Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

[RichA]

No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
(for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
they are stuck with another curiosity.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1

[Savageduck]

OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
Now what?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Nick Fotis]

Personally, I am fascinated by this camera.

It could be called the direct descendant of the medium format Fuji GW690
which I own.

And that Zeiss lens nearly touches the sensor, as far as I know.

N.F.

[philo]

The camera got very good reviews but I cannot believe the camera is
really worth that kind of money. Having Carl Zeiss on the lens may
justify it for some...but not me.


With my Canon 50D and a "modest" 28-105mm lens I can get a 24" x 36"
(approx) print so razor sharp that it beat my medium format camera which
I then retired for good.


Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 15:38, philo wrote:
>
> The camera got very good reviews but I cannot believe the camera is
> really worth that kind of money. Having Carl Zeiss on the lens may
> justify it for some...but not me.

The only troublesome part I could identify from the reviews is the slow
AF, and the difficulty of focusing in low light. Maybe the small battery
is a limit.

> With my Canon 50D and a "modest" 28-105mm lens I can get a 24" x 36"
> (approx) print so razor sharp that it beat my medium format camera which
> I then retired for good.

The 28-105 lens is adequate (not great), usually I prefer using the
24-70/2.8L on my 5D, despite the weight (having this lens hanging on my
neckstrap together with a 5D-class body, can be very tiring).

> Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
> reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".

I admit this is a specialized camera, for people wanting image quality
at a very compact size.
If I was to buy a fixed-lens compact camera, I think I would go for the
Fuji X100S instead, or the Olympus OM-D if I wanted interchangeable lenses.

The truth is, I am 'married' to Canon due to the relatively large
investment in lenses accumulated over 15+ years.

N.F.

[philo]

On 05/14/2013 08:12 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

>
> The 28-105 lens is adequate (not great),

Correct...it's a good lens but not top-of-the line by any means.
I bought it with my 35mm Rebel and have kept it all along.
It's now on it's 3rd camera.

Some day I hope to buy a top-line lens for the camera...but the shots I
get with this lens are so good, I am in no rush to get another lens.

[RichA]

On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.

[Savageduck]

I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.

That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
f/2.0 22mm for $499.
...but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[RichA]

On May 14, 10:03 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
focusing.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
offer the same certainty.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Neil Ellwood]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:08:33 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

> On

>>
>>Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy conditions
>>is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be diopter
>>corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the population
>>have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual focusing.
>
> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass view
> finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR offer the
> same certainty.

I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
rather old and the batteries are on the blink.

Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
went in centrally first time.

I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
body of the focusing screen.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

[James Silverton]

I'm glad to see I am not alone in having difficulties with an LCD
display out of doors. Judging by the lack of optical viewfinders in less
expensive cameras, I thought I might be handicapped :-)

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[nospam]

In article <dd89p81efth4s2slc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> offer the same certainty.

oh yes they can, with focus confirmation, focus peaking or just zooming
into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

[nospam]

In article <Gc-dnXB1YvKlNQnM...@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood

<cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
>
> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
> Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
> went in centrally first time.
>
> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
> body of the focusing screen.

why not use the camera's focus confirmation?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <b7a7477f-03d6-4b73...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
>conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
>diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
>population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
>focusing.

An LCD viewfinder, like the one that comes standard with the Olympus OM-D
and can be bought as an accessory for other Olympus u4/3 cameras, has an
eyecup you can mash against your face to solve this problem, just like a
DSLR. There is also has a little knurled wheel for diopter correction.
I'll conceed the manual focusing woes, but there are workarounds, such
as magnifying a portion of the image while focusing.

I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
like a jeweler's loupe so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
against your face.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 04:34:48 -0500, Neil Ellwood
<cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:08:33 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> On
>>>
>>>Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy conditions
>>>is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be diopter
>>>corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the population
>>>have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual focusing.
>>
>> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass view
>> finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR offer the
>> same certainty.
>
>I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
>rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
>
>Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
>Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
>went in centrally first time.

I regret not doing that when I bought a D300.

>
>I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
>body of the focusing screen.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:04 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Don't trust it.

Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:02 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <dd89p81efth4s2slc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
>> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
>> offer the same certainty.
>
>oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

... confirming focus on what?

> focus peaking

... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.

>or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
focus.

>
>or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
in focus.

My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
focus points but these all take time.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> >> offer the same certainty.
> >
> >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
>
> ... confirming focus on what?

whatever you want.

> > focus peaking
>
> ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.

it's very useful.

> >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.
>
> ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
> focus.

it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
cases, it will change the focus.

> >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.
>
> ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
> in focus.

only if you don't know what you're doing.

> My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
> focus points but these all take time.

depends what tricks you want it to do.

pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
confirmation. some cameras even beep.

it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

[nospam]

In article <3hbbp89gs562n8jct...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
> >>
> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
> >> Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
> >> went in centrally first time.
> >>
> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
> >> body of the focusing screen.
> >
> >why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>
> Don't trust it.

it's more accurate than you are, and in much lower light too.

> Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.

whatever is under the selected focus point.

[Neil Ellwood]

You didn't actually read , did you?

The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
camera because of that.

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
>
> > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
>
> > >> offer the same certainty.
>
> > >
>
> > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
>
> >
>
> > ... confirming focus on what?
>
>
>
> whatever you want.

I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.

> > > focus peaking

> > ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.
>
> it's very useful.
>
>
>
> > >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.
>
> >
>
> > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
>
> > focus.
>
>
>
> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>
> cases, it will change the focus.

Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.

> > >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.
>
> >
>
> > ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
>
> > in focus.
>
> only if you don't know what you're doing.

Must be why they invented autofocus because peole donl;t know what they want in focus.

> > My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
>
> > focus points but these all take time.
>
>
>
> depends what tricks you want it to do.

I'd just want it to focus on what I wanted in focus.

> pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
>
> confirmation. some cameras even beep.

By the time that happens the shot over.

> it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
>
> focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
>
> accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.

I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)

[nospam]

In article <ON6dne2Lj52-YAjM...@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood

<cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
> >>
> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
> >> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
> >> and went in centrally first time.
> >>
> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
> >> main body of the focusing screen.
> >
> > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>
> You didn't actually read , did you?
>
> The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
> camera because of that.

completely wrong.

the autofocus system is still active, regardless of which lens. using a
manual focus lens just means the user has to manually turn the focus
ring.

focus confirmation means that when the subject is in focus, an led will
light and/or the camera will beep, indicating that the user should stop
turning the focus ring.

[J. Clarke]

In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,
whisk...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> > In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> >
> > <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> >
> > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> >
> > > >> offer the same certainty.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ... confirming focus on what?
> >
> >
> >
> > whatever you want.
>
> I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.

It is currently aimed at a diamond ring. Do you want the focus on the
front facet of the diamond, the widest point of the stone, the points of
the setting, or what?

The benefit of the LCD from my viewpoint is that you can zoom in on the
point that you want to be in focus and adjust until it's sharp. It
serves the same function as an eyepiece magnifier but you can move the
point you are looking at around instead of just being able to look at
the center of the finder.

I gave up on "focus confirmation"--too many blurry shots that "focus
confirmation" told me were supposed to be sharp. Might work OK for
snapshots but not for anything critical.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ON6dne2Lj52-YAjM...@bt.com>, cral.elllwood2
@btopenworld.com says...

I can see why there would be no autofocus, but why would there be no
focus confirmation?

[nospam]

In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> > > >> offer the same certainty.
> >
> > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
> >
> > > ... confirming focus on what?
> >
> > whatever you want.
>
> I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.

it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).

> > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
> > > focus.
> >
> > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
> > cases, it will change the focus.
>
> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.

that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.

> > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
> > confirmation. some cameras even beep.
>
> By the time that happens the shot over.

depends on the subject, but if the shot is over with that, it certainly
will be over using any other method of manual focus.

> > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
> > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
> > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.
>
> When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it
> didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.

it still does. autofocus doesn't mean continuous focus, unless you want
that functionality.

> I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)

only because there was no other option. now there is.

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03:58 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> whisk...@gmail.com says...
>
> >
>
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>
> > > In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>
> > >
>
> > > <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
>
> > >
>
> > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
>
> > >
>
> > > > >> offer the same certainty.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > ... confirming focus on what?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > whatever you want.
>
> >
>
> > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.
>
>
>
> It is currently aimed at a diamond ring. Do you want the focus on the
>
> front facet of the diamond, the widest point of the stone, the points of
>
> the setting, or what?

That would depend on why I'm taking the photo and I'd know that before picking up the camera.

> The benefit of the LCD from my viewpoint is that you can zoom in on the
>
> point that you want to be in focus and adjust until it's sharp.

I thought you said the camera focuses ....

It
>
> serves the same function as an eyepiece magnifier but you can move the
>
> point you are looking at around instead of just being able to look at
>
> the center of the finder.

I use to move my eyeball, I had the ability of being able to focus on any part of the screen at will.

Yes I agree nothing confims that somethiung is in focus than it being in focus, a beeb could me my microwave curries ready ;-)

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:38:18 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
>
> > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
>
> > > > >> offer the same certainty.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
>
> > >
>
> > > > ... confirming focus on what?
>
> > >
>
> > > whatever you want.
>
> >
>
> > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.
>
>
>
> it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).

Which isn't always where you want the focus point to be, hopefully it's in the middle, which is where most shots need to be sharp.

> > > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
>
> > > > focus.
>
> > >
>
> > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>
> > > cases, it will change the focus.
>
> >
>
> > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>
>
>
> that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
>
> and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.

it isn;t it's making adjustments faster but if you're follwong a car or sportsperson its handy not to have it re-aadjust.
One of my fists spoerts was taking photos of power boat racing, I used a 135mm (35mm camera) hand held and adjusted the focus, and as the boat came into focus clicked. If I'd had the focus constantly changing it's put me off.

But as you say digital is better because now I can set up a 4k camera on video
and pissed off to the pub in stead of standing there taking photos, come back an hour later with a HD movie that I can take frame from as still.
The olny thing that'd be blurry would be me :-)

> > > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
>
> > > confirmation. some cameras even beep.

> > By the time that happens the shot over.
>
>
>
> depends on the subject, but if the shot is over with that, it certainly
>
> will be over using any other method of manual focus.

Didntl; for me, some relied on luck btu pre focussing sorted most of that out, and with manaully turning a ring you soon get a feel for such things, or rather I did.

> > > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
>
> > > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
>
> > > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.
>
> >
>
> > When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it
>
> > didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.
>
>
>
> it still does. autofocus doesn't mean continuous focus, unless you want
>
> that functionality.

True but you need to decide which is best on a shot basis and re-set the camera accordingly. manually you do what feels correct at the time.

> > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)
>
>
>
> only because there was no other option. now there is.

There was always fixed focus lenses where 'everything' was in 'focus'
Then again we oonly used top have optical viewfinders it seems peole still want such things though I wonder why .

[J. Clarke]

In article <67065fcd-377d-4560...@googlegroups.com>,

whisk...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03:58 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > whisk...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > >> offer the same certainty.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > ... confirming focus on what?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > whatever you want.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is currently aimed at a diamond ring. Do you want the focus on the
> >
> > front facet of the diamond, the widest point of the stone, the points of
> >
> > the setting, or what?
>
> That would depend on why I'm taking the photo and I'd know that before picking up the camera.

So it depends on more than "what the camera was currently aimed at",
doesn't it.

> > The benefit of the LCD from my viewpoint is that you can zoom in on the
> >
> > point that you want to be in focus and adjust until it's sharp.
>
> I thought you said the camera focuses ....

You have me confused with someone else.

> It
> >
> > serves the same function as an eyepiece magnifier but you can move the
> >
> > point you are looking at around instead of just being able to look at
> >
> > the center of the finder.
>
> I use to move my eyeball, I had the ability of being able to focus on any part of the screen at will.

You've never used an eyepiece magnifier, have you?

<snip>

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-17 03:02:12 -0700, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> said:

> On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>> In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<<< Le Snip >>>

>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>> cases, it will change the focus.

On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
labeled "AF lock".

> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.

My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
sport events, and air shows.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

Some cameras have focus confirmation with old lenses. noapam assumes all
cameras do. Yours obviously doesn't, but you knew that going in. Enjoy it.



--
PeterN

[PeterN]

I have not yet learned how to use those features, in my camera.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/17/2013 8:38 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
>>>>>> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
>>>>>> offer the same certainty.
>>>
>>>>> oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
>>>
>>>> ... confirming focus on what?
>>>
>>> whatever you want.
>>
>> I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.
>
> it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).
>
>>>> ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
>>>> focus.
>>>
>>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>>> cases, it will change the focus.
>>
>> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>
> that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
> and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.
>

Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
than others.


--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

With the focus mode switch on the front of the D300 you can select from
"S", "M", or "C".

In the custom setting menu go to a3 Dynamic AF area and select "3D 51
points (3D-tracking).
Using this can be a bit disconcerting at first as the active FP seems
to jump all over the place especially when you are tracking or panning
with a moving target. For example at an airshow when a plane is making
a low fast pass at several 100 MPH shooting with AF "S" mode and using
a single FP, making a good, focused capture with a high shutter speed
pan is very difficult to achieve. Using AF "C" mode and 3D-tracking, as
you pan the AF point is jumping all over the tracked target, and one
might think "WTF is this damn camera doing?". What it is doing is what
is very difficult for even the best of us to do with standard settings.
It allows me to get airshow shots such as this:
< http://db.tt/B1Q9fEoI >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

Although the settings on my camera are slightly different, I know the
physical settings. My lack of understanding is when and how to use them.
Something that can only come with practice. For example: Yesterday I
spent several hours learning how to use multiple exposure to obtain the
effects I was looking for. While I have not perfected the technique, I
am starting to understand the principles. Many of the features take time
and understanding.

--
PeterN

[Fred McKenzie]

In article <ON6dne2Lj52-YAjM...@bt.com>,

Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
> >> main body of the focusing screen.
> >
> > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>
> You didn't actually read , did you?
>
> The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
> camera because of that.

Neil-

Back in the days of the split-image focusing aid, it did not work for
lenses with a small aperture. Somewhere around f/8, one half of the
split image would be black.

I understand modern autofocus systems, including focus confirmation, are
also limited by the lens' maximum f/stop. What is the f/stop of your
500mm mirror lens?

Fred

[nospam]

In article <5196570d$0$10815$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> >>> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
> >>>
> >>> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
> >>> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
> >>> and went in centrally first time.
> >>>
> >>> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
> >>> main body of the focusing screen.
> >>
> >> why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
> >
> > You didn't actually read , did you?
> >
> > The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
> > camera because of that.
>
> Some cameras have focus confirmation with old lenses. noapam assumes all
> cameras do. Yours obviously doesn't, but you knew that going in. Enjoy it.

i didn't say all cameras did, and that's not what he said anyway.

old lenses is not what defines whether or not there's focus
confirmation.

[nospam]

In article <51965abb$0$10758$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
> >>>> focus.
> >>>
> >>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
> >>> cases, it will change the focus.
> >>
> >> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
> >
> > that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
> > and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.
>
> Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
> believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
> than others.

although the 80-400 is not that fast, the camera is still going to be
able to track a moving subject faster than you can. it only needs to
make very minor adjustments to the focus, not rack the entire focus
movement.

[nospam]

In article <008a4255-ae75-4e37...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > ... confirming focus on what?
> >
> > > > whatever you want.
> >
> > > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.
> >
> > it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).
>
> Which isn't always where you want the focus point to be, hopefully it's in
> the middle, which is where most shots need to be sharp.

which is why there are multiple focus points, or you position the
camera so that one (or more) is on the subject, although that may not
always work (and wouldn't with manual focus either).

> > > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
> > > > cases, it will change the focus.
> >
> > > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
> >
> > that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
> >
> > and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.
>
> it isn;t it's making adjustments faster but if you're follwong a car or
> sportsperson its handy not to have it re-aadjust.

lock it or set it to not auto-track. it's up to the user.

> One of my fists spoerts was taking photos of power boat racing, I used a
> 135mm (35mm camera) hand held and adjusted the focus, and as the boat came
> into focus clicked. If I'd had the focus constantly changing it's put me off.

you did that only because there was no other option.

> But as you say digital is better because now I can set up a 4k camera on video
> and pissed off to the pub in stead of standing there taking photos, come back
> an hour later with a HD movie that I can take frame from as still.
> The olny thing that'd be blurry would be me :-)

i didn't say that at all.

> > > > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
> > > > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
> > > > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.
> >
> > > When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it,
> > > it didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.
> >
> > it still does. autofocus doesn't mean continuous focus, unless you want
> > that functionality.
>
> True but you need to decide which is best on a shot basis and re-set the
> camera accordingly. manually you do what feels correct at the time.

with manual focus, you don't have the choice. it's made for you.

> > > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)
> >
> > only because there was no other option. now there is.
>
> There was always fixed focus lenses where 'everything' was in 'focus'
> Then again we oonly used top have optical viewfinders it seems peole still
> want such things though I wonder why .

you can still set a lens to its hyperfocal distance.

[nospam]

In article <2013051708392977633-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
> >> cases, it will change the focus.
>
> On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
> labeled "AF lock".

or just half-press, but that's not the issue.

aiming the camera, focusing and then recomposing can cause focus errors
in some situations.

<http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm>

<http://digital-photography-school.com/the-problem-with-the-focus-recomp
ose-method>

> > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>
> My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
> tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
> features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
> sport events, and air shows.

none of that will work with a manual focus lens, which was the original
issue.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-17 12:03:25 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <2013051708392977633-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>>>> cases, it will change the focus.
>>
>> On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
>> labeled "AF lock".
>
> or just half-press, but that's not the issue.

In the case as stated by PeterN it is the issue, as he states above.

> aiming the camera, focusing and then recomposing can cause focus errors
> in some situations.
>
> <http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm>
>
> <http://digital-photography-school.com/the-problem-with-the-focus-recomp
> ose-method>

I have never been an advocate of the focus-lock-recompose method, and
it was not mentioned until yuou introduced it.

>>> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>>
>> My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
>> tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
>> features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
>> sport events, and air shows.
>
> none of that will work with a manual focus lens, which was the original
> issue.

Not exactly. The original issue was RichA telling us he considered the
Sony DSC RX1 an overpriced failure.(Note the subject title.) In the
dialog between Rich and me we got to his opinion of the Canon M, to
which I responded that it was interesting, but I have a preference for
cameras with a viewfinder, optical or EVF. The thread went downhill
from there.

...and where is it that either PeterN or Whiskey-dave said they were
referring to a manual focus lens in this sub-thread of a thread which
had nothing to do with lenses in the first place?
Peter spoke of it being hard to focus "if you keep moving the camera
around" AF lock does not apply to manual focus lenses.
Then W-Dave refers to his distress when the subject "moves quickly".

While there are techniques for dealing with in-frame composition and
moving subjects when using manual focus lenses, there is no indication
that either of them was talking about that. Further, while being
limited to manual focus with my rangefinder cameras, and my two 60's
vintage very non-AF Pentaxes (a Spotmatic & K1000), I had little option
but to hone those manual focus skills. I certainly would have had to
have a high degree of luck to get the same results with those, as I
have with the great AF features I have with my D300S.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

You said: "why not use the camera's focus confirmation?" Implicit in
that statement is that his camera has focus confirmation. Maybe it does,
maybe it doesn't. Maybe he, for some reason is unable to effectively
able to use it,even if it has the feature.

>
> old lenses is not what defines whether or not there's focus
> confirmation.
>

True.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/17/2013 3:03 PM, nospam wrote:

Your engineering skill issovaluable, that you could have made millions
of dollars, making that modification. It's a crying shame you did not
have your predictive skills a few years before Nikon came out with the
new version. Indeed since there are a lot of the old models out there,
why dont you start a modification service. I certainly would haveliked
to see such a service.

--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 00:46:32 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <3hbbp89gs562n8jct...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
>> >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
>> >>
>> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
>> >> Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
>> >> went in centrally first time.
>> >>
>> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
>> >> body of the focusing screen.
>> >
>> >why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>>
>> Don't trust it.
>
>it's more accurate than you are, and in much lower light too.

Not if I have one of the old-fashioned ground glass screens.

>
>> Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.
>
>whatever is under the selected focus point.

Which is a not insignificant area. Which part has it selected?

Say you are trying to photograph the head of a bird. Has it picked the
eye or the beak? Does it even care?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 00:46:31 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
>> >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
>> >> offer the same certainty.
>> >
>> >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
>>

>> ... confirming focus on what?
>
>whatever you want.

No. The camera has no way of knowing what you want.

>
>> > focus peaking
>>
>> ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.
>
>it's very useful.
>
>> >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.
>>

>> ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
>> focus.
>
>it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>cases, it will change the focus.

Yep

>
>> >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.
>>
>> ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
>> in focus.
>
>only if you don't know what you're doing.

My point is that you don't know what the camera thinks you are trying
to do.

>
>> My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
>> focus points but these all take time.
>
>depends what tricks you want it to do.
>

>pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
>confirmation. some cameras even beep.

Say I want to focus on the wart of the end of the nose. Will the
camera do any better than focus on the face?

>
>it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
>focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
>accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

Depends on what you are trying to focus on. How for example does a
camera decide where to focus in
http://photoeverywhere.co.uk/britain/dorset/trees_leaves.JPG ?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[RichA]

On May 17, 12:28 pm, PeterN <peter.newnos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 8:38 AM, nospam wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <5dc609b3-e132-4d7a...@googlegroups.com>,

I owned one. It would be interesting to go back in time to 1975, grab
a news photog and see how fast they could manual focus. Likely very
fast, but not as fast as current fast AF lenses. Some lenses are slow
to AF and annoyingly, hunting is still a problem too many times with
DSLRs.

[RichA]

On May 16, 5:08 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 14, 10:03 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> > On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> >>> No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
> >> >>> the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
> >> >>> have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
> >> >>> constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
> >> >>> the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
> >> >>> the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
> >> >>> has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
> >> >>> decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
> >> >>> (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
> >> >>> they are stuck with another curiosity.
>
> >> >>>http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1
>
> >> >> OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
> >> >> Now what?
>
> >> > If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
> >> > except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
> >> > mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
> >> > Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.
>
> >> I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
> >> a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
> >> realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
> >> deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
> >> but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.
>
> >> That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
> >> f/2.0 22mm for $499.
> >> ...but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.
>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Savageduck
>
> >Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
> >conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use.  And since LCD's can't be
> >diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
> >population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
> >focusing.

>
> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> offer the same certainty.

> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

The zoom feature (one button push) on cameras with high resolution
EVF's and LCD's easily beats any optical viewfinder when it comes to
critical focusing.

[Savageduck]

You just have to snipe through the foliage and hit your target.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3618Aw-2.jpg >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

But say you are trying to take the photograph of the bird in
http://www.learningtosnap.com/thumbs/bird2HDR-1.jpg

How would you ensure that you were focussed on the eye and not the
feathers around it?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

... and no doubt you frequently use features which I have forgotten
even exist.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

3D focussing works in that case there is only the aircraft in the
picture. How would you get on in the circumstances of
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/946288_583139695052801_286707623_n.jpg
(not my photograph - this is one of the early shots after the plane
was reassembled at the Fighter Factory (Norfolk, Virginia)). Would all
the stuff in the background make it harder for the camera to keep
focussed on the aircraft?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:03:25 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Nor is it the situation I had in mind when I made my comments. But its
worth discussion, just the same.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <lkadp8h7d9fn4imm9...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> >> >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
> >> >> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
> >> >> and went in centrally first time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
> >> >> main body of the focusing screen.
> >> >
> >> >why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
> >>
> >> Don't trust it.
> >
> >it's more accurate than you are, and in much lower light too.
>
> Not if I have one of the old-fashioned ground glass screens.

especially if you have one of those.

the nikon d3200 can autofocus down to ev -1 and the d4 can autofocus to
ev -2. tht's fairly typical of modern slrs although some are 1 or two
stops worse. still, that's very low light.

the lens needs a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster (and f/8 on some
cameras, such as the d4).

good luck focusing on ground glass in those conditions.

> >> Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.
> >
> >whatever is under the selected focus point.
>
> Which is a not insignificant area. Which part has it selected?

the focus point is not very big.

> Say you are trying to photograph the head of a bird. Has it picked the
> eye or the beak? Does it even care?

where was the focus point?

it's certainly not any easier with a ground glass.

[nospam]

In article <iuadp89pjci8o44ji...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
> >> >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
> >> >> offer the same certainty.
> >> >
> >> >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,
> >>
> >> ... confirming focus on what?
> >
> >whatever you want.
>
> No. The camera has no way of knowing what you want.

i didn't say it did.

you pick where the active focus point is.

> >> >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.
> >>
> >> ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
> >> in focus.
> >
> >only if you don't know what you're doing.
>
> My point is that you don't know what the camera thinks you are trying
> to do.

and my point is that you tell the camera what you are trying to do.

> >> My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
> >> focus points but these all take time.
> >
> >depends what tricks you want it to do.
> >
> >pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
> >confirmation. some cameras even beep.
>
> Say I want to focus on the wart of the end of the nose. Will the
> camera do any better than focus on the face?

yes.

> >it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
> >focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
> >accurate than had you used focus confirmation.
>
> Depends on what you are trying to focus on. How for example does a
> camera decide where to focus in
> http://photoeverywhere.co.uk/britain/dorset/trees_leaves.JPG ?

put a focus point on a branch edge, you pick which one, and it focuses.

you'll probably want a smaller aperture for a wider depth of field,
since there's a bit of a range to cover.

[nospam]

In article <2013051714152858821-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
> >>>> cases, it will change the focus.
> >>
> >> On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
> >> labeled "AF lock".
> >
> > or just half-press, but that's not the issue.
>
> In the case as stated by PeterN it is the issue, as he states above.

that's a different issue.

> > aiming the camera, focusing and then recomposing can cause focus errors
> > in some situations.
> >
> > <http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm>
> >
> > <http://digital-photography-school.com/the-problem-with-the-focus-recomp
> > ose-method>
>
> I have never been an advocate of the focus-lock-recompose method, and
> it was not mentioned until yuou introduced it.

i introduced it in the first line quoted above. i could have spelled
out focus recompose but i guess i assumed people were smarter than i
gave them credit for.

> >>> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
> >>
> >> My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
> >> tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
> >> features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
> >> sport events, and air shows.
> >
> > none of that will work with a manual focus lens, which was the original
> > issue.
>
> Not exactly. The original issue was RichA telling us he considered the
> Sony DSC RX1 an overpriced failure.(Note the subject title.)

he considers most things overpriced failures. nothing new there.

[nospam]

In article <51969e34$0$10813$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>>> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> >>>>> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
> >>>>> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
> >>>>> and went in centrally first time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
> >>>>> main body of the focusing screen.
> >>>>
> >>>> why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
> >>>
> >>> You didn't actually read , did you?
> >>>
> >>> The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
> >>> camera because of that.
> >>
> >> Some cameras have focus confirmation with old lenses. noapam assumes all
> >> cameras do. Yours obviously doesn't, but you knew that going in. Enjoy it.
> >
> > i didn't say all cameras did, and that's not what he said anyway.
>
> You said: "why not use the camera's focus confirmation?" Implicit in
> that statement is that his camera has focus confirmation. Maybe it does,
> maybe it doesn't. Maybe he, for some reason is unable to effectively
> able to use it,even if it has the feature.

i never said all cameras had it. more lies from you.

i simply asked why not use it. if the camera doesn't have it then
that's the answer.

> > old lenses is not what defines whether or not there's focus
> > confirmation.
>
> True.

so you agree with me, but just want to argue.

[nospam]

In article <51969f16$0$10792$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

more irrelevant babble.

no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
many times with various lenses.

[nospam]

In article <8oddp8pg5r8o2t5nm...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> But say you are trying to take the photograph of the bird in
> http://www.learningtosnap.com/thumbs/bird2HDR-1.jpg
>
> How would you ensure that you were focussed on the eye and not the
> feathers around it?

select one active focus point and put it on the eye.

[Savageduck]

It would probably be best to see the original, uncropped version to
answer that question. That said that bird is perched and stationary.
(Note that is an HDR shot, unnecessarily so, but a multi-exposure shot
none the less).
So I would make the assumption that the photographer is using a tripod
mounted camera with a fairly long lens. He could certainly place an AF
focus point right on that birdy's eye, I know I could. I would not be
using 3D-tracking for that shot, the bird isn't in the air flying.
Also if I was too far away to distinguish the eye I would place the AF
point on the upper body of the bird and trust my DoF. If the bird was
that far away you would not be able to do much more than focus on the
body of the bird.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

I would use AF "C" mode + 3D-tracking. Once you have locked on to the
moving target the background is ignored.
The Mosquito is flying from right to left. The tree line the plane is
paralleling does not seem to be parallel to your position. So, with
your pan there is a target which is closing until it is directly
opposite you at its closest point. If you are using AF "S" or "M" the
AF is going to depend on your shutter release and dumb luck.
If you just select a central AF point, your skill in being able to pan
and hold the AF focus point on the fast approaching plane is going to
be tested, and dumb luck comes into play again.
If yo use AF "C" + 3D-tracking, from the moment you are able to target
the approaching plane an AF focus point will lock onto the moving plane
(the actual AF point is likely to change as you pan but it will remain
locked on) and the AF "C" will maintain focus.

...and since that isn't your shot, the photographer did a good job
panning and dumb luck worked well. However, he might well have been
using AF "C" and some sort of tracking.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
nitpicking.
You do indeed have extraordinary and valuable skills. Would you like an
introduction to Arthur Morris, who has a contrary opinion, and would
love to learn your skills.
<http://photography.about.com/od/famousphotographersbios/a/arthurmorrisbiography.htm>


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

bow Wow!
Nicely done.

--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:35:24 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

It covered more or less the entire head of the bird.

>
>it's certainly not any easier with a ground glass.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

nospam claims otherwise. That lens was sharp as a tack, with good
contrast, but totally unusable for captures that moved. I got rid of it,
and have the new one. While it's not quite as fast as my 70-200, or a
200-400, it's quite usable. I still haven't tested in with a 1.4
teleconverter.

--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

You at least had a target in your example. My example is similar to a
shot I struggled with recently where I want to focus on a particular
layer within the leaves overhead. The camera was more easily satisfied
than I was.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

which is precisely the reason I often switch to manual focusing. for
macro work, I use manual focus more than 90% of the time.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

Thanks.
The African Wild dog doesn't so much as "bow wow", as "yip".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <5196e981$0$10770$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>>> that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
> >>>>> and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.
> >>>>
> >>>> Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
> >>>> believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
> >>>> than others.
> >>>
> >>> although the 80-400 is not that fast, the camera is still going to be
> >>> able to track a moving subject faster than you can. it only needs to
> >>> make very minor adjustments to the focus, not rack the entire focus
> >>> movement.
> >>
> >> Your engineering skill issovaluable, that you could have made millions
> >> of dollars, making that modification. It's a crying shame you did not
> >> have your predictive skills a few years before Nikon came out with the
> >> new version. Indeed since there are a lot of the old models out there,
> >> why dont you start a modification service. I certainly would haveliked
> >> to see such a service.
> >
> > more irrelevant babble.
> >
> > no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
> > 80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
> > many times with various lenses.
>
> I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
> nitpicking.

i didn't say that at all.

learn to read and stop making up shit.

[nospam]

In article <rpqdp8pvjeuh896h0...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> Say you are trying to photograph the head of a bird. Has it picked the
> >> eye or the beak? Does it even care?
> >
> >where was the focus point?
>
> It covered more or less the entire head of the bird.

then it's far enough away to not matter.

[nospam]

In article <5196ebd8$0$10807$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
> >> believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
> >> than others.
> >>

> > I owned one. It would be interesting to go back in time to 1975, grab
> > a news photog and see how fast they could manual focus. Likely very
> > fast, but not as fast as current fast AF lenses. Some lenses are slow
> > to AF and annoyingly, hunting is still a problem too many times with
> > DSLRs.
>
> nospam claims otherwise. That lens was sharp as a tack,

not at the long end, it wasn't.

> with good
> contrast, but totally unusable for captures that moved.

bullshit. it may not have been ideal, but it was definitely usable for
moving subjects.

what were you saying about making absolute claims??

> I got rid of it,

i had an 80-400. i got rid of it not because it was slow, but because i
rarely used it.

[Eric Stevens]

rOn Sat, 18 May 2013 00:01:46 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

That's your opinion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

rOn Fri, 17 May 2013 23:15:19 -0400, PeterN

I wouldn't go that far but I definitely use it. That's why I wish I
had bought a Katzeye.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[RichA]

I thought the 80-400mm was a "weird" lens. A 70 or 80-200 ED will
give you good shots no matter what, but the 80-400mm seemed to produce
good shots sometimes, mediocre shots other times. I wouldn't describe
the mediocre shots as unsharp, just drab. I guess the new one is
better.

[Neil Ellwood]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:13:43 -0400, Fred McKenzie wrote:

> In article <ON6dne2Lj52-YAjM...@bt.com>,

> Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
>> >> main body of the focusing screen.
>> >
>> > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>>

>> You didn't actually read , did you?
>>
>> The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in
>> the camera because of that.
>

> Neil-
>
> Back in the days of the split-image focusing aid, it did not work for
> lenses with a small aperture. Somewhere around f/8, one half of the
> split image would be black.
>
> I understand modern autofocus systems, including focus confirmation, are
> also limited by the lens' maximum f/stop. What is the f/stop of your
> 500mm mirror lens?
>
> Fred

It is f8.0 and with the doubler f16.0 - but to my mind it would be stupid
to try with the doubler even though with just the plain mirror lens it is
capable although can be difficult to find a fast moving bird the size of
a small pigeon, but when you have got it in the frame the focus is easy.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

[Neil Ellwood]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:06:09 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article <ON6dne2Lj52-YAjM...@bt.com>, cral.elllwood2
> @btopenworld.com says...
>>
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:04 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>
>> > In article <Gc-dnXB1YvKlNQnM...@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood

>> > <cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d
>> >> is rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
>> >>
>> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested
>> >> in a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to
>> >> change and went in centrally first time.
>> >>

>> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
>> >> main body of the focusing screen.
>> >
>> > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>>
>> You didn't actually read , did you?
>>
>> The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in
>> the camera because of that.
>

> I can see why there would be no autofocus, but why would there be no
> focus confirmation?

The lens has only the mount for connection and NO contacts.

[J. Clarke]

In article <8p6dncyA59ZnzArM...@bt.com>, cral.elllwood2

@btopenworld.com says...
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:06:09 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article <ON6dne2Lj52-YAjM...@bt.com>, cral.elllwood2
> > @btopenworld.com says...
> >>
> >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:04 -0400, nospam wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <Gc-dnXB1YvKlNQnM...@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood
> >> > <cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d
> >> >> is rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested
> >> >> in a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to
> >> >> change and went in centrally first time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
> >> >> main body of the focusing screen.
> >> >
> >> > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
> >>
> >> You didn't actually read , did you?
> >>
> >> The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in
> >> the camera because of that.
> >
> > I can see why there would be no autofocus, but why would there be no
> > focus confirmation?
>
> The lens has only the mount for connection and NO contacts.

Why are contacts necessary for focus confirmation?

[PeterN]

Your statement istherefor all to see.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/18/2013 12:01 AM, nospam wrote:

Then your experience ws different than most other people I know who got
rid of the lens for the same reason I did.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

PeterN

[PeterN]

Like night and day. There are only two things I don't like about the new
one. Harder to get a background blur, and its weight. Because of the
blur issue I still prefer either my 70-200 with extension tubes, or my
old 200 macro, with extension tubes.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <51982755$0$10798$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
fool of yourself.

[nospam]

In article <51982847$0$10818$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

so when you say 'totally unusable for captures that moved', you
actually meant something else, that 'most other people' had problems.

my, how the story changes.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:35:04 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

PeterN said "non afs lenses". That's not the same as 'non af lenses'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount
"AF � The original autofocus designation, indicating focus driven by
a motor inside the camera body. All AF lenses have a CPU."

.......

"AF-S � Autofocus-Silent. Uses a "Silent Wave Motor" (SWM)
(ultrasonic motor) to focus quietly and quickly."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <lungp851j6jjq8kvg...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >>> no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
> >> >>> 80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
> >> >>> many times with various lenses.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
> >> >> nitpicking.
> >> >
> >> > i didn't say that at all.
> >> >
> >> > learn to read and stop making up shit.
> >>
> >> Your statement istherefor all to see.
> >
> >yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
> >fool of yourself.
>
> PeterN said "non afs lenses". That's not the same as 'non af lenses'.

other way around.

*i* said non afs lenses, further clarifying it by saying mechanical
linkage. that's about as clear as it gets. there is no ambiguity.

peter said non-af. he's confused, can't read and made a fool of himself.

[PeterN]

Why should you care, then. Or could it be, that I'm simply letting you
dig yourself in deeper. It's noted how you always resort to a personal
attack when it is shown that you are dead wrong.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:

You really are an asshole.
Bye


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <519921fb$0$10847$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

no, it could not.

quite the opposite, actually. you're digging yourself deeper with every
post.

you refuse to acknowledge your mistake and you are making a bigger fool
of yourself with every post.

> It's noted how you always resort to a personal
> attack when it is shown that you are dead wrong.

i didn't insult you at all.

meanwhile, all you do is insult, especially when you are wrong.

[nospam]

In article <51992269$0$10847$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

more insults, as usual.

this quote of yours made just moments earlier applies to you so very
perfectly:

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:16:16 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <lungp851j6jjq8kvg...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >>> no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
>> >> >>> 80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
>> >> >>> many times with various lenses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
>> >> >> nitpicking.
>> >> >
>> >> > i didn't say that at all.
>> >> >
>> >> > learn to read and stop making up shit.
>> >>
>> >> Your statement istherefor all to see.
>> >
>> >yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
>> >fool of yourself.
>>
>> PeterN said "non afs lenses". That's not the same as 'non af lenses'.
>
>other way around.
>
>*i* said non afs lenses, further clarifying it by saying mechanical
>linkage. that's about as clear as it gets. there is no ambiguity.
>
>peter said non-af. he's confused, can't read and made a fool of himself.

So have I. You are correct.

Too many layers of double-negatives. :-(

>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount
>> "AF � The original autofocus designation, indicating focus driven by
>> a motor inside the camera body. All AF lenses have a CPU."
>>
>> .......
>>
>> "AF-S � Autofocus-Silent. Uses a "Silent Wave Motor" (SWM)
>> (ultrasonic motor) to focus quietly and quickly."

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:39:29 -0700, Savageduck

>>My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
>>tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
>>features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
>>sport events, and air shows.

> But say you are trying to take the photograph of the bird in
> http://www.learningtosnap.com/thumbs/bird2HDR-1.jpg

> How would you ensure that you were focussed on the eye and not the
> feathers around it?

This bird is sitting, and you can presumably get close enough
that the active focus point only covers the eye. (Yep, they're
usually active for a larger area than the etched part in the
ground glass). Unless that photo is an extreme crop, that is.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
>>conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
>>diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
>>population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
>>focusing.

> An LCD viewfinder,

is an EVF. Not an LCD.

And RichA never met a transflexive LCD. These are readable
in full sunlight --- in fact, you'd likely switch off the
backlight them to save battery power.

(As to wearing glasses --- yes, I wear glasses using optical
viewfinders, too. So why shouldn't I use them for LCDs?)

[...]

> I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
> optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
> like a jeweler's loupe

Because you're likely going to be seasick.

> so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
> against your face.

And hold the camera even more unstably? 2 arms
extended-stand?

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:36:05 -0700, Savageduck

>>With the focus mode switch on the front of the D300 you can select from
>>"S", "M", or "C".

>>In the custom setting menu go to a3 Dynamic AF area and select "3D 51
>>points (3D-tracking).
>>Using this can be a bit disconcerting at first as the active FP seems
>>to jump all over the place especially when you are tracking or panning
>>with a moving target. For example at an airshow when a plane is making
>>a low fast pass at several 100 MPH shooting with AF "S" mode and using
>>a single FP, making a good, focused capture with a high shutter speed
>>pan is very difficult to achieve. Using AF "C" mode and 3D-tracking, as
>>you pan the AF point is jumping all over the tracked target, and one
>>might think "WTF is this damn camera doing?". What it is doing is what
>>is very difficult for even the best of us to do with standard settings.
>>It allows me to get airshow shots such as this:
>>< http://db.tt/B1Q9fEoI >

> 3D focussing works in that case there is only the aircraft in the
> picture. How would you get on in the circumstances of
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/946288_583139695052801_286707623_n.jpg
> (not my photograph - this is one of the early shots after the plane
> was reassembled at the Fighter Factory (Norfolk, Virginia)). Would all
> the stuff in the background make it harder for the camera to keep
> focussed on the aircraft?

The AF knows for every focus points:
- distance and direction of focus compared to the current
lens focus setting --- or "no contrast (e.g. sky)"
- approximate absolute focus setting of the lens right
now

So the AF sees in 3D ... not just in the 2D photos are in.

Therefore the AF sees that the plane is *much* closer to the
lens than the trees. If it saw the man down at the bottom,
it again would be much closer.

Now, physics dictate that one can change the distance to the
lens only gradually --- one can't teleport --- and thus the
range to the plane is only gradually changing. It doesn't
matter if it also shifts from AP point to AF point (which
again won't be jumpy, but gradually, even if very fast),
if a neighbouring AF point of the plane suddenly jumps to
the approximate distance of the plane and the original one
suddenly jumps to the background of the others (off plane)
near it, then of course the plane must have moved by 1 AF
point and this one should be switched active then.

Same if a tree suddenly comes into view in front of the plane
you're tracking: the AF jumps to "much closer" and thus the
camera knows it's off target.

-Wolfgang

[J. Clarke]

In article <dbkp6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

Ever see a Steadicam?

[Eric Stevens]

This last is a matter of programming and I doubt if you know the
intimate details of the D300s' focussing program. That's why I asked
Savageduck who almost certainly will know what it does.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 3:13:17 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <67065fcd-377d-4560...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> whisk...@gmail.com says...
>
> >
>
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03:58 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>


> > > It is currently aimed at a diamond ring. Do you want the focus on the
>
> > >
>
> > > front facet of the diamond, the widest point of the stone, the points of
>
> > >
>
> > > the setting, or what?
>
> >
>
> > That would depend on why I'm taking the photo and I'd know that before picking up the camera.
>
>
>
> So it depends on more than "what the camera was currently aimed at",
>
> doesn't it.

Yes which is why I find manual focusing useful as the subject might not yet be in view.

> > > The benefit of the LCD from my viewpoint is that you can zoom in on the
>
> > It
>
> > >
>
> > > serves the same function as an eyepiece magnifier but you can move the
>
> > >
>
> > > point you are looking at around instead of just being able to look at
>
> > >
>
> > > the center of the finder.
>
> >
>
> > I use to move my eyeball, I had the ability of being able to focus on any part of the screen at will.
>
>
>
> You've never used an eyepiece magnifier, have you?

Not on a camera no, I have used the built in magnifier if that's what you mean.

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:39:29 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-17 03:02:12 -0700, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> said:

>
>
>
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>
> >> In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>
>
>

> <<< Le Snip >>>

>
>
>
> >> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>
> >> cases, it will change the focus.
>
>
>

> On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
>
> labeled "AF lock".

I had a little idea where when the subject was in focus I niether turned the focusing ring clockwise nor anti-clockwise. Now I fiddle with a little ring on the back of the camera. I used to pull or push for zooming now I have a little lever to push either left or right on the G10.

> > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>
>
>

> My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
>
> tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
>
> features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
>
> sport events, and air shows.

When I have those options I'll have a play with them, I have used CF but the sound of focusing annoyed me and I don;t like noises coming from my camera if I can avoid it.

Well My fist few days with a digital camera I put photon torpedoes as the shutter sound and the opening hailing frequaenices as the startup chime, but within the week all sounds were muted, pity studetns don;t have that facility.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-22 06:03:18 -0700, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> said:

> On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:39:29 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-05-17 03:02:12 -0700, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>
>> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>
>>>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>>>> cases, it will change the focus.
>>
>> On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
>> labeled "AF lock".
>
> I had a little idea where when the subject was in focus I niether turned th
> e focusing ring clockwise nor anti-clockwise. Now I fiddle with a little ri
> ng on the back of the camera. I used to pull or push for zooming now I have
> a little lever to push either left or right on the G10

Manual focus on most compact cameras is a PIA. For manual focus I like
rangefinders and good old SLR ground glass/fresnel/focus screen
systems. So with my G11 I use AF exclusively, and with my D300S and the
lenses I have, I depend on AF, so I have learned how to use it
effectively. However, there are times when circumstances demand using
manual focus, and there is where I would applaud a return to the ground
glass/fresnel/focus screen, as the focus confirm "dot" is distracting
when concentrating on composition and other stuff.

>>> Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>>
>> My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
>> tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
>> features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
>> sport events, and air shows.
>
> When I have those options I'll have a play with them, I have used CF but th
> e sound of focusing annoyed me and I don;t like noises coming from my cam
> era if I can avoid it.

Hey! That is the sound of your $$$$ at work.

> Well My fist few days with a digital camera I put photon torpedoes as the s
> hutter sound and the opening hailing frequaenices as the startup chime, but
> within the week all sounds were muted, pity studetns don;t have that facil
> ity.

The first thing I did with my G11 was mute it. With my D300S I just
have the sound of the machine, and I can live with that.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:03:19 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <008a4255-ae75-4e37...@googlegroups.com>,

>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > > ... confirming focus on what?
>
> > >
>
> > > > > whatever you want.
>
> > >
>
> > > > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.
>
> > >
>
> > > it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).
>
> >
>

> > Which isn't always where you want the focus point to be, hopefully it's in
>
> > the middle, which is where most shots need to be sharp.
>
>
>
> which is why there are multiple focus points, or you position the
>
> camera so that one (or more) is on the subject, although that may not
>
> always work (and wouldn't with manual focus either).

I always managed to twist the focusing ring to focus on what I wanted to focus on at that instant, might not have always worked. If I wanted the left hand side in focus then I focused on that.

> > > > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>
> > > > > cases, it will change the focus.
>
> > >
>

> > > > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
>
> > >
>

> > > that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
>
> > >
>
> > > and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.
>
> >
>

> > it isn;t it's making adjustments faster but if you're follwong a car or
>
> > sportsperson its handy not to have it re-aadjust.
>
>
>
> lock it or set it to not auto-track. it's up to the user.

Can I do this while following the subject, I hate the idea of reapeadly going back to my camera controls it's like watching someone on their mobile phone (not talking).


> > One of my fists spoerts was taking photos of power boat racing, I used a
>
> > 135mm (35mm camera) hand held and adjusted the focus, and as the boat came
>
> > into focus clicked. If I'd had the focus constantly changing it's put me off.
>
>
>
> you did that only because there was no other option.

Do you think people let the camera focus because there''s no other option ?
do people leave there cameras on auto because there's no other option.


> > But as you say digital is better because now I can set up a 4k camera on video
>
> > and pissed off to the pub in stead of standing there taking photos, come back
>
> > an hour later with a HD movie that I can take frame from as still.
>
> > The olny thing that'd be blurry would be me :-)

>
>
>
> i didn't say that at all.

So in the furture when video camera get better we'd be better off shooting video.


>
> > True but you need to decide which is best on a shot basis and re-set the
>
> > camera accordingly. manually you do what feels correct at the time.
>
>
>
> with manual focus, you don't have the choice. it's made for you.

No I make the choice with manual that's what it means.


> > > > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)
>
> > >
>
> > > only because there was no other option. now there is.
>
> >
>
> > There was always fixed focus lenses where 'everything' was in 'focus'
>
> > Then again we oonly used top have optical viewfinders it seems peole still
>
> > want such things though I wonder why .
>
>
>
> you can still set a lens to its hyperfocal distance.

Who can me or the autofocus system ?

[Whisky-dave]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:35:24 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <lkadp8h7d9fn4imm9...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

>
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
>
> > >> >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
>
> > >> >>
>
> > >> >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
>
> > >> >> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
>
> > >> >> and went in centrally first time.
>
> > >> >>
>
> > >> >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
>
> > >> >> main body of the focusing screen.
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> >why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
>
> > >>
>

> > >> Don't trust it.
>
> > >
>
> > >it's more accurate than you are, and in much lower light too.
>
> >
>
> > Not if I have one of the old-fashioned ground glass screens.
>
>
>
> especially if you have one of those.
>
>
>
> the nikon d3200 can autofocus down to ev -1 and the d4 can autofocus to
>
> ev -2. tht's fairly typical of modern slrs although some are 1 or two
>
> stops worse. still, that's very low light.
>
>
>
> the lens needs a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster (and f/8 on some
>
> cameras, such as the d4).
>
>
>
> good luck focusing on ground glass in those conditions.
>
>
>
> > >> Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.
>
> > >
>
> > >whatever is under the selected focus point.
>
> >
>
> > Which is a not insignificant area. Which part has it selected?
>
>
>
> the focus point is not very big.
>
>
>
> > Say you are trying to photograph the head of a bird. Has it picked the
>
> > eye or the beak? Does it even care?
>
>
>
> where was the focus point?
>
>
>
> it's certainly not any easier with a ground glass.

I find it easier especailly at gig wher elow lights and bright lights mingle and flash and you never know quite what's happening and when.

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:26:55 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-22 06:03:18 -0700, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:39:29 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >> On 2013-05-17 03:02:12 -0700, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>
> >>>> In article <1qbbp8tpsc7amkgi3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>
> >>
>
> >> <<< Le Snip >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
>
> >>>> cases, it will change the focus.
>
>
> >> On most DSLRs, including the D300s both of us use, have a little button
>
> >> labeled "AF lock".
>
> >
>
> > I had a little idea where when the subject was in focus I niether turned th
>
> > e focusing ring clockwise nor anti-clockwise. Now I fiddle with a little ri
>
> > ng on the back of the camera. I used to pull or push for zooming now I have
>
> > a little lever to push either left or right on the G10
>
>
>
> Manual focus on most compact cameras is a PIA. For manual focus I like
>
> rangefinders and good old SLR ground glass/fresnel/focus screen
>
> systems. So with my G11 I use AF exclusively, and with my D300S and the
>
> lenses I have, I depend on AF, so I have learned how to use it
>
> effectively.

That'san important point I've yet to have teh same with my G10 mostly left on auto and set to 3200 ISO for gig photography. I now mostl;y use it for video.

> However, there are times when circumstances demand using
> manual focus, and there is where I would applaud a return to the ground
> glass/fresnel/focus screen, as the focus confirm "dot" is distracting
> when concentrating on composition and other stuff.

I do find all the info availble a bit overwhelming when taking a photo and if I went back to thiun king about the picture rather than the technology behind it I might end up with a better shot, or I coudlk try again with a differnt exsposure method or focusing setup, or should I use sports mode or night mode or any of teh other modes, does my cat really look better in portrait mode.

>
> > When I have those options I'll have a play with them, I have used CF but th
>
> > e sound of focusing annoyed me and I don;t like noises coming from my cam
>
> > era if I can avoid it.
>
>
>
> Hey! That is the sound of your $$$$ at work.

'cuse me it's £££££££