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.
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.
Viewfinders for manual focusing have never been better...
Particularly when combined with focus peaking ...
That's not even entirely necessary.
Viewfinders for manual focusing have never been better.
It's called live view.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Doesn't make the viewfinder any better either.
Price is about supply/demand and production volume (and the potential for business related tax write-offs), not just cost-of-materials.
Production volume is supply.
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.
The title of this thread is Auto v Manual focus. Let's stick to it, shall we?
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...
... but am I going to dive into a camera's menu while a warbler is jinking around in a bush? I think not.
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?
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.
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.
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
1. the concept of focus points is a problemI 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.
I've been using reading glasses for over 20 years...Do you use them when you take photos?
a camera optimized for manual focusIf you have "a camera optimized for manual focus" why the rant?
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.
Do you use them when you take photos?
If you have "a camera optimized for manual focus" why the rant?
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.
I imagine that any camera manufacture will be delighted if you can provide them with a workable alternative AF technique.
The mere presence of autofocus points exerts undue influence on one's creative decisions in framing a composition.
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
Presumably you took the same view of the central microprism ring and split screen that used to be so common.
Live view is for static subjects and for checking zone focusing. LV is totally non-ergonomic for real action.
I do. I replaced the screens in my Nikon and Leica-R cameras with plain matte with grid (i.e., Nikon E).
Quote from: LukeThe 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.
I guess you're suggesting the central microprism was somehow like a "single point AF", but not to me.
Useless for active subjects.
Now currently using either ... my biggest issue is out of focus shots.