Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: josephhigbee on August 03, 2008, 06:40:19 pm
-
I have a 40D I purchased when first released. The first few months I spent wondering why I was having so much problem focusing. I had previously owned 10, 20, 30 and 5D models with no large problem. Others I talked to assured me they had no problem but one person upon checking his in the field alongside me found his would also fail to lock on some subjects. I sent mine in for repair and it works well now except it does shift and it does fail to focus accurately on small objects. What I'm coming too is that I just read Galbraith's final report on the mk III's and in it he talked about the 40D and described my camera's action to a T. Are we the only two? And if not why has this not shown up on a review or on the boards? I at least haven't found anything previous to this.
Curious,
Joe
-
Are we the only two? And if not why has this not shown up on a review or on the boards? I at least haven't found anything previous to this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I sometimes have trouble with my 40D focussing in One Shot mode and single AF point on static subjects, never mind AI Servo.
As you can see from Rob Galbraith's lengthy article, it takes a lot of time and careful testing to nail the precise circumstances in which misfocussing takes place.
I recently sent two lenses to Canon for calibration, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the 50/1.4. Things are still not quite right and I'm not sure if I should now send the 40D body in for calibration. I need to do more testing with a variety of lenses, different AF point configurations, different lighting situations, and make comparisons with the same lenses on my 20D and 5D.
That all takes more time than I'm prepared to spend and I'm not too excited at the prospect of shooting rulers .
-
That all takes more time than I'm prepared to spend and I'm not too excited at the prospect of shooting rulers .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How about rulers with dancing girls on them?
-
How about rulers with dancing girls on them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, that is what I would call the epitome of impracticability .
-
Eric, that is what I would call the epitome of impracticability .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely, Ray, particularly when they could be dancing on the head of a pin, thereby providing you with both a tighter spacing of exotica and a pin-sharp focus locus at the same time.
Rob C
-
Lighter moments aside, there is something worrying about these posts concerning autofocus. It could just be my usual old reactionary problem, of course, but I have to wonder about the current need that so many people believe that they have for autofocus in the first place. More so than the invention of digital, I feel it to have been an enornmous answer looking for a problem which perhaps existed within the world of professional sports photography, though seeing so many fantastic images over my long(ish) life that were extant prior to said development, I even doubt that. Ditto war reportage.
So what happened along the way to produce this breed of photographers that can´t use their own eyes?
This is particularly worrying when one reads these posts questioning the use of the alternative Zeiss offering within the slr world. I have lived through a full-time, life-time career in photography and have never found myself unable to operate a camera because of focussing problems - never owned an autofocus lens, even. So what´s up with the new dependants, is it too much trouble to DIY; is it perhaps lack of confidence in your own eyes? Whatever, it is bloody disappointing.
Apart from the failure of the personal input, it´s also my belief that the current problems of lens build are mainly down to the need to produce lightweight materials than can move quickly under relatively low motor power. Has nobody felt the difference in quality between the current offerings and their non-af predecessors? What a price to pay for "progress".
Rob C
-
Absolutely, Ray, particularly when they could be dancing on the head of a pin, thereby providing you with both a tighter spacing of exotica and a pin-sharp focus locus at the same time.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed! That would be the quintessence of impracticability.
-
So what happened along the way to produce this breed of photographers that can´t use their own eyes?
6.5 fps.
-
6.5 fps.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mr P!
Could have done with that speed of response yesterday when I had to do my Mr Pres at the local community of owners AGM; I hate these meetings, where the only thing that matters is how cheaply something can be done. We even had an ex-pres saying that the gardens had never looked better, but could we get the gardener to work for less!
Somebody from the floor said that they had been thinking of proposing that we offer the gardener an increase in his pay, but that should have been coming form me, and had I not been too slow, so it would have been. There is no advantage in age...
But I still don´t require autofocus.
Rob C
-
This is particularly worrying when one reads these posts questioning the use of the alternative Zeiss offering within the slr world. I have lived through a full-time, life-time career in photography and have never found myself unable to operate a camera because of focussing problems - never owned an autofocus lens, even. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That says it all, Rob. I remember well my experiences with the first autofocus film SLR that appeared on the market, the Minolta 7000. It won 'Camera of the year' award in (my memory perhaps fails me) 1985?
It was the camera that got me back into amateur photography after a number of years slogging it out in the Australian public Service performing rather sterile and uncreative chores.
I've still got some slides of my trip to China in 1986, which I occasionally scan in search of something I can make interesting. The autofocus was very slow by today's standards.. A very old lady with an interestingly craggy face might appear in a door way but, before the camera could autofocus, the lady would withdraw and I would miss the shot. If I'd had to manually focus, I woulld also have missed the shot.
Autofocus is all about increasing the options and possibilities. I can only presume that Rob Galbraith's criticism of the 1D3 autofocus capability is justified because current Nikon cameras perform better. It's an assumption. Is it true? I don't know.
-
But I still don´t require autofocus.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I envy you, Rob. My old eyes don't focus as well as they used to (perhaps Canon has been diddling with my firmware).
My last non-autofocus camera was a film Pentax before I went over to the Dark Side (i.e., digital). A few horribly out-of-focus shots in somewhat dim light finally got me to listen to my older brother, who had been urging me for some time to get an auto-focus camera.
My Canon 5D auto-focusing may not be perfect, but it's consistently better than my own tired, old eyes.
But for you youngsters, I agree it's a different story.
Eric
-
So what happened along the way to produce this breed of photographers that can´t use their own eyes?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can bloody well use my own eyes when my subject sits still long enough for me to do so, but I rarely find warblers at 700mm to be so cooperative.
Even then the focus control is so coarse that the slightest twitch of the focus ring sends the lens right through the cm or two depth of field; this is likely because the focus ring is meant for coarse focussing, to get the lens close to the right plane of focus, with the AF there to pinpoint the subject. That's certainly the way I use the lens.
-
I can bloody well use my own eyes when my subject sits still long enough for me to do so, but I rarely find warblers at 700mm to be so cooperative.
Even then the focus control is so coarse that the slightest twitch of the focus ring sends the lens right through the cm or two depth of field; this is likely because the focus ring is meant for coarse focussing, to get the lens close to the right plane of focus, with the AF there to pinpoint the subject. That's certainly the way I use the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks ejmartin
I was about to make the same point. If autofocus is on, it overrides any manual adjustment. If it is off you miss the warbler, which is often my subject.
Also, please note; my point isn't whether one camera is better or worse but rather that a current offering is notably worse than it's predecessor and yet few seem to notice or care.
-
Even then the focus control is so coarse that the slightest twitch of the focus ring sends the lens right through the cm or two depth of field; this is likely because the focus ring is meant for coarse focussing,
That´s an interesting take: I used to have one of those poor-man´s versions of the Nikkor 300 - the 4.5IF-ED, and the problem there was with an over light focussing movement, not a coarse one: letting go of the barrel provoked movement of the ring...
However, the cure would have been to return it to Nikon for service, which they did suggest, but living in one country and buying in another and running the business elsewhere has its problems, or did at the time. Also, if I´d thought it worth the investment I would have gone for a 2.8 version where the shallow depth of field which seems to bother you would, for me, have been an advantage. But then, as I say, we are all different animals and it wasn´t finding focus that was a problem, it was having the particular lens retain it.
Rob C
-
That says it all, Rob.
Hi Ray
From the bold type I assume that you are saying that my failure to own an autofocus lens should preclude me from voicing an opinion. I fail again here, then, because I cannot see that not experiencing a need makes me somehow wrong in my asumption of my not having said need.
Further, the lack of a/f didn´t deprive us of the proud history of early street images from the school of HC-B, Doisneau, Ronis etc. etc.
On the other hand, it might be that I have totally misunderstood what you have written. Cést la vie - it happens.
Rob C
-
I envy you, Rob. My old eyes don't focus as well as they used to (perhaps Canon has been diddling with my firmware).
Hi Eric
My own peepers are not that hot c/u but I can still see distant things that others do not.
But regarding focus and how it applies within the remit of the camera screen, my personal choice has always been for the split-image which never failed me other than in one constant way: working on beaches, I could not get the horizon level enough to suit my needs, which were mainly for fairly large blow-ups which didn´t provide a lot of room for cropping.
The perfect answer was the grid screen with split-image, which Nikon did make, but only for use with slow lenses. Why? They wouldn´t tell me. I ended up using the grid which has no split-image facility. So I don´t see that a/f would have helped in that respect, because the focus of the mind and the camera was always on the model anyway, the problem being the background.
In that context, models, I would try to hand-hold (the camera) as much as I could because the tripod was a mental cart of bricks, to borrow James´s phrase, which I could well do without. However, on long lenses there was no choice. But even there, with the horizon leveled with the grid, a/f wouldn´t have helped because people do move about more than (note, egmartin) birds on a twig. Once on the twig, there´s not a lot of places for it to go. Other than away, which you´d miss anyhow. But a model, even one tring to stand still, does tend to sway a bit in the breeze and requires the sort of constant focus correction that even a/f is reputed to require in such situations.
One huge improvement with viewfinders was the replacement of fixed diopter correction lenses with the later system which allowed one to turn a wheel until the screen lines were at their crispest and thus settle the correction at a personal optimum point. Just as with my little D200, in fact. Great stuff.
However, using an olde Hass with its 80mm or 150mm under studio flash modelling lights was never easy - my trick was for the girl to hold her hand on the spot where I wanted maximum focus and then use the highlights on her rings as an aid to getting something bright on which to focus. Usually worked.
But then, let´s not get into a fight about any of this; I will never appreciate how wrong I am because I can´t understand where I have made the mistake which I can´t see...
Rob C
-
Why should we spend precious mental energy doing something as rudimentary as focusing when it can be done automatically?
-
Why should we spend precious mental energy doing something as rudimentary as focusing when it can be done automatically?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Focussing, at least for me, is one of the least rudimentary aspects of photography.
Unless you have enjoyed the almost tangible experience of focusing a fairly long lens through foreground foliage, for example, to your model beyond; experienced the utter joy of those different colours swimming in and out of focus, you have denied yourself the most wonderful part of the making of a photograph - the excitement of getting to the image. It also means that you are missing seeing the world around you in anything other than the final, flat cut to which your automation (or even your eyesight) will get you. A/f robs you of that, if of nothing else. But then, perhaps photography means something quite else to you than it does to me.
Rob C
-
Focussing, at least for me, is one of the least rudimentary aspects of photography.
Unless you have enjoyed the almost tangible experience of focusing a fairly long lens through foreground foliage, for example, to your model beyond; experienced the utter joy of those different colours swimming in and out of focus, you have denied yourself the most wonderful part of the making of a photograph - the excitement of getting to the image. It also means that you are missing seeing the world around you in anything other than the final, flat cut to which your automation (or even your eyesight) will get you. A/f robs you of that, if of nothing else. But then, perhaps photography means something quite else to you than it does to me.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess whatever floats your boat.
-
From the bold type I assume that you are saying that my failure to own an autofocus lens should preclude me from voicing an opinion. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at all, Rob. You should know me better than that. The fact that you've never owned an autofocus lens explains why you might think they are unnecessary or over-rated. I think it's also probably true that in the controlled environment of shooting models, autofocus probably is unnecessary. Don't modern photographers with MFDBs often have their camera tethered to a computer monitor?
-
Hello all,
recently my EF-S 17-85mm IS lens started hunting madly on AF on my 40D. Personally I thought it was the lens as my EF-S 10-22mm is ok. But I didn't want to be without my 17-85mm being in the shop; so I started focussing manually. And you know what, I think I get better results.
By coincidence I came across this article this evening by Darwin Wiggett about AF.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/article...8/dw0408-1.html (http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0408/dw0408-1.html)
Makes me go "hmmm".
Regards,
Chris.
-
If this is new behavior you might want to check that there is no debris in the AF wells. Just hit them (lightly) with a blower. I've also used a visible dust style brush to use static to pull larger items (Goddamn cats.) out of the AF wells.
Hello all,
recently my EF-S 17-85mm IS lens started hunting madly on AF on my 40D. Personally I thought it was the lens as my EF-S 10-22mm is ok. But I didn't want to be without my 17-85mm being in the shop; so I started focussing manually. And you know what, I think I get better results.
By coincidence I came across this article this evening by Darwin Wiggett about AF.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/article...8/dw0408-1.html (http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0408/dw0408-1.html)
Makes me go "hmmm".
Regards,
Chris.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If a lens has any misfocussing behaviour, it's likely to be more apparent at wide apertures, especially as wide and wider than F2.8.
The problem might also be obscured by the fact that most lenses are not as sharp at full aperture as they are at F5.6 or F8, so it's easy to confuse a slight misfocussing for expected poor lens performance at full aperture. One then tries to avoid using the lens at full aperture, never realising that the noticeably softer result was largely due to a slight misfocussing.
In this respect, Live View is like a double-edged sword. It provides you with the facility to focus more accurately, but at the same time causes some consternation by highlighting the fact that some of your lenses are not autofocussing as accurately as you thought.
-
If this is new behavior you might want to check that there is no debris in the AF wells. Just hit them (lightly) with a blower. I've also used a visible dust style brush to use static to pull larger items (Goddamn cats.) out of the AF wells.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did all that and cleaned the contacts too. It worked (ie autofocussed) for a short time but then started having troubles again. Even upgraded the 40D's firmware which has a lens related fix, but to no joy.
-
Even upgraded the 40D's firmware which has a lens related fix, but to no joy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The lens related fix in the most recent firmware doesn't appear to have anything to do with autofocus, though.
What has been changed in verson 1.0.8 of the firmware?
It includes the following improvements and fixes:
Fixes a phenomenon in which Image Stabilization operation emits a sound when certain buttons are pressed, with the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens attached to the camera.
When pressing the shutter button halfway down or pressing the AF-ON button, the IS operation sound is normal. (This phenomenon will not affect the durability of IS unit parts)
Fixes a phenomenon in which the Image Stabilization operation emits a sound from the lens when IS lenses are attached to the camera.
Fixes a phenomenon in which a part of the image looks unnatural when reviewed on the LCD.
Depending on the color of the background, the edges of some objects in the image may appear to have a jagged edge and look unnatural. (Even if the image played back on the camera's LCD is affected by this phenomenon, the actual image data is not affected.)
Corrects errors in the Spanish and Norwegian menu screens.
-
This is slightly off-topic, and possibly well-known among the experienced. But I have found that the best aid to focusing with my telephoto IS lenses (24-105 and 70-200), on or off tripod, is to half-press the shutter release to engage IS to keep the image still enough to focus on. This is especially true using the 70-200 IS at 200 with teleconverter 1.4X on 40D (= 448mm equivalent).
-
Lighter moments aside, there is something worrying about these posts concerning autofocus. It could just be my usual old reactionary problem, of course, but I have to wonder about the current need that so many people believe that they have for autofocus in the first place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whatever happened to split-prism focusing screens? So fast and easy to use. I used to love that on my Dad's Nikkormat. :/
I'd have to say I think the principal rationale for autofocus these days is the prevalence of APS-C SLRs. Smaller size and lesser brightness makes manual focusing a skill that requires much practice and experience. Since there is less light coming through the manufacturers can't use a decent matte screen to aid manual focus, making manual work even harder. After a couple of years of using a Canon 350D I played with my grandfather's OM2 and my jaw dropped.
When you have a *bright*, *big* image in your viewfinder that's coming from a matte screen which will accentuate sharpness when you get the correct focus, then manual focusing is intuitive. Unfortunately this is not true of the majority of dSLRs sold today. Maybe (hopefully) it will be in the future. Right now, though, autofocus is essential, as it will outperform all but the most skilled operators on current cropped cameras. Many of the complaints about autofocus are simply user error.
-
Whatever happened to split-prism focusing screens? So fast and easy to use. I used to love that on my Dad's Nikkormat. :/
I'd have to say I think the principal rationale for autofocus these days is the prevalence of APS-C SLRs. Smaller size and lesser brightness makes manual focusing a skill that requires much practice and experience. Since there is less light coming through the manufacturers can't use a decent matte screen to aid manual focus, making manual work even harder. After a couple of years of using a Canon 350D I played with my grandfather's OM2 and my jaw dropped.
When you have a *bright*, *big* image in your viewfinder that's coming from a matte screen which will accentuate sharpness when you get the correct focus, then manual focusing is intuitive. Unfortunately this is not true of the majority of dSLRs sold today. Maybe (hopefully) it will be in the future. Right now, though, autofocus is essential, as it will outperform all but the most skilled operators on current cropped cameras. Many of the complaints about autofocus are simply user error.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree completely. I have difficulty manually focussing whilst looking through those small viewfinders. But to be fair, we now have Live View on the current crop of DSLRs which does aid manual focussing a lot when the camera's on a tripod. However, trying to manually focus a 10x enlarged image on an LCD screen with arms outstretched is tricky.
My own problems with autofocus accuracy seem to be related to the nature of the target. Low light and a lack of contrast, as one would expect, make autofussing difficult and sometimes impossible. What surprise me, however, is that even in bright light, autofocus can be inaccurate on my 40D with a normally soft target such as a human face.
Well lit text, however, presents no problems.
-
What surprise me, however, is that even in bright light, autofocus can be inaccurate on my 40D with a normally soft target such as a human face.
Well lit text, however, presents no problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah Ray, that´s because a machine focuses with its cold mechanical heart whilst humans (I trust) focus on faces and other bits with both eye and emotion.
Rob C
-
Ah Ray, that´s because a machine focuses with its cold mechanical heart whilst humans (I trust) focus on faces and other bits with both eye and emotion.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On the other hand, it could simply be that autofocussing on the cheaper, cropped format cameras is only as good as the price allows. The fact that these cameras cannot autofocus when the maximum aperture is F8 (using a 1.4x extender on an F5.6 lens), tends to imply that autofocussing is not as accurate at wider apertures as the 1 series cameras are, which can autofocus at F8.
As regards the benefits of both eye and emotion, we now have P&S cameras that not only can recognise a face in a scene and focus on it, but can recognise a smile and closed eyes and not take the shot when the subject is either not smiling or is blinking.
Now, I'm smart enough to not press the shutter when the subject is not smiling, when a smile is required, but I'm not always quick enough to avoid pressing the shutter when the subject is blinking.
-
This is slightly off-topic, and possibly well-known among the experienced. But I have found that the best aid to focusing with my telephoto IS lenses (24-105 and 70-200), on or off tripod, is to half-press the shutter release to engage IS to keep the image still enough to focus on. This is especially true using the 70-200 IS at 200 with teleconverter 1.4X on 40D (= 448mm equivalent).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. That does help a lot when manually focussing with Live View. However, my fastest lenses, the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 don't have IS. A camera like the 40D is amazingly light and compact with the 50/1.8 II lens; ideal for candid night shots without flash.
I bought the 17-55/2.8 partly for this reason and also because of an impressive test report at Photozone. According to Photozone's tests, the 17-55/2.8 is actually slightly sharper at certain focal lengths at full aperture than both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 primes are at the same aperture of F2.8, including 17mm, which is surprising considering Canon's poor reputation for wide angle lenses. My own tests have confirmed that all 3 lenses are about equally sharp at F2.8 when correctly focussed.
There's another problem manually focussing with Live View. With fairly wide angle lenses, it's necessary to magnify the image 10x (with my eyesight, anyway). That often entails going back to full screen mode after focussing to recompose the scene before taking the shot. One can easily lose the shot stuffing around like that, especially when the subject is moving even slightly.
-
Now, I'm smart enough to not press the shutter when the subject is not smiling, when a smile is required, but I'm not always quick enough to avoid pressing the shutter when the subject is blinking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Then you have the wrong blinking subject! Sorry, just couldn´t resist that cheapo one.
I would hate to have a camera decide when it releases itself - how bloody arrogant of the makers and how limiting for the photographer. I think that some a/f systems won´t allow release of shutter until max. focus has been attained, another instance when machine controls the human. It seems to me you are far better getting a slightly unsharp image of something that might be of great consequence than nothing at all because some arbitary notion of sharpness and its importance has ben decided in another brain than the camera operator´s. I suppose that these systems have a switch-off function so that you can override them, but I feel that that kind of "function" is basically worthless and nothing more than another sales gimmick: a feature nobody really needs but adds to the list of other useless so-called advantages which can be factored in to raise the apparent market value and price, yes, mostly price.
Rob C
-
I would hate to have a camera decide when it releases itself - how bloody arrogant of the makers and how limiting for the photographer. I think that some a/f systems won´t allow release of shutter until max. focus has been attained, another instance when machine controls the human. It seems to me you are far better getting a slightly unsharp image of something that might be of great consequence than nothing at all because some arbitary notion of sharpness and its importance has ben decided in another brain than the camera operator´s. I suppose that these systems have a switch-off function so that you can override them, but I feel that that kind of "function" is basically worthless and nothing more than another sales gimmick: a feature nobody really needs but adds to the list of other useless so-called advantages which can be factored in to raise the apparent market value and price, yes, mostly price.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I presume also that such features are an option and can be deselected. I mention it only because it's interesting that this sort of thing can now be done, as you wrote, by a machine with a cold mechanical heart.
One might even be able to use the feature to extract a wider, more appealing smile from a pretty girl. "Sorry darling, the camera won't take the picture until you smile. Sorry! the camera doesn't recognise your smile; a bigger smile, please. Ah! that's better."
-
I can bloody well use my own eyes when my subject sits still long enough for me to do so, but I rarely find warblers at 700mm to be so cooperative.
Yellow-rumped Warbler photographed with 560mm f/6.8 lens x 1.37x crop factor = field of view of a 767mm lens on a full-frame camera, focussed manually:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/parulidae/yrwa02.jpg)
Even then the focus control is so coarse that the slightest twitch of the focus ring sends the lens right through the cm or two depth of field;
An artifact of the AF system.
Why should we spend precious mental energy doing something as rudimentary as focusing when it can be done automatically?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Focussing isn't rudimentary for me, it's critical, too critical to be left to a system that can only be used at specified points on the viewscreen and fails entirely at smaller apertures.
I find that two features missing from most modern photo equipment are critical to easy manual focus: good viewfinders and good ergonomic design. For viewfinders you'd have to go back to the Leicaflex SL of 1968 to see how good they can be. The lack of good ergonomic design is obvious in the manual focus rings that are too course and too loose and poorly placed to balance the lens in the hand, and the tall tripod feet on long lenses that are supposed to double as a carrying handle but serve to magnify camera vibration when on a tripod and prevent the user from supporting the lens with his hand while focussing. An incredibly poor design.
-
Yellow-rumped Warbler photographed with 560mm f/6.8 lens x 1.37x crop factor = field of view of a 767mm lens on a full-frame camera, focussed manually:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/parulidae/yrwa02.jpg)
An artifact of the AF system.
Focussing isn't rudimentary for me, it's critical, too critical to be left to a system that can only be used at specified points on the viewscreen and fails entirely at smaller apertures.
I find that two features missing from most modern photo equipment are critical to easy manual focus: good viewfinders and good ergonomic design. For viewfinders you'd have to go back to the Leicaflex SL of 1968 to see how good they can be. The lack of good ergonomic design is obvious in the manual focus rings that are too course and too loose and poorly placed to balance the lens in the hand, and the tall tripod feet on long lenses that are supposed to double as a carrying handle but serve to magnify camera vibration when on a tripod and prevent the user from supporting the lens with his hand while focussing. An incredibly poor design.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good post! I tend to sympathise with you. Autofocussing on small birds in foliage can also be problematical if there are twigs and leaves in close proximity to the bird. The autofocus system can so easily focus on a leaf just next to, but in front of, the warbler's head.
Good autofocussing bracketing might be the solution. There's no getting away from the fact that autofocussing, if accurate and fast, is vastly superior to manual focussing. However, if it's not accurate, it's essentailly useless.
-
Focussing isn't rudimentary for me, it's critical, too critical to be left to a system that can only be used at specified points on the viewscreen and fails entirely at smaller apertures.
I find that two features missing from most modern photo equipment are critical to easy manual focus: good viewfinders and good ergonomic design. For viewfinders you'd have to go back to the Leicaflex SL of 1968 to see how good they can be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
/quote]
Telyt
As I said ealier, focussing is anything but rudimentary - it´s one of the sensual pleasures of photography.
Lovely colours on that bird - an example of Leica´s special qualities or of your ability with computers?
Nikon´s viewfinders on the F to F4 were pretty good too (I don´t know about later models); the cheaper FM and FM2 were not so hot - not even 100%, something which annoys me with the D200 and which seems absurd in ANY reflex system, regardless of price. Probably just another deprivation designed into the package to make you want to spend more...
Rob C
-
Lovely colours on that bird - an example of Leica´s special qualities or of your ability with computers?
I don't do much computer work on my photos: basic color balance, no noise reduction, minimal sharpening, that's about it. This was with the DMR, I think ISO 800.
-
Why should we spend precious mental energy doing something as rudimentary as focusing when it can be done automatically?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think so, too.
Many have that feel, that, coming from a manual focus camera, they are giving something up when they let a computer chip focus for them.
We may be giving something up, but nothing we couldn't do if we wanted to.
And, actually, we don't really let the camera decide on what to focus on. We decide with the auto focus points.
Focus problems: I messed up a few shots in the beginning, when I had IS on while shooting at higher speeds. When you shoot quickly and move the camera, the IS may not be ready for every shot and still be working while you are already pressing the release.
-
And, actually, we don't really let the camera decide on what to focus on. We decide with the auto focus points.
Unfortunately my subjects don't respect the AF points so I'd rather be able to focus at any point in the picture.
-
Unfortunately my subjects don't respect the AF points so I'd rather be able to focus at any point in the picture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are misunderstanding my post.
-
And, actually, we don't really let the camera decide on what to focus on. We decide with the auto focus points.
Focus problems: I messed up a few shots in the beginning, when I had IS on while shooting at higher speeds. When you shoot quickly and move the camera, the IS may not be ready for every shot and still be working while you are already pressing the release.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Two things:
a. you decide with the focus points;
b. the IS may not be ready etc...
I don´t think telyt misuderstood a damn thing - he got it spot on. You are lumbered with the points the camera can handle, or that you have selected, or something else that is less than having total control.
IS is another mixed bag, but let´s not start another Civil War.
Rob C
-
Two things:
a. you decide with the focus points;
b. the IS may not be ready etc...
I don´t think telyt misuderstood a damn thing - he got it spot on. You are lumbered with the points the camera can handle, or that you have selected, or something else that is less than having total control.
IS is another mixed bag, but let´s not start another Civil War.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Point the central spot at subject, focus, recompose, it aint rocket science.
-
You are misunderstanding my post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Care to explain? It sounds to me like you are misunderstanding my subjects.
Point the central spot at subject, focus, recompose, it aint rocket science.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, the old Focus-Lock-Recompose kludge. My subjects move too quickly to make that work. Even Canon recommends avoiding this technique for accurate focus with shallow DOF.
-
Ah, the old Focus-Lock-Recompose kludge. My subjects move too quickly to make that work. Even Canon recommends avoiding this technique for accurate focus with shallow DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But they move slow enough to focus manually on them?
-
But they move slow enough to focus manually on them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My guess is you haven't use a good manual-focus camera. With a camera actually designed for quick manual focus it's not slow at all.
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/ruhu01.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/stja03.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo02.jpg)
-
Point the central spot at subject, focus, recompose, it aint rocket science.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, such has been suggested, but is a flawed method. If you move the centre of the viewfinder (for example) to focus on something at the far sides, then you must realise that you are focussing beyond the point you really want to have sharp.
It is nothing more than the difference in lengths of the sides of a triangle. The plane of focus of a lens is supposed to be flat: if you focus at the greater distance (as per my example of a subject at the far edges), then, when you turn the camera back to the straight ahead position you wanted, that focussed distance no longer holds and you find you have, in fact, focussed well BEYOND your subject. Unavoidable.
Not rocket science, as you said.
Rob C
-
Yes, such has been suggested, but is a flawed method. If you move the centre of the viewfinder (for example) to focus on something at the far sides, then you must realise that you are focussing beyond the point you really want to have sharp.
And in the time it takes to re-compose, the bird has turned its head or shifted its weight from one foot to the other changing the plane of best focus, or departed.
-
And in the time it takes to re-compose, the bird has turned its head or shifted its weight from one foot to the other changing the plane of best focus, or departed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is always a problem with erratically moving subjects, whether trying to manually focus or autofocus.
I don't have any fast telephoto lenses. My Canon 100-400/5.6 is virtually equally sharp at F8 and F11. The extra DoF (and latitude for focussing) at F11 is probably worth more than the extra sharpness at F8. If I owned a 400/2.8, I can imagine I'd have a new set of problems with regard to the accuracy of autofocussing and might well prefer to manually focus when using wide apertures.
In principle, a lens that can autofocus quickly and accurately should get you more (good) shots than a lens that has to be manually focussed.
Since most of my shots are landscapes with a fairly extensive DoF, autofoussing accuracy has not been a major issue. When I take people shots, street shots or candid shots, I'll generally use the 24-105/F4 on the 5D at F5.6 or F6.3. At these apertures (and focal lengths), autofocussing appears to be sufficiently accurate (on the 5D).
I tend to avoid the full aperture of F4 because I get a sense I'm losing sharpness in a noticeable way, but it might well be the case that the perceived loss of sharpness is due more to the misfocussing which is more apparent at F4, than to the lower MTF of the lens at F4.
It would take a lot of meticulous testing to sort out which lenses on which bodies in what lighting conditions and at which apertures have reliable autofocussing.
-
In principle, a lens that can autofocus quickly and accurately should get you more (good) shots than a lens that has to be manually focussed.
Even assuming an AF system is quick enough and accurate enough, it doesn't have focus points covering the entire picture area. That's how F-L-R came up. The point I want to be in sharpest focus - generally the animal's eye - often isn't at a focus point, and if it is at a focus point it's not there long enough to change to that focus point.
-
Hi,
I think the problem is the menu item "View->Actual Pixels". In film days you needed a microscope to see whether an image was absolutely sharp, in my experience very few were at 40X. I normally used a 15X peak loupe but it was not really good enough for judging sharpness. Now in the digital world we just push Actual->Pixels and can peep an image 50 inches wide at 40 centimeters, with no grain.
Joke aside I actually used a Microscope to look at some slides, very few were really sharp at 40X or 100X.
Erik
Lighter moments aside, there is something worrying about these posts concerning autofocus. It could just be my usual old reactionary problem, of course, but I have to wonder about the current need that so many people believe that they have for autofocus in the first place. More so than the invention of digital, I feel it to have been an enornmous answer looking for a problem which perhaps existed within the world of professional sports photography, though seeing so many fantastic images over my long(ish) life that were extant prior to said development, I even doubt that. Ditto war reportage.
So what happened along the way to produce this breed of photographers that can´t use their own eyes?
This is particularly worrying when one reads these posts questioning the use of the alternative Zeiss offering within the slr world. I have lived through a full-time, life-time career in photography and have never found myself unable to operate a camera because of focussing problems - never owned an autofocus lens, even. So what´s up with the new dependants, is it too much trouble to DIY; is it perhaps lack of confidence in your own eyes? Whatever, it is bloody disappointing.
Apart from the failure of the personal input, it´s also my belief that the current problems of lens build are mainly down to the need to produce lightweight materials than can move quickly under relatively low motor power. Has nobody felt the difference in quality between the current offerings and their non-af predecessors? What a price to pay for "progress".
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Even assuming an AF system is quick enough and accurate enough, it doesn't have focus points covering the entire picture area. That's how F-L-R came up. The point I want to be in sharpest focus - generally the animal's eye - often isn't at a focus point, and if it is at a focus point it's not there long enough to change to that focus point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215104\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing's perfect, If you focus on the eye, then recompose the composition slightly, you should still be sufficiently in focus. If the central, single focus point is far from the centre of the composition, then that's not ideal. I think Jonathan Wienke did some tests on this.
I'm a firm believer in the Photodo type MTF charts. I find it interesting that certain lenses can be very sharp at wide apertures.
Here's a Photodo MTF chart of the Canon 400/F2.8 non-IS version, probably no longer available. It's actually sharper at F2.8 than at F8, but those who rely upon autofocussing might never realise it.
[attachment=7925:attachment]
On the other hand, perhaps this lens is generally very accurate with autofocussing. Who Knows? The 400/2.8 IS is also sharper at F4 than at F8. Photodo have provided no results for this lens at full aperture, but the lens they tested is not quite as sharp at F4 as the non-IS version at F2.8.
The failure of such MTF charts to provide accurate information for the consumer, and presumably the reason why Photodo have discontinued such testing, is due to lens quality variability.
The manufacturer sometimes provides 'theoretical' MTF charts for its lenses, but none provide real, thorough and detailed MTF charts for each lens sold.
The excuse is, it's too expensive. That's a totally invalid excuse. It's a cop-out.
The real reason why manufacturers don't provide a full MTF test of each lens they sell is because it removes their power to bull shit. It's very simple. It's easy to understand. But, alas! perhaps it's not easy for the average consumer to grasp the significance of those charts.
We need more education.
-
Nothing's perfect, If you focus on the eye, then recompose the composition slightly, you should still be sufficiently in focus.
This still gives the bird plenty of time to move its eye out of the plane of focus.
I'm a firm believer in the Photodo type MTF charts. I find it interesting that certain lenses can be very sharp at wide apertures.
Yes, and those using Leica lenses have known this for a very long time.
-
This still gives the bird plenty of time to move its eye out of the plane of focus.
Yes, and those using Leica lenses have known this for a very long time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's no way anyone could manually focus as quickly as a modern autofocus lens. The only issue is, how accurate is that autofocussing? If it's not accurate, then one is forced to use manual focus.
Leica lenses do have a fine reputation, but there's no Photodo test of a Leica 400mm lens to compare with the Canon 400/2.8.
-
Hi,
I think the problem is the menu item "View->Actual Pixels". In film days you needed a microscope to see whether an image was absolutely sharp, in my experience very few were at 40X. I normally used a 15X peak loupe but it was not really good enough for judging sharpness. Now in the digital world we just push Actual->Pixels and can peep an image 50 inches wide at 40 centimeters, with no grain.
Joke aside I actually used a Microscope to look at some slides, very few were really sharp at 40X or 100X.
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, probably right, but that doesn´t mean that digitally captured images or those shot with a/f are going to be any better, as Ray has also found failures on many occassions and, I´m sure, so has everyone else willing to think about it objectively, should that ever be a possibility.
-
There's no way anyone could manually focus as quickly as a modern autofocus lens.
Try the 400m f/6.8 Telyt with the Leicaflex SL and be amazed. I wish I could put the SL viewfinder in the R8.
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/parulidae/blwa00.jpg)
Leica lenses do have a fine reputation, but there's no Photodo test of a Leica 400mm lens to compare with the Canon 400/2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen test files make with one of the Canon 1D-series cameras comparing the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS with the old non-modular Leica 400mm f/2.8 APO. At full aperture the Leica lens has a detail advantage, but a stop or two down they were pretty much equal aside for some differences in color saturation and contrast. As I figure it the only reason to buy a 400mm f/2.8 is to use it at full aperture; that's how the owner of the lenses figured it too. He kept both, the Canon for when AF is an advantage, the Leica for when he wants maximum image quality. I sold my FD 400mm f/2.8 L because the full-aperture image quality was lacking.
-
Try the 400m f/6.8 Telyt with the Leicaflex SL and be amazed. I wish I could put the SL viewfinder in the R8.
Well, your manual focussing technique certainly seems to be working well for you. You have some fine images of birds there that all seem to be well-focussed.
I find in general that trying to focus on small birds flitting around in the foliage is very difficult. The last time I tried this was on a recent cruise on the Daintree River, North Queensland. One of the most colorful small birds one can see on the banks of the Daintree is the Azure Kingfisher. It never seems to keep still for more than a second.
The combination of poor lighting and confused foliage surrounding the bird most of the time, made it almost impossible for me to get a well-focussed shot using the Canon 100-400 IS. The autofocus was all over the place. Next time, I'll try manual focussing .
I've seen test files make with one of the Canon 1D-series cameras comparing the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS with the old non-modular Leica 400mm f/2.8 APO. At full aperture the Leica lens has a detail advantage, but a stop or two down they were pretty much equal aside for some differences in color saturation and contrast. As I figure it the only reason to buy a 400mm f/2.8 is to use it at full aperture; that's how the owner of the lenses figured it too. He kept both, the Canon for when AF is an advantage, the Leica for when he wants maximum image quality. I sold my FD 400mm f/2.8 L because the full-aperture image quality was lacking.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason why Photodo never showed any MTF tests for the Canon 400/2.8 IS at full aperture. It's not too hot wide open. At F4 though, the IS version of this lens is at least as sharp as at F8.
However, the 400/2.8 II USM (without IS and now probably discontinued) is sharper at F2.8 than the IS version at F4. Since this lens appears to be optimised for use at full aperture, which is its sharpest aperture, the lack of IS should not be too great a disadvantage. A second hand copy in good condition would be worth getting, but such lenses are too heavy for my purposes.
-
Yes, such has been suggested, but is a flawed method. If you move the centre of the viewfinder (for example) to focus on something at the far sides, then you must realise that you are focussing beyond the point you really want to have sharp.
It is nothing more than the difference in lengths of the sides of a triangle. The plane of focus of a lens is supposed to be flat: if you focus at the greater distance (as per my example of a subject at the far edges), then, when you turn the camera back to the straight ahead position you wanted, that focussed distance no longer holds and you find you have, in fact, focussed well BEYOND your subject. Unavoidable.
Not rocket science, as you said.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, in practice it works though. I have worked with a camera designed for manual focus and the centre prism is as it's name suggests, at the center so you still focus then recompose. I often shoot 1000 frames on a fashion shoot and not have one out of focus.
-
Yes, in practice it works though. I have worked with a camera designed for manual focus and the centre prism is as it's name suggests, at the center so you still focus then recompose.
I don't use a center focussing aid. I use the "ground glass" (actually matte plastic) area of the viewscreen. Where practical I have replaced my cameras' viewscreens that have a central focussing aid with a plain matte screen.