Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Auto vs manual focus  (Read 5484 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2013, 10:09:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't make the viewfinder any better either.


That's the problem, and having someone mess with a viewfinder that's not actually already damaged seems risky at best.

Even on the F, F2, F3 and F4s that I've owned the very first change of supplied screen caused the inevitable bit of muck to lodge that I could never get out of the viewing system. Swapping screens in the context of a digital sensor living inside the camera seems even more dangerous.

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2013, 11:20:52 AM »
ReplyReply

For a start, bereft of all that af stuff, it should make the mf version far more affordable to those for whom money is an object...

Price is about supply/demand and production volume (and the potential for business related tax write-offs), not just cost-of-materials.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 11:47:33 AM by Isaac » Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 640


« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2013, 11:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't make the viewfinder any better either.

I think I'm beginning to get the message ... !
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 640


« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2013, 12:01:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Price is about supply/demand and production volume (and the potential for business related tax write-offs), not just cost-of-materials.

Isaac, Isaac, Isaac ...

Price, other than controlled or monopolistic, is a function of supply and demand.
Production volume is supply.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 12:08:47 PM by Manoli » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2013, 12:09:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Production volume is supply.

Price may be lower with mass production, because the production cost may be lower.
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 640


« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2013, 12:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Price may be lower with mass production, because the production cost may be lower.

That will lower your break-even cost. Does not affect the price at which you / the market is willing to trade.
In free market economics, price is purely a function of supply and demand.

The title of this thread is Auto v Manual focus. Let's stick to it, shall we?
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2013, 12:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

That will lower your break-even cost. Does not affect the price at which you / the market is willing to trade.

Because camera manufacturers have no interest in making a profit?


The title of this thread is Auto v Manual focus. Let's stick to it, shall we?

Presumably you have control over what you post.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 01:08:44 PM by Isaac » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7680


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2013, 01:47:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

In general I have very few out of focus images, but DoF is often a problem. When I shoot action, which is not I normally do, I often have wrong focus, that is dead on focus on the wrong part of the image.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869



« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2013, 02:37:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Live view is great...and I like having it in the eye-level finder as well as on the rear LCD screen. Thus every sensor-based camera I own & use, with one exception, has an EVF. Manual focus? ¡No hay problema! When some makers choose not to offer a feature you deem important...you take your business elsewhere.

-Dave-
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2013, 03:06:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been focussing manually for a little over 40 years.... Re-positioning the camera to place a focus point on a bird's eye takes too much time...

Maybe that could take less time --

"Single Point AF Manual Select... We use it most of the time and you should, too. ... The key is to always select the single AF point that coincides with the exact spot where you want the sharpest focus. It helps to learn how to select the AF point quickly. ... On the Canon 7D, I use custom function #1 in Group #4 to directly select the AF point using the Multi-controller button on the rear of the camera."

page 85 Digital Wildlife Photography, John and Barbara Gerlach, 2013.


... but am I going to dive into a camera's menu while a warbler is jinking around in a bush?  I think not.

Is there no way to bring that to the surface as a handy custom function?


AF micro-adjust.  I ought to give camera makers credit where credit is due, they've finally acknowledged that the PDAF they'd been telling us for years was perfectly accurate (and more perfectly accurate with each new model) wasn't so accurate after all.  Enough said.

Isn't the story more like - PDAF is calibrated for each camera during manufacturing, but that cannot take account of manufacturing variability in the lenses you own; hence AF micro-adjust.


What has AF allowed us to accomplish?

Maybe you're blessed with excellent eyesight :-)

"For more than 15 years, we relied exclusively on our ability to manually focus the lens to achieve sharp focus. Over time, the precision of autofocusing lenses has greatly improved while our eyesight has slowly declined. Eventually, we realized autofocus is more accurate and much faster than we are at manually focusing lenses. We now use autofocusing most of the time. If you are older than 40, it's likely autofocusing will do a much better job than you do, even if you refuse to admit it. There is nothing to be gained by denying the aging factor. It's best to adopt autofocus and learn to use it well."

page 79 Digital Wildlife Photography
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 654


« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2013, 03:37:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe that could take less time --

"Single Point AF Manual Select... We use it most of the time and you should, too. ... The key is to always select the single AF point that coincides with the exact spot where you want the sharpest focus. It helps to learn how to select the AF point quickly. ... On the Canon 7D, I use custom function #1 in Group #4 to directly select the AF point using the Multi-controller button on the rear of the camera."

page 85 Digital Wildlife Photography, John and Barbara Gerlach, 2013.

1. the concept of focus points is a problem
2. birds often move so quickly and so often that the eye can be anywhere in the field of view from one split-second to the next
3. I glanced at John and Barbara Gerlach's website and their hummingbird photos are out of focus.


Quote
Isn't the story more like - PDAF is calibrated for each camera during manufacturing, but that cannot take account of manufacturing variability in the lenses you own; hence AF micro-adjust.

Why so much variability in the lenses, why do PDAF systems not recheck the focus after driving the lens, and why can't the camera + lens system be self-calibrating?

Quote
Maybe you're blessed with excellent eyesight :-)


I've been using reading glasses for over 20 years.

Quote
"For more than 15 years, we relied exclusively on our ability to manually focus the lens to achieve sharp focus. Over time, the precision of autofocusing lenses has greatly improved while our eyesight has slowly declined. Eventually, we realized autofocus is more accurate and much faster than we are at manually focusing lenses. We now use autofocusing most of the time. If you are older than 40, it's likely autofocusing will do a much better job than you do, even if you refuse to admit it. There is nothing to be gained by denying the aging factor. It's best to adopt autofocus and learn to use it well."

page 79 Digital Wildlife Photography

refer to point #3 above.  Their hummingbird photos are out of focus.

A couple of weeks ago, with 61-year-old eyes and a camera optimized for manual focus:




Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2013, 03:55:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I go strongly with wildlightphoto on this one.  The mere presence of autofocus points exerts undue influence on one's creative decisions in framing a composition.  The odds that one's best creative vision will ever -- ever -- put the subject's eyeball immediately over an existing focus point: vanishingly small.  No matter how much practice one puts into focus-and-recompose techniques, or dynamic subject tracking systems, the result is always a distraction from the creative process, and much to the detriment of the final image.  The subject goes ... anywhere ... in the corners, on the edges -- wherever your imagination wants.  The best skill a photographer can have is to know how to focus quickly and manually in any circumstance that arises, and thus to free his/her imagination for the creative act. 
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2013, 04:13:59 PM »
ReplyReply

1. the concept of focus points is a problem
I imagine that any camera manufacture will be delighted if you can provide them with a workable alternative AF technique.

3. I glanced at John and Barbara Gerlach's website and their hummingbird photos are out of focus.
Too funny. Do you think people might take photos from their website without licensing them?

Why so much variability in the lenses...
If you have answers to those questions, I'd like to know too.
What's the usual reason - cost. Maybe it's cheaper to manufacture lenses to a lower tolerances than higher tolerances, and throw out the bad ones at QA.

I've been using reading glasses for over 20 years...
Do you use them when you take photos?


a camera optimized for manual focus
If you have "a camera optimized for manual focus" why the rant?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 04:16:37 PM by Isaac » Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 654


« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2013, 04:32:01 PM »
ReplyReply

What's the usual reason - cost. Maybe it's cheaper to manufacture lenses to a lower tolerances than higher tolerances, and throw out the bad ones at QA.

Sloppy QC.

Quote
Do you use them when you take photos?

No.

Quote
If you have "a camera optimized for manual focus" why the rant?

It's discontinued and several critical parts are no longer available.  When it breaks or wears out I want to continue making photos, and neither the CaNikon duopoly nor the CaNikon wanna-bes (what's left of them) make a suitable model.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1176



« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2013, 05:26:57 PM »
ReplyReply

A coupla comments.  For sure manual focusing is a learned skill, and someone with good eyes (or good diopter adjustment in the VF) with enough practice and familiarity with the qualities of a particular lens should be able to consistently nail manual focus, even on the fly, given suitable optics and focusing screen.  Neither of which, I'm sad to say, exist in any of the DSLR's I've seen recently with less than 100% size, general dimness, LCD overlays and very finely ground focusing surfaces.  Pick up an OM-1 -2- 3 or -4 and marvel at the size and clarity of the VF -- in a pretty small package, yet. 
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2013, 06:26:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Sloppy QC.
More like sloppy speculation on my part. A little more thought might lead us to think that the problem is not variability in the lenses per se, but that combined with variability in the camera body.

Seems like your eyesight is still good enough for photography ;-)
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 654


« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2013, 07:36:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I imagine that any camera manufacture will be delighted if you can provide them with a workable alternative AF technique.

I don't care what AF technique they use as long as they quit f*cking up the viewfinder.  A good viewfinder isn't nuclear physics.  A Leicaflex SL from 45 years ago was spectacular and a Nikon F with E screen was nearly as good.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 07:39:03 PM by wildlightphoto » Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 977


« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2013, 09:03:07 PM »
ReplyReply

As for AF dictating composition, yes, it could, particularly if you are shooting under low-light situations and don't separate AF from shutter release functions.

I would like the interchangeable screens feature to be really easy to use, similar to changing a lens. If you look at the number of specialty screens for Canon 1DX, maybe eight or ten (mmm - but ONLY for that model Canon, not the low-priced ones), it is clear that Canon does indeed intend to make its pro customers happy. Split prism, superfine ground glass, all-over fresnel, grids, and more variants are available. I can switch screens on my 6D,with a superfine ground glass option and a grid option only. Superfine ground glass is great if you have fast lenses. I am mucking about with f/5.6 lenses, occasionally with teleconverter for f/8, and I have exactly one lens faster than f/2.8. I would love to be able to alternate between AF standard screen (slow lenses) and ground glass (fast lens, maybe lenses in a bit). Live view is for static subjects and for checking zone focusing. LV is totally non-ergonomic for real action.

All of my AF lenses have AF/MF switches, and they all offer "full time MF", a must for any AF lens that I would consider.

I have been trying out my closet of legacy lenses, all manual focus manual aperture, and am having fun. My current fun lens is Mamiya-Sekor Macro 60mm f/2.8 with preset aperture (for 135) - really ODD bokeh.

As for birds in flight, AF is great. Because I am shooting BIF for my own interest, and not to sell, I don't Care that it might be a cliche. I have also used MF for sitting or standing birds and occasionally BIF when using my 1.4x teleconverter for effective f/8.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2013, 09:27:09 AM »
ReplyReply

We keep asking for things nobody is going to make.

I'd love a huge viewfinder and mechanical lenses, (pentax 645d anyone), but once makers went to autofocus the viewfinders got smaller and were perceived to be used for composition only, focus was to be handled automatically.

How many times with a dslr have you stopped and said to a subject, "hold it, let me move the focus point, nope, one more time, ok got it, now let's work".

But I really believe that modern dslrs are designed for sports photographers that use long lenses, center the subject and hold the button down.

For advertising, editorial and fine art it's a different animal.

There might be great promise when evf's finally evolve.  The OMD is not good at focus, the gh3 good, not very good, but good.  One thing the gh3 does well, 70% of the time is face recognition.  When it works, it's freaky good, like csi freaky good.  When it doesn't it's a mess.

I think the beauty of the M series Leicas is you can manually focus, even on moving subjects, if the subject is centered and if you use lenses no longer than 50mm.

IMO

BC
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2013, 10:59:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The mere presence of autofocus points exerts undue influence on one's creative decisions in framing a composition.

Presumably you took the same view of the central microprism ring and split screen that used to be so common.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad