Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: David S on September 02, 2013, 11:56:18 am

Title: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: David S on September 02, 2013, 11:56:18 am
I have just finished looking at quite a few older shots from the 50s thru late 80s. Most are slides or B&W.
What struck me was that the problem with these older shots was mostly one of exposure - and I'm not talking about fading etc but that the original shot was either under or over exposed. Most were taken with an SLR (Pentax, Konica or Nikon) and a few were using a Leica CL using Kodachrome or Extrachrome. Out of focus shots were not a major problem. I kept extensive notes of f stop, shutter speed and made comments upon development of the focus issues so I have a definite record to consult.

Now currently using  either a Panasonic GH2 or an Olympus OMD E5, my biggest issue is out of focus shots. I've posted elsewhere on problems using the 100-300mm Pany lens and am modifying how I shoot to get better results.

My curiosity is as to whether this is just my problem or if others have a similar experience?

Thanks,

Dave S

Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Telecaster on September 02, 2013, 03:11:46 pm
With m43 the majority of focusing issues I've experienced have been due to the AF square/rectangle being too big. Which results in the AF system choosing something other than my intended target. Shrinking the rectangle solves the misfocusing at least 90% of the time. CD-AF can have issues in low-contrast situations...I deal with this by switching to manual focus. MF is a snap with these EVF cameras.

I must say I've had AF issues with every non-Canon 35mm & APS-C D-SLR I've owned (apart from the Pentax 645D, which has been fine & dandy so far). Not sure why I got lucky with the Canons, and anyway I was never that fond of them apart from the AF. The lack of maker-supported in-finder MF capability with these cameras is pitiful...and one reason why, apart from the Pentax, I've ditched D-SLRs entirely.

In nearly 40 years of using manual focus film SLRs and rangefinders accurate focusing has never been a problem. Focusing quickly enough has been an issue at times, but that's what pre- and zone-focusing are for.   ;)

-Dave-
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 02, 2013, 06:36:13 pm
I probably should stay away from this topic, but passion overrules reason so here goes...

I've been focussing manually for a little over 40 years.  One of my gripes with AF is the concept of the focus 'point', singular or plural, makes no difference.  I typically work with long lenses & with subjects that preclude much depth of field so no matter what I do there are going to be areas in the picture that are out of focus.  With this in mind I have to pick what I want to be in focus and most often it's a critter's eye.

The areas I want to be in focus can be anywhere in the field of view because I can't direct my subjects and they can and frequently do move quickly and often anywhere in the field of view.  I want to focus on the eye and their heads bob up, down, left, right, backwards and forwards and numerous other directions that defy description in the english language.  Some also have an internal clock that I'd swear operates at several orders of magnitude faster than my own.  They don't obey the camera makers' direction either because they're as likely as not to pause their motions perfectly lined up with a focus point (leave alone for the moment whether the focus point has been calibrated correctly, is responsive, or functions well at the lens' aperture).

Re-positioning the camera to place a focus point on a bird's eye takes too much time and can turn my chosen composition to one destined for bit recycling.  Re-composing after focus likewise is not an option because in the time it takes to re-compose the critter will have moved.  I want to focus as-composed anywhere in the field of view, not just where the camera's maker thinks the subject is likely to be.

Gripe #2: focus 'points' are not really points.  They're small regions and the camera's maker decides how to prioritize focus on the pixels within that region.  Thoughtfully they've allowed the user to select from several prioritizing algorithms but am I going to dive into a camera's menu while a warbler is jinking around in a bush?  I think not.

Gripe #3: AF micro-adjust.  I ought to give camera makers credit where credit is due, they've finally acknowledged that the PDAF they'd been telling us for years was perfectly accurate (and more perfectly accurate with each new model) wasn't so accurate after all.  Enough said.

What has AF allowed us to accomplish?  It has allowed us to make the same photos as anyone else with the same equipment.  Bald Eagle flying with fish at Conowingo Dam?  Dime a dozen.  Photographing birds in flight is now such a cliche that it has its own acronym: BIF.  If technology has enabled this and the technology is widely available how many truly original photos are enabled by the technology?  Do you want the make the photos that the camera makers expect you to make or do you want to make your own?

Manual focus is too slow.  Really?  How about some BIF:

(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/threskiornithidae/wfibis03.jpg)
(full frame)

(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/webster02.jpg)
(crop from lower left corner of image)

A good viewfinder adjusted for the users' eyes and good ergonomic design goes a long way toward making manual focus easy.  The rest is practice.

End of rant.  For now.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 02, 2013, 07:44:38 pm
Dave, sometimes EVFs offer the option of turning on a focus peaking feature.  Have you compared that, if available, to the AF accuracy of your camera?

Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: TMARK on September 02, 2013, 08:24:31 pm
I hate AF.  It works well in reportage, and well under studio lights.  Most of the time it is either too slow, but accurate, or fast enough by accurate in 1/3 frames.

The problem I have now is that most makers have crappy viewfinders that make MF difficult.  Go from a D800 to an F4 and you can see what we've lost.

Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2013, 03:50:29 am
I hate AF.  It works well in reportage, and well under studio lights.  Most of the time it is either too slow, but accurate, or fast enough by accurate in 1/3 frames.

The problem I have now is that most makers have crappy viewfinders that make MF difficult.  Go from a D800 to an F4 and you can see what we've lost.


-

Absolutely right. My first shock came going to a cut-frame D200 (straight from F3, which was itself a step backwards into the development line for me from the F4s, because of the latter's dumb self-loading system), not only dificult to mf but also tiny to compose. The D700 I have is a bit better, but still not good for mf. A decent split-image wedge would resolve much of the problem, but as someone here mentioned, the ability to focus anywhere on the screen should be de rigueur on 'serious' equipment.

It has been the cult of making it easy for the dumbest snapper perhaps to get something right that has led to this situation. We never needed af, as generations of snappers have proven. It was a solution without a problem so they went ahead and created the problem so that the solution would be necessary, and become a further thing to sell to us.

Rob C
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: joneil on September 03, 2013, 02:06:49 pm
  I was thinking how to answer your question, and then, I looked at the last six  lenses I have purchased over the past couple of years

   One used Nikkor, one new Tamron, two new Samyang (Rokinon, etc) and three new Zeiss

   One is auto focus, the rest are all manual focus.   I liked the Tamron because it has excellent manual focus over ride, and I used it in manual focus all the time.   The only auto focus lens I have left (sold the others)  is my all purpose 24-70mm nikkor zoom.   I use a D7000 and a D700, so both DX and FX.  None of my lenses are Vibration Reduced or Image Stabilized, etc.   

  I know some pros who love auto focus, and in some situation i think it is excellent.  But overall, I don't miss it hardly at all.  your mileage may and can vary.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Petrus on September 03, 2013, 03:23:40 pm
The problem I have now is that most makers have crappy viewfinders that make MF difficult.  Go from a D800 to an F4 and you can see what we've lost.

Wrong, they are good viewfinders, for AF cameras. If they were like Nikon F4 or Canon F1 they would be totally crappy for AF, which is used by 99% of DSLR users 95% of the time. There is simply no demand for manual focus focusing screens anymore. In the old times I could easily change the focusing screen in my film SLR bodies, and I actually used a full matt screen without any focusing aids, because with those I could focus anywhere within in frame.

There are still top professional action photographers who use manual focus only. But some of them practice focusing on moving objects 20-30 minutes every day, like a pianist.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 03, 2013, 06:59:42 pm
Wrong, they are good viewfinders, for AF cameras. If they were like Nikon F4 or Canon F1 they would be totally crappy for AF, which is used by 99% of DSLR users 95% of the time.

Source of statistics?

I'd prefer a good viewfinder, period, to one that is good for an AF camera.  I have no use for AF and I'd rather a feature I don't use didn't compromise a feature I consider essential.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: shadowblade on September 03, 2013, 07:47:43 pm
Viewfinders for manual focusing have never been better.

It's called live view.

Medium-format CCD-based backs have some way to catch up...
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Manoli on September 03, 2013, 08:00:01 pm
Viewfinders for manual focusing have never been better...

Particularly when combined with focus peaking ...
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: shadowblade on September 03, 2013, 08:07:50 pm
Particularly when combined with focus peaking ...

That's not even entirely necessary.

It's like having a ground glass, except with higher magnification, much greater brightness (no need to work from under a black hood), no need to carry a loupe, no need to switch between the ground glass and the film holder in order to take a shot, and with an upright, rather than inverted, image.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Manoli on September 03, 2013, 08:24:37 pm
That's not even entirely necessary.

Apologies - my post wasn't in contradiction to your comments re live view, but simply pointing out a most welcome alternative new technology when it comes to manual focus.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 03, 2013, 10:49:03 pm
Viewfinders for manual focusing have never been better.

It's called live view.

Useless for active subjects.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: kaelaria on September 04, 2013, 02:33:38 am

The problem I have now is that most makers have crappy viewfinders that make MF difficult.  Go from a D800 to an F4 and you can see what we've lost.


100% AGREE!!  Any of my old mechanical even cheap bodies from 30-40 years ago BLOW AWAY the best of today for the viewfinder and ease of manual focusing, it's just silly how poor it is in comparison.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Petrus on September 04, 2013, 02:58:08 am
100% AGREE!!  Any of my old mechanical even cheap bodies from 30-40 years ago BLOW AWAY the best of today for the viewfinder and ease of manual focusing, it's just silly how poor it is in comparison.

Ground glass must be totally different for manual focus on the ground glass and for a AF only/mostly camera, where the brightness of the VF image is the prime concern. It is impossible to have both at the same time.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2013, 03:23:52 am
Wouldn't it be nice that if when you buy your camera body you could have the option of electing either af or mf versions? For a start, bereft of all that af stuff, it should make the mf version far more affordable to those for whom money is an object: me.

You can sometimes choose between chrome or black bodies, why not something actually important?

Rob C
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 04:12:06 am
Wouldn't it be nice that if when you buy your camera body you could have the option of electing either af or mf versions?

Actually Rob, you can.
On a Nikon, switch off AF in custom settings and just press [AF-ON] when you want to auto focus.
On a Fuji x-trans, it's even more effective.

Doesn't bring the price down though ...
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: TMARK on September 04, 2013, 09:15:49 am
Eos 3, F4 and F5 are bright and accurate, and AF well.  1ds3, D3x do well, and they are AF.  Even the EGs Precision screens from Canon when used with fast lenses are usable.  Bright enough with a 1.2 - 2 lens and accurate enough for MF.  Unfortunately they are not magnified enough.  Then you go medium format, and they are both bright, large and MF well, even on AF cameras like the Rollei Hy6, Pentax 645d, H Blad with teh x finder, Mamiya/Phase cameras.

In short its not impossible to have a camera that has a good VF and has AF.  You need a bright image and a grainy screen.  This means a big prism.  Like on the F4/F5/EOS3, or the medium format AF cameras.

Ground glass must be totally different for manual focus on the ground glass and for a AF only/mostly camera, where the brightness of the VF image is the prime concern. It is impossible to have both at the same time.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 04, 2013, 09:38:37 am
Actually Rob, you can.
On a Nikon, switch off AF in custom settings and just press [AF-ON] when you want to auto focus.
On a Fuji x-trans, it's even more effective.

Doesn't bring the price down though ...

Doesn't make the viewfinder any better either.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2013, 11:09:44 am
Doesn't make the viewfinder any better either.


That's the problem, and having someone mess with a viewfinder that's not actually already damaged seems risky at best.

Even on the F, F2, F3 and F4s that I've owned the very first change of supplied screen caused the inevitable bit of muck to lodge that I could never get out of the viewing system. Swapping screens in the context of a digital sensor living inside the camera seems even more dangerous.

Rob C
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 04, 2013, 12:20:52 pm
For a start, bereft of all that af stuff, it should make the mf version far more affordable to those for whom money is an object...

Price is about supply/demand and production volume (and the potential for business related tax write-offs), not just cost-of-materials.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 12:39:45 pm
Doesn't make the viewfinder any better either.

I think I'm beginning to get the message ... !
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 01:01:38 pm
Price is about supply/demand and production volume (and the potential for business related tax write-offs), not just cost-of-materials.

Isaac, Isaac, Isaac ...

Price, other than controlled or monopolistic, is a function of supply and demand.
Production volume is supply.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 04, 2013, 01:09:47 pm
Production volume is supply.

Price may be lower with mass production, because the production cost may be lower.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 01:37:59 pm
Price may be lower with mass production, because the production cost may be lower.

That will lower your break-even cost. Does not affect the price at which you / the market is willing to trade.
In free market economics, price is purely a function of supply and demand.

The title of this thread is Auto v Manual focus. Let's stick to it, shall we?
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 04, 2013, 01:55:20 pm
That will lower your break-even cost. Does not affect the price at which you / the market is willing to trade.

Because camera manufacturers have no interest in making a profit?


The title of this thread is Auto v Manual focus. Let's stick to it, shall we?

Presumably you have control over what you post.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 04, 2013, 02:47:01 pm
Hi,

In general I have very few out of focus images, but DoF is often a problem. When I shoot action, which is not I normally do, I often have wrong focus, that is dead on focus on the wrong part of the image.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Telecaster on September 04, 2013, 03:37:13 pm
Live view is great...and I like having it in the eye-level finder as well as on the rear LCD screen. Thus every sensor-based camera I own & use, with one exception, has an EVF. Manual focus? ¡No hay problema! When some makers choose not to offer a feature you deem important...you take your business elsewhere.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 04, 2013, 04:06:51 pm
I've been focussing manually for a little over 40 years.... Re-positioning the camera to place a focus point on a bird's eye takes too much time...

Maybe that could take less time --

"Single Point AF Manual Select... We use it most of the time and you should, too. ... The key is to always select the single AF point that coincides with the exact spot where you want the sharpest focus. It helps to learn how to select the AF point quickly. ... On the Canon 7D, I use custom function #1 in Group #4 to directly select the AF point using the Multi-controller button on the rear of the camera."

page 85 Digital Wildlife Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=XaosmqJGFr0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA85#v=snippet&q=It%20helps%20to%20learn%20how%20to%20select%20the%20AF%20point%20quickly&f=false), John and Barbara Gerlach, 2013.


... but am I going to dive into a camera's menu while a warbler is jinking around in a bush?  I think not.

Is there no way to bring that to the surface as a handy custom function?


AF micro-adjust.  I ought to give camera makers credit where credit is due, they've finally acknowledged that the PDAF they'd been telling us for years was perfectly accurate (and more perfectly accurate with each new model) wasn't so accurate after all.  Enough said.

Isn't the story more like - PDAF is calibrated for each camera during manufacturing, but that cannot take account of manufacturing variability in the lenses you own; hence AF micro-adjust.


What has AF allowed us to accomplish?

Maybe you're blessed with excellent eyesight :-)

"For more than 15 years, we relied exclusively on our ability to manually focus the lens to achieve sharp focus. Over time, the precision of autofocusing lenses has greatly improved while our eyesight has slowly declined. Eventually, we realized autofocus is more accurate and much faster than we are at manually focusing lenses. We now use autofocusing most of the time. If you are older than 40, it's likely autofocusing will do a much better job than you do, even if you refuse to admit it. There is nothing to be gained by denying the aging factor. It's best to adopt autofocus and learn to use it well."

page 79 Digital Wildlife Photography
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 04, 2013, 04:37:11 pm
Maybe that could take less time --

"Single Point AF Manual Select... We use it most of the time and you should, too. ... The key is to always select the single AF point that coincides with the exact spot where you want the sharpest focus. It helps to learn how to select the AF point quickly. ... On the Canon 7D, I use custom function #1 in Group #4 to directly select the AF point using the Multi-controller button on the rear of the camera."

page 85 Digital Wildlife Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=XaosmqJGFr0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA85#v=snippet&q=It%20helps%20to%20learn%20how%20to%20select%20the%20AF%20point%20quickly&f=false), John and Barbara Gerlach, 2013.

1. the concept of focus points is a problem
2. birds often move so quickly and so often that the eye can be anywhere in the field of view from one split-second to the next
3. I glanced at John and Barbara Gerlach's website and their hummingbird photos are out of focus.


Quote
Isn't the story more like - PDAF is calibrated for each camera during manufacturing, but that cannot take account of manufacturing variability in the lenses you own; hence AF micro-adjust.

Why so much variability in the lenses, why do PDAF systems not recheck the focus after driving the lens, and why can't the camera + lens system be self-calibrating?

Quote
Maybe you're blessed with excellent eyesight :-)


I've been using reading glasses for over 20 years.

Quote
"For more than 15 years, we relied exclusively on our ability to manually focus the lens to achieve sharp focus. Over time, the precision of autofocusing lenses has greatly improved while our eyesight has slowly declined. Eventually, we realized autofocus is more accurate and much faster than we are at manually focusing lenses. We now use autofocusing most of the time. If you are older than 40, it's likely autofocusing will do a much better job than you do, even if you refuse to admit it. There is nothing to be gained by denying the aging factor. It's best to adopt autofocus and learn to use it well."

page 79 Digital Wildlife Photography

refer to point #3 above.  Their hummingbird photos are out of focus.

A couple of weeks ago, with 61-year-old eyes and a camera optimized for manual focus:

(http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/bchumm04.jpg)

(http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/bchumm03.jpg)
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: LKaven on September 04, 2013, 04:55:04 pm
I go strongly with wildlightphoto on this one.  The mere presence of autofocus points exerts undue influence on one's creative decisions in framing a composition.  The odds that one's best creative vision will ever -- ever -- put the subject's eyeball immediately over an existing focus point: vanishingly small.  No matter how much practice one puts into focus-and-recompose techniques, or dynamic subject tracking systems, the result is always a distraction from the creative process, and much to the detriment of the final image.  The subject goes ... anywhere ... in the corners, on the edges -- wherever your imagination wants.  The best skill a photographer can have is to know how to focus quickly and manually in any circumstance that arises, and thus to free his/her imagination for the creative act. 
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 04, 2013, 05:13:59 pm
1. the concept of focus points is a problem
I imagine that any camera manufacture will be delighted if you can provide them with a workable alternative AF technique.

3. I glanced at John and Barbara Gerlach's website and their hummingbird photos are out of focus.
Too funny. Do you think people might take photos from their website without licensing them?

Why so much variability in the lenses...
If you have answers to those questions, I'd like to know too.
What's the usual reason - cost. Maybe it's cheaper to manufacture lenses to a lower tolerances than higher tolerances, and throw out the bad ones at QA.

I've been using reading glasses for over 20 years...
Do you use them when you take photos?


a camera optimized for manual focus
If you have "a camera optimized for manual focus" why the rant?
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 04, 2013, 05:32:01 pm
What's the usual reason - cost. Maybe it's cheaper to manufacture lenses to a lower tolerances than higher tolerances, and throw out the bad ones at QA.

Sloppy QC.

Quote
Do you use them when you take photos?

No.

Quote
If you have "a camera optimized for manual focus" why the rant?

It's discontinued and several critical parts are no longer available.  When it breaks or wears out I want to continue making photos, and neither the CaNikon duopoly nor the CaNikon wanna-bes (what's left of them) make a suitable model.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: AFairley on September 04, 2013, 06:26:57 pm
A coupla comments.  For sure manual focusing is a learned skill, and someone with good eyes (or good diopter adjustment in the VF) with enough practice and familiarity with the qualities of a particular lens should be able to consistently nail manual focus, even on the fly, given suitable optics and focusing screen.  Neither of which, I'm sad to say, exist in any of the DSLR's I've seen recently with less than 100% size, general dimness, LCD overlays and very finely ground focusing surfaces.  Pick up an OM-1 -2- 3 or -4 and marvel at the size and clarity of the VF -- in a pretty small package, yet. 
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 04, 2013, 07:26:24 pm
Sloppy QC.
More like sloppy speculation on my part. A little more thought might lead us to think that the problem is not variability in the lenses per se, but that combined with variability in the camera body.

Seems like your eyesight is still good enough for photography ;-)
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 04, 2013, 08:36:41 pm
I imagine that any camera manufacture will be delighted if you can provide them with a workable alternative AF technique.

I don't care what AF technique they use as long as they quit f*cking up the viewfinder.  A good viewfinder isn't nuclear physics.  A Leicaflex SL from 45 years ago was spectacular and a Nikon F with E screen was nearly as good.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: NancyP on September 04, 2013, 10:03:07 pm
As for AF dictating composition, yes, it could, particularly if you are shooting under low-light situations and don't separate AF from shutter release functions.

I would like the interchangeable screens feature to be really easy to use, similar to changing a lens. If you look at the number of specialty screens for Canon 1DX, maybe eight or ten (mmm - but ONLY for that model Canon, not the low-priced ones), it is clear that Canon does indeed intend to make its pro customers happy. Split prism, superfine ground glass, all-over fresnel, grids, and more variants are available. I can switch screens on my 6D,with a superfine ground glass option and a grid option only. Superfine ground glass is great if you have fast lenses. I am mucking about with f/5.6 lenses, occasionally with teleconverter for f/8, and I have exactly one lens faster than f/2.8. I would love to be able to alternate between AF standard screen (slow lenses) and ground glass (fast lens, maybe lenses in a bit). Live view is for static subjects and for checking zone focusing. LV is totally non-ergonomic for real action.

All of my AF lenses have AF/MF switches, and they all offer "full time MF", a must for any AF lens that I would consider.

I have been trying out my closet of legacy lenses, all manual focus manual aperture, and am having fun. My current fun lens is Mamiya-Sekor Macro 60mm f/2.8 with preset aperture (for 135) - really ODD bokeh.

As for birds in flight, AF is great. Because I am shooting BIF for my own interest, and not to sell, I don't Care that it might be a cliche. I have also used MF for sitting or standing birds and occasionally BIF when using my 1.4x teleconverter for effective f/8.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: bcooter on September 05, 2013, 10:27:09 am
We keep asking for things nobody is going to make.

I'd love a huge viewfinder and mechanical lenses, (pentax 645d anyone), but once makers went to autofocus the viewfinders got smaller and were perceived to be used for composition only, focus was to be handled automatically.

How many times with a dslr have you stopped and said to a subject, "hold it, let me move the focus point, nope, one more time, ok got it, now let's work".

But I really believe that modern dslrs are designed for sports photographers that use long lenses, center the subject and hold the button down.

For advertising, editorial and fine art it's a different animal.

There might be great promise when evf's finally evolve.  The OMD is not good at focus, the gh3 good, not very good, but good.  One thing the gh3 does well, 70% of the time is face recognition.  When it works, it's freaky good, like csi freaky good.  When it doesn't it's a mess.

I think the beauty of the M series Leicas is you can manually focus, even on moving subjects, if the subject is centered and if you use lenses no longer than 50mm.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 05, 2013, 11:59:14 am
The mere presence of autofocus points exerts undue influence on one's creative decisions in framing a composition.

Presumably you took the same view of the central microprism ring and split screen that used to be so common.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 05, 2013, 12:02:48 pm
Hi,

My solution is live view at actual pixels or selectable focus point.

Best regards
Erik

We keep asking for things nobody is going to make.

I'd love a huge viewfinder and mechanical lenses, (pentax 645d anyone), but once makers went to autofocus the viewfinders got smaller and were perceived to be used for composition only, focus was to be handled automatically.

How many times with a dslr have you stopped and said to a subject, "hold it, let me move the focus point, nope, one more time, ok got it, now let's work".

But I really believe that modern dslrs are designed for sports photographers that use long lenses, center the subject and hold the button down.

For advertising, editorial and fine art it's a different animal.

There might be great promise when evf's finally evolve.  The OMD is not good at focus, the gh3 good, not very good, but good.  One thing the gh3 does well, 70% of the time is face recognition.  When it works, it's freaky good, like csi freaky good.  When it doesn't it's a mess.

I think the beauty of the M series Leicas is you can manually focus, even on moving subjects, if the subject is centered and if you use lenses no longer than 50mm.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: telyt on September 05, 2013, 12:27:59 pm
Presumably you took the same view of the central microprism ring and split screen that used to be so common.

I do.  I replaced the screens in my Nikon and Leica-R cameras with plain matte with grid (i.e., Nikon E).
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 05, 2013, 12:48:15 pm
Live view is for static subjects and for checking zone focusing. LV is totally non-ergonomic for real action.

That's kind-of confusing for the few of us who see LV all-the-time in the view finder :-)

I think the issue of OVF vs. EVF was nicely covered in last year's Sony Alpha A99 Field Test Report (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_a99_field_report.shtml).
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: TMARK on September 05, 2013, 03:22:10 pm
I did that with my MF cameras (RZ and 501cm) and my F5.  I have a matt center split in my F4, which I do like.

Fuji had a screen for their GX680 that was matt BUT had several split image/RF spots where a person's eyes could appear in the frame. 

I do.  I replaced the screens in my Nikon and Leica-R cameras with plain matte with grid (i.e., Nikon E).
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: LKaven on September 05, 2013, 04:02:02 pm
Quote from: Luke
The mere presence of autofocus points exerts undue influence on one's creative decisions in framing a composition.
Presumably you took the same view of the central microprism ring and split screen that used to be so common.

The ground glass was good enough for manual focus on the film SLRs.  Works fine on the D4 for that matter.

I guess you're suggesting the central microprism was somehow like a "single point AF", but not to me.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 05, 2013, 04:10:42 pm
I guess you're suggesting the central microprism was somehow like a "single point AF", but not to me.

I'd have found your argument more persuasive if you'd said you replaced the focusing screen ;-)
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 07, 2013, 01:03:36 am
Hi,

Live view is pretty accurate at actual pixels, but it is slow. Peaking is nice in theory, but with the stuff I have (Sony) it is not really useful for critical focus.

I would also guess that manual focus has a lot to do with lenses. Lenses built for AF have short focusing throw, may be to short for accurate focus. Also, many lenses have focus shift (focus changes when stopping down) but it is no issue if you shoot fully open with a very good lens.

I guess that practice helps, personally I use either AF or live view at actual pixels on Sony.

On the Hasselblad V I use a prism finder with the acute matte screen that came with the camera and Zeiss Victory 3x monocular that gives additional three times magnification and can be adjusted for eyesight. That works mostly well.


One reason we had less problems with focus on film was that we enlarged less. Going actual pixels on digital images corresponds to extreme size prints. Screen pixel pitch is about 100 PPI, so looking at a 24MP image at actual pixels corresponds to looking a 40x60" print at close distance. How often did we make prints that size and looked close in the film times?

Birdman is right about practice.

Best regards
ERik
Useless for active subjects.
Title: Re: Auto vs manual focus
Post by: Isaac on September 07, 2013, 02:24:37 pm
Now currently using  either ... my biggest issue is out of focus shots.