Originally posted by Winder Shoot some BiF like this manual focus. He is shooting birds in flight with the 400mm GM around the 9 minute mark. If you had enough time and enough passes you could get some shots, but when you only get one chance to get the shot, I'll take AF every time.
And I'll take the chance of getting the shot every now and then and saving a lot of money, unless I'm getting paid for the image. After all, the enjoyment of nature or sport or whatever is why I'm out there. Getting great images is secondary. I'm happy if I get them, i don't fret much if i don't. And in any case, as noted in another post, no camera guarantees you get every shot. They just increase your odds. You can have every AF advantage ever made, and still miss shots. It's all about what's needed for the subject at hand. SO who do you think might be happier. Someone with a relatively cheap MF lens who missed all their shots, or someone with the most expensive AF lens out there that missed all their shots? I suspect having the best kit and missing would be a lot more disappointing. And in the case where no one gets a good image, faster AF isn't better. IN the situation where everyone gets good images faster AF isn't better. IN the case where only the AF on your camera gets images and others don't, one of the three scenarios proposed, then faster AF is better. I know some of us live in that little window, but most of us don't.