On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:04:40 +0100, "Only Me..." wrote:
>Neuman-Ruether wrote in message
><360675a7.3641231@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...

>>Amazing, isn't it, that a feature of questionable value (AF)
>>is introduced, and a basic feature (MF ability) is removed...
>>And, the AF focus indicators are no substitute for full MF
>>capability since they are inaccurate at best (in bodies with
>>both the AF "focus" indicators and sharp viewfinders, one can
>>easily see the errors of both the indicators and even of AF
>>itself). Makes one wonder if the unsharpness of the viewfinders
>>is a "feature" added to make AF seem more desireable to the
>>buyer than it would otherwise be... Even Nikon, with excellent
>>viewfinders until recently, is now making models that have poor
>>viewfinder sharpness. I do not regard this as "progress"...

> Hmm... I have in front of me, a F90X, and a FM2n. When looking through
>the viewfinders of both, using the same lens, I find the F90's viewfinder
>slightly sharper than the FM2's, and to make it better still, it's much
>brighter. The FM2's screen is very coarse in comparison to the F90. The
>only clear and sharp part of the FM2's, is the area within the split
>rangefinder, and this doesn't get more blurred as you defocus, as it needs
>to be sharp, to see the split effect. On the basis of the matte surrounding
>areas only, I would say that the F90's is significantly better than the
>FM2's.

Hmmmmm... ;-) Actually the N90 vs. the FM2n is a good comparison...
It appears we see differently, since the N90 specifically has
a VF that I cannot use for MF (what I meant by, "and a basic
feature [MF ability] is removed..."), since it is too soft and
low in contrast (a consequence of making it bright and smooth...)
for me to use. The FM, on the other hand (with a matte-center
screen), has a really sharp, snappy central image area which is
easy to use for accurate MF (and its magnification is also higher).
The 8008, BTW, has a good compromise finder, with the F3 being the
best of all overall, I think... (it is also sharp away from the
center when used with short lenses, unlike the others).

>Suggesting that Nikon make viewfinders deliberately blurred, in a
>pro camera is ridiculous. If this were true, I would get rid of my cameras
>immediately, but it's not, so I wont.

OK...., so I exaggerated..., though one does wonder...;-)
(I remember when the first Minolta AF came out - with a very
unsharp finder compared with the early SRT series...)

> As for MF being removed: What? I can focus manually on my cameras. I
>don't know what kind of AF camera you have, but it's one I've never seen.

I won't own an N90....

> Why do you feel that AF is of questionable value? Surely this depends
>upon what you shoot? You having no need of it, doesn't mean other don't.
>What about wildlife photography? Sports? Press? Those with poor eyesight?
>Those who's focusing technique is not as phenomenally good as your must be?

Well, yes! ;-) But I went to the (moderate) trouble of having glasses
made with the right distance-correction in the VF-eye lens, removing
the eyesight problem. With that problem removed, AF just gets in the
way for most things...

> Modern AF systems are a boon, and worthy of praise, and despite what you
>say, they CAN be turned off if you have no need of them.

Well, yes, of course...! ;-) Which is all the time...! ;-)

> Also, saying that AF focus detectors are "inaccurate at best" is just
>so... I'm speechless in fact. This is obviously nonsense. I've looked at
>slides taken with both MF and AF, and I can't detect which is which. I've
>found AF on my Nikons to be extremely precise, and completely reliable, even
>in almost dark conditions. I have no idea what camera you're using, but I
>suspect it need throwing out with the trash.

Try putting on a fast wide-angle lens (a 35mm f1.4 is good for
this...), aim it at a contrasty, easily focused subject maybe
30' away, and manually *slowly* focus through the correct focus
point. You will probably see the "in focus" indicator come on
well before the image is really sharp in the finder, and it
will stay on as you go through correct focus and out the other
side, going off only when the VF image is clearly not in focus...
Accurate, the focus *indicator* is not...
AF is getting better, but for me, as with AE, it places
an unnecessary technology between me and my making of a photo - and
it slows me down since I prefer to check-and-modify the auto
selections if I do use the auto features (its faster just to skip
the auto and auto-checking steps...;-). Doing both manually, I can
get it right in the first place more often than I can when I just
rely on the auto features...
But my original point was that excellent older camera designs have been
"glopped up" with features that are not necessarily helpful,
and in the process, basic features have been compromised. I do not
regard this as progress... (just salesmanship...).