Opticallimits

Full Version: IS AF necessary?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Steinar1

You can probably see that I've been reading one more of Roger Ciala's excellent articles. And I really do ask myself how many shots I would miss if did not have AF! It might be worth a try to just use MF for a while, maybe change the prism in my D700 and see whether I would take more or less successfull photographs. Thinking back to 1970's, I think I shot as many action photographs as I shoot now, i.e., very few. And when I did, I put my trusty Canon F1 in S mode and generally did pretty well.

I am interested in hearing what the rest of you think! How often do you use MF and could you do without AF at all?

Guest

I've tried several different M39 mount lenses on my GF-1, obviously all of them manual focus and went for some ocasional street photography (mostly moving people, cars, etc). In this case the question was not "how many shots did I miss" but rather "how many shots were in focus". And the answer is, unfortunately, very very few. The only situation where I do employ the manual focus is macro photography, but that's about it.

Guest

I can manually autofocus while on a tripod with liveview, and do manual focus tethered to my pc for product photography, but no way can I manually focus handholding the camera thru the viewfinder. I have some fine manual focus lenses, its my eyesight that is the issue. I have tried with my 5D MK II, and my 1D MK III using alternate focus screens, I just can't see the sharpest focus point.
Could I do without AF at all? In the same say I don't *need* to eat meat to stay alive. But without it, I wouldn't call it living.



In general, the apparent depth of field is seen in the viewfinder is greater than it really is. I know you can change focus screens, but they're too dark with f/5.6 lenses and limits you only to fast primes. I did find with practice I was getting faster and more accurate at MF with fast primes and an optimised focus screen. But that doesn't suit 90% of my shooting at all. I spend at least 75% of my time at 300mm or longer with crop sensor body. So that means using AF assist, where you might as well have the AF on anyway, or using magnified live view. Maybe you can get away with it for stationary subjects, but it certainly isn't fast.



Technology might have caught up with the MF problem. The focus peaking feature of the NEX has interested me. With the recent announcement of EF lens adapter for NEX with aperture control, MF just got more interesting. However it is solving a problem I didn't have to start with...
Hello VL, in my experience it's difficult without AF. I use samyang 85mm f1.4 on d200, and it is not easy. It took me some time to get use to it. Right now I can tell I am pretty good with it. The confirmation dot on the viewfinder is not very accurate, so you have to watch very carefully whether the object is in focus. I would not go MF for focal length above 85mm, it will be very difficult to focus. Things will be different on the bright view finder of d700 for sure.

anyscreenamewilldo

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1326829891' post='14978']

Could I do without AF at all? In the same say I don't *need* to eat meat to stay alive. But without it, I wouldn't call it living ........

[/quote]



….. for me, for wides, all macro, and some portraits i often (mostly) use manual focus and it seems to work fine for a slower and more relaxed way of life …..



…. but for difficult moving objects which pass between other annoying moving objects, i bought a [size="2"]7d[/size] which has (imo) excellent and narrow (or fine) autofocus which allows me to quickly grab bursts of shots in focus, which is actually bliss ….. moreover the higher iso is good + making the pictures match from both systems is not hard



…. so it is possible i took a wrong turn several years ago which has been costly, but i wanted to try the af cz zooms (and the sensor is nice) - but why you ask? - well i'm a veggie and we can tend to be a little 'different' and indeed without indian / middle eastern food would have to agree with popo

Plochmann

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> I'm just shocked. Out of 13 lenses I have, only one has auto focus and I hardly use it! I just always felt it was unnecessary and alienating unless the situation absolutely needed it. I always take my time to focus, to precisely choose what I want to be sharp and not sharp. I even have depth of field charts memorized and prefer lenses with accurate and advanced manual focus rings. Often I merely look at what I want to be in focus, guess the distance, and pull it. Even when shooting a flock of geese the other night I very well knew they were well over 50 ft away. Unless doing something like sports, which I have not done in years and care not to go back to due to lack of interest; I can't see why to use autofocus.

I have a background in cinematography so focus pulling is an elite job there where only manual focus allowed. I remember in film school rivalry between the cinema and television department about who was better and not using auto focus was a badge of honor. I take that with me in photography. But then again, I am not the type to take a lot of pictures all over the place- I focus on specific ideas or lighting situations.

Although I know I am different from most photographers, I'm still surprised to see so many never use mf and it worries me because these user preferences really shape the market. I have tried to focus with non-L series Canon lenses, and it's a waste of time. They are just awful. I mostly use old Nikon which has a very smooth focus with very accurate number markings, and I can't see anyone struggling with that. Enjoy the typos.

Steinar1

I think it goes without saying that the longer focals are tough, but I have just been experimenting with my lenses up to and including 50mm and I don't see much of a problem. Of course 40 years ago, nobody would look at a 100% crop to judge sharpness, but I think it would be easy to adjust to shooting WA and Std lenses in MF. It is also helpful to think through the hyperfocalt charts and to memorize some of the results for WA and Std lenses. I am also surprised at the number of photogs who seem not to be able to consider it. How did we do it before? In 1970 nobody asked the question. We just shot MF!

PuxaVida

Except for the portrait shots (I'm doing these days), I can't say that AF is crucial. Actually when it comes to macro for example, I only use MF. And I personally believe that for landscape, one can live without AF too...



But concerning the portraits (1 year old doughter, moving around rapidly), I have to say that there had been many shots done by Zeiss 50mm F1.4 and deleted because of missing focus (@ wide open)... I like the color rendition and the bokeh of the lens but I use 85mm AF most of the time. And as soon as possible, I'll grab that new 50mm 1.8G... Sadly, the fast lenses I own with decent bokeh are mostly MF.



Another point about MF, having a focus confirmation light is OK, very appreciated, but I don't think that it is as user-friendly as a decent focus screen.



Serkan
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1326915059' post='15017']

Another point about MF, having a focus confirmation light is OK, very appreciated, but I don't think that it is as user-friendly as a decent focus screen.

Serkan

[/quote]



A magnified image in an EVF is better and more accurate than any screen - more so with focus peaking.