[davidmanze]

Great example, seriously. Personally, I find the Z viewfinders (any EVF, to be honest) extremely annoying in bright daylight or any high contrast scenario, since they give such a weird image. I would personally always rely on focus and recompose and an OVF, for sure. No issues at all with that approach, either, for decades now.

Now, does that prove one of us right or wrong? Certainly not. There is a system that fits your needs and wishes, and there is another one fitting mine. Why does it need an ongoing and never ending battle to prove the other side wrong or inferior?

   You see how easy it is to get sucked back in again Markus !!   

[mst]

BS.

Can we handle this in a civilized way, pls?

My intention is not to prove anything right or wrong, but there are certain gaps in your reasoning which don't work out well in reality.

Ah, well... my grandma used to say: 'No, I'm not curious, I just want to know everything!'.

You don't see that you're doing it again, don't you? Let me help you: there are gaps in my reasoning which don't work out in YOUR reality, or to be more precise: my approach just doesn't work for you. Cool. Just as your approach doesn't work for me. No big deal, really. I'm perfectly fine with that.

But then why on hell do you still claim that my approach doesn't work for me either? No, I'm not stuck in the 6-8 MP range or in the past in any way. Focus and recompose, for my kind of subjects (not yours) worked and still works perfectly well, even on the D850.

[JJ_SO]

...And because the AF misses are due to different wavelengths focusing differently, and lenses do not have the same aberrations over the whole focus range and even less so over the whole zoom range, AFMA is even less helpful.

    I'm not sure what world I live in ..... and I don't have any super optical technical knowledge ........ but you always come up with theories, (which could be technically right no doubt)  ..... that I struggle to align with my own experiences. 
Nikon has not a flawed system..... and as JoJu says ..... most of his lenses needed AFFT and the result is fine ...... so all I can conclude is these theories just don't apply themselves in any meaningful way to my shooting.
  If DSLRs didn't have AFFT I would have dumped them years ago!!
  --
 JoJu, the Tamron has trouble at 600mm@ F6.3 to achieve focus on the outer corner points (D500) .... this is normal ....... not great, but normal.

I would appreciate that you put quotes and author right - what you quoted was said by BC, not by me. I just quoted a part of his post, see here: https://forum.opticallimits.com/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=50530#pid50530 last paragraph... I just don't know how to name the author when I quote a single sentence instead of getting longer and longer quote-packed posts. Anyway, I think I got what you wanted to say.

I don't say, the result of AF fine-tuning is fine or more reliable - the fine-tuning doesn't change much of the reliability, but if it hits the spot, it's a least not front- or back-focusing. Whereas proper focus with AFFT is, at least wide open, mots of the time a lucky guess with most lenses.

And it was not the 150-600, but the 100-400 is not faster at the long end than the 150-600. If you don't use the outer focus-points but one of the cross-types it gets more reliable. That's not because the lens is and, that's only because Nikon puts an artificial limit on most of the focus-points. IF aperture <f/5.6, THEN DON'T AF or however programmers will text it.

[davidmanze]

...And because the AF misses are due to different wavelengths focusing differently, and lenses do not have the same aberrations over the whole focus range and even less so over the whole zoom range, AFMA is even less helpful.

    I'm not sure what world I live in ..... and I don't have any super optical technical knowledge ........ but you always come up with theories, (which could be technically right no doubt)  ..... that I struggle to align with my own experiences. 
Nikon has not a flawed system..... and as JoJu says ..... most of his lenses needed AFFT and the result is fine ...... so all I can conclude is these theories just don't apply themselves in any meaningful way to my shooting.
  If DSLRs didn't have AFFT I would have dumped them years ago!!
  --
 JoJu, the Tamron has trouble at 600mm@ F6.3 to achieve focus on the outer corner points (D500) .... this is normal ....... not great, but normal.

I would appreciate that you put quotes and author right - what you quoted was said by BC, not by me. I just quoted a part of his post, see here: https://forum.opticallimits.com/showthread.php?tid=4699&pid=50530#pid50530 last paragraph... I just don't know how to name the author when I quote a single sentence instead of getting longer and longer quote-packed posts. Anyway, I think I got what you wanted to say.

I don't say, the result of AF fine-tuning is fine or more reliable - the fine-tuning doesn't change much of the reliability, but if it hits the spot, it's a least not front- or back-focusing. Whereas proper focus with AFFT is, at least wide open, mots of the time a lucky guess with most lenses.

And it was not the 150-600, but the 100-400 is not faster at the long end than the 150-600. If you don't use the outer focus-points but one of the cross-types it gets more reliable. That's not because the lens is and, that's only because Nikon puts an artificial limit on most of the focus-points. IF aperture <f/5.6, THEN DON'T AF or however programmers will text it.

I didn't say it it changed the reliability either ..... but it does change the point of focus ..... within it's reliability.

......... and I know it was the 100-400mm is not faster at the long end ....... they are both F6.3 ...... which is why I said it!

[JJ_SO]

... I would personally always rely on focus and recompose and an OVF, for sure. No issues at all with that approach, either, for decades now.

Now, does that prove one of us right or wrong? Certainly not. There is a system that fits your needs and wishes, and there is another one fitting mine. Why does it need an ongoing and never ending battle to prove the other side wrong or inferior?

Read it again. Then tell me, if it's clear from your sentence that you say "for my pictures focus and recomposing works perfectly" or if it can be read - like I did, because you didn't care to specify for whose needs it works - like "in general and for all subjects focusing and recomposing works and I personally rely on" (so everybody else also can rely on).

Can I see some of your sports pictures, stage pictures, kids in play, some birds in flight where this method was even remotely successful? You don't need to wonder when I call this statement BS because you were sloppy and generalized something. And after that you just made the jump to the systems...

I think we agree that on each system we can get proper focus? My point is not to prove one system is reliable, the other not. It's about feasibility, ease of use and getting good results with less attempts.

And I just tried your "focus-and-recompose" technique. It doesn't work* and you lie to yourself. No problem with that, but if you publish these kind of misleading stuff, I will continue to call it BS, not matter what, because it's wrong. Especially because the recomposition can bring metering issues into your shot, depending at which moment the camera meters.

*Try for yourself: take the Z 7, put the focus point with the 85/1.8 @f/1.8 into center. Aim at a structure within a 1.5 m range. Recompose and bring the structure into one corner. Repeat that shot but this time move the AF-spot to this corner. Aim again and shoot. Now compare. Which is sharper? Not your recomposed, I bet.

And if I'm doing it again with a lens with more field curvature, I get into deeper troubles with this technique. That was okay when there were only 5 or 9 focus points available, but only because we had no choice. Now we have. Denying that leads to troubles.

You can always go back to equivalence-discussions.

---

I didn't say it it changed the reliability either ..... but it does change the point of focus ..... within it's reliability.

......... and I know it was the 100-400mm is not faster at the long end ....... they are both F6.3 ...... which is why I said it!

Got it.

[mst]

Read it again. Then tell me, if it's clear from your sentence that you say "for my pictures focus and recomposing works perfectly"

Very clear to me, if I mention that "I" "personally" do prefer a certain approach, in the context of YOUR example. If you want to read it differently, your issue, not mine. Still no reason trying to prove me wrong, which was my actual point, as it should be clear from the whole context of my posts on this topic.

And now, beyond trying to educate me on focusing techniques you actually dare to educate me on how I have to phrase my posts, to make you don't read them wrong? And seriously claim proofs that my technique works for me?

Well, there's a website, publicly available, where you can see some of the images I shot. Feel free to explore them. Most of my FB profile is public, too. Otherwise I stand by what I said: this is not about doing things right or wrong. It's about NOT telling others that what they're doing and works for them is wrong, just because it doesn't work for you. And I would honestly prefer if you stopped it now.

---

*Try for yourself: take the Z 7, put the focus point with the 85/1.8 @f/1.8 into center. Aim at a structure within a 1.5 m range. Recompose and bring the structure into one corner. Repeat that shot but this time move the AF-spot to this corner. Aim again and shoot. Now compare. Which is sharper? Not your recomposed, I bet.

Of course it isn't. Simple geometry. But why on earth would I want to shoot something wide open that close with 85mm?

Do the same at 500 mm @f/4 and 30 meters. Or 100 or 200 meters. Or with 400mm @f/6.3. Works perfectly fine.

Know your tools, know their limitations. And if necessary, work around them. It's as simple as that.

[Brightcolours]

When I do focus and recompose, I tend to not put a subject which is 1.5 meters away in the corner of 85mm f1.8 images.... A bit of a stretch as example.

With subjects in corners, usually it is in a bigger scene (wider angle and/or further away).

In the portrait lens example, you do not put the eye in the corner of the image, but perhaps just outside the limited AF area of your FF DSLR. In that situation, the outer AF point does not quite reach the subject. Selecting the outer AF point closest and then recomposing in a further than 1.5m example will result in a much smaller angle of rotation than your " center point to corner at 1.5m" scenario, and will get the subject into focus.

You have a valid point where field curvature is concerned. With a lens with strong field curvature, focus and recompose is a recipe for disaster (Hello, Canon FL 55mm f1.2). You can't rely on AF points in such a situation, and have to judge focus in a different manner (without recomposing).

[Kunzite]

    I'm not sure what world I live in ..... and I don't have any super optical technical knowledge ........ but you always come up with theories, (which could be technically right no doubt)  ..... that I struggle to align with my own experiences.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't ;-)

[JJ_SO]

Well, there's a website, publicly available, where you can see some of the images I shot. Feel free to explore them. Most of my FB profile is public, too. Otherwise I stand by what I said: this is not about doing things right or wrong. It's about NOT telling others that what they're doing and works for them is wrong, just because it doesn't work for you. And I would honestly prefer if you stopped it now.

---

*Try for yourself: take the Z 7, put the focus point with the 85/1.8 @f/1.8 into center. Aim at a structure within a 1.5 m range. Recompose and bring the structure into one corner. Repeat that shot but this time move the AF-spot to this corner. Aim again and shoot. Now compare. Which is sharper? Not your recomposed, I bet.

Of course it isn't. Simple geometry. But why on earth would I want to shoot something wide open that close with 85mm?

Do the same at 500 mm @f/4 and 30 meters. Or 100 or 200 meters. Or with 400mm @f/6.3. Works perfectly fine.

Know your tools, know their limitations. And if necessary, work around them. It's as simple as that.

If you hadn't set the last blurb under your post, I would have stopped. Who's lecturing now? Who dares to imply I don't know my tools?

The website you're talking about is PZ's smugmug page, right? I'm not on FaceBook, but looking at all the super-static shots in the sample pictures I do not wonder why "in your photography you can rely on focus and recompose". I mentioned it a couple of times now, that this technique just doesn't work in dynamic situations - it also doesn't work when the object leaves the comparatively small region of focus points - talking about FF bodies. This region is limiting all the time, denying or ignoring it doesn't help. But feel free to go on with static shots and if you believe your technique is of any help with them, keep on thinking that way.

[toni-a]

I already opened a thread about this but nobody was enthusiast like now....
https://forum.opticallimits.com/showthread.php?tid=3975
and it's after some reads that I decided to get a mirrorless body
i still use both SLR and mirrrorless, Canon and Sony and have no specific preference
Back to fast primes AFMA will give you more accuracy, precision depends on every camera body/lens specifications, for mirrorless cameras accuracy is not an issue since the sensor itself is used for autofocus.
for portraits with a fast prime you can focus and recompose on a SLR but the very thin DOF will decrease your hit rate even the slightest move of the subject (or your hand) will lead to a miss....
never said you can't with a DSLR. just the hit rate will be lower or you will see yourself forced to alter composition as to have the AF point on the eye