Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan Honemann wrote: >>Nevertheless, AF apparently works well enough, and enough of the time, that folks use it with good results. It's the old "horses for courses" argument: it's a tool that's not appropriate to all situations, but pre-eminently suited to some.<<<<<<<< Dan, >>>>>it's a tool that's not appropriate to all situations, but pre-eminently suited to some.<<<<<<<< It's like any other tool, one uses it where it's most appropriate to assist in getting better results. At one time I thought I could manual focus my Leica long glass very fast and did get some good results shooting sports, sure I missed some. that's a given. But, when I was forced to use the Canon EOS system due to sponsorship for the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, I found out just how "slow" I really was compared to "how fast I thought I was!" I found auto focus gave an edge over manual in fast action situations where I didn't have the opportunity to focus-shoot before the moment was gone. The auto focus without a doubt in the right situations is hands down over manual any day. But it isn't a tool necessary for every frame. I know any number of news photographers who turn the auto off or on depending what they are shooting. One told me that without auto focus he might get 3, 4 out of 36 frames in focus and one of those a neat picture of down hill ski racing . With auto he gets 34 frames in focus and maybe 3,4 frames that are great! Like you say: >>it's a tool that's not appropriate to all situations, but pre-eminently suited to some.<<< ted