Originally posted by D4rknezz I asked the original question, and I will try to give an explanation as to why I would bother about understanding the technicalities of the auto focus system. It does not have much to do with trying to be a better photographer at all. There were mainly two reasons why I asked the question:
1) I am curious and I want to know how everything works, whether I happen to have some practical use for that knowledge at the moment or not.
2) I wanted to be able to better judge the implications of introducing more precise F/2.8 sensors and claiming a two-stop increase in light-sensitivity.
Before, I could see two alternatives. Either, the improved light sensitivity would only be there when using large aperture lenses, or it would be there for all lenses. If what people have described in this thread is correct, then the case seems to be that indeed the auto focus light sensitivity should likely have been improved for all lenses, and the addition of F/2.8 sensors only had to do with increased precision for large-aperture lenses, and not the light sensitivity.
I find this information valuable, because now I can make a more informed assumption about how the new auto focus system has been improved. Naturally, it cannot replace tests (which will be published soon, when the testers can get hold of cameras).
When the question on how this thread helps anyone being a better photographer was asked, I interpreted it as if there was an underlying assumption that all threads have to be about improving ones photographic skill. I think that both discussions on how to improve yourself and discussions about understanding technical things should be OK -- in fact, if it would only be about improving your own skill, it should be a photography forum rather than a brand-specific forum.
I do not see any problem in being technically interested and wanting to know how stuff works and also wanting to create beautiful pictures. The technical part does not necessarily have to be just a means towards better pictures, but can be interesting in itself.
This does not mean that I only care about the technicalities, and such things. I take pictures and try to improve, also by studying books about composition, light and "telling a story with the picture" and so on, and at the same time I like to understand the technology. Wanting to understand how stuff works and wanting to improve my own technique are not mutually exclusive! I very much am of the opinion that photographers take pictures, and that cameras are tools that are used -- I am very sure that a good photographer could make better pictures with some old compact camera in many situations than I could with my K-5, for example. I know several photographers who I consider better at taking pictures than I, although they know almost nothing about the technology that makes their cameras work.
Lastly, if you think that all of the above seems very strange: try to think of something that you would be curious about, without having any practical use for the information. For example, wouldn't it be fun to know how an airplane can fly, how a loudspeaker works to produce sound or how a light bulb works (substitute something that you find interesting)? That is something similar to how I feel about understanding more about how cameras (and most other things as well) work.
I hope that I was able to clarify a bit.