Re: SLR concerns, owners experiences please.


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:46343DB0.9060309@xxxxxxxxxxxx
John Smith wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:46316711.9010807@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Try reading Nikon's article on the subject:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/technology/nikon_technology/caf/

Excellant article. Too bad you didn't read it all the way through.
Otherwise you'd have noted the last line of paragraph four.

I read paragraph 4. Sure at low rates a skilled person
can keep up, but as the rates increase, people can't. Just like
a person can "run faster than a car" .... if the car goes slow enough.
But as with most machines which work faster than humans, modern
predictive autofocus is more accurate and faster than people.

I don't disagree with that, *when applied to sequences*.

I'm sure it's the case today, since the folks who developed their skills in
the "manual focus" era, say, pre 1985, are either dead, retired, or at an
age when their reflexes and eyesight are not as good as they once were.

Where I disagree is with your contention that an AF image is somehow sharper
than a properly focued MF image, and that it's impossible to capture action
shots in MF.


Your point being that a 10mp camera is much harder to focus accurately
than a 4mp camera.
Not sure I'd agree.

Standard TV is 0.25 to 0.3 megapixel, and 1080p HDTV is only 2 megapixel:
not 4 megapixel. Now compare images where the subject is
near full frame. I've seen a lot of video of birds in flight,
and when the bird is near full frame, you see all kinds of
focus errors in old, presumably manual, video. Again, it's a matter
of rates.

Maybe so, but focus errors on the part ot the camera operator have nothing
to do with the resolution, as you suggest.

Even in your old bird video, unless it's entirely out of focus, I'm sure
you'll find a very high percentage of sharp frames.




http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3F0862.b-700.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_5113.egret-flight.f-600.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.2004.JZ3F4717.b-700.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/eagle.c01.18.2007.JZ3F7355b-700.html

I congratulate on some excellent images. They are outstanding.
However, they don't prove your point

How do I know, for example, that you didn't pre-focus on the tree branch
and wait for the bird to hit the mark?. As far as the bear goes, it seems
to me that a rapid frame rate is far more valuable that auto focus. And
how do we know that was not the only "in focus" shot outa 30?

Your response indicates you really don't know and don't seem to
believe in predictive autofocus. Do you own a modern SLR or DSLR camera?

Wrong, what my responce indicates is that the examples you provide do not
support your contention.
All of those shots were certainly within the range of a skilled MF shooter.

My bear image (sequence), for example, was started when the
bear started its dive on the side of the river. The fact
that as it approached the water, it is still in focus several frames
from the beginning of the sequence is proof enough that
predictive AF works. If you don't believe me, get a book
on wildlife photography. Morris' book above has such sequences.

Of course. But does it prove that the fella using MF *could not* have gotten
that shot?

Look, I'm not saying AF did not make it EASY for you to capture those
images.

AF has certainly opened up many opportunites for more people to engage in
successful action photography than in the days when it was (according to
your Nikon article) a "learned skill".

Where I disagree is with your implication that you cannot get a properly
focued shot *without* auto focus. That simply isn't true.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Botany Photo of the Day
    ... Try to tone down those two large bright circles both about the same height aas the robin's head. ... These bright highlights tend to draw my eyes away from the subject, which I assume is the bird. ... First take a distance shot to establish something then keep getting as close as conditions and the bird will permit. ... Play with this and see if it improves your images. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Convert AVI to JPG
    ... mode and just want a still shot. ... can use to convert a frame into a JPG? ... A movie is just a sequence of very low resolution still images. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: SI favourites comments by Calvin Sambrook
    ... facing out of shot and to the left, any one of those sins would be OK ... Looks like a crop could do wonders for this bird shot. ... with the foreground vegetation echoes the distant tree/lake mirror ... really nicely and provides a frame which forces the eye back in. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: OT - what species of bird is this please.
    ... Whether a lesser scaup or greater scaup is not ... All shot the same place on the same day within minutes. ... I have plenty of images of the bird in question. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Moon?
    ... >> When I shoot the moon with my Canon 20D, I get two images in my frame ... >> that I get a clear shot of the moon only and not the moon and a>>second moon ...
    (rec.photo.digital)