[Wheatfield]

I wonder how they managed sports photography with manual focus lenses! I bet they got no keepers!

Put up or shut up. If you can't get a good shot than either you suck, or there is some equipment failure. Most likely option A.

Just sayin'

Look at how sports photography has evolved from the 1950s to present. AF technology especially has changed the face of sports photography.

also depends on the type of grass.... ive always liked buffalo grass - nice to sit on and a nice green

Yeah but I can photoshop those colors for you. How bout purple grass.

I'm a general contractor. I have, someplace, a cheap piece of crap B&D circular saw that would beg to differ with you.
I can build a house, but this saw will not make a straight cut for me, or anyone else. I keep it around for those times when people say this kind of stuff to me.
The guy is still a douchebag, but sometimes the equipment does get in the way.

Know what you're talking about. I've got an old Millers Falls circular saw that always pulls to the right side. Freehand you can't make a straight cut. I keep it because it was my fathers and it's at least 50 years old. The old metal ones that you could put a shine on. Not the plastic stuff. But it still won't cut straight.

[Mr Hyde]

I wonder how they managed sports photography with manual focus lenses! I bet they got no keepers!

Put up or shut up. If you can't get a good shot than either you suck, or there is some equipment failure. Most likely option A.

Just sayin'

Oh dont be silly, back then all photographers were born with the left hand manual focus gene. But over the years that gene has been lost. Stupid Darwin and his theorys of evolution......

[pingflood]

I wonder how they managed sports photography with manual focus lenses! I bet they got no keepers!

Put up or shut up. If you can't get a good shot than either you suck, or there is some equipment failure. Most likely option A.

Just sayin'

Hell, I've shot drag racing with MF lenses -- not a big deal if you prefocus and just have snap the shot at the right time. But with a good modern rig I could blast off an entire series of shots the entire way down and have them all in focus. Don't think anybody's quite THAT good at manual focusing.

Your argument against AF performance is like arguing against working meters or power winders... sure, you CAN do fine without them if you know how, but you can probably do quite a bit better with them, and the less you have to screw with the technicals when doing action photos the more you can focus on framing and composition.

[Wheatfield]

Hell, I've shot drag racing with MF lenses -- not a big deal if you prefocus and just have snap the shot at the right time. But with a good modern rig I could blast off an entire series of shots the entire way down and have them all in focus. Don't think anybody's quite THAT good at manual focusing.

Your argument against AF performance is like arguing against working meters or power winders... sure, you CAN do fine without them if you know how, but you can probably do quite a bit better with them, and the less you have to screw with the technicals when doing action photos the more you can focus on framing and composition.

I've been around long enough to have used meterless cameras when they were state of the art, not a curiosity to be dabbled with when the results don't matter. Every technical improvement to cameras has been touted as a way of making the photographer's job easier by taking some of the front end technical load off so that he or she can concentrate on the picture.
Built in meters were a blessing once the bugs got ironed out, auto exposure made life easier, as does auto focus and auto film advance (or it's digital offspring, the burst rate).
Every one of these advances gave the photographer that had it an advantage over the photographer that didn't have it.
AF will give you an advantage over manual focus.
Faster AF will give you an advantage over slower AF.
For that matter, any performance increase will give you an advantage over a less well specified camera.
This isn't really a difficult concept to understand.
Whether the performance advantage will make a difference really depends on what you are doing.
I'm primarily a portrait shooter. I don't depend on auto focus. In fact, I haven't used an autofocus lens in almost a year.
So for me, fast AF isn't going to do as much for me as a good lens with nice image rendering abilities.

OTOH, a friend of mine is a photographer for our local newspaper. His job is more performance intensive than what I do, but he doesn't need the lens qualities that I find desirable.
For him, the equipment that I use is worse than useless, and as much as I like the Nikkor 400/2.8, it isn't going to help me in my portrait studio.

If your livelihood depends on bringing home pictures that can be improved upon by technical advances, it behooves you to have equipment that allows you to keep up. It can be the difference between selling pictures and learning how to say "Welcome to Wal-Mart, enjoy your shopping experience".

[Ron Boggs]

Some people are "yearners" who are never happy with their current situation or with their current equipment. They aren't necessarily pessimists, they just can't help but want something "more" or something "different". My biker scum neighbor (he calls me yuppy scum btw) has a saying he uses frequently, "It's an imperfect world." Those who get a grip on this fact can handle stuff like a dripping faucet or slow autofocus in near dark conditions better than the people who seek a perfect world. So combine the "yearners" with the "perfection seekers" and you have lots of dissatisfied individuals. They tend away from brand loyalty in all products as the existing or previous product is never good enough...

BTW, autofocus is not used as much by pro's as most of us think. I've stood elbow to elbow in the "combat photography" zones at Yellowstone and Denali many times. From my perspective--standing next to them listening to the shutters fly--the pro's tend to use less autofocus than the amateurs. And commonly use less "shutter blast" approaches as well. Perhaps the pro's are actually working more with composition and catching decisive moments of action than are the amateurs? I have no experience with shooting sports photography (though I am a year-round coach--too busy to shoot). Are the best selling pro's shooting mega blasts of autofocused shots as much as we are lead to think? I'm betting not.

[Wheatfield]

I have no experience with shooting sports photography (though I am a year-round coach--too busy to shoot). Are the best selling pro's shooting mega blasts of autofocused shots as much as we are lead to think? I'm betting not.

This might make an amusing read for you.
Rob Galbraith DPI: Sports Illustrated's digital workflow

"....SI's take from Super Bowl XXXVIII, 16,183 digital pictures shot...."

Why call the dissatisfied Canon 5D2 user a douchebag? He has every right to express his dissatisfaction with his expensive camera. When your income, indeed your very survival is linked to the performance of your equipment you have every right to be picky. What's wrong with having high artistic standards as well? To each his own.

[Ron Boggs]

I'll stick with coaching! SI's work flow is not my idea of a "fun" day. Nor is it my idea of a decent way to make a living--sheesh! Aren't there some ditches to dig somewhere?

[Just1MoreDave]

Why call the dissatisfied Canon 5D2 user a douchebag? He has every right to express his dissatisfaction with his expensive camera. When your income, indeed your very survival is linked to the performance of your equipment you have every right to be picky. What's wrong with having high artistic standards as well? To each his own.

This quote certainly lowered my opinion of him:

(*I cringe every time I remember this scenario: I was shooting advertising with the 5D2 with models, hair, makeup, stylists, etc waiting on me. As I was shooting tethered, the art director was standing next to me looking at the monitor and saying “they are soft!”, and I was there thinking, yeah, I can see that, but I don’t know what the f*ck to do about it. This is after hours or working with the AF microadjustments, etc., etc.)

I'm the farthest thing from a high-end fashion photographer, but I would expect one to know how to manual focus. Or if this is impossible and he is completely reliant on perfect AF, to bring and use a camera with perfect AF. I think he is doing the right thing looking for a different camera.

[Wheatfield]

This quote certainly lowered my opinion of him:



I'm the farthest thing from a high-end fashion photographer, but I would expect one to know how to manual focus. Or if this is impossible and he is completely reliant on perfect AF, to bring and use a camera with perfect AF. I think he is doing the right thing looking for a different camera.

Or he might want to learn how to bias his autofocus........
But dear gawd, I shoot models and advertising with MUAs and ADs and all that tripe, and it is certainly easy enough to switch over to manual focus.
It's not like you can take more than a picture every few seconds with studio lights.
And, were he truly a professional rather than a wank, he would have had his AF micro adjustment issues sorted out before he brought the equipment onto the set.
I mean really, bringing broken equipment to a big deal photo shoot is just plain dumb. The time to work those bugs out is during TF shoots, not when money is changing hands.

[Canada_Rockies]

They had better viewfinders.

Somewhat true, but I find the viewfinder in my K10D is okay.

What they did have is practise. And more practise. And a lot more practise. I've taken soccer snaps good enough for the newspaper with a 1957 Pentax and a Takumar 135/3.5 preset lens. It was easier with the KX and an M 135/3.5 I replaced it with when the shutters wore out. It was even easier with the SF-1 and the A 70-210/4 - no more sticking my thumb in my eye advancing the film, and auto exposure! WOW.

It's even easier now with my K10D.

BTW, I have never turned the continuous advance on. I prefer to get the peak moment by learning the delay with my equipment and knowing the sport I'm shooting. I would much rather have a few dozen shots to pick from than 1,000 plus taken in burst mode at 11 fps.

[nakey]

Today, i had a photoshoot. my K200D's in the shop for repair, leaving me with film camera.

Friend just got a 5DII

....


you have absolutely NO idea how much greener the grass is....

That being said, had i had the K200D, it wouldn't matter so much

Good luck shooting soccer games with manual focus and see what the keeper ratio is vs a well functioning AF system.

Wouldn't you rather use a tool that is suited for it?

If results were critical, why would you use a 5D? i'd be going straight for the 1DIII for sports


And i agree with Wheatfield. you make sure you stuff's working BEFORE going to a paid shoot (least mine was a bunch of anime cosplayers having fun, not paid, not serious)

The way I see it , the more you pay the more right you have to bitch if it doesn't work right.
I skipped the whole autofocus revolution because I didn't want a camera autofocusing for me. Then I got older. My eyes weren't what they used to be and I was forced to rely on autofocus. Believe me autofocus is very crucial to me, and I shoot Pentax. Imagine that.
I guess I'm a "douchebag" because I can't focus a lens manually...according to the wisdom of some of the posters here.

Never mind you old douchebag, rumour has it that Stevie Wonder is designing a new magnifying eyepiece for people just like you.