Auto-focus or manual focus

[fredjeang]

Don't laugh... have we been victims of a swindle for decades?  

I was talking with a French Grand Reporter yesterday in Madrid,
an all-life Nikon user. We had a lunch together and he confessed to me that he now
shoots back in manual focus because he arrived at the conclusion that it is faster in the field.

Recently, my more humble experience told me about the same.
I had the opportunity to purchase vintage pearls and after a hard time
of adaptation with the viewfinder of my dslr, (lots of failures) I found myself quicker
in action, more concentrated (involved) in the scenery, and in fact
less distracted by buttons, settings and so on.

I just enjoy focus instantaneously where I want to, like in the old age. And it is silent!
The "human machine" is certainly not obsolete!
Am I into a nostalgic crisis of the 40s or is actually manual focusing faster than auto-focus?

What do you think from your experiences?

Fred

[PeterAit]

Don't laugh... have we been victims of a swindle for decades?  

I was talking with a French Grand Reporter yesterday in Madrid,
an all-life Nikon user. We had a lunch together and he confessed to me that he now
shoots back in manual focus because he arrived at the conclusion that it is faster in the field.

Recently, my more humble experience told me about the same.
I had the opportunity to purchase vintage pearls and after a hard time
of adaptation with the viewfinder of my dslr, (lots of failures) I found myself quicker
in action, more concentrated (involved) in the scenery, and in fact
less distracted by buttons, settings and so on.

I just enjoy focus instantaneously where I want to, like in the old age. And it is silent!
The "human machine" is certainly not obsolete!
Am I into a nostalgic crisis of the 40s or is actually manual focusing faster than auto-focus?

What do you think from your experiences?

Fred

There's no one answer - it depends on the skill of the photographer, the camera, and the lens. I use auto-focus almost all of the time for hand-held shots, and manual for tripod shots (where, of course, speed does not really matter). I do think with some nostalgia about the focusing on my Leica M-3 (I could kick myself for selling it!).

[Jonathan Wienke]

Don't laugh... have we been victims of a swindle for decades?  

Ummmmmm... No. Given the higher resolution of current DSLRs compared to film and the trend away from split-image and other manual focus confirmation tools in today's DSLR viewfinders (not to mention the trend toward smaller, darker, and cheaper viewfinders), you're probably delusional if you think that manual focus is consistently more accurate than autofocus. The only time I focus manually is when autofocus wants to lock focus on the wrong thing--shooting through a chain-link fence for example, where AF may lock focus on the fence instead of the actual subject. I shoot with Canon 1-series bodies, which have much better-than-average viewfinders, and they offer the resolution (maybe) of a 4x6" print. You simply can't really judge critical focus when resolution has been dumbed down to that level.

I have AF activation assigned to a button other than the shutter release, so that I can focus manually if I choose to, or more often AF on something to pre-set focus, and then take the shot without any additional delay while the camera tries to AF and possibly screw up the pre-set focus. But most of the time I use AF because it is faster and more accurate than manual. If this is not true of your camera you should probably have it sent in for repair.

[RSL]

Fred, I agree with Jonathan. I think your friend may have some auto-focus lenses that are defective or very old. Tell him to stick a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on his camera and give it a try. The other thing he can do that might help is do some guessing in advance regarding the distance of his next subject and then pre-focus on something at about that distance so the lens doesn't have to shift so far when he does the actual focusing job. Manual focus can be reasonably accurate with a Leica, since you have a split image to work with, but if you're trying to focus accurately on the small image in a viewfinder you often think you're on the button, but find later that you're not. Of course if you're at f/8 or f/11, you don't have to be.

[fredjeang]

Ps for Jonathan: about your helpful advice for the lens problem; I fixed it, unfortunately it was located inside and took me some time but it is done. You where right about the cause. Thank you again.

About manual focusing, I agree with you in most of the points but not all. My english is not so good (but I'm working on it!...) so I may not transmit always very well, I think it happened in my post.
Of course, autofocus is by far more reliable and the current viewfinders are not made for manual focusing and they are pain to use.  My cameras are working perfectly and are "faster" in autofocus, ( with the current lenses no doubt ) I've always use it for decades and there are situations where I certainly won't use manual focusing.
I'm in the same spirit of what you both say and I've only use so far manual focusing in the situations where autofocus would be confused or, simply to instant change a focal point on a scenery without decomposing. As I print actually in 1.90m for a serie (I do not do the printing myself), focusing is quite
important so I won't mess with it. I also use a lot pre-focusing as RSL said, even in AF. The thing is, when I got these vintage lenses recently where you have no other choice than manual and are made for MF,  my perception of "fast" has changed a bit. I'm following you when you said that with the resolutions we have now, judging critical focus is a very risky task that gives you a lot of desilusion when back on post-production. This is absolutely correct. But, I found AF confirmation to be really reliable. At the beginning, I had a lot of bad shots at fast apertures and was about not to use any more these vintage lenses, but step by step, results inproved. Most importantly found myself more integrated ( engaged ) into the all photographic process, more "present" if I can say. Less tempted to shoot for shooting. It is just another spirit and approach that I had forgotten and I rediscover with these vintage lenses. And there is a direct physical relation with lens-hand-eye I find quite "dynamic". I will still shoot in autofocus, but definetly adopt also MF but, with MF lenses.

Fred.

[Rob C]

Mention was made of the old-time split-image focussing screens. I have two screens for my F3 (bought new after I got rid of my F4s), one is the split and the other a grid one. For some reason, though the best of both worlds (for me) would have been a quad with split-image, Nikon only made one such combination for slow lenses... In my experience of a lifetime of Nikon cameras, the split-image was the best solution to the greatest quantity of work, with the grid system proving its worth when working with sea horizons or architectural subjects.

Currently, all my lenses are manual focus except for the 2.8/180mm and two things have contributed to making it easy to continue that way: on the D200, the magnifier that goes over the eyepiece does its work; on the D700 I find no need for any extra help, the pentaprism works that well.

Contrary to the continually published myth about focussing on one thing and then reframing, I have believed in focussing on the critical part as framed for the shot and it seems to work just fine. In fact, that little focus confirmation light within the viewfinder has proved to be more of a distraction than a help. When I first bought a digi camera I was seduced into thinking that it confirmed my focus; of course, it only confirmed when the central spot was sharp, which, although I knew this, was still able to exert a subliminal effect and throw me off, especially when working under a little stress/speed.

Much of this stuff goes back to how one evolved as an operator. I can understand newer photographers embracing the electronic aids and ways - they have little to unlearn. But, for me, if it ain't broke I don't intend to fix it. My digis are set up to replicate mechanical cameras as much as I can make them so do.

As someone indicated, the human ain't dead yet! ;-)

Rob C

[fredjeang]

Contrary to the continually published myth about focussing on one thing and then reframing, I have believed in focussing on the critical part as framed for the shot and it seems to work just fine. In fact, that little focus confirmation light within the viewfinder has proved to be more of a distraction than a help. When I first bought a digi camera I was seduced into thinkimg that it confirmed my focus; of course, it only confirmed when the central spot was sharp, which, although I knew this, was still able to exert a subliminal effect and throw me off, especially when working under a little stress/speed.

Yes Rob, I came to the same conclusion.

Much of this stuff goes back to how one evolved as an operator. I can understand newer photographers embracing the electronic aids and ways - they have little to unlearn. But, for me, if it ain't broke I don't intend to fix it. My digis are set up to replicate mechanical cameras as much as I can make them so do.

As someone indicated, the human ain't dead yet! ;-)

Rob C

That is what I think indeed. I started photography about 25 years ago at the age of 14 and of course my training was manual focusing. Then, years of autofocus and with my recent re-discovery of manual focusing with digital cameras, although not made to be used that way, I find it neither obsolete nor out of position. There is a time of adaptation, yes. There are situations where human simply can not compete with the machine, and others than the human is still more performant.
I think it is a plus integrating manual focusing as well in the all process, even if electronics allows you not doing it. These vintage lenses are generaly ( but I have a few wrecks as well ) very very good, and it gives you a unique "organic" sensation with the camera and the act of photography that is worth the experience.    

Fred.

[kers]

Frpm the day I bought my first ZF lens I started to learn again to focus manually. - and i liked it a lot.
The DX-(nikon)sensor cameras came with such a bad viewfinder that I had to rely on autofocus- Now with the better full frame viewfinder at last I can focus manually again.
The new Nikkors are also better to focus manually and you can switch easily to autofocus and back.
Today I use what is the best of both worlds. With casual portraits i use manual especially when the sharpness is not in the center; in dark circumstances Autofocus sees more...In architecture I use manual focus with liveview...  etc
I must say it was a relief to use manual focus again after so many years of autofocus...

[deejjjaaaa]

but if you're trying to focus accurately on the small image in a viewfinder

there is no problem to install a mf screen ( www.focusingscreen.com for example, or if you want to have a variety of grid lines or even a custom grid line - www.katzeyeoptics.com )

[David Saffir]

My feeling is that method used should be tied to requirements of the shot.

landscape/architecture? I usually go manual - hyperfocal distance, etc
birds? autofocus
sports events - sometimes setup in fixed position - manual, or if I'm moving around, auto.


David Saffir