My DSLR's a bit long in the tooth now, being a Canon 10D. Its screen has no human-orientated focussing aids like microprisms or split image. It's a camera designed for autofocussing, not manual focussing, so a test of AF vs MF capabilities is going to be biassed in favour of AF. When I mount, say, a Planar 50mm lens via the adapter, I have to look very closely in order to focus, and it's not as easy as on my film SLRs. My Contax RTS and RX, on the other hand, offer manual focussing aids so effective that you can almost hear a 'pop' as the image comes into focus.Like all standard AF screens, one that only shows the D of F at f/2.8, even if you have a faster lens mounted.
It seems that a thread about "I don't use this feature, so it's useless" has changed to "I'm so good I don't need any features" thread.
...I don't know the D700, which is why I ask about the focussing screen, but my first reaction on seeing the results Ralph describes is to wonder whether they're a consequence of a real accuracy of AF over manual, or the result of a systematic bias.
I did a test once with three age groups (20, 40, 60) and 6 photographers in each group. I gave them a USAF 1951 test target and asked them to focus manually and with autofocus, 3 times each, using a Nikon D700 and a 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. The result:
1. the youngest age group had the smallest average manual-focus error
2. the oldest group's average manual-focus error did not exceed depth of field
3. no age group was able to consistently beat the autofocus
4. as with manual focus, the youngest group had better auto-focus results
My conclusion, I wish my old Hasselblad had autofocus.
I did a test once with three age groups (20, 40, 60) and 6 photographers in each group. I gave them a USAF 1951 test target and asked them to focus manually and with autofocus, 3 times each, using a Nikon D700 and a 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. The result:
1. the youngest age group had the smallest average manual-focus error
2. the oldest group's average manual-focus error did not exceed depth of field
3. no age group was able to consistently beat the autofocus
4. as with manual focus, the youngest group had better auto-focus results
My conclusion, I wish my old Hasselblad had autofocus.
Having invested a fair bit in an autofocus system recently, because there are situations where I now rely on it, I wouldn't be putting AF anywhere near the top of my over-rated features list. It does read, though, like the test as conducted shows no more than that the autofocus in an autofocus camera works better when it's switched on. Notionally, it seems little different from saying that a rangefinder camera works better when the rangefinder window is used than when it's not. If the AF on the D700 didn't work better than manual focussing with no MF aids, I figure you'd be asking for your money back.The test, like all tests, has its limitations, but the results are an indication that autofocus is a serious and useful option for modern cameras.
I didn't do any structured and methodical tests to the extent that you've described, but I did try manual and auto focussing on my Contax NX, so my conclusions are anecdotal rather than scientific. It's not the fastest AF around, but it's effective and reliable. The N series lens allows manual focussing without the need for an AF/MF switch, and focussing manually on the NX is adequate for purpose, though my feeling is that a series of tests in the format you described for the D700 would return similar results.Manual lenses are typically better with manual focusing than autofocus lenses
I believe it hasn't been mentioned. Anyone serious would forget from the beginning to use this feature, but consumers seem like they did use it quite a lot.
(Quartz) data imprinting. It leaves "a beautiful orange/red date" in the corner of your picture.
Indeed, I forgot about that. Many people don't bother with the manual, "who needs instructions anyways". Perhaps in some cameras not reading it is fine, like most mechanical SLRs/RF because of the simplicity.You're right, of course. The reality is that the majority of the cameras with this feature have it turned on as the default setting. People who used to use these cameras never bothered to figure out how to turn it off. So I don't know if they really liked it or just figured that it was too complicated to turn off. You know, the people who don't RTFM.
Alright, let's talk about useless accessories if we're done with features!
My number 1: most L-brackets and/or flash diffusing thingies. While in theory good things, in practice the difference is slight. Eventually you realize that if you really want soft flash light, you're going to setup softboxes and flash heads.
The only real benefit is the lack of red eyes. But you'll never get soft light with on-camera flash as your primary source of lighting.
Can't find one big enough to take the mother-in-law.Great for stuff you want to get rid of.
The only real benefit is the lack of red eyes. But you'll never get soft light with on-camera flash as your primary source of lighting.
Michel:
Not true (L bracket mounted Olympus T-32, bounced off the ceiling, with a catch-light card):
I did a test once with three age groups (20, 40, 60) and 6 photographers in each group. I gave them a USAF 1951 test target and asked them to focus manually and with autofocus, 3 times each, using a Nikon D700 and a 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. The result:
1. the youngest age group had the smallest average manual-focus error
2. the oldest group's average manual-focus error did not exceed depth of field
3. no age group was able to consistently beat the autofocus
4. as with manual focus, the youngest group had better auto-focus results
My conclusion, I wish my old Hasselblad had autofocus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?