My take is that Richard is asking the reader to meet him half way on details like this or the essay would have had to be multiple times its current length. I'm like you in preferring a moderate zoom; but I read Richard's approach, quoted above, as saying he can find a desirable composition often enough using a combination of primes and relocation that it's not an issue for him.I agree: this essay is one excellent photographer who has used a wide range of gear explaining his evolving gear choices in the context of his approach, not dictating that we must all emulate him. Read that way, it is one of the most thoughtful essays I have read in some time about how camera technology is evolving, and how this can affect gear choices.
"Zoom with your feet and when the limits of that technique have been reached, change the focal length of the lens."
I always found this sentence misleading when I saw it in one or the other form in various writings .
In my world it's not at all about zooming or getting lazy with your feet.
It's about getting the best position or viewpoint where the subject looks best,
has the best size relation to its surrounding objects or background and foreground,
then -and only then- chose the appropriate lens to get the desired framing.
That is why I (in the meantime) love zoom lenses.
Not because they spare me walking around.
It's because they allow me to always find the best position to take the shot and
get the optimal framing and use of film or sensor real estate after doing that.
Cheers
~Chris
“Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the ‘ah-ha’.” -- Ernst Haas
“The most important lens you have is your legs.” -- Ernst Haas
"Zoom with your feet and when the limits of that technique have been reached, change the focal length of the lens."
I was sure I'd seen that glib zoom versus prime sentiment expressed somewhere else but I was wrong.
An interesting counterpoint would be to lend this Leica equipment to someone or several people of 18-24 for three weeks, say, and then ask how it works for them compared to what they normally get up to. What do they think of these classic but alas uber-expensive cameras and lenses? What do they look for from photography equipment? That might give an insight into where the camera-makers need to go.
This article by Richard Sexton seems rather convoluted to me. From my perspective, there are just half a dozen main considerations when choosing a camera. They are noise, resolution, autofocusing accuracy, weight, price and lens quality.Weight is increasingly important to me as I progress in years. When we travel to Europe I really don't take a full kit of lenses because of the weight and unwillingness to check baggage. I have a nice shoulder bag that will hold the camera and three lenses. On our last trip I took the 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8 and 16-85 f3.5-5.6 zoom for my Nikon D300. I admit it was a strange choice given the two primes are pretty close in focal length and I ended up only using the 35mm a couple of times. When I looked at lens usage, it was about equally split between the zoom and the 24mm. For Croatia this May the debate is whether to take two primes 24 & 85mm or the 24mm and the 16-85mm zoom. I can probably shave a little bit of weight off with the two primes but the zoom is a really nice lens for routine shooting.
When I was in that age demographic…
From my perspective, there are just half a dozen main considerations when choosing a camera.
Careful! Ray might explain perspective again.To Isaac: Yep!:
From my perspective ...To Ray: about
... there are just half a dozen main considerations when choosing a camera. They are noise, resolution, autofocusing accuracy, weight, price and lens quality.I have nothing against you adopting that perspective, but what has it for to do with Richard Sexton's article, since he clearly has a somewhat different set of main considerations. Hopefully you are not suggesting that every photographer should share your apparently lower priority on considerations like accurate manual focusing, quick and convenient manual focus on an off-centre subject, dynamic range, or the types of lenses available (as opposed to just their quality). But you do seem to imply that when you shift from speaking of your idiosyncratic perspective to the more general phrasing "issues one can learn to adapt to, or are limitations one can learn to tolerate". This one is not interested in adapting to or tolerating weaknesses like poor manual focusing capabilities, a lack of zoom lenses covering my preferred combination of FOV range and weight, or the lack of good macro lenses.
To Ray: about I have nothing against you adopting that perspective, but what has it for to do with Richard Sexton's article, since he clearly has a somewhat different set of main considerations.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that every photographer should share your apparently lower priority on considerations like accurate manual focusing, quick and convenient manual focus on an off-centre subject, dynamic range, or the types of lenses available (as opposed to just their quality).
But you do seem to imply that when you shift from speaking of your idiosyncratic perspective to the more general phrasing "issues one can learn to adapt to, or are limitations one can learn to tolerate". This one is not interested in adapting to or tolerating weaknesses like poor manual focusing capabilities, a lack of zoom lenses covering my preferred combination of FOV range and weight, or the lack of good macro lenses.
Since I did not declare that this or any one aspect dominates over all others in my weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of various systems, your "which camera" question based on hypothetical extremes of AF vs MF performance with no information on any other factors relevant to my system choice is a false dichotomy. How about just accepting your final statement about which camera is preferable from your perspective?
It is in your word "confusing" that after acknowledging that we can have different perspectives, you set out to challenge my priority on manual focusing features (shared by a great many other photographers in this forum).
What is it going to be Ray: are we all individuals entitled to our diverse perspectives, or is anyone who does not share the Ray perspective "confused"?
I was simply trying to elicit from you an explanation as to why you appear to give a higher priority to manual focusing capability than I do, and whether or not the reason is because you find the current autofocusing accuracy of your cameras inadequate.Since the subject is how people choose between actual systems, I do not see the point of asking me to to consider your imaginary hypothetical case of "unprecedented, accurate autofocusing system in all types of lighting and with all lenses designed for the camera", particularly since that description ignores one of the well-known limitations to AF systems: selection of the focus target. So let me try to answer your latest version of the question:
The interesting aspects of discussions such as this, and I also include critiques of any photographs, are the reasons expressed for liking, disliking, agreeing, disagreeing, and so on.
As opposed to conglomerated cameras, perhaps?That's mockery folks.
If you were offered a choice from two, new, cutting-edge cameras which differed only in the respect that one camera boasted an unprecedented, accurate autofocusing system in all types of lighting and with all lenses designed for the camera, but had only an average manual focusing capability; and the other camera boasted an unprecedented manual focusing capability, but had only average autofocusing capability, which would you choose?
The DOF in my photos … is vanishingly small so focusing errors are unforgivable…
As usual in these discussions, the difference in the type of photograph we commonly take is the main factor.That is the point of course (For example, I think that at 16MP+, all current systems have enough resolution for all my needs, but I am not going to interrogate anyone who still makes "resolution" a factor in choosing between systems.)
Even I'll notice that AF locked on the tip-of-a-nose rather than the iris; but maybe I just need a new camera (http://sonyalphalab.com/forums/showthread.php?362-Sony-A7-and-Eye-AF-Feature-Help) :-)That Sony A7 eye focus is insufficient: I want to decide which eye to focus on. Actually, Olympus claims that the E-M5 can do this:
That Sony A7 eye focus is insufficient: I want to decide which eye to focus on.
We know the problem will arise when there are 2 eyes in the focus box, so maybe we could move the focus box; and for my purposes, having one eye tack-sharp would be better than having the tip-of-the-nose tack-sharp :-) Obviously, depending on face-orientation, a lot of the time, one eye in focus would mean both eyes in focus.Joking aside, the human face is such a dominant photographic subject that it has attracted an impressive technological effort at automation, and I have no basis for thinking that AF is inadequate for that case --- partly because of my ignorance: I rarely photograph people except as casual snapshots, and instead my main interest is nature photography.
I'd probably still use MF out-of-habit but I can see that others might decide Eye AF was better for them.
Joking aside, the human face is such a dominant photographic subject that it has attracted an impressive technological effort at automation, and I have no basis for thinking that AF is inadequate for that case --- partly because of my ignorance: I rarely photograph people except as casual snapshots, and instead my main interest is nature photography.
Typically, it is the less common cases that the automation handle less well, and which require turning off the automation and making our own choices of exposure levels, shutter speeds, aperture, white balance, contrast level, amount of gain applied before raw conversion, focus point, etc.
Since the subject is how people choose between actual systems, I do not see the point of asking me to to consider your imaginary hypothetical case of "unprecedented, accurate autofocusing system in all types of lighting and with all lenses designed for the camera", particularly since that description ignores one of the well-known limitations to AF systems: selection of the focus target. So let me try to answer your latest version of the question:
Some of my favorite subjects are of wildlife using long lenses and of very small subjects at close range, where DOF can be quite shallow (even in smaller formats like 4/3"!), and the desirable focus target is often a feature like an eye or a certain part of a plant or insect that is not at dead-center and is not distinguished in any simple algorithmic way like being closest to the camera or having a clear high-contrast edge. AFAIK, no AF software in any system will reliably detect my compositional choice of focus location in these cases, so AF requires at least either pushing buttons to select amongst a large array of AF points or focus and recompose, either of which I find far less convenient than using my eyes to choose and check focus. So I switch to manual focus in these situations.
So no, the reason is not just the autofocusing accuracy of my particular current cameras.
Ray, may I ask you a question in return: are you genuinely in doubt that a good number of photographers have a valid rational and empirical basis for caring about manual focusing, and for judging that some systems support this significantly better than others?
I would choose the camera with the better manual focussing capability, every time. First, because I trust myself to focus on a particular point before I'd trust AF to focus on the point I want to be in focus .....
the Live View systems of some current models of cameras, particularly Canon models, allow for very easy manual focusing, provided one uses a tripod.Good, so we agree that good live manual focusing can be an important factor in _some_ people's choice of camera. Since that was my original point, perhaps I should stop here.
It's the atypical photographs where automatic features leave much to be desired.
The nature of the 'unprecedented' improvement in autofocusing includes both improved accuracy and improved 'efficiency of selection' of the precise focus point within the scene.
Oh! Ye person of little faith! ;D
I like the sound of this: "Direct manual focus (DMF) You can make fine adjustments manually after the focus is locked. You can quickly focus on a subject rather than using the manual focus from the beginning."Agreed: another of the considerations that many photographers would add to Ray's list is various aspects of ergonomics, and one good example is the ability to quickly and easily switch focus modes. That "DMF" quote is from the description of a Sony camera, isn't it? It sounds similar to the various "AF+MF" modes of Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras. In fact, Olympus Four Thirds SLRs have also had it for a long time, but I prefer it with the option to have turning the focus ring also activate a magnified live view in the EVF.
That "DMF" quote is from the description of a Sony camera, isn't it?
I would like it even more if that magnified live view was in a window within a view that still shows the overall framing. Which cameras, if any offer, that option?
I was trying to keep clear of the brand wars ;-) A7A worthy goal, and for all I know, all ILC systems have such an AF+MF mode these days --- though it might be easier to implement in lenses that use focus-by-wire, to avoiding the clash of manually turning a mechanically coupled focus ring one way while the AF motor is trying to move in the opposite direction.
Instead of AF or MF, how about a more dynamic focus control system that took MF actions as a directive to identify what AF should bring into focus: MF to AF to MF to AF…I look forward to camera makers experimenting with ideas like that. At risk of heresy, I can see enhanced touch-screen controls being useful even when using the eye-level VF so that the touch-screen cannot be seen.
A worthy goal, and for all I know, all ILC systems have such an AF+MF mode these days --- though it might be easier to implement in lenses that use focus-by-wire, to avoiding the clash of manually turning a mechanically coupled focus ring one way while the AF motor is trying to move in the opposite direction.
I look forward to camera makers experimenting with ideas like that. At risk of heresy, I can see enhanced touch-screen controls being useful even when using the eye-level VF so that the touch-screen cannot be seen.
For example, one current camera [brand name suppressed to keep the peace] offers some ingredients that have potential for "manual selection of AF point", but they could work together far better than they currently do:
1. Select focus region (by touch on the rear screen, which only works when looking at that screen rather than using the eye-level VF)
2. zoom the preview to the selected focus region (by a preselected magnification factor; done with a press on one of the programmable buttons)
3. AF on the zoomed region (done with a half-press and hold of the shutter release). This can gives precise selection of a very small AF target if the maximum preview magnification is selected, generally making MF unnecessary if just slight camera movement is allowed to get the focus target right in the bull's-eye.
4. unzoom the preview, to check and fine-tune framing (done with another press on that programmable button)
But I struggle to use the current implementation of this, so I would like:
a. to be able to do step 1 with my eye to the VF, by "tracking" my finger over the rear touch-screen or with a touch pad in place of the four-way arrows
b. to adjust the degree of magnification at step 2 quickly on the fly, maybe with a touch-screen gesture or a slider
c. to avoid step 4, by the option of a "window-in-window" preview.
Rube Goldberg comes to mind.Maybe you were referring to this:
Maybe you were referring to this:
WRT focussing I don't grok why it must be so complicated.Most of the time it is not so complicated: the one tough case that I often encounter is when I want to focus on an off-center point (so away from any traditional manual focusing aids) in a shallow DOF situation like close-up photography, and focus-and-recompose is unsatisfactory, perhaps because I am hand-holding. Then the un-magnified off-center image of any VF, optical or electronic, is not large or detailed enough for precise focusing, and traditional manual focusing tools like split images of micro-prism collars are not available, so I want magnification at a chosen off-center location.
Most of the time it is not so complicated: the one tough case that I often encounter is when I want to focus on an off-center point (so away from any traditional manual focusing aids) in a shallow DOF situation like close-up photography, and focus-and-recompose is unsatisfactory, perhaps because I am hand-holding. Then the un-magnified off-center image of any VF, optical or electronic, is not large or detailed enough for precise focusing, and traditional manual focusing tools like split images of micro-prism collars are not available, so I want magnification at a chosen off-center location.
…a solution in search of a problem.
AF for landscapes? Really?!? It's not like the rocks & trees are going to run away.
My guess is that cameras are made for the vast majority of people who don't practice focusing their camera.
The light runs away.
(Last week a beautiful rainbow appeared in perfect position over the motif and faded-away; to quickly for me to grab a camera, let alone focus.)
It should only be necessary to recompose (before pressing the shutter) if the desired focus point is close to an edge or corner of the frame, and even then, the degree of movement to recompose should not be significant, unless the desired focus point was in the very corner of the frame, which would be very unusual, especially considering that lenses are least sharp in the corner.
Once you've used a camera that actually can focus precisely in the extreme corners you may discover that what looks like a lack of resolving capability is often just field curvature.
-Dave-
The situation you've described is one I also encounter often. Before the multiple demands made of the light coming through the lens (i.e., light siphoned away from the viewing system for multi-pattern metering and AF systems) it was simple. A large bright plain matte view screen like the Nikon F "E" screen or the Leicaflex SL's extremely fine micro prisms over the entire image area made this child's play. This is 1960s technology. Here's how the user focusses:That sounds like a nice option for some photographers, at least those (1) working with a camera that has a large enough format and a lens of large enough maximum aperture to provide a sufficiently bright and detailed OVF image [I suspect 35mm and up, and either primes of fast zooms], and (2) who never need AF, or can carry another camera for that need. (No comment on multi-pattern metering, since I haven't used that for years.)
1) look through the viewfinder at the part of the image s/he wants to be in focus
2) turn the focussing ring until the desired image point has the highest contrast
3) there is no part three!
...
This would mean no AF or multi-pattern metering.
In other words, one can move a single focusing square to any of either 11 or 51 positions within a central area of the frame, as one looks through the viewfinder. Each press of the 'multiselector' dial moves the focusing square one position to the left or right, or to the top or bottom.That sounds like up to about a dozen arrow button pushes to navigate between the "mere" 51 AF points that even state-of-the-art reflex system PDAF is limited to. For speed, I would prefer a single touch or quick glide across the rear touch-screen to select the AF point, along with the hundreds of AF points potentially possible with in-sensor AF and/or the complete flexibility in choosing the region to zoom in on in the EVF. And I suspect that wildlightphoto would prefer the even faster focus point selection method of doing it with his eye and then watching that point as he turns the focus dial.
It should only be necessary to recompose (before pressing the shutter) if the desired focus point is close to an edge or corner of the frame, and even then, the degree of movement to recompose should not be significant, unless the desired focus point was in the very corner of the frame, which would be very unusual, especially considering that lenses are least sharp in the corner.
I have some concerns though:
1) The resolution of the scattered secondary image in an SLR's OVF is far less than that of the sensor (~2MP?) so when shooting at close to maximum aperture, I doubt that any OVF manual focusing could be very precise.
2) At large apertures, about f/2 and beyond, the secondary image in an SLR's OVF image has more DOF than the actual recorded image, so reliably precise MF with an OVF seems impossible.
3) How good is this when focusing off-center with the extremely shallow DOF of extreme close-ups?
That sounds like up to about a dozen arrow button pushes to navigate between the "mere" 51 AF points that even state-of-the-art reflex system PDAF is limited to. For speed, I would prefer a single touch or quick glide across the rear touch-screen to select the AF point, along with the hundreds of AF points potentially possible with in-sensor AF and/or the complete flexibility in choosing the region to zoom in on in the EVF. And I suspect that wildlightphoto would prefer the even faster focus point selection method of doing it with his eye and then watching that point as he turns the focus dial.
P. S. We have a lot of "this works well enough for my usage, so it should be good enough for every competent photographer" posts lately.
This is cropped from the corner of the image: where my lens is plenty sharp at full aperture. It's the Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R.
According to Canon, focus-lock-recompose is unreliable at close range with shallow DOF.
Once you've used a camera that actually can focus precisely in the extreme corners you may discover that what looks like a lack of resolving capability is often just field curvature.
-Dave-
Why is the image cropped?
My point is, it's very unusual to have the main focus of interest in the extreme corner. One can't expect manufacturers to cater to the requirements of a tiny fraction of their clientele whose speciality is breaking the rule-of-thirds. They'd go broke.
... the degree of unreliability is proportional to the degree of recomposing, as well as the shallowness of DoF and the closeness of the subject.
However, I do see scope for improvement regarding the fundamental accuracy of current autofocus systems, which is why I placed 'autofocus accuracy' among my 6 major concerns, a few posts ago.
It's not easy to keep a fast-flying, highly maneuverable bird anywhere near the center of the viewfinder.
Yup, that's my point too. They make cameras for typical situations. I'm not interested in making typical photos.
This grouse was preening, occasionally popping its head up out of its back feathers only for a fraction of a second. Move a focus point to its eye, focus, recompose? You've missed the picture (full frame, no crop):
Given Douglass Herr's demonstrated excellence in this sort of photography (I highly recommend a tour of http://www.wildlightphoto.com) I think that both Ray and I could achieve more by learning from him than from a succession of skeptical challenges to his choices of technique and equipment. Or Ray could show us his accurately autofocused images of falcons in flight or such, describing his technique. (No need for examples from me, because I struggle badly with BIF photography and am here to learn.)
Actually, I plan to start a discussion of techniques for BIF and related wildlife photography, maybe daring to post some of my far less than excellent BIF photos as a plea for help. Where would be better, "Digital Cameras and Techniques" or "User Critiques"?
P. S. Ray: I am familiar with using "key repeat" in moving the AF point first horizontally and then vertically (or vice versa) to the desired location; it is still far slower than a direct touch screen tap or moving one's eye to look at the desired part of the VF image. And slower than rotating the focus ring, at least for experienced users of MF: maybe you have got out of practice with fast MF because your particular focusing needs are now well-handled by AF.
…some manufacturers are catering to…
I have a few shots of birds in flight, somewhere, but it's not something I specialize in. ... I'd have the camera set to autofocus-tracking and probably use a single focusing square in the centre, activated by the shutter button, and I'd be taking multiple shots.As already mentioned in this thread:
Somehow I took your repeated questioning of any arguments and evidence contradicting your apparent belief that AF can do it all as cynicism rather than genuine curiosity. But if you are curios, let me try to help:As already mentioned in this thread:
- using a single AF point (central or otherwise) can be unacceptable with fast and erratically moving subjects that are hard to get under the selected AF point, and
- autofocus-tracking and multiple AF point can get focus on the bird as a whole, but not reliably on a more specific target like the eye. See the examples above where the eye is in focus but not all of the bird.
My impression is that wildlightphoto understands well-enough what is on offer, but feels that what is on offer does not cater to his specific needs.
Additionally, perhaps he feels that we'd all be better-off if we used the kind-of camera that would fulfil his specific needs -- and that's something more open to discussion.
If I believed that a camera with AF best met my needs/wants/desires, I'd have lots of choices from several manufacturers. Preferring to use a digial SLR optimized for manual focus, my choice is limited to a single discontinued model. I have no problem with other's preferences, there's a wealth of AF cameras available.
My secondary mission is to tell y'all you don't have to be so damned dependant on the technology. The technology is fine in the right context but AF'ers don't need to be so afraid of trusting their own eyes and hands.
Please do not make assumptions about my beliefs and preferences…
My primary mission is to educate y'all… to tell y'all…
…
What I'd like to see is more choices. The equipment that meets my needs was discontinued several years ago, several critical repair parts are no longer available, supplies like replacement batteries and compatible memory cards are in short supply, and it can do 2 frames/sec with a good tailwind.
If I believed that a camera with AF best met my needs/wants/desires, I'd have lots of choices from several manufacturers. Preferring to use a digial SLR optimized for manual focus, my choice is limited to a single discontinued model. I have no problem with other's preferences, there's a wealth of AF cameras available.
My primary mission is to educate y'all that there are ways to make properly-focussed images that don't involve focus 'points' (cross-type or otherwise, minimum aperture limits, etc), micro AF adjustment, USM or other motors, trying to figure out if left points are wonky and a host of other technical issues; that there are very valid reasons for preferring manual focus and manual focus need not be limited to stuff that doesn't move. My secondary mission is to tell y'all you don't have to be so damned dependant on the technology. The technology is fine in the right context but AF'ers don't need to be so afraid of trusting their own eyes and hands.
…cases where MF is better than any current AF…