Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs  (Read 6312 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs
« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2010, 01:38:04 pm »

Sam

Reading the posts it seems to me that the problem is way beyond pixel peeping sizes - if you end up with focus six feet before or behind your subject you need VERY low res or tiny telephone-sized screens to get away with it!

And if you get the reflections on the lips crisp when the subject you wanted was actually the makeup around the eyes...

It'll never happen, but perhaps if all those guys who do that kind of work decide, en masse, to return to film for such shots, maybe somebody somewhere will listen and things would change. I suspect that part of the problem might be that cameras are trying to cover too many bases - be all things to all men. Yes, I know that they 'market' some aimed at sports and others for more 'fine grained' situations by virtue of different sensors, but is that the case with MF too? As I've said before, they should perhaps have worked more on getting a sensor that covers the full 6x6 version of life and retained the perfected body shape that already exists. You pay so damn much for those MF cameras already - I would imagine that proper FF wouldn't be much of a spoiler for those in that rarified market. It is always nicer to be able to crop if you want to than have it dictated to you.

Rob C

bcooter

  • Guest
Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs
« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2010, 01:51:12 pm »

Quote from: gwhitf
Yes, as long as it's not living, breathing people that are moving around and changing position after every frame.

.........snip......... This is Progress?


None of these suggestions you'll like (or even do)  but if you put a 7" marshall monitor on your 5d set on live view you'll hit focus 9.9 times out of 10 if your talent moves into position, hits pose holds for  a brief second, because at 7" the view is so detailed it's hard to miss focus.

It takes some getting used to because at first there is a slight disconnect feeling standing a few inches back from the camera and framing, focusing and shooting but after a while it becomes second nature.  Kind of think of it as a smaller view camera with a big bright ground glass turned right side up.

Let's face it, you use to do this with a fuji 680 and you hit some, missed some but nobody lost their mind and the fuji was a hand holding beast compared to a 5d2 and a 7" monitor.

For client review, set up a field monitor from the marshal monitor using bnc cables.  Its analog, but it will let them see what your shooting and they won't complain.  

Now if your subject is moving running on the far side of the frame, rent/buy a 7d,  set it on continuous focus and mark the prop by depressing the shutter halfway until those little blocks of focus areas light up.   The focus points of a 7d or any 1.5 crop camera cover most of the frame and it will usually track true, as long as you keep the shutter pressed partially down.  And you'll have to use a 50 instead of an 85* but it'll look pretty much the same.

You'll know it's a cropped camera, nobody at the tech station or the retoucher will.

But in medium format land, I think it's doable.   A few weeks ago we shot 900 or so images with the Contax and the manual focus 120mm.  Mostly full length models to 3.4 crop.  I haven't shot solely manual focus in a while and maybe it was my lucky day, maybe my eyes have changed, but it worked to the point the few times I used other lenses like the 80 or the 140 I just left them on manual focus and shot.

I would imagine if the Contax with it's smaller viewfinder will do this the H-system won't be a problem, with that true focus thing probably better.

As far as progress, yes, I'd have given anything in the manual focus days to have a 7" ground glass that showed me my exposure.  

Now if you want to try something that is progress go borrow one of those panasonic G cameras and set it on face recognition.   The one that uses the lcd as a viewfinder.  As the model walks through the frame you can see the yellow square just track with her face.  Soon you'll be able to touch screen the area you want to track and it will follow.  Not today but soon.

BC


*I rarely if ever use the 85 1.2., nearly always the 85 1.8.  The glass is so large on the 1.2 it takes it too long for the focus to react and I think the 1.8 is sharper anyway.

All IMO.

edit

Working in live view, either video or stills I've noticed with the Canon lenses, there seems to be this weird kind of disconnect between turning the ring and hitting exact focus.  Not that the lenses aren't sharp, I actually like the look of most Canon lenses and the prices are good, but they just don't have that locked in  focusing feel of older manual focus nikkor lenses, or my contax lenses.  

When these come out you might want to give them a try.

http://www.zeiss.de/c125756900453232/Conte...125756f003e6703

They are true manual focus lenses with gears for follow focus and are probably the only true future proof product on the market today, cause the mounts will interchange between Canon, Nikon and PL cine, so when you finally buy that RED Epic you'll have the lens set.  (insert smile here).

« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 02:55:03 pm by bcooter »
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs
« Reply #22 on: May 16, 2010, 03:21:24 pm »

Quote from: bcooter
*I rarely if ever use the 85 1.2., nearly always the 85 1.8.  The glass is so large on the 1.2 it takes it too long for the focus to react and I think the 1.8 is sharper anyway.

Working in live view, either video or stills I've noticed with the Canon lenses, there seems to be this weird kind of disconnect between turning the ring and hitting exact focus.  Not that the lenses aren't sharp, I actually like the look of most Canon lenses and the prices are good, but they just don't have that locked in  focusing feel of older manual focus nikkor lenses, or my contax lenses.

That is my feeling too -- there is a disconnect between the physical operation of the 85 lens, with what's actually being recorded onto the sensor. Very scary. I too, regret buying the 1.2; wish I'd bought the 1.8 instead. In fact, I think most anyone could make a case that no Canon lens should be much faster than about f4, if true focus dependability is needed.

To be clear, there are two issues at hand here:

1. That what you see in the viewfinder, even when shooting wide open, is not nearly indicative of what's rendered into the file.

2. That you could clearly be looking at something thru the viewfinder that appears tack sharp, and yet, it's rendered focused several inches to the front or rear, with no real pattern, and no sense of repeatability, and thus, no way to really attack the problem, (other than to switch to Nikon).

There's just not many things worse that standing in a studio full of all this expensive technology, and all these supposed precision cameras and computers, and have the Tech yell across the room, "Nope, you missed it. You're about four inches focused forward", followed by, "Nope, you missed that one too, you're about six inches to the rear", all in clear range of the client.

You write the big check for all this stuff, and then someone whispers, "Well, if you really want your photographs to be in focus, you've gotta buy the XXXXX focusing screen, or the XXXXXX external monitor, or you've got to shoot in LiveView, (making your snazzy 35mm camera operate as fast as a 1952 wooden Deardorff)". Basic focus. Very frustrating.

Obviously, Hasselblad is dealing with this factor with True Focus. But I have not tested the H4D40 on a real job situation. But at least their lenses are more realistic, more in the f2.8-4 range.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 03:58:37 pm by gwhitf »
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs
« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2010, 04:17:51 pm »

I'm far from being an experienced photographer, but from my humble experience so far I have never had an higher % of focused files (not viewfinder trusting as you point) than using MF + focus confirmation indicator. I've done many many times in different ways and, at least for me it works way faster and it is more reliable. Now I only look at the green dot, recadrage, et nothing more.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 04:22:19 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs
« Reply #24 on: May 16, 2010, 07:09:32 pm »

Quote from: Rob C
Sam

Reading the posts it seems to me that the problem is way beyond pixel peeping sizes - if you end up with focus six feet before or behind your subject you need VERY low res or tiny telephone-sized screens to get away with it!

And if you get the reflections on the lips crisp when the subject you wanted was actually the makeup around the eyes...

It'll never happen, but perhaps if all those guys who do that kind of work decide, en masse, to return to film for such shots, maybe somebody somewhere will listen and things would change.

Rob,

The thing is that at a given print size the digital image will always be at least as good as the film. The lack of focus accuracy impacts the ability to tap into the much higher resolution potential of digital. This shows badly when looking at images at 100% on screen, which we were not able to do with film. Put it otherwise, we have been living for years with poorly focused film images but never really noticed because 99% of applications are OK with this, just like they were in fact OK with 12 megapixels digital.

Anyway, the only real answers to increase the accuracy of digital focus are:

1. Live view
2. Reliable and accurate AF

24 mp class DSLR have the same pixel pitch as the P65+ and 99% of my images appear tack sharp when viewed at 100% on screen thanks to the use of live view. That is at least the case with longer lenses, wides are sometimes difficult to focus accurately even with live view.

Cheers,
Bernard

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Manual Focus on MF Digital Backs
« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2010, 03:33:28 am »

Bernard, I understand what you are saying about 100% viewing, but two things: I have scanned many many of my 35mm Kodachromes and find them perfectly all right at high percentages when I have to go there and spot; the sort of focussing issue that gwhitf is talking about would have ruined any film capture too. I don't believe the problem is as simple as 100% viewing making the difference; I'm pretty sure there is more to it than that. For example, this uncertainty with Canon lenses compared with Nikkors that both gwhitf and bcooter acknowledge... that's not normal photography experience.

Rob C
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up