Why manual focus?

Discussion in 'Sports' started by edward_h, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. I've seen a lot of questions lately regarding using manual focus
    lenses on cameras that have AF. I've been trying to rationally come up
    with explanations as to why a person would want to do such a thing.

    I routinely photograph events (dancing, concerts, martial arts
    exhibitions) and couldn't possibly expect to get more than about 10
    sharp pics per event if I were to switch off my AF. I can understand
    macro folk not using AF, but why not use it shooting sports, street
    and snapshots? Why force yourself to use MF?

    Why would a personal forgo a technology that makes taking sharp
    photographs easier? My thoughts/theories are as follows:
    1) Autofocus follows the wrong subjects.
    2) People have been using MF for several decades, why change now?
    3) MF lenses are ever so much sharper than newer AF lenses.

    If any of y'all have any theories of your own I would be more than
    glad to hear them. I want to understand what makes MF-folk people tick.
     
  2. With early autofocus (1993) I found that AF was rarely reliable with moving subjects, so I'd focus maually and shoot when subjects were in the "zone". I know that AF has evolved quite a bit in this area but some shooters may still use MF for this reason.
     
  3. I'll pick choice number 1: my wife, a novice photographer, routinely complains about the
    auto [out-of]-focus setting on my camera (a Nikon F60) when taking candid people
    photos. The classic problem she runs into is taking a picture of 2 people, standing side-
    by-side: whatever is in the background between the two heads ends up nicely focused, but
    the people are blurry. It takes a lot of practice to use the novice-features effectively.

    (Number 2 reminds me of Woody Allen in the movie _Sleeper_. asking about how to switch
    the orgasmatron to manual.)
     
  4. If you've only tried manually focusing an AF camera/lens, I can
    understand your frustration. Manually focus a manual focus
    lens on a camera that has a viewing screen designed for manual
    focus use is much easier.
    <p>
    There is some practice involved in refining the skill, but like
    the old Volkswagen commercials said regarding their transmissions,
    "after awhile, it becomes automatic".
    <p>
    Once your eyes and hands have learned the skill of follow-focusing
    on a good manual focus camera, it's hard to beat. It's fast,
    extremely accurate, very easy to control, and it always
    focuses on exactly the part of the subject that YOU want it
    to focus on, regardless of where that part of the subject is
    in the viewfinder. The question becomes, why would anyone
    want to switch away from a system that works so well?
    <p>
    But your original question was regarding using MF lenses on
    AF bodies. Reasons may vary, but perhaps they wanted to get
    an AF body to go digital, or get some advanced flash capability
    or something. Some old MF lenses may be somewhat special-purpose
    and either very expensive or unavailable in AF versions (105mm f/2.5
    Nikkor is one example, PC shift 35mm f/2.8 is another).
    <p>
    I don't think your 3rd reason is what motivates many people. I'm not
    aware of any MF lenses that are significantly sharper than their AF
    counterparts, except to the extent that the AF counterparts
    sometimes mis-focus, indirectly causing a loss of sharpness.
     
  5. A male's ability to focus a lens is at it's peak at age 18. I knew a couple of sports shooters, Randy Reid at my newspaper and a Sports Illustrated photographer by the name of Andy Hayt. These guys could shoot a football game (day or night), and when you edited their film you would find 30 out of the 36 photos tack sharp.I am sure now that they are older they are using AF , but having the ability to have that kind of hand-eye coordination was amazing.
     
  6. it

    it

    A Toronto news guy recently told me there was one old pro sports shooter in town who still shot NHL games with manual focus.
     
  7. Okay.. I will attempt to take a stab at this one from my personal experience, and sadly enough, disappointment with the technology for the particular type of images I am looking to capture. I have a passion for shooting motorsport, Formula One to be precise, and shot over 14 gigs of photos at the 2004 Canadian GP over a four-day stint in Montreal.

    I used a Canon 10D and employed a number of Canon L series AF/USM lenses? Each of which upon inspection confirmed that the AI/Servo/AF was simply too slow to accurately track an object either approaching me or retreating as all of the images produced were soft. After having a conversation with a friend of mine who has been shooting F1 since the early 70?s he kept on stressing to forego the AF and pre-focus on the area where I wanted to capture the moment... I understand that some sports are more predisposed to this technique than others but I have also done this while shooting baseball games as well as football and with great success. But that?s me?

    Hope this gives you a different viewpoint on the AF/MF battle.

    Happy shooting!
     
  8. Norm, your lucid and timely explanation on the advantages of prefocusing in some action circumstances saved me the hassle of attempting to post.
     
  9. EOS has one feature that's an interesting hybrid: Depth focus, where you set the min and
    max distances you want in focus and the camera sets a focus point somewhere in between
    with an aperture that should get both in focus. Many people do this manually by
    experienced guesswork, but it's nice to know some engineers have attempted it. Note that
    the points should be fairly close so that your aperture isn't F16 and your shutter speed is
    reasonable.
    <P>Why manual focus? -->>> Decisive Moment!<P> Prefocus allows totally split second
    timing, I still use prefocus for street photos, 10 feet at F11 with a wide lens, AF seems to
    deny the decisive moment, though newer AF systems are finally getting close, the Canon
    20D is surprisingly fast.
    <P>As my eyes get older and focussing screens get flatter... and AF gets better, I find AF
    is a tool that's finally
    something I don't mind using.
    <P>I still mix and match, using old Manual Focus lenses with adapters on my Canon 20D.
     
  10. Norman Perkel has covered several of the reasons, such as the inability of AF systems to track at some speed ranges, but it is the second reason he gives, pre-focus on an area to capture a moment, that is IMHO the more critical for control of composition.

    Despite the sophistication of some AF camera viewfinders the focusing spots they allow one to choose do not always work for the composition you are trying to achieve. If you are attempting an off-center composition, or one with a lot of negative space in the center of the image, MF will allow you the greater control you need. For panning shots, which typically benefit from an off-center composition, my experience is that MF results in a higher success rate. MF does require that the sports photographer have a detailed knowledge of their sport and where the action that will make for a successful shot will develop. That may sound difficult, but who among us actively shoots things we are not interested in?

    This does not mean that AF has no place in sports photography. In motorsports there are situations, the start, the crush of cars at the first corner, blown engines and accidents that are all more suited for AF, but for shots where you?re trying to capture a moment, as Norman so succinctly put it, MF makes more sense.
     
  11. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I don't get it, I can prefocus an AF camera at least as fast, if not faster, than a MF camera. I aim at the spot I want in focus and lock focus. What's so hard about that?

    There's a lot of "so and so said" on this thread, maybe that indicates a lack of experience with this kind of shooting. I shot a professional boxing event a few weeks ago, four of us with credentials shooting at the ring, four of us shooting with autofocus. I don't think anyone missed the "decisive moment" because of autofocus, although two of us (me included) missed it because the official's legs were in the way. There's no way manual focus or any kind of anticipation could have changed that.
     
  12. Prefocus is indeed something where AF isn't necessary, (but can be used). I will never understand anyone wanting to manually focus a AF camera by habit. But I can't understand a lot of thngs, doesn't mean that the person holding that opinion, or choosing that method is wrong, just that I don't understand.
     
  13. AF is only an option, a tool to suit a purpose. In most cases it is fine for sports work as long as you are aware of its limitation, one of which, as an example, is the subject you have locked focus on in auto servo mode suddenly changing direction, and the focus point latching onto the background and causing the lens to run out to almost infinity and start to hunt for something to lock onto, or doing the same thing by shooting between two subject in the frame.
    Or as Norm mentioned the AF is just too bloody slow or unreliable for the job at hand

    At times, when you can choose the exact place that you want to capture the image, and manually focus on that point, taking the pic the moment that the subject arrives there, either by following the action with panning ,or holding the camera still and relying on good reflexes to capture the shot as you previsualised it.

    Another advantage of using this method when appropriate and as opposed to AF, is you know beforehand that you are going to get the shot, and not have some dumb contrast seeking, colour blind, mechanically linked. sometime useful tool letting you down at the last second.

    Although I respect your opinions generally, I reckon that in this case you are shooting from the lip Jeff.
     
  14. Hi all,

    Well I came into AF from 20+ years of MF, one major point is that it depends on what kit
    you are useing. Now if I was like Norman and handicaping myself by useing a 10D for
    F1 shooting then I would have probably gone back to MF! But I didn't, I use 1V's and
    1D's, for the vast majority of situations they focus and track far better than most people
    can, including me.

    Now only having extensively used Canon AF I can only comment on that but I doubt if
    Nikon are much different. The functionality of the AF is astounding, not only One Shot and
    AI Servo, but adjustable sensativity, adjustable speed, multipule switching and accessing
    methods, and instant focus preset, I'm sorry but focusing is far more versatile and
    accurate now than then.

    In answer to Edwards original three points, 1) AF can follow the wrong subject, but it can
    be programed or over ridden to not do so, 2) This is a valid point, I must be honest I was
    sceptical at AF's abilities, but after trying it was more than convinced, but some diehards
    will always stick with what they know or feel comfortable with, 3) MF lenses are not
    sharper than AF ones, obviously some MF lenses are sharper than some AF lenses but if
    you talk about comparative ones my old MF 300 f2.8 is not sharper than my AF 300 f2.8.

    I think part of the problem is that one system without tuning can not do everything well
    and for something as simple as focusing it is tempting, especially pre digital, to ignore the
    options and choices and just not use it rather than make a big investment in time and
    money to investigate and test all the combinations of settings or, get on your soapbox
    because consummer grade kit does not work as well as pro kit. Duh! Why would anybody
    buy an $8000 or $4500 camera if a $1200 one did the same job? You can however buy the
    same (very nearly) AF system in a $700 camera as the $8000 one if you use film (EOS 3).

    Take care, Scott.
     
  15. The 10D is not necessarily a handicap for photographing Formula 1 racing, as this excellent 10D shot by Santi Martinez Romero proves. Could a 1D or 1D Mk11 have done any better?

    Talent and skill plays a very big part.

    I would go as far as to say the 1D Canon and similar professional cameras have enabled many mediocre pro sports photographers to capture quite spectacular images that have nothing to do with the photographers reflexes or talent.

    Of course for the talented sports photogs, the 1D and its compatriots make sports photography akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
     
  16. Hi Erin,

    I never said you could not take a good picture with a 10D at a F1 event. But most people
    given the choice would use a 1 series body over a 10D in that situation not least of which
    because the AF is much better. The example you give, whilst nice, is not the kind of shot
    that really taxes an AF system anyway, it's a clear uninterupted shot with good contrast
    and the subject is moving in a smooth path at relatively slow speed, any sport shooter
    worth the tag could do that effortlessly in MF.

    Your last two comments I am in complete agreement with and I think this proves my point,
    mediocre people can get the shot because the AF is so good and talented pro's can shoot
    fish in barrels because they don't have to think about much of the stuff that they used to
    enabeling them to think differently and about other stuff i.e. composition, and the
    morgage!

    TAke care, Scott.
     
  17. When I was shooting with my EOS 5 (film) I used to MF quite a bit for the standard, predictable action stuff such as pan shots and head on action etc, though for race starts I'd use AF. Mind, the job was made considerably easier with a lovely big, bright viewfinder and nice focusing screen. When I switched to digital, first with a D60 and then with a 10D, manual focusing wasn't that much of a viable option because of the small, dim viewfinder. I also found that the increase in the volume of material I was shooting made AF a better tool to use. The AF on the D60 was hard work, and the slightest bit of dust would confuse it, resulting in the frustrating loss of some crash / incident shots, but it was worth using nonetheless. In comparison, the AF of the 10D is less likely to lose the lock, and with 7 focus points as opposed to the D60's 3, is far more responsive and so less shots are lost. However, I only have a single focus point active at any one time, usually the centre one. The key with the slower-focusing DSLRs is to make sure you track the cars for an adequate length to time prior to taking the shots - that way, the hit rate is pretty high, though obviously nowhere on par with say, the 1D Mk2. Using only one active focus point also reduces the risk of the camera locking onto the wrong subject. In the main, with the D60/10D it is all about developing good focusing technique while understanding the limitations of the camera that is the path to getting a good return of shots. I've shot SCSA racing (and other forms of motorsport) for the motorsport press for the last two seasons with either a D60 or a 10D and while I've had my work cut out at times, neither has stopped me from getting the shots I needed. In fact, I don't think I would have captured a couple of big incident sequences this season if I'd been shooting exclusively MF, as things on an oval happen just so damned quickly... Take for instance a crash that started with one car backing into the T3 wall at Rockingham. Started off pretty simply enough, but on the way back down, collected a bunch of tighly-grouped cars and before anyone knew it, one of them was barrel-rolling along the grass. The whole incident only lasted about ten seconds or so, but if I'd been using MF, there's just no way I'd have got a sequence of 12 shots that I produced with the 10D...
    00ALaP-20783384.jpg
     
  18. Verge got out OK, albeit a little shaken... I think AF proved its worth there, though the weather didn't help at the time. The exposures are not flat - it really was that misty at the back of the circuit. A few laps later, the fog had burnt off.

    Off on another tangent, I will agree that AF on point and shoot cameras drive me to frustration as there is no real means of controlling what the camera is locking on to. At least with an SLR and the direct viewfinder, you can quite literally see what you are doing, and along with being able to select the focus points or focus lock and recompose, you have a sufficient degree of control with the AF to get things right.
     
  19. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Although I respect your opinions generally, I reckon that in this case you are shooting from the lip Jeff.
    What's the difference between prefocus using AF and prefocus manually? You find a spot, focus on it. It can be done with either.
     
  20. Hi Scott,

    I am a little confused... You mention coming to AF with 20+ years experience shooting MF and also mention shooting with both the 1V and 1D bodies for the vast majority of your work. However, when I go to look at examples of your work to see how much, in your words, I am "handicapping" myself by using a 10D to shoot F1 I see not one photo. Would you mind sharing some of your work from your 20+ years experience with us so we could see how much we are crippled by the quality of the 10D and it?s inferiority to that of the Canon flagships?

    -Norman
     
  21. Norman don't be so cynical! What is it that you don't believe, that I bought my first good camera, a Canon AE1 in 1978 (I still have it and the original receipt) and that was after a couple of good years with a polaroid, try taking action shots with one of those, I did, or that I now have some pro grade kit ? Or that the 1 series AF is better than the 10D's ? I ask because I need to know if I am supposed to prove that I take photos or if the 1 series AF is better than the 10D's. If it is the latter go to, sportshooter.com, you will not see any pictures taken by me but you will see a lot of 1D credits and very few, if any, 10D credits, or go to Canonusa.com, again none of my pictures but a lot of technical info. If it is the former I am sure there is nothing I can post that won't disapoint you, I only have a $150 scanner so am reluctant to post film based work and that has been my medium for the vast majority of my work, and the bulk of it is in the UK anyway and I am in the Caribbean, also it is very difficult to say the AF of the 10D "could not have taken this picture" but judgeing from your F1 experiances there are many occasions when it is an accurate statment. Also the only "sport" of any photographic interest here is surfing, that is usualy done in good light and does not present too much of a challenge for AF or MF, I have a particular MF shot taken on an F1 N and 300 f2.8 + 2xTC of a surfer and you can tell the time by looking through a loupe at his watch. Also you doubt my experiance, but your opinion is based on very little camera time, why do you think you should be able to buy a $1000 body and shoot pro grade F1 shots after a few months back following a 17 year layoff? Judgeing by your F1 folder I think your panning technique is as much in question as your AF. Anyway, here is a surf shot, nothing too taxing (for the photographer anyway) but a nice pic that I took the day after getting my 1D, it is shot with a 300mm f2.8 IS and 2xTC mkII (effective focal length 780mm) tripod mounted, AI Servo AF. The particular reason I like this as an example is because I took it with a broken ankle, knee, hip, shoulder and shattered elbow (over 10 breaks in the elbow alone), now whilst a 10D might have been able to shoot this picture a 1D did and I could not have done it (at the time) in MF. I also made several sales from this session. Take care, Scott.
    00ANRG-20820784.jpg
     
  22. Sorry, forgot to mention my motorsport credentials. I grew up a couple of miles away from
    Goodwood car track and spend about 20 hours a weekend there (and many many week
    days aswell in the summer) it was a popular test track at the time, John Watson, David
    Purley and Derek Bell lived within a few miles, it cost nothing to get in the pits and F1 cars
    aswell as factory endurance cars used to test there all the time. I got some great shots of
    Stephan Johansen comming into the pits with his unraced F1 turbo on fire, I was about 10
    feet from him! Don't ask where they are now God only knows!

    Take care, Scott.
     
  23. Here's a surfing one from Ricardo Maui, a Hawaii based photographer, using a D30, which reputedly had very slow AF. Proves once again that it ain't the size (or specs) of the tool that counts, its the skill of the operator!
    00ANgg-20827684.jpg
     
  24. Hi Erin,

    I don't understand, you have said sports shooting is like shooting fish in barrels and also it
    aint the tools or specs but the photographer, which is it.

    I haven't said you can't take a good picture with a 10D or MF, but if you use the top spec
    AF systems then they are very good, that sounds like a different version of your shooting
    fish in barrels to me. Now if surf boy had had the opertunity which camera do you think he
    would have picked up to go to the beach with between the D30 and the 1D MkII, given the
    choice I would have gone with the latter and I think most sane people would, not only
    because it is a faster responding and better camera but because that means he is more
    likely to get the shot that pays the morgage. If I had the choice between a D30 and my
    F1N, I'd take the F1N because I know how well the focusing works on that.

    As I said another surf pic proves nothing, I have hundreds like those taken with MF, some
    photographers are better than others, I agree with that, some AF systems work better than
    others, you agree with that, if you are finding your AF is letting you down and you are
    useing a camera that does not have the best AF then you are handicaping yourself, that is
    not an opinion but a trueism, that is what handicaping means. Pro spec AF now, works
    very well and I use it extensively.

    Take care, Scott.
     
  25. I ain't finding my AF on the 10D is letting me down or handicapping me in any way, it works just fine thank you.

    Ricardo, or "Surf Boy" as you disparagingly referred to him, is now using a 20D and is finding the AF on that plenty fast enough to do the job for him and his clientle.

    Not every one can afford the price of a 1d MK11 as a working body and many working pros purchase two 10 or 20Ds as the basis of their working kit and do very well with them to.

    A good portion of the shooters at the Sportshooter site are using company purchased gear. A minor section are high end freelancers. Me, I am a freelance editorial photographer, with a 10D and a D60 backup.

    None of my clients or picture editors have said my selects are inferior or asked what camera and lense's I use, They just give me new assignments based on my previous work.

    The 10D AF is faster than an EOS 1 and about the same speed as an EOS1n. The 1 and the 1n were the pro Canons 10 years ago and captured plenty of nice images for PJs and Sports Photogs and were the leading cameras of that era. No one moaned about being handicapped by having one of them.

    The 20D AF is faster than any aforementioned camera other than the 1D mk11 and is only slightly inferior to that camera in AF lock on time and tracking speed. Build standard of course is another story.

    A good workman never blames his tools, he just keeps the ones he has in top working conditon, and they perfom better for him than the poor workman with the latest kit
     
  26. Hi Erin,

    So what is your point ?

    I said surfing does not tax any AF system or any reasonably confident MFer. If people
    could afford 1D MkII's do you think they'd buy them, cos believe me the ones that can do,
    I'm not useing company purchased gear all my gear payed for itself, this amounts to over
    $15,000 in AF alone so what, it does not change the fact that if you are in marginal AF
    situations then the top performing AF systems are the ones to get the shot. If the company
    thought it would get the same results with cheaper gear do you think they would ? Pro
    camera gear is cost effective to pros because of its abilities and durability.

    Ricardo is now useing a better AF camera with other benefits aswell, but if the only
    improvment was that the AF was better than the D30 (damn MF is better than the D30) do
    you think he would be useing one now? I bet he would, and when he can afford the 1D
    MkII I'll bet he gets it. This all just proves my point and that was that AF is very good, even
    in prosumer grade cameras, but in pro grade cameras it is even better.

    Freelance editorial photogs are the worst paid professionals in the world after nurses, the
    last editorial shot I sold (last week) netted the grand sum of $15.

    Alot of pros did not use the AF in the early years because it was not good enough, they
    were MFing, the AF could not track well enough in servo mode.

    In genaral, clients don't care what gear you use just so long as you deliver, if you use the
    best AF you will deliver AF critical shots more often, if you are not shooting AF critical
    shots then it will make no difference.

    What is your argument with that?

    Take care, Scott.
     
  27. Hi Scott,

    There is no reason to be so defensive. You made the statement that you have over 20+ years shooting MF and that you decided not to handicap yourself by choosing a 10D but rather ?use 1V's and 1D's, for the vast majority of situations they focus and track far better than most people can?, including you. Well, when I decided to see how superior the cameras you were using were I saw nothing? So I don?t think it was out of line to simply question where the images were.

    You say I am cynical?. Well, I am. Not of your abilities, but of your ability to tell something believable. You mention shooting the ?vast majority? of your work with the 1V?s and the 1D?s? but when asked to post something you reply with a somewhat weak answer of ?I only have a $150 scanner so am reluctant to post film based work and that has been my medium for the vast majority of my work, and the bulk of it is in the UK anyway and I am in the Caribbean?. Well what is the truth here Scott??? You mention in your own words possessing a 1D? That is a digital body is it not? So where does the scanner come into the picture??? What relevance does it have on your ?digital? work?

    So if anything should be questioned it is your ability to get the story right as to what you indeed shoot with. You knock my ability not only as a consumer and the choices I and many other ?hobbyists? have made, but also my abilities to take photos?. Funny thing is I have spent many years at both Goodwood and Silverstone? Montreal, and Indianapolis? too. I just decided this time around to buy a camera and have some fun taking pictures for my own enjoyment not for yours or anyone else?s. I am not professing to be an expert at anything and never said I was anything more than I am? A beginner. If my photos speak of inexperience to you? well that is the truth. I haven?t been shooting all of my life. I just got back into it and have been taking the advice of others who have come before me so I can get better at my new hobby. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But keep in mind I never had to make up stories of having a ?broken ankle, knee, hip, shoulder and shattered elbow (over 10 breaks in the elbow alone)? to get the point across about how I took a picture.

    Edward H., asked a question and I simply added my point of view to shed some light as to what has worked for me. Simple as that? You, however, came in and started knocking everyone about his or her limitations, and abilities?. So I am sure you can understand why I might appear a little cynical. As for my panning technique, the photos in my F1 folder are the first of what I hope to be many attempts at shooting the sport? You might not like them, but that?s okay. In fact if you go to Anthony Davidson?s official site you will see some of my shots there, all taken with the 10D! Apparently someone liked them. But then again I am a beginner so maybe in a few years my shots will make it to other F1 drivers too? time is all it takes. Oh, almost forgot, in the short 11 or so months that I have been shooting I have also sold some of my work as well. If you need me I will be on my way to the bank laughing with my ?handicapping? 10D.

    www.anthonydavidson.info (look under the photo link and then under 2004 Canadian GP)

    -Norman the cripple
     
  28. My editorial rate is $90 per hour, plus mileage and digital folder charges Scott, so your $15 would be ten minutes of my time, thank you, enough time to gas up my car, or email a client to say "Yes, I can do that!" The average job in my locality is 1/2 day rate, (4hrs) or $400-00 including digital folder charge, mileage on top. Out of town jobs are the day rate, $720-00 per day plus incurred expense's. The New Zealand rate for an image,to a newspaper, non breaking news, use general news is $150-00. The use of an image for advertising or promotional purpose's in my case starts at $300-00 depending on how it is used. I have had some years previous experience as a press photographer, general news and sport, and have used all the cameras mentioned above with the exception of the 1D MK11. I just don't need a bloody great heavy machine gun camera to do my job. My skill levels are at such a stage that the 10D and maybe a 20d to replace my D60, are quite sufficent, thank you What applies to you Scott, is not nessesariliy applicable to everone else.
    00AOC4-20838684.jpg
     
  29. Hi Norman, You are calling me a liar. Thats not very nice, it is the season of goodwill you know. I don't understand why my original post has lead to this but as always I can back up all I say, I don't make up stories. What is the disagreement? 1 series bodies have more advanced AF than 10D's, you said you were dissapointed with your cameras AF performance at the Canadian GP, most of the pros there were useing AF, they got the shots and they did it on top flight Canon and Nikon kit. Anyway I wouldn't normally be so self indulgent but you have forced me to prove the things I've said. Here goes. There follows (hopefully) a series of 5 pictures going some way towards proving my point and showing you Norman to be an insulting idiot.
    00AOCP-20839084.jpg
     
  30. This one shows the bulk of my AF kit. Incuding 2x 1VHS, 1D, 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 L IS, 300mm f2.8 L IS, 2x 550EX can't remember what else is in there but you get the gist.
    00AOCX-20839184.jpg
     
  31. This one shows the metalwork that was taken out of my arm last Thursday. It includes 3 pins one L shaped plate and 9 screws.
    00AOCb-20839284.jpg
     
  32. This one shows my $150 scanner, my sister got it for me for Christmas last year, I don't use it much!
    00AOCf-20839384.jpg
     
  33. This one shows this years slides. When my girlfriend goes to the UK on vacation in January these will go with her. Not sure how mant films cos I havent collated them all what with one broken bone and another, but there is in the region of 200 films. This does not include any wedding negs, I sell them as part of the package. Take care and happy Christmas, Scott.
    00AOCr-20839484.jpg
     
  34. Scott,

    Okay. So you were injured... You have a very professional kit... and the lighting of you photos is poor. What does any of this have to do with the fact that you are crying out for attention here? The subject was if I recall "Why manual focus?" not "how many pounds of steel was taken out of your body" or "show us your rig".

    Were you not held enough as a child? The real insult is you posting your dribble here about what kit is better and how we who have chosen to use the 10D are handicapping ourselves in comparison to those with faster technology. Let me tell you this Scott... there were a lot of impressive images taken even before AF and granted those artists I am sure eventually moved forward as the technology evolved but should the fact that the images were taken with older technology diminish the final product? It's what is done and created that matters most in my honest opinion. You have decided to become defensive, and attack those responding to this post.. not I. I simply responded to you inconsistencies in your posts and if you find that insulting, maybe you need to grow a thicker skin and in general not bash others who you must feel are below you in some way for the equipment they use.

    I do not believe anyone would compare the 10D to the 1D series as they are not even in the same class... We know the 1D is a pro series body... That is not the argument. The original poster was simply asking why someone would choose MF when AF technology is available. My suggestion is to look at the title of threads and respond to the original poster and not those who have already offered their point of view that I am sure you can agree they are indeed entitled to. You insulted people by clouding the real issue by professing how far superior the pro series bodies are, how many bones you broke, how much you scanner cost, etc.

    It may be me, but it appears that your real hobby is debating on photography forums rather than actually taking photographs with the cameras you own.

    Merry X-Mas,

    Norman
     
  35. Dear Norman,

    Please accept my apoligies for calling you an insulting idiot, I grossly underestimated you,
    I should have said graceless argumentative insulting and obtuse idiot.

    Take care, Scott.
     
  36. Scott,

    I don't know about you, but if I was in the Islands with my camera (yes the 10D you dolt) I would have better things to do than troll around the forums looking people to pick fights with.

    When you can form a coherent thought about something sensible and on topic please let us all know because the more you type the less people think of you. (if that is at all possible)

    Huggs and kisses,
    -Norman
     

Share This Page