More people realizing EVF's are better than optical viewfinders

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Jan 20, 2014.

  1. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Not necessarily. See
    Never heard of hyperfocal distance?
    Yep. Just let your camera make up your mind for you. Hoo boy!
    Eric Stevens, Jan 24, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Guest Guest

    that proves my point.

    reversing a lens = special purpose. it turns it into a macro lens.

    you also have to find a reversing ring, which are not that easy to
    find. they're not a commonly stocked item in a typical camera store.
    it's a special order item.

    reversing rings fall into the etc. category, as do close-up lenses.
    of course i have, and that proves my point again. depth of field takes
    care of it.
    never said that.

    you really have been spending too much time with tony.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Then why do they make special macro lenses?
    So you focus on infinity and rely on depth off field to look after
    everything else? Surelly you are not arguing (well perhaps you are
    :)) that this the same as using hyperfocal distance?
    So, how does the autofocus know where I want to focus?
    You haven't been spending enough tiime with a camera.
    Eric Stevens, Jan 25, 2014
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    I note that you never answered my question. Could it be that the answer
    would prove your statement inaccurate?
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Nah! Use of hyperfocal distance is an edge case. Besides, most lenses
    don't have DOf scales. <// end sarcastic tag>
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Good point. Which means you do not need a really good image, since the camera does the focusing for you. All you need to do is compose, which can bedone easily enough on a 10 year old camera with a 234k display. Optical viewfinders are preferred by some because of the "look" of the view, nothingmore.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2014
  7. RichA

    Guest Guest

    same reason they make extension tubes and bellows and close-up lenses
    and stacking rings. one solution does not fit all problems.
    where did i say that?
    many ways.

    face recognition is one way, where it focuses on people. that's now
    been enhanced to detect eyes and focus on eyes on a face.

    this is exactly what someone would do manually, just not as fast or as

    there are other situations where it can't tell.

    nothing is perfect, and just because you can identify an edge case
    where it won't work doesn't make it completely useless.
    you haven't been spending enough time with new technology.

    you're stuck in the old ways of manual everything.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2014
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/25/2014 2:01 PM, nospam wrote:
    Which brings up that autofocus is of no use with bellows. As I
    originally said, I and oany other experienced macro photographers do not
    rely on autofocus.

    Why are you changing the subject.

    For that image, it is.
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    nobody said it was.
    i didn't say they did. what i said was macro was an edge case. it
    requires special lenses and/or other equipment, such as bellows.
    i'm not, however, you clearly are.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2014
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Therefore, bird photography is also an edge case, since it requires
    special lenses. (Telephoto, and/or teleconverters.

    Good landscape photography is not done with autofocus, but relies on
    hyperfocal focusing for the hyperfocal distance. I that also an edge case.

    The subject was autofocus. Just where have I changed that.
    BTW you still have not defined your set, as I previously requested.
    therefore, we are assuming my set of data is accurate.
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
  11. RichA

    Guest Guest

    hyperfocal distance proves my initial point.

    you're actually agreeing with me, yet you argue.

    you made a career out of arguing, so why stop now.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2014
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest



    I raised the hyperfocal point in response to your comment that in
    landscape photography just set the focal length to infinity, and you
    called in an edge case.
    PeterN, Jan 26, 2014
  13. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    From the row of asterisks above - what _are_ you saying?

    Then what are you saying?
    You changed the subject to landscape, do you remember? Just above the
    row of asterisks.
    Landscape is one of them.
    Tell me, how would the camera (please name the camera) go about
    determining the correct focus and aperture when taking this
    Eric Stevens, Jan 26, 2014
  14. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Just pulling technical terms such as "hyperfocal distance" out of the
    So far you haven't explained although I expect you will say that you
    already have.
    Eric Stevens, Jan 26, 2014
  15. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I see my blasted wireless keyboard has struck again. Lets have another

    Just pulling technical terms such as "hyperfocal distance" out of the
    air without explanation of what you mean doesn't prove anything.
    So far you haven't explained although I expect you will say that you
    already have.
    Eric Stevens, Jan 26, 2014
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    This guy is amazing. I mention a use where autofocus is not used, he
    claims that is an "edge case," and then he states my point, and accuses
    me of arguing for the sake of arguing. I doubt if there will be a
    coherent response.

    PeterN, Jan 26, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.