The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.

[telyt]

I was talking about the fact that Japanese cameras have always been more 'feature' oriented with lots of bells and whistles, than Leicas, especially. The Leicaflex was infinitely superior in handling and design to the Nikon F or F2.

How many people used the removable prism, ever? Maybe 1 in 10,000. Yet, making the prism and screen removable meant more play and slop in the screen's position, causing loss of focusing accuracy. Ever see sponge at the front of a Leicaflex screen? No, and you won't. Leitz developed a special mechanism that 'brakes' the mirror mechanically, brining it to a slow stop instead of allowing it to bang into sponge.

I am also a big fan of the Leicaflexes but I wouldn't extrapolate its engineering excellence to an entire nation.  Neither would I extrapolate the Nikon F's engineering to the entire nation.  The Nikon was very reliable for me (aside from the light meter) because the tolerances were so loose that any crud that fell in would also fall out just as quickly.  The Leicaflexes were slightly less reliable because it was so well made that any crud that managed to get in would stay in.

[melchiorpavone]

I am also a big fan of the Leicaflexes but I wouldn't extrapolate its engineering excellence to an entire nation.  Neither would I extrapolate the Nikon F's engineering to the entire nation.  The Nikon was very reliable for me (aside from the light meter) because the tolerances were so loose that any crud that fell in would also fall out just as quickly.  The Leicaflexes were slightly less reliable because it was so well made that any crud that managed to get in would stay in.

This more design than engineering. If you make a really great focussing screen (they did) you don't need interchangeable screens. I ordered my SL2s with the SL screen, and have had the screen changed in my other SL2 (recently acquired) to the SL screen.

If you have even owned German phonograph records or other German products you'll see it is cultural.

[telyt]

Michael Scarpitti has re-appeared.

[Jim Pascoe]

All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense.  No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way.  There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.

Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus.  Of course it can be done and I love shooting in manual focus mode - in fact I have a number of lenses that are MF only.  But there are also many instances of when AF just works to get the shot with certainty and regularity.

I bought a Zeiss 50mm lens a few years back and I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point.  And I still think that - but AF has it's place too.  In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices.  Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand.  MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!

Here are two pictures from a shoot this year taken with an 85mm lens at 2.8.  I think you can see which one benefited from AF and which one could easily have been shot with MF.

And on the OP topic in general - I think the current or last five years of technology has given most of us more quality than we could ever exploit fully.  My main camera may be six years old but I'm in no doubt my progression in photography will not come through a newer sensor - just more practice!

Jim
 

[Manoli]

I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point.  And I still think that - but AF has it's place too.  In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices.  Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand.  MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!

+1

[melchiorpavone]

All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense.  No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way.  There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.

My comments were not directed at users but at Japanese camera manufacturers. Did you miss that part?

Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus.  

So what? Maybe those who do so aren't members.

[allegretto]

All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense.  No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way.  There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.

Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus.  Of course it can be done and I love shooting in manual focus mode - in fact I have a number of lenses that are MF only.  But there are also many instances of when AF just works to get the shot with certainty and regularity.

I bought a Zeiss 50mm lens a few years back and I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point.  And I still think that - but AF has it's place too.  In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices.  Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand.  MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!

Here are two pictures from a shoot this year taken with an 85mm lens at 2.8.  I think you can see which one benefited from AF and which one could easily have been shot with MF.

And on the OP topic in general - I think the current or last five years of technology has given most of us more quality than we could ever exploit fully.  My main camera may be six years old but I'm in no doubt my progression in photography will not come through a newer sensor - just more practice!

Jim
 

whole lot of "for real" in your post, Sir

but to be fair, I've tried late Nikons and Canons... plus a few Sonys and Fujis for good measure looking for The Camera and am gobsmacked by how often, even with what I'd call just about optimal conditions, AF just blows the shot. it's one thing to "fuzz" a forelock with an M, and quite another to blow it with a high-tech. I will admit, the D4 was darned good, but not perfect by any means... and the Fuji...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa........... surely you jest

[melchiorpavone]

whole lot of for real in your post, Sir

but to be fair, I've tried late Nikons and Canons... plus a few Sonys and Fujis for good measure looking for The Camera and am gobsmacked by how often, even with what I'd call just about optimal conditions, AF just blows the shot. it's one thing to "fuzz" a forelock with an M, and quite another to blow it with a high-tech. I will admit, the D4 was darned good, but bot perfect by any means... and the Fuji...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa........... surely you jest

Why am I not surprised? Auto-focus has difficulty with evenly lit smooth featureless surfaces.

[John Koerner]

All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense.  No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way.  There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.

Absolutely disagree. It's not nonsense.

No focusing is more demanding than macro focusing: getting the tiniest details from the tiniest subjects. So much so that ardent practitioners often partake in "focus-stacking" ... of blending 2-100+ images, all focused on subtly different planes of focus on the subject, which are then "stacked" together for one full image with 2-100+ different focus points. I can assure you NO ONE does focus stacking using AF

Almost no macro shooter uses AF in their single imagery either. Maybe to capture a bug moving in the field, but any macro shooter who is seriously-composing a macro shot for ultimate focus is going to be behind a tripod using MF. Live view blown-up 10x the size. Critical shots obtained via MF (or by macro-rail adjustment for really critical shots). Shutter tripped by remote switch.

Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus.  Of course it can be done and I love shooting in manual focus mode - in fact I have a number of lenses that are MF only.  But there are also many instances of when AF just works to get the shot with certainty and regularity.

Check out the last page of Macro thread ...

I bought a Zeiss 50mm lens a few years back and I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point.  And I still think that - but AF has it's place too.  In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices.  Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand.  MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!

I don't lecture anyone on their choices of what to do, but I also think facts are facts. The choice may be yours as to what to go with, but the FACT is the people who are the most serious about absolutely critical focus are NOT using AF to capture their best, most focus-critical shots. Manual focus only. Period.

Here are two pictures from a shoot this year taken with an 85mm lens at 2.8.  I think you can see which one benefited from AF and which one could easily have been shot with MF.

Beautiful shots of children, but not exactly critical-focus macro photography.

And on the OP topic in general - I think the current or last five years of technology has given most of us more quality than we could ever exploit fully.  My main camera may be six years old but I'm in no doubt my progression in photography will not come through a newer sensor - just more practice!
Jim

For the most part, this is true.

But some things cannot be achieved without the necessary technology to achieve them, just as some "magic moments" cannot be captured without the necessary "eye" to see and capture them.

So both are needed, ultimately.

Jack

[Ajoy Roy]

Yes, for critical focus you cannot beat manual focus. The reasons are many, but it boils down to one fact - the AF does not focus on a small dot say 1/2mm diameter, but on a larger area (if take a bee's eye it may focus on the centre, one side or at the tip of the antenna, if it is in the focus rectangle, while you choose what to focus on), and then it can get confused if there is little light or low contrast. With magnified live view it is a breeze to focus fast manually.

Similarly it will be extremely difficult to AF on a particular leaf in a dense bush. If leaves are staggered, you never know whether AF focused on the distant leaf or the nearest or one in the middle - all three are in the focus rectangle.

[deejjjaaaa]

I can assure you NO ONE does focus stacking using AF

but technology is there, lenses (most recent) created for CDAF have stepper motors to move focusing group of optical elements - it is just a matter of firmware to enable stacking step by step...

[John Koerner]

On the specific issue of action shots, that would depend if you're using a tripod or not.

If you're hand-holding, then already (by default) precision focusing is NOT your main goal ... versatility is. Therefore AF will probably be your choice to capture the action. Macro shooters who hand-hold in the field will invariably also have flash, use AF, etc.

However, if you're composing your shots on a tripod, say to capture a bee in flight. And (say) you've selected "the" flower you're going to set your gear in front of, then you're going to use MANUAL focus to nail your shot, because you've already taken the trouble to stabilize your shot via tripod. You've already composed your framing. So, at this point, you're simply waiting for the bee to come in front of the flower, and you will zero-in on him critically using manual focus.

So if you're hand-holding looking for action shots, and just trying to "get" focus, then AF may be the only way you can get the shot.

But if absolute focus is your goal, then you're using a tripod, you're using MF, and mirror lockup/live view. Even in action shots.

I forget the guy's name, but he is widely considered "the" best photographer of bees, and the latter is the way he gets his best action shots: set up on a tripod in front of a flower ... not running around chasing bees with a camera in his hands.

Jack

[melchiorpavone]

Yes, for critical focus you cannot beat manual focus. The reasons are many, but it boils down to one fact - the AF does not focus on a small dot say 1/2mm diameter, but on a larger area (if take a bee's eye it may focus on the centre, one side or at the tip of the antenna, if it is in the focus rectangle, while you choose what to focus on), and then it can get confused if there is little light or low contrast. With magnified live view it is a breeze to focus fast manually.

Similarly it will be extremely difficult to AF on a particular leaf in a dense bush. If leaves are staggered, you never know whether AF focused on the distant leaf or the nearest or one in the middle - all three are in the focus rectangle.

Or on the eyelashes of a little girl...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/

[melchiorpavone]

On the specific issue of action shots, that would depend if you're using a tripod or not.

If you're hand-holding, then already (by default) precision focusing is NOT your main goal ... versatility is. Therefore AF will probably be your choice to capture the action. Macro shooters who hand-hold in the field will invariably also have flash, use AF, etc.

However, if you're composing your shots on a tripod, say to capture a bee in flight. And (say) you've selected "the" flower you're going to set your gear in front of, then you're going to use MANUAL focus to nail your shot, because you've already taken the trouble to stabilize your shot via tripod. You've already composed your framing. So, at this point, you're simply waiting for the bee to come in front of the flower, and you will zero-in on him critically using manual focus.

So if you're hand-holding looking for action shots, and just trying to "get" focus, then AF may be the only way you can get the shot.

This is false.

But if absolute focus is your goal, then you're using a tripod, you're using MF, and mirror lockup/live view. Even in action shots.

Huh?

I forget the guy's name, but he is widely considered "the" best photographer of bees, and the latter is the way he gets his best action shots: set up on a tripod in front of a flower ... not running around chasing bees with a camera in his hands.

Jack

In common parlance, 'action shots' are not of bees.

[John Koerner]

This is false.

Huh?

In common parlance, 'action shots' are not of bees.

If you say so

[John Koerner]

Or on the eyelashes of a little girl...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/

Is that supposed to be critical focus?

[melchiorpavone]

Is that supposed to be critical focus?

Well I may have missed the front part of the iris by 0.000000000000001mm. Nobody's perfect you know.

 

[John Koerner]

Well I may have missed the front part of the iris by 0.000000000000001mm. Nobody's perfect you know.

 

Exactly my point

That type of measurement is what I mean by "critical focus."

Getting "the eyelashes" sharp (when they only comprise 1/200th of the entire frame) is an easy thing to do.

However, try filling the frame with only the eyelashes ... and capturing the surface texture of each lash, at 5:1 magnification, hand held ... where the slightest movement is a major shift to the tiny scale you're working with ... and tell me how AF works for you then

Jack

[melchiorpavone]

Exactly my point

That type of measurement is what I mean by "critical focus."

Getting "the eyelashes" sharp (when they only comprise 1/200th of the entire frame) is an easy thing to do.

However, try filling the frame with only the eyelashes ... and capturing the surface texture of each lash, at 5:1 magnification, hand held ... where the slightest movement is a major shift to the tiny scale you're working with ... and tell me how AF works for you then

Jack

Uhmmmmmmmmmmm...this was manual focus! That's my point! You cannot focus this accurately with AF!

[John Koerner]

Uhmmmmmmmmmmm...this was manual focus! That's my point! You cannot focus this accurately with AF!

Was it hand-held?