Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Greg Bicket's focus thread
From: Ted <tedgrant@home.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 06:43:03 -0800
References: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHIEPPEKAA.ddh@home.com>

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

In reply to: Message from "Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com> (RE: [Leica] Re: Greg Bicket's focus thread)