>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58835 Yeah, if the autofocus is just flat out not focusing on the thing he's telling it to, that's a problem with either the lens, the body, or both having messed up autofocus hardware.
If it's just that he leaves the focus point on auto and it picks the wrong place to focus, that's his own damn fault.
What I meant by the viewfinder comment was that viewfinders on modern SLRs designed for autofocus don't have the manual focus aids of old MF cameras, like split rangefinder screen in the middle. So you really just have to eyeball the focusing and hope your eyeball's accurate enough. And, added bonus, most of the viewfinders in modern SLRs just plain don't show any focus difference lower than about f/2.5. Which means when I'm shooting at f/2.0 or f/1.8 (as I do a *lot*, since I loves me up some small DoF and available-light photography), manual focus just plain isn't an option. And the only time that the autofocus ever has an issue is if it's really dark out, I.e., when I'd most need to use an extra-wide aperture.
As you said, the lack of focus aids can be solved at least on higher-end bodies, but I've got a Rebel XTi so it's not an option for me.
And really, autofocus on my Canon works really well. I point at the spot I want to focus on, half-press the shutter, recompose, click. Vs. manual focusing on my old Minolta, which was more like point at thing I want to focus on, stare intently for 15 seconds, wiggling the focus adjustment ring back and forth until I'm satisfied that it's properly focused, take picture, realize I didn't recompose so the thing I was focusing on is dead-center like a n00b, sigh at the waste of a slice of film, try again.
I don't know what autofocus system you've used, but on Canons, even with the cheap non-USM lenses, the autofocus is *much* faster than I could ever do manually.
|