Ian McLean wrote:
> Ouch!  I never said I was a professional photographer.  But I am quite
> serious.  I usually use manual focus, except for fast action shots,
> where the superfast, super quiet autofocus on the ultrasonic lenses
> is a real bonus.  I have some super crisp fast actions shots from
> using these lenses with Canon's predictive autofocus, which would be
> very hard to get with manual focus or with the usual buzz,whirr type
> of autofocus lenses.  I always use manual exposure settings.  Best of
> both worlds ;)  I am not one of "THOSE" .. I have take shots in
> Africa which have been published.  I use a manual Leica I lot of the
> time as well.

Manual focus is fine if you happen to have 20/20 vision.  Otherwise, you
will focus till it looks good to your eye, and that won't look good on
film.  ;-)  I'm a little near-sited, but not enough to really warant
wearing corrective lenses, so I love my USM autofocus.  Corrective
diopters for the eyepiece are helpful, but my eyesite varies thruout the
day, and from day to day.  Plus it takes real skill to get the
auto-focus to lock on to the right thing.  ;-D

> How often have you missed a fast action shot because you werent quick
> enough to set your camera manually ???
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of William Chops Westfield
> Sent: Friday, 28 February 2003 9:24 am
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT]: Poptronics no more :-(
>
>
>     I also like the superfast, super quite ultrasonic zoom lenses
>     provided by Canon.
>
> Oh.  You're one of THOSE.  WE don't take anyone seriously who uses
> autofocus lenses, yet still claims to be a "serious" photographer.
>   :-)  :-)  :-)
>
>
>     The SLR versions of digital cameras are still way too expensive,
>
> Well of course.  They have (nearly) all the complexity of a film-based
> SLR, plus a significant amount of expensive electronics.
>
> Personally, I pretty much gave up my "serious" SLR in favor of a
> Point-and-shoot when I had kids, but the impermanance of digital media
> pretty much terrifies me.  I have negatives and prints from 35+ years
> ago that are still usable, even if they are in rather obsolete
> fromats (not to mention my father's slide collection.)  Meanwhile, in
> less than 25 years as a "computer professsional", I've amassed quite
> a collection of digital media that is already completely unreadable
> (or readable only at great expense.)  DECTape.  Half-inch tape.  8-
> inch floppies.  5.25 inch floppies. Assorted hard drives.  Sure, an
> advantage of digital media is that (in theory) these could all have
> been copied onto newer media before their format became obsolete, but
> that requires ATTENTION.  I suspect if my grandchildren come across a
> box of CDs in the attic 50 years from now, they'll be good for
> nothing but shiny frisbees (even if the media is technically
> undamaged...)
>
> So I'm now taking digital AND film pictures, when I really care...
>
> BillW
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Michael Brown
Instant Net Solutions
www.KillerPCs.net

"In the land of the blind, he who has one eye is king"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.