Re: autofocus

[LDAEnt@xxxxxxx]

Eric G. writes:

>"Two full size SLRs are too much camera to lug around for my style of
shooting. I don't use zoom lenses because they're inferior optically,
they're heavy, and because of the difficulty in matching focal lengths."

I agree.  But I have no problem with matching focal lengths of fixed lenses
on my Canon T-50 rig, are you talking about matching zooms?  I also use my
SLR rig for the serious shots, ones that have to be the best.  The SLR rig
produces excellent exposure balance and contrast, and manual focus assures
the right results.  One other thing about SLR rigs that makes me go back to
them from my "point and shoot" rig is the viewfinder.  I don't like the P&S
viewfinders, not good image quality and too small  of an image.  SLR
viewfinders are much more enjoyable to use, you get a real sense of
composition and can see details in the composition better.  But don't get the
wrong idea, I also like my P&S rig.  It is by far the most fun rig I have.  

>"Twining most point and shoots will not give you increased optical quality
from the better 50's stereo cameras. Most non-zoom point and shoots (even
the ones from Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc.) use cheap triplets with
plastic elements, and autofocus mechanisms which are imprecise and
inconsistant. These factors are compounded when trying to match two units.
The zoom point and shoots are generally worst still, for all the obvious
reasons."

I'm not sure what the obvious reasons are for zooms.  I have no problem with
my RICOH Ultra Zoom compacts.  I just use either the min. or max. focal
lengths, and have never had a problem with the results.  The lens elements in
these are glass, 5 elements/5groups. The price of each was $119.  This is
down in what I consider the cheap range (relative to my goals).  They also
have built in remote elect. sockets.  To sych. shutters you just connect with
standard sub-mini plugs, no surgery at all.  I added diodes (as suggested
much earlier on this list) to stop spurious signals.  I am judging my results
by both viewer and projected standards (my standards of course, not
scientific).
Be careful with trying to tie together "good results" with "cheap".  There
are limits, as you point out.  If you want to do slides you must set your
limit of cheap at no less than $100 and maybe up to $250 each.  If you want
to do prints then you can certainly go with under $100 cameras. These are
just price generalizations, not set in stone, as the optics will dermine your
quality. 

>"So, what to do to get improved optics and reliable/consistent performance
in a convenient rig? "

I agree with your observations about the Leica, Contax, and Yashica.  They
have reportedly superb optics, and look perfect for twinning.  I really
wanted to use these but was not willing to do the surgery.  The prices for
the fixed focal length models (since the intro. of the zooms) is more
reasonable.  When I was looking at them they were still in the $275 each
zone.  From the reports that I have read the Nikon Lite Touch is optically in
the same league as these.   The price for the fixed focal length version is
$99 (whoops,... that's $1 under my $100 bottom limit)  If you can do the
surgery I think these cameras would be great. 
Cameras with an infinity lock (as an external switch)  would be very useful.
 My camera has a focus lock that is activated by lightly touching the shutter
release and holding it there until taking the exposure.  Not convenient, and
not possible to use with the remote link.   I have an older P&S that has an
external switch for focus lock, this would be much better, and would solve my
occassional variable auto focus situation.

The ultimate is certainly , as you say, linked auto focus and exposure.

Alan Lewis   



------------------------------