From: Bowser on
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:22:07 -0500, Charles Chase
<spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:32:55 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>
>>We've all been waiting for an AF torture test in order to sort out the
>>men from the boys, and I think this may be it.
>>
>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=34857419
>>
>>Like I said, only a food would contest this shooter's results.
>
>Only a fool would accept those results. If you look at the amount of
>foreground that's in focus and the amount of background that's in focus,
>then the camera clearly has back-focusing problems. Typical for any DSLR to
>have front and back focusing problems. Put that into Google and you'll get
>over 1 million hits from DSLR owners reporting this. Phase detection
>methods may be faster but 95% of the time the focus is always off. I'd
>rather use a camera that focuses accurately every time, those that use
>contrast detection methods. What good is capturing 100 images if 95 of them
>will be too blurry to print larger than 6"x4".

Nonsense. By the time you actually found your P&S cam in your purse,
turned it on, and tried the acquire focus the snail would be long
gone. This shot was taken with a camera capable of shooting 10FPS and
the snail was moving so fast the shooter only had time for a single
frame.

I guess one good pic of a high-speed snail is better than none at all.
Phase detection may not be as accurate as contrast detect, but at
least it gets close on moving subjects, something contrast detect
can't do. Prove me wrong and post your high-speed snail pix.
From: Charles Chase on
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:51:53 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:22:07 -0500, Charles Chase
><spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:32:55 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>
>>>We've all been waiting for an AF torture test in order to sort out the
>>>men from the boys, and I think this may be it.
>>>
>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=34857419
>>>
>>>Like I said, only a food would contest this shooter's results.
>>
>>Only a fool would accept those results. If you look at the amount of
>>foreground that's in focus and the amount of background that's in focus,
>>then the camera clearly has back-focusing problems. Typical for any DSLR to
>>have front and back focusing problems. Put that into Google and you'll get
>>over 1 million hits from DSLR owners reporting this. Phase detection
>>methods may be faster but 95% of the time the focus is always off. I'd
>>rather use a camera that focuses accurately every time, those that use
>>contrast detection methods. What good is capturing 100 images if 95 of them
>>will be too blurry to print larger than 6"x4".
>
>Nonsense. By the time you actually found your P&S cam in your purse,
>turned it on, and tried the acquire focus the snail would be long
>gone. This shot was taken with a camera capable of shooting 10FPS and
>the snail was moving so fast the shooter only had time for a single
>frame.
>
>I guess one good pic of a high-speed snail is better than none at all.
>Phase detection may not be as accurate as contrast detect, but at
>least it gets close on moving subjects, something contrast detect
>can't do. Prove me wrong and post your high-speed snail pix.

Here's two using contrast detection focusing.

One of the rarest species of the already-rare genus of Tree-Snails that
only live in certain hammocks (small rises of land) in remote areas of the
Florida Everglades
<http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4457490470_a09f4a7289_o.jpg>. And one
of the invasive Apple Snails (aquarist's escapees) that are starting to
encroach on their habitat.
<http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4457490464_4e05262219_o.jpg>
Suggesting that these move even faster than the Tree Snails, and Tree
Snails have to move awfully fast to be able to run up trees.

Do note that these were taken from an even closer vantage point and with
even shallower DOF from a P&S contrast-detection focusing camera. Which
means it requires even more speed and precision on the part of the camera
and photographer.

Sorry, your phase-detection focusing loses.

From: Grimly Curmudgeon on
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> saying
something like:

>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=34857419
>
>Like I said, only a food would contest this shooter's results.

Mmm... escargot.
From: Bowser on
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:00:46 -0500, Charles Chase
<spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:51:53 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:22:07 -0500, Charles Chase
>><spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:32:55 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We've all been waiting for an AF torture test in order to sort out the
>>>>men from the boys, and I think this may be it.
>>>>
>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=34857419
>>>>
>>>>Like I said, only a food would contest this shooter's results.
>>>
>>>Only a fool would accept those results. If you look at the amount of
>>>foreground that's in focus and the amount of background that's in focus,
>>>then the camera clearly has back-focusing problems. Typical for any DSLR to
>>>have front and back focusing problems. Put that into Google and you'll get
>>>over 1 million hits from DSLR owners reporting this. Phase detection
>>>methods may be faster but 95% of the time the focus is always off. I'd
>>>rather use a camera that focuses accurately every time, those that use
>>>contrast detection methods. What good is capturing 100 images if 95 of them
>>>will be too blurry to print larger than 6"x4".
>>
>>Nonsense. By the time you actually found your P&S cam in your purse,
>>turned it on, and tried the acquire focus the snail would be long
>>gone. This shot was taken with a camera capable of shooting 10FPS and
>>the snail was moving so fast the shooter only had time for a single
>>frame.
>>
>>I guess one good pic of a high-speed snail is better than none at all.
>>Phase detection may not be as accurate as contrast detect, but at
>>least it gets close on moving subjects, something contrast detect
>>can't do. Prove me wrong and post your high-speed snail pix.
>
>Here's two using contrast detection focusing.
>
>One of the rarest species of the already-rare genus of Tree-Snails that
>only live in certain hammocks (small rises of land) in remote areas of the
>Florida Everglades
><http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4457490470_a09f4a7289_o.jpg>. And one
>of the invasive Apple Snails (aquarist's escapees) that are starting to
>encroach on their habitat.
><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4457490464_4e05262219_o.jpg>
>Suggesting that these move even faster than the Tree Snails, and Tree
>Snails have to move awfully fast to be able to run up trees.
>
>Do note that these were taken from an even closer vantage point and with
>even shallower DOF from a P&S contrast-detection focusing camera. Which
>means it requires even more speed and precision on the part of the camera
>and photographer.
>
>Sorry, your phase-detection focusing loses.

Does not. No EXIF means you're cheating. Not only that, but the snails
you shot are not similar to the high-speed snail in the Canon 1D IV
shot, which was the fastest snail in all May-He-Ko.
From: Charles Chase on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:45 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:00:46 -0500, Charles Chase
><spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:51:53 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:22:07 -0500, Charles Chase
>>><spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:32:55 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We've all been waiting for an AF torture test in order to sort out the
>>>>>men from the boys, and I think this may be it.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=34857419
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I said, only a food would contest this shooter's results.
>>>>
>>>>Only a fool would accept those results. If you look at the amount of
>>>>foreground that's in focus and the amount of background that's in focus,
>>>>then the camera clearly has back-focusing problems. Typical for any DSLR to
>>>>have front and back focusing problems. Put that into Google and you'll get
>>>>over 1 million hits from DSLR owners reporting this. Phase detection
>>>>methods may be faster but 95% of the time the focus is always off. I'd
>>>>rather use a camera that focuses accurately every time, those that use
>>>>contrast detection methods. What good is capturing 100 images if 95 of them
>>>>will be too blurry to print larger than 6"x4".
>>>
>>>Nonsense. By the time you actually found your P&S cam in your purse,
>>>turned it on, and tried the acquire focus the snail would be long
>>>gone. This shot was taken with a camera capable of shooting 10FPS and
>>>the snail was moving so fast the shooter only had time for a single
>>>frame.
>>>
>>>I guess one good pic of a high-speed snail is better than none at all.
>>>Phase detection may not be as accurate as contrast detect, but at
>>>least it gets close on moving subjects, something contrast detect
>>>can't do. Prove me wrong and post your high-speed snail pix.
>>
>>Here's two using contrast detection focusing.
>>
>>One of the rarest species of the already-rare genus of Tree-Snails that
>>only live in certain hammocks (small rises of land) in remote areas of the
>>Florida Everglades
>><http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4457490470_a09f4a7289_o.jpg>. And one
>>of the invasive Apple Snails (aquarist's escapees) that are starting to
>>encroach on their habitat.
>><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4457490464_4e05262219_o.jpg>
>>Suggesting that these move even faster than the Tree Snails, and Tree
>>Snails have to move awfully fast to be able to run up trees.
>>
>>Do note that these were taken from an even closer vantage point and with
>>even shallower DOF from a P&S contrast-detection focusing camera. Which
>>means it requires even more speed and precision on the part of the camera
>>and photographer.
>>
>>Sorry, your phase-detection focusing loses.
>
>Does not. No EXIF means you're cheating.

Had I posted them with the EXIF info you or others would have claimed I
edited it. Why bother. There's no winning against trolls who move the
goalposts with their every reply.