The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.

[melchiorpavone]

Was it hand-held?  

Yes, and I am quadriplegic, have Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flat feet, halitosis, and heterochromia!

My doctor told me I have one of the worst cases of heterochromia he's ever seen!

[John Koerner]

Yes, and I have Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flat feet, halitosis, and heterochromia!

[melchiorpavone]

what were we talking about then, and who are you again?

[John Koerner]

what were we talking about then, and who are you again?

I forget

[John Koerner]

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.

Well said.

[John Koerner]

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...

It will never work for critical focus. The first step of a stack shot is the manual focus of the beginning point.

Once that is achieved, and you want to do things in an automated fashion, an automated macro rail is the way to go, not lens.

[melchiorpavone]

It will never work for critical focus. The first step of a stack shot is the manual focus of the beginning point.

Once that is achieved, and you want to do things in an automated fashion, an automated macro rail is the way to go, not lens.

But auto-focus doesn't work well at all, for anything.

[NancyP]

Mercedes commercial TRUCKS, on the other hand, have a decent reputation for reliability, don't they? I figured that the engineering parameters are completely different for the commercial truck line (reliability foremost) than for the car and SUV line (performance and frills foremost).

Near-macro single-shot hand-held in the field is a compromise, but I don't necessarily use classic manual focus. I put the lens on MF and gently move the camera/lens back and forth to get focus - process assisted by grabbing a stick (hiking pole, monopod, etc) stuck in the ground with the camera holding hand, and rocking the stick back and forth (the "Lord V" method, after a Fred Miranda macro forum stalwart). Framing is governed by height of hand placement on stick, angle of hand holding the camera, etc. Focus confirmation helps. So does burst shooting while slowly moving camera forward.

Focus stacking using AF to advance the lens focus is an old magic lantern hack. It works well for close-ups and for landscape focus stacks but not as well for true macro. The alternative automated option is to motorize the camera platform ("StackShot" rail and DIY motorized rails), a better choice for macro.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

No comment TRUCKS but I bought a Stackshot recently and it is great stuff.

Best regards
Erik

Mercedes commercial TRUCKS, on the other hand, have a decent reputation for reliability, don't they? I figured that the engineering parameters are completely different for the commercial truck line (reliability foremost) than for the car and SUV line (performance and frills foremost).

Near-macro single-shot hand-held in the field is a compromise, but I don't necessarily use classic manual focus. I put the lens on MF and gently move the camera/lens back and forth to get focus - process assisted by grabbing a stick (hiking pole, monopod, etc) stuck in the ground with the camera holding hand, and rocking the stick back and forth (the "Lord V" method, after a Fred Miranda macro forum stalwart). Framing is governed by height of hand placement on stick, angle of hand holding the camera, etc. Focus confirmation helps. So does burst shooting while slowly moving camera forward.

Focus stacking using AF to advance the lens focus is an old magic lantern hack. It works well for close-ups and for landscape focus stacks but not as well for true macro. The alternative automated option is to motorize the camera platform ("StackShot" rail and DIY motorized rails), a better choice for macro.

[NancyP]

Melchior Pavone, you are missing the point of focus stacking. Set outer limits of focusing range manually. Then program (or manually advance) your camera platform to take a shot every (n microns or n millimeters) for the length of the desired focusing range. Then throw the 5 to 100 images into Your Favorite Software, choose your automated blend algorithm, render, and count every hair on all six or eight legs of your fly or spider subject.

[melchiorpavone]

Melchior Pavone, you are missing the point of focus stacking. Set outer limits of focusing range manually. Then program (or manually advance) your camera platform to take a shot every (n microns or n millimeters) for the length of the desired focusing range. Then throw the 5 to 100 images into Your Favorite Software, choose your automated blend algorithm, render, and count every hair on all six or eight legs of your fly or spider subject.

What has that to do with anything that is not stationary? I don't see the relevance to manual vs auto-focusing in any case.

[John Koerner]

What has that to do with anything that is not stationary? I don't see the relevance to manual vs auto-focusing in any case.

Since you didn't realize that, even in automated stack shots, the parameters are first set manually, and what is automated is the camera platform, not the lens, the relevance is this:

1) The absolute, most critical focusing is always done manually on tiny, still subjects (not via AF).

2) The absolute, most critical focusing of moving subjects is always done on a tripod, with manual focus also atop a gimbal or other movable head.

AF has been brought up to a good, appreciable level that works on many larger subjects (landscapes, large animals, humans, etc.), but this can hardly be considered "critical focus" ...

In fact, razor-sharp imagery is often avoided for portraiture, so by all means keep using AF there if you like.

But, where absolute detail is everything, MF is the way to go.

[melchiorpavone]

Since you didn't realize that, even in automated stack shots, the parameters are first set manually, and what is automated is the camera platform, not the lens, the relevance is this:

1) The absolute, most critical focusing is always done manually on tiny, still subjects (not via AF).

2) The absolute, most critical focusing of moving subjects is always done on a tripod, with manual focus also atop a gimbal or other movable head.

AF has been brought up to a good, appreciable level that works on many larger subjects (landscapes, large animals, humans, etc.), but this can hardly be considered "critical focus" ...

In fact, razor-sharp imagery is often avoided for portraiture, so by all means keep using AF there if you like.

But, where absolute detail is everything, MF is the way to go.

What you are saying may be true, but not germane to the topic, of focussing typical subject matter (people, sports, etc.) hand held. It has nothing to do with it. My claim is that manual focus is superior for such subject matter.

In portraiture, a little diffusion is often appropriate, but not 'out-of-focus'.

[John Koerner]

What you are saying may be true, but not germane to the topic, of focussing typical subject matter (people, sports, etc.) hand held. It has nothing to do with it. My claim is that manual focus is superior for such subject matter.

We agree. Manual focus is superior, period.

The only caveat to this is that AF sometimes allows you to capture shots you would of missed altogether, which does count for something, and in some cases is everything.

[melchiorpavone]

We agree. Manual focus is superior, period.

The only caveat to this is that AF sometimes allows you to capture shots you would of missed altogether, which does count for something, and in some cases is everything.

Yes, agreed.

[Glenn NK]

Japocrap turns my stomach...

We're not being a little bit opinionated and prejudiced are we by any chance?

What DOES suit your fancy m'lord?

[melchiorpavone]

We're not being a little bit opinionated and prejudiced are we by any chance?

What DOES suit your fancy m'lord?

I have one of each, chrome and black:

http://www.summilux.net/r_system/SL2-bon-4.jpg

and eight lenses...

[NancyP]

OK, auto-focus doesn't work well for anything - until it does.
FWIW, if AF doesn't do a great job for featureless no-contrast surfaces, neither do my eyes.
This is devolving into the War of Win v. OSX

[Ajoy Roy]

Where AF works beautifully is in action shots, Bodies like1D and D4 have an extremely robust AF system, which can track fast moving objects reasonably well, much better than an average person can. So as you track and shoot at 10fps, most of your shots will be in focus. In contrast in this situation with MF you either wait for the object to reach the location where you had pre-focussed or try to change the focus continuously while shooting a burst. Many photographers did this successfully in MF era, but today most can do it with good AF. That is the difference, with MF you can get it perfect some times, but with AF you get it reasonable every time.

One area that I would lay my bets on is AI algorithms which can transform a moderately out of focus image to one that is razor sharp. You loose a lot of MP, but if you have 100MP then a 20MP sharp image is worth a lot more than a 100MP fuzzy one.

[Jim Pascoe]

Absolutely disagree. It's not nonsense.
Jack

Jack - my opening sentence which I though I elaborated on was that it is a nonsense to generalise and say that MF is superior to AF.  I did specifically say that it depends on the type of photography and as I pointed out I am a big fan of MF.  I don't understand why in these forums people jump on one line in a post and tear it to pieces.  My whole post was saying it depends on the photographer, the subject, the gear etc. I would always use MF on a tripod with macro work - and even when hand-held sometimes too!

And when I said "few pictures in this thread" I did mean in THIS thread - I appreciate that there are millions of first class MF shots around.  I always put more store by posters who put up pictures when talking about photography - a picture being worth a thousand words etc.  I posted two to show where AF is an advantage and where MF is also quite suitable.

Jim