Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-06-2010, 10:24 PM   #61
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Haha, did I state somewhere that I actually know MF primes are better than modern zooms?
- As far as I see it, I just summarized some reasons and got an interesting discussion going.
OK, but what MF primes & modern zooms do you have to make this comparision?

09-06-2010, 10:29 PM   #62
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 412
If it weren't for me being lazy, I'd only use manual. My 50A1.7 feels so much better when focusing than my da21. I do like the all metal better. Makes me quite tempted to get an all metal manual 50.
09-06-2010, 10:33 PM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 412
I'm going birding later this month. We can compare zoom and AF to my ISCO 135mm for bokeh and feel.
09-06-2010, 10:38 PM   #64
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
It's not *that* hard. Or do think there weren't soccer moms before 1980? My parents - definitely not professional photographers - took lots of pictures of me as a kid, and they manually focused every single one of them until I was in high school.
I agree with you that MF isn't terribly hard. But, your parents had no choice except to learn MF if they wanted photos of you. So they invested the time and effort needed to achieve that. Photography has become far more accessible for people in the last decade and that includes people who are unwilling to spend the time/effort needed to use MF lenses.

My problem is with the constant examples that people bring up about how "because there were photographers before AF and they took great pics of ______ using MF lenses, then MF is just as easy as AF." I love MF to death but at no point am I going to argue the convenience of MF vs AF with a straight face. Especially not with today's crappy viewfinders and split screens.

09-06-2010, 10:48 PM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
OK, but what MF primes & modern zooms do you have to make this comparision?
Fair question, but before answering that, I would like hangu to reply on my early posted question.
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Can you guess how many primes I owned so far?
09-06-2010, 10:51 PM   #66
Veteran Member
future_retro's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Western Washington
Posts: 572
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
I agree with you that MF isn't terribly hard. But, your parents had no choice except to learn MF if they wanted photos of you. So they invested the time and effort needed to achieve that. Photography has become far more accessible for people in the last decade and that includes people who are unwilling to spend the time/effort needed to use MF lenses.

My problem is with the constant examples that people bring up about how "because there were photographers before AF and they took great pics of ______ using MF lenses, then MF is just as easy as AF." I love MF to death but at no point am I going to argue the convenience of MF vs AF with a straight face. Especially not with today's crappy viewfinders and split screens.
I wonder what we'll be saying in another 10-20 years?

Perhaps predictive autofocus systems will start taking pictures for you, or like Canon's future DSLR concept, it just takes continuos 4k video and you can pull a picture out of any frame in time

I'm not even trying to be silly I'm being totally honest, old MF lenses were the pinnacle of technology at one point and time, and now we say that AF is so much easier, at no point is innovation ever going to stop, just imagine what will replace that sentence

QuoteQuote:
your parents had no choice except to learn when to hit the shutter button if they wanted photos of you
09-06-2010, 11:00 PM   #67
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Sorry but I don't think you know me at all. Can you guess how many primes I owned so far?
Who the hell cares how many lenses you own? If the 10 other posters haven't clued you in as to why your reasons were terrible then I doubt I could either.

If you actually use any of the, I'm sure, many, many prime lenses that you own, then you'd know that MF isn't "better" than AF zoom lenses. It's just different and perhaps more suited to your individual needs.

QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
JoepLX3, only 3 weeks ago you were asking which DSLR to buy. Now you know that MF primes are better than modern zooms. That's quite some progression
I remember trying to help you in that thread. It was clear that you had absolutely no experience with most modern AF lenses yet you now suddenly seem to have a great idea as to why MF is so much better.

QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
- As far as I see it, I just summarized some reasons and got an interesting discussion going.
By interesting, you mean just like that time when some shcmoe came in here and listed a bunch of reasons as to why Canon was better than Pentax? That thread was received very warmly and a lively and educated discussion followed. Not.

QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
- Personal I hate people pushing their opinion to pro-actively convince others (especially after work time).
Really? Then you thought: hey, let me make a thread with 10 reasons to convince others on the merits of MF. I mean, it's got to be work time in Asia, so it's ok, right?

The funny thing is that based on my lens collection, I should be sitting here and nodding in agreement with you.
09-06-2010, 11:08 PM   #68
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by future_retro Quote
I wonder what we'll be saying in another 10-20 years?

Perhaps predictive autofocus systems will start taking pictures for you, or like Canon's future DSLR concept, it just takes continuos 4k video and you can pull a picture out of any frame in time

I'm not even trying to be silly I'm being totally honest, old MF lenses were the pinnacle of technology at one point and time, and now we say that AF is so much easier, at no point is innovation ever going to stop, just imagine what will replace that sentence
Ugh, I know, it's kind of scary and exciting at the same time. Perhaps, it'll all be post processing in the future. Knowing how much to crop, where to crop, how to change the lighting, etc...

09-06-2010, 11:28 PM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I think maybe you're taking it too seriously.

Sure they are. You've never heard of anyone buying an MF lens because it was cheaper than an AF equivalent? You've never heard of anyone buying a prime because it's IQ was better than any zoom they could afford?

He didn't say *all* primes were smaller than *all* zooms. The existence of one counterexample doesn't

Similarly, he didn't say *all* primes are sharper than *all* zooms.
Perhaps, I am taking this list a bit too seriously. I'm an all-MF user and should be adding reasons to this list but it's just so much more fun to play Devil's Advocate.

I actually did purchase an AF lens because it was significantly cheaper than the MF equivalent. The DA12-24mm was it. I'd be interested in seeing a MF equivalent. The closest was the SMC Tak/A-series 15mm.

I'm fairly certain that a 16-50mm zoom is smaller/lighter than a collection of 15mm, 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm primes and wouldn't be far behind in image quality. Also the F/FA/DA LTD series primes are lighter/smaller than MF counter parts.

MF lenses are cheaper in general but so are Spotmatics as an extreme example. They do the same thing as modern DSLRs yet no one is claiming that they're better because they're cheaper.
09-07-2010, 01:51 AM   #70
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
Hangu, next to my LX3 I own a SLR with 3 AF Zooms (but recently hardly used any more), planning to buy a K-x or it successor in 1-2 months (with 1 or 2 kit zoom lenses), will for sure get my fathers 50 mm F2 and am in the middle of the "negotiation" on a set of 28 mm F2.8, 50 mm F1.7, 135 mm F3.5 as well as 200 mm F4. Total price excluding shipping < 100 Euro, but maybe I also get a 500 mm F8 for another 10 Euro.

Next step will be an autofocus portrait prime / zoom, or an ultra wide auto zoom.

Thanks for the discussion (and advice)!!!
09-07-2010, 02:51 AM   #71
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mainz
Posts: 20
Hah, excellent troll topic!

I know some people that enjoy playing with MS flight simulator. They get some add-on package that in high detail simulates one specific airplane, then spend hours reading the manual, practice setting all the switches at the correct position. Why? Because they enjoy the thought process that goes into it. (I don't)

Same for photography. What do you like about photography? Maybe to walk on the street and find photo opportunities and crazy situations on a busy day. In that case you'll be happy with some crazy fast autofocus. Or for Sports! But maybe you enjoy photographing buildings, in which case you'll probably buy a large format manual camera and work hard on the perspective correction etc. I believe that the idea is that you enjoy the process and get the tools to get most out of it.

For me: End of last year I bought my first thought-through camera, a panasonic LX-2, and was amazed that I could make pictures on relatively low light that weren't blurred. The manual settings are a bit hard to control, so in february I considered my first DSLR, a K-X based on the color actually. I have no steady hands, I could use the in-body sensor so I would be able to buy cheaper lenses, and then a Nikon-using colleague explained me that I also would want high ISO, which it also had, so she adviced me to take it.

I then bought a f/1.4 30mm sigma to take pictures in darker and even darker situations, and they'd still come out fine, the high-iso grain adding to the gloominess But I did found out that for what I like to do, AF doesn't take it. At low light the camera has no clue. So I turn off the AF, and enjoy training my eye on focusing, thanking god for digital that I can delete bad shots. MF with the sigma is a bit of a b***h, probably even more so with the FA 50mm and accidentally I saw a 50mm 1.7 prime for 60 euro in a shop (shops are sometimes cheaper than ebay/internet for lenses in Germany). I really enjoy it a lot! Now trying to make a small collection of MF stuff, I like the sturdy all-metalness and sometimes quirkiness of them. I just read the 1960's book on photography by Feininger to rethink my view on composition and light, and even got an old Pentax KX film dslr, so I can experiment with film and still collect lenses that are useful for digital. Awesome stuff isn't it.

Now taking pictures of a cat freightened by cameras is a disaster with MF, and I don't have kids, but I guess it'll be even worse. But until then, my 18-55 mm kit lens will remain unused in the closet. Actually, topic kids, my sister in-law has a reasonable bridge camera that I tried to put to it extremes on manual and take natural light pictures of my niece, but then she took it away and turned on the flash to continue making perfectly sharp lifeless loveless pictures of her kid
09-07-2010, 03:02 AM   #72
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Hangu, next to my LX3 I own a SLR with 3 AF Zooms (but recently hardly used any more), planning to buy a K-x or it successor in 1-2 months (with 1 or 2 kit zoom lenses), will for sure get my fathers 50 mm F2 and am in the middle of the "negotiation" on a set of 28 mm F2.8, 50 mm F1.7, 135 mm F3.5 as well as 200 mm F4. Total price excluding shipping < 100 Euro, but maybe I also get a 500 mm F8 for another 10 Euro.

Next step will be an autofocus portrait prime / zoom, or an ultra wide auto zoom.

Thanks for the discussion (and advice)!!!
So you don't even own a dslr, much less shot with a spectrum of lenses. Sounds like a troll, or an Internet forum "expert"
09-07-2010, 03:36 AM   #73
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pimpim Quote
Hah, excellent troll topic!
Thanks for compliment

QuoteOriginally posted by pimpim Quote
I know some people that enjoy playing with MS flight simulator. They get some add-on package that in high detail simulates one specific airplane, then spend hours reading the manual, practice setting all the switches at the correct position. Why? Because they enjoy the thought process that goes into it. (I don't)

Same for photography. What do you like about photography? Maybe to walk on the street and find photo opportunities and crazy situations on a busy day. In that case you'll be happy with some crazy fast autofocus. Or for Sports! But maybe you enjoy photographing buildings, in which case you'll probably buy a large format manual camera and work hard on the perspective correction etc. I believe that the idea is that you enjoy the process and get the tools to get most out of it.

For me: End of last year I bought my first thought-through camera, a panasonic LX-2, and was amazed that I could make pictures on relatively low light that weren't blurred. The manual settings are a bit hard to control, so in february I considered my first DSLR, a K-X based on the color actually. I have no steady hands, I could use the in-body sensor so I would be able to buy cheaper lenses, and then a Nikon-using colleague explained me that I also would want high ISO, which it also had, so she adviced me to take it.

I then bought a f/1.4 30mm sigma to take pictures in darker and even darker situations, and they'd still come out fine, the high-iso grain adding to the gloominess But I did found out that for what I like to do, AF doesn't take it. At low light the camera has no clue. So I turn off the AF, and enjoy training my eye on focusing, thanking god for digital that I can delete bad shots. MF with the sigma is a bit of a b***h, probably even more so with the FA 50mm and accidentally I saw a 50mm 1.7 prime for 60 euro in a shop (shops are sometimes cheaper than ebay/internet for lenses in Germany). I really enjoy it a lot! Now trying to make a small collection of MF stuff, I like the sturdy all-metalness and sometimes quirkiness of them. I just read the 1960's book on photography by Feininger to rethink my view on composition and light, and even got an old Pentax KX film dslr, so I can experiment with film and still collect lenses that are useful for digital. Awesome stuff isn't it.

Now taking pictures of a cat freightened by cameras is a disaster with MF, and I don't have kids, but I guess it'll be even worse. But until then, my 18-55 mm kit lens will remain unused in the closet. Actually, topic kids, my sister in-law has a reasonable bridge camera that I tried to put to it extremes on manual and take natural light pictures of my niece, but then she took it away and turned on the flash to continue making perfectly sharp lifeless loveless pictures of her kid
Nice story!!!
- I don't know which AF to go for besides my kit lens(es), so you are a little ahead of me.
09-07-2010, 09:36 AM   #74
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
So you don't even own a dslr, much less shot with a spectrum of lenses. Sounds like a troll, or an Internet forum "expert"
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
DBeing a newbie myself, I might be confused with all the camera features of the K-7 and even make more user-mistakes than I would with K-x.
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I think maybe you're taking it too seriously.
Ugh, you win, Marc. I'm a complete sucker for bait.

I should have known when the OP couldn't tell the difference between 9 and 10.
09-07-2010, 10:01 AM   #75
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
I agree with you that MF isn't terribly hard. But, your parents had no choice except to learn MF if they wanted photos of you. So they invested the time and effort needed to achieve that. Photography has become far more accessible for people in the last decade and that includes people who are unwilling to spend the time/effort needed to use MF lenses.
True; I don't think "most" people today would be happy with MF. But I'd also argue that by taking photography seriously enough to buy a DSLR, and then to join pentaxforums, and then hang on the SLR Lens forum - we're talking about people clearly a cut above average in terms of dedication and willingness to invest a little time and effort.

QuoteQuote:
I love MF to death but at no point am I going to argue the convenience of MF vs AF with a straight face. Especially not with today's crappy viewfinders and split screens.
I hear you. The spin I try to cast isn't that MF is just as convenient - it clearly isn't (usually - there are still situations where I think it is actually more convenient). Mostly, I generally bring up the bit about everyone using it for 100 years to observe that it needn't be a dealbreaker if everything else is pointing to an MF lens as the best option.

Quite a few people have never manually focused a lens in their life and imagine it to be rather harder than it actually is once you get the hang of it. Others have tried MF with the kit lens and struggled but don't realize that MF with an actual MF lens is quite a bit easier. So I think it important to point out that it isn't as those who have either never tried or have tried only with the kit lens might think.

But of course, it's also true that a typical APS-C DSLR isn't as easy as a typical 35mm film camera. I agree with another poster that this becomes more of an issue the wider the lens - although DOF gets bigger, subject size gets smaller.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, auto focus, focus, focus primes, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, primes, reasons, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What does "auto" mean on older manual focus lenses? jonhock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 12-03-2009 11:32 AM
Auto-Focus Lenses on Manual Bodies pdx138 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 08-22-2009 06:47 PM
9 Reasons To Manual Focus duron Photographic Technique 12 12-08-2008 02:05 PM
Manual or Auto Focus paolo g Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 06-27-2008 10:55 AM
Manual and Auto Focus JCSullivan Photographic Technique 51 12-15-2007 06:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top