Does AF make you lazy?

[Gelatino]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'd like to see it! Why not add a link to your signature, as many of us do.

+1

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sillbeers15]

AF should be seen as an enhancement or broadiening of a camera's focusing options. I almostly entirely rely on AF for tracking fast motion subjects as BIF and fighter jets fly by. Using manual focus just makes such shooting too difficult and contributes low success rate. However certain situations of motion subject such as capturing race cars on race circuits, a prefocused MF is my choice over AF. For macro and landscape shooting, AF is just redundant to me. Potraits and people subject, AF works well for me on SL2.

My mindset is to optimise the camera and use it to the best of my photography needs rather than to conclude which focusing method is more superior than the other.

[michali]

8 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

..........My mindset is to optimise the camera and use it to the best of my photography needs rather than to conclude which focusing method is more superior than the other.

Well said.  I agree with you, depending on each different situation,  options and choices are good to have.

[verwackelt]

Af in Landscape or macro makes me crazy…
I like MF more.

[Susapix]

On 1/8/2020 at 10:46 AM, evikne said:

I migrated to Leica M because I love to control all settings manually, including focus. If I for example want to focus on something behind a fence or between some branches, it is just as simple as anywhere else (that would not have been the case with AF).

And I love to know that all my pictures have their focus placed exactly where I wanted, because it was done with complete consciousness.

Perfectly easy to do with autofocus, once you understand it. Just lock focus on the fence then recompose the image. Not all that different from what you do with manual focus.

[evikne]

4 minutes ago, Susapix said:

Perfectly easy to do with autofocus, once you understand it. Just lock focus on the fence then recompose the image. Not all that different from what you do with manual focus.

I said behind a fence. How likely is the AF point to hit what you want if there for example is a fence with a tight grid pattern in front of it?

[Susapix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/10/2020 at 5:18 AM, pippy said:

Good question. Perhaps more than we might guess?

I suppose it would depend on their background / introduction to photography / training / experience in shooting. For us old farts it's probably easy as many of us grew up with fully manual gear so became very familiar with what exposure would typically be set on a bright, sunny day using, say, ISO 100 film as we did it so often. For the 'Millenials' it might be quite a different situation.

Having said that I do know quite a number of kids in their young-to-mid-teens who are far more interested in going back to using mechanical analogue cameras purely for the fun of doing 'Real Photography' than using digi-point'n'shoot compacts. My own daughter (who is now a 15-y-o) started taking weekend photography classes a couple of years ago and asked for a mechanical camera for her Xmas that year. I picked up half-a-dozen (don't ask!) old Nikkormats from the 'net (FTn & FT2) and assorted lenses, gave her the pick of the bunch and she's absolutely loving it! I was also surprised and impressed by the structure of the lessons she is attending; they really did go right back to basics - including things like using printing-out-paper, cyanotypes and photograms, and receiving a full involvement in all aspects of the analogue process. After our first Daddy-Daughter Shooting Day (I used my old Nikon F / Standard Prism) I thought, looking at the contact sheets of the five rolls, that one of her rolls was mine. Either she's better than she had any right to be or I'm worse than I should be...🤔...I've also just given the (13-y-o) son of a friend one of the other Nikkormats because his parents mentioned that he, too, was wanting to learn "..the proper way to take photographs.." and he is absolutely over the moon with the whole experience.

Perhaps the future is brighter than might be imagined?!

Philip.

Yes, but it is a bit like learning to drive a horse and carriage. It's not totally esoteric. Quite a few people do it. And it provides an aesthetic experience that is lovely and very different from driving an automobile. But in terms of taking us from point A to point B it is perhaps more time intensive than most of us can afford, especially when you consider the effort that goes into maintaining the horse. Does the automobile make us lazy? Well, yes. And no. It depends on how you define lazy. And so with autofocus, or digital photography, or, heck, with photography itself. Perhaps we should all go back to pen and paper.

[Susapix]

13 minutes ago, evikne said:

I said behind a fence. How likely is the AF point to hit what you want if there for example is a fence with a tight grid pattern in front of it?

But what you meant was through a fence.

As long a you can actually see something through the fence you should be able to auto focus on it. Through a tight, tight screen - like a window screen - might be more difficult, especially for some of the earlier autofocus systems.

It's not as if the camera totally takes over. You have complete control on where the autofocus focusses, either by moving the camera a bit or by selecting a particular focus point. Manual focus is very similar. There is usually a small portion of the view screen that you use to focus. Then you reposition the camera to compose the shot. Both require mastery. And, when mastered, both can become so natural that they almost disappear.

[evikne]

6 minutes ago, Susapix said:

But what you meant was through a fence.

As long a you can actually see something through the fence you should be able to auto focus on it. Through a tight, tight screen - like a window screen - might be more difficult, especially for some of the earlier autofocus systems.

It's not as if the camera totally takes over. You have complete control on where the autofocus focusses, either by moving the camera a bit or by selecting a particular focus point. Manual focus is very similar. There is usually a small portion of the view screen that you use to focus. Then you reposition the camera to compose the shot. Both require mastery. And, when mastered, both can become so natural that they almost disappear.

I have been photographing for many years with AF cameras, shallow DoF and recomposing, so I know very well how to do it. But after using Leica and MF for some years now, I know I will never go back. At least not as long as my vision allows.

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Susapix said:

Yes, but it is a bit like learning to drive a horse and carriage. It's not totally esoteric. Quite a few people do it. And it provides an aesthetic experience that is lovely and very different from driving an automobile. But in terms of taking us from point A to point B it is perhaps more time intensive than most of us can afford, especially when you consider the effort that goes into maintaining the horse. Does the automobile make us lazy? Well, yes. And no. It depends on how you define lazy. And so with autofocus, or digital photography, or, heck, with photography itself. Perhaps we should all go back to pen and paper.

You've completely lost me, Susapix.

What point were you trying to argue? Brevity would be nice.

Philip.

[pippy]

14 hours ago, Susapix said:

Yes, but it is a bit like learning to drive a horse and carriage. It's not totally esoteric. Quite a few people do it. And it provides an aesthetic experience that is lovely and very different from driving an automobile....

If what you are saying is that there are many ways and papproaches to the taking of photographs; many varied ways to enjoy photography and many reasons to be taking photographs in the first place - all of which are valid - then I completely agree with you. Similarly the expereince of driving to the supermarket to do the weekly shop will provide a different aesthetic than galloping around the wilds on the back of a horse. Both involve locomotion; both use different mechanisms to achieve their end and both are as valid as the other.

Variety is nice.

Philip.

[jaapv]

15 hours ago, Susapix said:

But what you meant was through a fence.

As long a you can actually see something through the fence you should be able to auto focus on it. Through a tight, tight screen - like a window screen - might be more difficult, especially for some of the earlier autofocus systems.

It's not as if the camera totally takes over. You have complete control on where the autofocus focusses, either by moving the camera a bit or by selecting a particular focus point. Manual focus is very similar. There is usually a small portion of the view screen that you use to focus. Then you reposition the camera to compose the shot. Both require mastery. And, when mastered, both can become so natural that they almost disappear.

Can you? Try moving branches in front of an animal - to start with, AF struggles to focus on fur, and when you wave structures around in front of your subject... Well,

[jaapv]

Like thi

16 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Can you? Try moving branches in front of an animal - to start with, AF struggles to focus on fur, and when you wave structures around in front of your subject... Well,

Like this. Impossible using AF

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[michali]

26 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Like this. Impossible using AF

To Jaap's point - AF is useless in situations like these   -Sony Alpha & Leica VE 105-280mm f4.2 with Leitax Mount.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by michali

[evikne]

With manual focus there is never any switching between different AF modes or AF points, which might save you valuable time. Regardless of situation it's always the same procedure, always just as simple and straight forward. 

And the same kind of benefits apply to manual setting of exposure as well.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, michali said:

To Jaap's point - AF is useless in situations like these   -Sony Alpha & Leica VE 105-280mm f4.2 with Leitax Mount.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

If these images are full frame, my Nikons would have no problem with AF (to clarify: AF does not mean that camera picks where to focus in the frame).

Edited January 18, 2020 by SrMi

[jaapv]

They would not:

For the top shot: If there is a wind (probably was, that is fairly normal), the leaves would be moving back and forth in front of the (moving) eye of the Leopard; Leopards are watchful animals and will keep scanning their surroundings. Mike needed to pick the decisive moment: Leopard looking at him, leaves clear. The camera could have focused anywhere... By the time you would have managed to position your focus point, the shot would have been long gone.

 The same below: That Leopard was moving; where would you have aimed your focus point in that field of detail? Now it was easy: prefocus on the spot where you know the Leopard will be (Mike is a safari guide, remember) wait, and push the shutter at the right moment. The guests in the vehicle will still be fiddling their joysticks and missing the shot...

AF is a good system in a considerable number of circumstances, but in another number of circumstances it is not - it is up to the photographer to hone his skills with both and know when to use which.

[pippy]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

AF is a good system in a considerable number of circumstances, but in another number of circumstances it is not - it is up to the photographer to hone his skills with both and know when to use which.

This.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[michali]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

If these images are full frame, my Nikons would have no problem with AF (to clarify: AF does not mean that camera picks where to focus in the frame).

These images are full frame. I have to disagree with you, there's no AF system that can cope with the layers of variables in these situations, which  range from moving animals, wind & foliage getting in the way......

I always use spot focus and always aim my focus at the animal's eyes. I have countless images where the AF has focused just off the animal's eyes and I've had to bin the images. There's no question in my mind that you're far more in control and just about guaranteed to get the shot by using MF in these types of situations. Don't forget, that  with these long telephotos we're dealing with very thin depth of field, and focus can be off by a few millimetres and ruin an image.

AF is great in some situations, in others it simply won't work. There are no absolutes, no right or wrong. As Jaap said, it's entirely up to the photographer to know which approach or method  (AF or MF) is the best to use, in order to capture the shot.

Edited January 18, 2020 by michali

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, michali said:

These images are full frame. I have to disagree with you, there's no AF system that can cope with the layers of variables in these situations, which  range from moving animals, wind & foliage getting in the way......

AF is great in some situations, in others it simply won't work. There are no absolutes, no right or wrong. As Jaap said, it's entirely up to the photographer to know which approach or method  (AF or MF) is the best to use, in order to capture the shot.

Using single focus point (moved with joystick to the right place) and focus area about the size of leopard’s nose: there is nothing in the focus area to confuse the AF. It is much more difficult in Jaap’s example. You are not letting the camera determine where to focus, tree or animal, are you?