Is Autofocus as relevant as it is often presumed

[pgk]

Without wishing to start a debate on forthcoming cameras, I'd be interested to know what member's views are on autofocus and its desirability. I've spent the last few years working with dSLRs (and before that film SLRs) all of which featured autofocus of varying abilities and speeds. Having now added an M8 and lenses, I've also adapted a couple of pieces of R glass to use on my FF Canons.

I actually find that I enjoy the benefits of tatile, effective manual focus - as opposed to the rather sloppier manual focus featured on my AF lenses. I've also discovered that it slows me down and I think more about exactly where I want focus to be and that I use depth of field scale (well 2 tops less ones anyway) to more accurately fix what is and what is not in focus. In short, the benefits I find are that I have to engage more in the image making process and my results are more considered as a result.

I wonder whether this is something that others have noticed and whether the benefits of manual focus are somewhat underrated in todays digital world?

[stuny]

Paul -

In my case if I'm using my R8/DMR manual focus is the only possibility. With my D2, which has auto focus, I only use it when I must, such as with flash in a totally dark cave pointed at the ceiling to capture a photo of bats resting (really!), or when shooting from the hip (such as the interior Russian church photos on the 4th page of Paris photos on our site). In the case of my Panasonic version of the C-Lux, my only choice is auto focus. I have another auto focus camera on loan to a dear friend in France -- a Panasonic superzoom. I find that the manual focus on it is so coarse, and the diopter adjustment is too easy to knock out of adjustment that by default I almost always used it on auto focus (An example that many here have seen is on the the 4th page of India photos on our site, Delhi - Camera Ticket Man. Just to its right is an auto focus D2 shot of Barbara consulting the wine list at a restaurant in Delhi -- I set the camera to fully auto and sat it on the table in front of me). In short, auto focus for me is completely based on the situation and equipment and has little or not impact on my shooting choices.

[JBA]

I refuse to use autofocus beyond the level of point & shoot. It may be useful to certain people for certain kinds of photography, but for me it simply robs me of control of the creative process. It also functions very poorly in my experience, and the few times I've used a DSLR, the autofocus has been a major source of frustration.

The intensity of my dislike for autofocus is what drew me to Leica in the first place (and it continues to be a serendipitous journey of discovery). Shooting with strictly manual focus lenses is a tactile joy, and is artistically vastly superior to autofocus.

To answer the original question, beyond point & shoot, autofocus is worse than irrelevant; it is positively detrimental and undesirable. At least this is the case for the type of photography I do.

(Thanks for providing this stage for venting.)

[mooky]

I agree with JBA. There have been very few times when I really had a need for it - it's a tool - but for me it makes everything way to 'frenzied'.

[stunsworth]

If you want to make a living selling consumer p&s and SLR cameras it's essential. I may not want it, you may not want it, but Joe Public does. And there are more Joes than Steves.

[DTD]

Generally I find autofocus pretty good about 70% of the time, I'm also happy using aperture priority exposure say 90% of the time. I find manual focusing without a split image screen a bit difficult.

I find moving autofocus points around on the Olympus E-3 a bit awkward – preferred the fewer focusing points and focus mode lever of the E-1.

I think a lot of this depends on what you're shooting. I know this may be sacrilege on a brand specific forum, but most the time you can give me any old camera and I'll go and take some pictures with it.

[MJLogan]

Complicated multi-point autofocus is much more trouble than it's worth, IMO. Having used manual-focus Olympus OM-1 cameras for many years, I assumed I'd use manual focus almost exclusively when I switched to my Digilux 3. But the D3's famously small viewfinder lacks a split prism, and the single-point autofocus setting is simple and almost always does what I want it to do, so I find that I use it most of the time.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by JBA

I refuse to use autofocus beyond the level of point & shoot. It may be useful to certain people for certain kinds of photography, but for me it simply robs me of control of the creative process. It also functions very poorly in my experience, and the few times I've used a DSLR, the autofocus has been a major source of frustration.

The intensity of my dislike for autofocus is what drew me to Leica in the first place (and it continues to be a serendipitous journey of discovery). Shooting with strictly manual focus lenses is a tactile joy, and is artistically vastly superior to autofocus.

To answer the original question, beyond point & shoot, autofocus is worse than irrelevant; it is positively detrimental and undesirable. At least this is the case for the type of photography I do.

(Thanks for providing this stage for venting.)

Agree 100%. It is an essential artistic decision where to position the plane of focus. I refuse to let a little goblin under the hood of my camera take that decision for me.
Admitting of course that there may be a few applications where it can be of use, but those are few.

[jlancasterd]

Originally Posted by JBA

I refuse to use autofocus beyond the level of point & shoot. It may be useful to certain people for certain kinds of photography, but for me it simply robs me of control of the creative process. It also functions very poorly in my experience, and the few times I've used a DSLR, the autofocus has been a major source of frustration.

The intensity of my dislike for autofocus is what drew me to Leica in the first place (and it continues to be a serendipitous journey of discovery). Shooting with strictly manual focus lenses is a tactile joy, and is artistically vastly superior to autofocus.

To answer the original question, beyond point & shoot, autofocus is worse than irrelevant; it is positively detrimental and undesirable. At least this is the case for the type of photography I do.

(Thanks for providing this stage for venting.)

I agree entirely - it's a major reason for my having an M8, and for hoping that the R10 will allow easy manual focusing with existing R lenses, even if there is a series of new autofocus lenses to go with it.

I've used autofocus DSLRs (the Fuji S1 and S3) and the experience of having the camera dither over the focus for a shot was so frustrating that I sold them as soon as the DMR came out.

[lct]

I often use autofocus personally but i want MF when i need it and i want to use it the same way as i did with film i.e. with the same manual lenses and with interchangeable focus screens giving the same accuracy.
My Nikons cannot do it so far, the D700 won't probably be better, the D3 is too big for me, so my hopes lie in the R10 or the forthcoming FF Sony if Leica does not allow me to use my R lenses confortably. The little Pentax K20D could be a cool option as well.

[Iron Flatline]

I like AF for shooting the kids at birthday parties and things like that. A lot of parents like the shallow DOF look for images of their kids, and the Canon 24-70 L at f/2.8 is quite nice for that.

[stnami]

auto focus stifling artistic abilities of a photographer and instrumental in sapping all the creative juices, what a lot of feeble minded bullshit. Face recognition hopefully will be improved to the extent that one can verbally ask the lens where to automatically focus

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by stnami

auto focus stifling artistic abilities of a photographer and instrumental in sapping all the creative juices, what a lot of feeble minded bullshit. Face recognition hopefully will be improved to the extent that one can verbally ask the lens where to automatically focus

Or read our minds. Hopefully focus does not dither too much then

[stnami]

yea it probably will have selective hearing so the mind stuff will come first ,

Product Overview

[AlanG]

I think the term "auutofocus" is too vague and is often mis-applied. Most people seem to interpret that to mean the camera controls the focus. And perhaps many people use AF this way.

I and many other pros set the autofocus so it only activates when we push the top rear button that has been re-assigned to AF (on Canons.) I guess Nikons are similar. Thus what we really have is electronic manual focussing. And it offers just as much control for choosing the plane of focus as any other method. But it is much much faster. I usually use the center point and re-frame but sometimes I select another point. The only time I use actual autofocus is with action.

I have been shooting with every type of camera for more than 40 years and I get a vastly greater percentage of images focused on my intended point with "manual" AF than I did with any other system. (Well I guess I was close to 100% on a view camera with static usbjects, but that was taking my time, using a loupe and a focusing cloth.)

I

[gwelland]

I find that I don't use auto-focus much on my Nikon gear. However, I DO find AF focus confirmation very useful sometimes when I'm manually focussing. Nothing beats the level of control and feedback of a nicely weighted MF lens. When I do use AF I also use the AF select button on my D3 and custom set up the camera to only use this vs partial shutter button press.

As Steve mentioned earlier though, it definitely the case that AF sells cameras. Lack of AF limits the market significantly. I would wager that the majority of folks on this forum fit into an 'atypical' market segment compared to Joe Public so I'm sure our views are somewhat skewed.

AF lenses with electronic aperture selection are an abomination in my book - I much prefer the manual aperture ring too but these days that's becoming less and less of an option for AF DSLR systems.

I'm very happy that my M systems are all as manual as can be. For DSLR I like to have an option.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Apparently none of you shoot moving subjects under difficult conditions. The last time I shot from the back of a boat, pitching in 2-foot waves, I can tell you that auto focus was a necessity. Hand holding the camera, framing the shot, and using a zoom to follow the boats were about all you could do manually.

Likewise, shooting other events like cutting horse competitions, keeping the horses and riders framed; and following the action with the zoom to keep the shot composed as well as possible is all you can do - auto focus makes all the difference in those type of situations.

Granted, if you're using the camera on a tripod, taking flower pictures, or another stunning original composition of a mountain reflecting in a lake....auto focus is not needed.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

Apparently none of you shoot moving subjects under difficult conditions. The last time I shot from the back of a boat, pitching in 2-foot waves, I can tell you that auto focus was a necessity. Hand holding the camera, framing the shot, and using a zoom to follow the boats were about all you could do manually.

Likewise, shooting other events like cutting horse competitions, keeping the horses and riders framed; and following the action with the zoom to keep the shot composed as well as possible is all you can do - auto focus makes all the difference in those type of situations.

Granted, if you're using the camera on a tripod, taking flower pictures, or another stunning original composition of a mountain reflecting in a lake....auto focus is not needed.

You are right. There are no photographs of the subjects you mention made before 1995.....

"absolute neccesity"is obviously overstating the case. AF can be a handy tool in action photography, especially for reporters who are under pressure to produce something-never-mind-as-long-as-it-is-halfway-decent to make a living, but it does tend to make things hit and miss to get the focus plane exactly right. There are many wildlife photograpers who prefer manual focus for flying birds, running animals etc. for just this reason.

[rosuna]

When you have to photograph 50 shoes with different lighting and positions, you need AF. The work is done much faster, and it is more relaxed.

I think Leica will go for a medium format autofocus system. There is no alternative profitable in the long term.

[thomasl.se]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

Granted, if you're using the camera on a tripod, taking flower pictures, or another stunning original composition of a mountain reflecting in a lake....auto focus is not needed.

You mean sort of like a mirror lake then; no waves, bo boats, not too much going on?