Originally Posted by GSFinlay
Agreed, that shot only shows a D80 or 90 with a "G" lens can auto-focus through clutter on the move (it is a 100% crop @ 1080X810).
You do a great job of motivating me to use manual focus, which I will take advantage of.
A new D5000 thru D3x with the 3-D focus tracking and Scene Recognition System (sorry, not Matrix Metering), will auto-focus (and track outside the sensors) better than most people realize - again, with a CPU type lens.
I hope I have not dismissed this excellent discussion. I just wanted to say auto-focus does work well for me in these conditions. Thanks for the great explanation and examples,
100 percent crop? As I said before, good shot.
Once again, no offense, but there have been no qualitative advances in AF for a number of years, although the propaganda keeps on moving forward dramatically...
I AM Impressed by what AF achieves. Remarkable. But hey, if it could do what the propaganda claims, no ones image would be soft.
I was motivated to start this thread because I was privately e-mailed that many people give poor advive over the net, and to recomend that people shoot MF for wildlife photography, was poor advice. This curtious person cited a series I did of a Canada Goose, still on the wildlife forum, to make his point that my shots were good, but lacking in quality.
However, I am so confident in my ability that I often post less than perfect shots, simply because even a decent series of shots can tell an interesting story.
Now 100 percent crops fall into the catagory of "pixel peeping." No one looks at a printed image with a magnifying glass. I sell 16x20 prints of my photographs, and the proper viewing distance is three feet or more.
Even so, here are two 100 percent crops of much smaller birds than a Great Blue, and both shots would have been far more difficult to take with AF as opposed to MF. Both shots are are about as good as you can get with my lens.
First a Willet...
And here's a Salt Marsh Sparrow, deep in the eel grass.