Argument Against Autofocus

[Likaleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I will concede that autofocus has applications in photography, such as in sports or bird photography (on second thought, better check out the work in sports by Robert Stevens, and Doug Herr's amazingly sharp photographs of birds in flight found elsewhere in this forum.)

 

If one picture is worth a thousand words, the photo spread on pages 58-59 of the November 2007 issue of National Geographic speak eloquently against autofocus. The subject of the photograph and the caption, a woman with pandanus leaves, is center right, out of focus. The palm trees behind her, in the center of the picture, where the autofocus sensor is located, are sharply focused. I doubt if this was intentional.

 

So, do we really need a whole new set of AF R lenses?

[Advertisement]

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

[Riley]

what you need is good AF, not back focussing rubbish

[lct]

1. Focus Lock

2. Recompose

3. Shoot

That's all.

[pascal_meheut]

1. Focus Lock

2. Recompose

3. Shoot

That's all.

 

Indeed. An alternative is: use AF when you can, MF when you need...

Because one can also argue that we do not need motor drives, automatic exposure, matrix metering and so on...

 

Let's all shoot in 4x5"

[mitchell]

Tell me if I'm wrong, I'd really like to know, but my impression is you can't get a shot like this with autofocus. I use prefocus with a lot of misses for this kind of shot, but I'd happily try autofocus if you guys think it would work for this.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

 

 

 

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!

[Likaleica]

Wow! Nice shot, Mitchell. It also supports my point because I'm sure can't get a shot like this with autofocus. Not sure my finger is quick enough to get this picture with MF, either.

 

It seems like it will take a huge amount of capital for Leica to gear up for autofocus, and I know nothing about lens manufacture (other than what I saw at the Leica facility in Solms), but I'm not sure AF can be done on lenses built like tanks they way they do. Seems like you need a lot of plastic in the barrels and polycarbonate in the lens elements. Eg, the Nikon and Canon aspherical elements, for the most part, are molded plastic, not ground glass. How can a tiny little motor inside a lens move heavy glass through brass and aluminum threaded barrels? Maybe an AF like Contax developed but never got to market, where the sensor moves. Then the lenses don't have to be redesigned. I still don't think I would use it much.

[mitchell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Tim. I took a look at your web site. Very nice. Lots of great shots.

 

The shot of the polar bear and cub is one of the best wildlife shots I've ever seen.

 

I lived in Boise for a few years. Good memories of the Payette River.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[krabat]

I think this discussion in the end leads to the question whether a digital R (R10?) should have an autofokus or not. I personally use AF in two or three cases per year, so my personal answer to this question would be the same as it has been written already several times here in this forum: "ONLY if it does not interfere with the handling and the viewfinder quality we have known until now from the R8/9."

 

Regards, Peter.

[ptomsu]

Tell me if I'm wrong, I'd really like to know, but my impression is you can't get a shot like this with autofocus. I use prefocus with a lot of misses for this kind of shot, but I'd happily try autofocus if you guys think it would work for this.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

 

 

 

[ATTACH]58165[/ATTACH]

 

I am saying that you can get much more shots like with with AF. If it i the reight AF and you know how to use it!

[giordano]

Tell me if I'm wrong, I'd really like to know, but my impression is you can't get a shot like this with autofocus. I use prefocus with a lot of misses for this kind of shot, but I'd happily try autofocus if you guys think it would work for this.

 

Nice shot, Mitchell! I doubt whether I'd ever manage it with or without autofocus...

 

I seem to remember from reading manuals or reviews that some DSLRs can be set up to focus at a fixed distance and then take a picture when a moving object reaches that distance. Or rather (presumably) to do what you do in tracking the object and closing the circuit the correct number of milliseconds before the object reaches the focused distance.

[telyt]

1. Focus Lock

2. Recompose

3. Shoot

That's all.

 

With limited DOF this doesn't work, especially when you have a subject and/or camera that isn't bolted to a granite block. Even Canon admits this. In other words AF is accurate enough when DOF is sufficient to cover focussing errors.

 

The only reason Leica needs to incorporate AF into the R9's successor is to sell cameras. The vast majority of photographers are scared of manual focus because they never learned to do it and won't even consider a camera without it.

[mitchell]

Like Doug said.

 

My shot of the Goldfinch in flight was shot at 1/1000 of a second and still the wings blur. At 1/1000, I need to open the aperture pretty far. I shooting from maybe 5 feet. So my dof is very small. I love a bright sun for this.

 

The birds are too fast for me to track so I don't see how an autofocus system can be quick enough to lock on movement.

 

If autofocus can handle that, let me at it, but I'm not convinced.

 

John interesting, the focus trap idea. I wonder if anyone knows more about it.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[telyt]

I am saying that you can get much more shots like with with AF. If it i the reight AF and you know how to use it!

 

It's time for Rick Dykstra to check in: http://leica-users.org/v29/msg06594.html

[Likaleica]

Thanks Tim. I took a look at your web site. Very nice. Lots of great shots.

 

The shot of the polar bear and cub is one of the best wildlife shots I've ever seen.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

 

Thanks, Mitchell. That picture is one of my favorites, also. I couldn't believe my eyes as I was looking through the viewfinder. A really special moment that happened late afternoon on the last and 7th day of my trip without any other bear sightings the entire time.

 

Tim

[pascal_meheut]

And once again, the Leica forum is becoming this strange place where some people are so convinced that AF is useless, harmful even.

 

One can of course wonder if all the photographers using Canon, Nikon, Pentax and the current AF line of Mamiya and Hasselblad are all making out of focus pictures.

 

Or if a picture with the subject in the lowest right corner, taking only a small part of the image and with the rest so overexposed it attracts the eye is an example of what MF can do, I'll switch to AF now...

 

So long. I see no need to keep stuck in the 50s with you guys.

[Guest malland]

Well said Pascal! You've saved me from running over and taking the battery out from my M6 — and I was considering trading it for an M3 and a Weston V meter...Nah I'll stick with my Ricoh GR-D and GX100:

 

 

—Mitch/Paris

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[ptomsu]

It's time for Rick Dykstra to check in: http://leica-users.org/v29/msg06594.html

 

So what ????

[lct]

With limited DOF this doesn't work, especially when you have a subject and/or camera that isn't bolted to a granite block...

I see what you mean Doug of course but you emphasize the problem too much IMHO.

In most cases a good AF proves very useful in practice and with a D2H or even a mere D70 (here with a 300/4) my success rate is not that bad on moving subjects.

But of course i agree that MF lenses should still work perfectly on the R10 and that the latter should have a large and bright viewfinder needless to say.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[telyt]

I think the AF vs. MF argument (it's no longer a discussion) depends a lot on the photographer's goals and objectives. As in Rick's post on the LUG, he got more usable photos with the AF camera and more spectacular photos with the MF camera.

 

I'm interested in spectacular. Nobody's paying me to get usable photos, I'm doing this entirely for myself. If I had deadlines and my competitors were getting more usable photos I'd do whatever it took to get the usable photos I could sell. Lots of people are getting usable photos, I want the spectacular ones.

 

I see what you mean Doug of course but you emphasize the problem too much IMHO

 

Whether my emphasis is too much depends on how often the situation is encountered. For a large object tens of meters away as in your sailboard photo, AF will work well. I'm often working with DOF in a few mm, distances of 3 or 4 meters, and a subject that can be anywhere in the viewfinder from one millisecond to the next:

 

 

Try keeping a sensor on the eye of a hummingbird.

[Likaleica]

Try keeping a sensor on the eye of a hummingbird.

 

Well said.