auto-focus. Can't think of a single one. I use Nikon SLRs for practical business reasons (I can't really justify another SLR system, one is enough) and for the auto focus with long lenses. But if they all got stolen tomorrow, I'd probably go out and buy an R8 system. The R wide angle glass is better than Nikon in my tests. Not a lot, but still better. I can't tell a lot about the difference between the 100 APO Leica and the 105 Nikkor but at f8 and smaller there probably is not much difference. They look different but not "better", maybe the Leica is smoother in the OOF areas. Henry