Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug, Your experiences parallel my own in many respects. You commented: >Upon reaching the ripe old age of 40 my eyes would no longer >function adequately with the R4s/R4sP viewfinder and I was missing >shots because I couldn't focus quickly, or getting out-of-focus >pictures with alarming frequency. Many photographers think that >when this happens their only choice is AF. Instead of buying more >automation, I sold the R4s and one of two R4sP bodies and bought a >pair of SL bodies, and I'm enjoying photography again. The manual >metering has rarely been a problem and follow-focussing flying birds >has never been easier. In my mid 40s I noticed my focussing eye becoming troublesome, the number of just-out-of-focus shots was growing, and with it an increasing tension as I tried harder and harder to get it right. I became almost paranoid about focus to the detriment of other considerations! That was when I decided to buy the R6 because I thought its built-in viewfinder correction would solve matters. No such luck - in the next few years this adjustment became insufficient as astigmatism worsened. I wear glasses now, but I still prefer to look through a viewfinder without them (hence the M cameras remain my first choice). >The R8 is easily the most intuitive and ergonomically delightful R >body yet, with a viewfinder nearly as bright and easy to focus as >the SL's. I don't know the R8, but comparing the viewfinders on my SL2's and R6 is interesting. The R6 looks sharper and just a tad brighter at first, but the subject seems to snap into focus more precisely with the SL2, particularly in the ground glass area outside the split-image circle. The apparent sharpness in the R6 with its viewfinder adjustment is understandable, but why the image should snap more cleanly in the SL2 I've no idea. But it does! Now for a cautionary tale! My worries remained, so earlier this year I finally succumbed and bought an autofocus Nikon F100. I quite liked its rugged ugliness and solidity (I had a Nikkormat years ago), but soon found the wonders of autofocus to be really essential in only a few, high speed situations. Mostly, I have plenty of time; I fuss a lot to get the exposure just right and dislike using auto, so why AF for me - because it focusses more accurately/reliably than my eyes, right? What a mistake!! Returning from America this summer, I discovered that many trannies showed the plane of focus to be just slightly off. What is telling here is that several were duplicates (of stationary subjects) taken from the exact same spot. (This was not confined to one particular lens either, but to three zooms I took with me.) I often noticed that the lens would 'hunt' with each press on the shutter, i.e. it refocusses for each picture. Examining these dupes side by side it became obvious that the lens is not always driven to precisely the same point of focus. This is the only conclusion I could draw because the framing was identical, i.e. the focus rectangle was not locking onto anything different. I mentioned this to a few pros I know and they said they had all had similar experiences with AF, whether Nikon, Canon or whatever, and thought I was a bit naive to expect anything else! They admitted they regularly shoot duplicates to be sure of getting enough tack sharp pics! Wow, what a judgement on progress!! So I sold the AF and am now enjoying my SL2's again despite knowing that I've definitely past my prime! Ah what the hell, relax and enjoy the gifts when they come! I thought I'd post this very long ramble to those on the LUG who, like me, might be tempted by the lure of AF for general photography. For sports, some wildlife or other specialist fields, I'm sure it's a blessing. But the lesson for me has been, think long and hard before dismissing manual. It's got more going for it than we think! Nick. PS. Doug, the black oystercatcher is very fine, as are many others on your site!