Argument Against Autofocus

[mitchell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What Doug said.

 

I have no argument with auto focus. I'd like to have it on the R 10, IF THE MANUAL FOCUS/VIEWFINDER IS NOT COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY.

 

In some situations, autofocus doesn't work as well as manual. This is not a crusade, but a fact.

 

For a pro, as Doug said, autofocus is going to make more sense most of the time for most people, although not for Robert Stevens, Conrad, and others whose results is hard to argue with.

 

Great pictures are taken both ways. The argument part is silly.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[lct]

...Try keeping a sensor on the eye of a hummingbird.

OK Doug but the question is not to know if we want AF or MF as clear as i understand but if it is possible to get AF + MF. If you think it is impossible, or difficult, i would be much interested to know why. Otherwise, we all agree here no?

[Angora]

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.

 

Be careful not to become just like those guys on other forums who don't even consider thinking about analog cameras ("analog and MF? How come is it possible??? How can people use non-AF cameras??? Must be a joke, innit'???").

[FastFashnReloaded]

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.

 

Ummm... Actually Contax DID bring that to market on one of their film cameras.

 

The Contax AX

[Likaleica]

My thought in starting this forum was to explore how necessary AF is to folks, because it seems to me that it will require a major revision in how Leica lenses are made. And is that what people want? Do Leica R users want AF? Is it worth retooling? I didn't intend this to be an argument in the emotional sense, but rather a debate of sorts. It's all moot, of course, because Leica will do what they will do, and while we're waiting we can vent our ideas.

[telyt]

OK Doug but the question is not to know if we want AF or MF as clear as i understand but if it is possible to get AF + MF. If you think it is impossible, or difficult, i would be much interested to know why. Otherwise, we all agree here no?

 

AF viewfinders are optimized for brightness because the semi-silvered mirror diverts so much light to the AF system. Brightness does not equate to ease of manual focus, as anyone with a Leicaflex Standard will tell you who has tried to use the region outside the central microprism area. Contrast along with brightness and magnification and a distortion-free view to the corners of the screen are the recipe for a good manual-focus viewfinder. AF cameras sacrifice the contrast and magnification if they have adequate brightness.

 

The properties of a good viewfinder for manual focus include brightness, contrast, magnification and distortion-free optics. AF cameras sacrifice some or several of these properties in order to provide enough light to the AF system. The Leicaflex SL is the gold standard. The R cameras are pretty good, especially an R4x with an R5 or later screen or the R8/R9, but still not up to the SL or SL2 level of quality. With the SL or SL2 manual focus is quick and accurate anywhere on the screen, even the extreme corners. It doesn't need pre-defined focussing points, the entire screen is good for focussing: Focus-(Lock)-Recompose is a kludge and a waste of time when focussing as-composed is easy.

 

I have no argument with auto focus. I'd like to have it on the R 10, IF THE MANUAL FOCUS/VIEWFINDER IS NOT COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY

 

I agree completely. Especially the stuff in ALL CAPS.

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

auto all sounds fine......even the shutter

[lct]

....The properties of a good viewfinder for manual focus include brightness, contrast, magnification and distortion-free optics. AF cameras sacrifice some or several of these properties in order to provide enough light to the AF system...

Got it Doug thanks but do you take into account the electric or electronic brightness of current DSLR's optical viewfinders? I mean when removing the batteries out of the latters the VF looks dim but it looks much brighter as soon as i put the battery on again. Maybe i'm missing a lot of things here but i wonder if that electronic (or whatever) brightness could somewhat compensate the loss of light due to the AF system.

[telyt]

Got it Doug thanks but do you take into account the electric or electronic brightness of current DSLR's optical viewfinders? I mean when removing the batteries out of the latters the VF looks dim but it looks much brighter as soon as i put the battery on again. Maybe i'm missing a lot of things here but i wonder if that electronic (or whatever) brightness could somewhat compensate the loss of light due to the AF system.

 

Unless the mirror's transmission/reflectance ratio is changing with electrical input I don't see how this would benefit. Brightness alone isn't the issue. What camera does this? Have you used an SL?

[rick_dykstra]

I thought I could feel my ears burning ...

 

I was out today with my manual focus gear, shooting bower birds with a 400/4 and R8. Again, for this type of photography manual focus was perfect. It's the freedom to focus anywhere on the ground glass whilst simultaineously composing that works so well. In most shots the birds had their heads half turned towards me and autofocus simply would not have focussed where it needed to. So, manual focus (although mentally taxing) works best in this application. I was thinking today - this is where Leica excels.

 

Now, the reason I also have an F5 and 300 is because it was just way too mentally taxing to shoot soccer action with the R8 and a 280 or 400. And my keeper to scrap ratio wasn't high enough. It was only when I got the F5 that I appreciated the benefits of a good autofocus. For sports action - it's wonderful. But on many occasions I would overide the auto and go manual - fair enough.

 

And then I started shooting model aeroplanes - those guys love pics of their planes in flight - and normally can't get them. So I started with the F5, thinking it would be ideal. Nope - it was just too tricky keeping the sensor where it needed to be as the tiny dot of an aeroplace rapidly grew. Composition was hell - the autofocus would lose the plot. So, dissapointed, I switched to R8 and manual focus, and by surprise it was much easier. I just kept jinking the focus closer and waited 'till the size was nearly ideal, allowed the plane to fly into focus, composing as it did and shot. Keeper rate was much better than with autofocus, surprisingly.

 

Horses for courses. With birds feeding or splasing or sitting, showing off their beautiful plumage or simply nailed to the perch, manual focus wins in my book. For sports work - the Leicas are for team photos only.

 

Now let's develop this into an 'argument against digital' thread! Today while I was sitting behind my rig a guy came up to talk, with a 5D in hand, with some zoom bomb fitted to it. He was scouting for a place to take wedding pics in a bush setting next week. I rattled off a few good spots and showed him some pics on my laptop as examples. I watched as he walked off to check a few of my suggestions. But instead of thinking, looking, crouching, holding up his fingers to guage fields of view, measuring lighting ratios, considering backgrounds, etc, ... he just snapped digital pics and started chimping. He wasn't looking at the scene - he was looking at the back of his camera. I thought - this is why people are losing the ability to 'see' good scenes before they shoot. They shoot first and ask questions of the histogram later. I'm not sure that's a good development, but then I'm not the best person to judge, being a tranny shooter still.

 

Regards, Rick.

[lct]

Doug: I've used a SL2 couple of decades ago but its VF was not dim w/o battery as far as i remember

Rick: Great to know your experience thanks but IMHO the question is to know if we can have AF + MF without compromising MF actually. Current R lenses are MF and will stay so aren't they. Then assuming that the R10 will have the same kind of VF as your R8's why would it be impossible or difficult to have AF lenses working with this body as well? Nobody would be forced to buy those AF lenses anyway no?

[telyt]

... the electric or electronic brightness of current DSLR's optical viewfinders? I mean when removing the batteries out of the latters the VF looks dim but it looks much brighter as soon as i put the battery on again.

 

Another thought on this... I don't see how electrical power would affect an optical viewfinder, is it possible that putting the battery in the camera opens the lens' diaphragm?

 

Then assuming that the R10 will have the same kind of VF as your R8's

 

This assumption is questionable. Adding AF capability to a camera means taking light away from the viewfinder.

[lct]

...is it possible that putting the battery in the camera opens the lens' diaphragm?...

I doubt if the diaphragm plays any role in this but how come that those optical VFs are brighter when there is a battery in the cam? Just wondering.

[telyt]

I doubt if the diaphragm plays any role in this but how come that those optical VFs are brighter when there is a battery in the cam? Just wondering.

 

First you'll have to specify what camera it is that does this. The auto-diaphragm opening with battery power seems like the most logical explanation especially if the camera has an electrically-operated diaphragm i.e. a Canon EOS.

[giordano]

First you'll have to specify what camera it is that does this. The auto-diaphragm opening with battery power seems like the most logical explanation especially if the camera has an electrically-operated diaphragm i.e. a Canon EOS.

 

My Nikon D200 does this and it definitely has nothing to do with the diaphragm.

 

With the battery removed, there appears to be a plain coarse ground glass. The image is dim and (using a manual focus lens) always more or less blurred. Insert the battery and without turning the camera on (a) the image brightens by (I guess) two or three stops, ( the position markers for the AF points and centre-weighted meter appear and © you can focus like a normal ground-glass+condenser screen.

 

I guess there's a LCD layer in or just above the 'ground glass' which is used for the AF markers and the optional grid (like a Type E screen) and whose optical qualities change according to whether it's getting any power or not.

[lct]

First you'll have to specify what camera it is that does this. The auto-diaphragm opening with battery power seems like the most logical explanation especially if the camera has an electrically-operated diaphragm i.e. a Canon EOS.

Just checked with a D70 and a MF lens here.

Setting the diaphragm manually to f/5.6 (pic) the VF is dim w/o battery and becomes bright as soon as i put the battery in the body no matter if i switch on or off the latter.

 

[AlanG]

This assumption is questionable. Adding AF capability to a camera means taking light away from the viewfinder.

 

How much light is lost to the AF and is this really significant? Does anyone have any detailed information about this? I use photogrey eyeglasses and have never felt the need to remove them when shooting.

[telyt]

My Nikon D200 does this and it definitely has nothing to do with the diaphragm.

 

In my admittedly limited experience with the D200 I was VERY unimpressed with its manual-focus capability (with battery inserted). "VERY unimpressed" is a gross understatement. My uncensored response is not printable in a public forum.

[AlanG]

In my admittedly limited experience with the D200 I was VERY unimpressed with its manual-focus capability (with battery inserted). "VERY unimpressed" is a gross understatement. My uncensored response is not printable in a public forum.

 

I have never used a D200 but .Canon full frame AF cameras are supposed to work much better with manual focusing when you use the screen that is optimized for manual focusing rather than the standard AF optimized screen. (I don't see any reason why you couldn't have a good matte surface with split image and/or microprism on a replacement screen for a future Leica AF camera.) Keep in mind that the D200 is a 1.55X crop camera so it will be hard to make a large bright image that is comparable to that of a full frame camera.

 

Also, as for the post that said the aspherical elements in Canon and Nikon lenses are made of molded plastic, that is not exactly so.

 

Canon has some aspherical elements that are made of glass that is ground and polished in the normal way, some that are molded and polished glass and some that use a hard aspherical resin molded over a spherical glass lens.

 

Each of the three aspherical elements in the 16-35 II is a different type - according to this description:

 

It features 3 high-precision aspherical lens elements, each of a different type: ground, replica and GMo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[telyt]

... Canon ful frame AF cameras are supposed to work much better with manual focusing when you use the screen that is optimized for manual focusing rather than the standard AF optimized screen. (I haven't tried it but I don't see any reason why you couldn't have a good matte surface with split image and/or microprism on a replacement screen for a futue Leica AF camera.)

 

A similar discussion is under way on another list... the best of the Canon FF viewfinders are said to be comparable to the R6/R7, which are a cut below the R8/R9, which are a cut below the SL/SL2. I'm not a fan of split-image focussing aids, as they black out with the f/6.8 Telyts especially with an extender and my subjects never hold still long enough to find a vertical line to focus on, especially one in the same plane of focus as the eye... the split-image thingie mostly gets in the way. Microprisms are OK as long as they don't black out, and if they're like the microprisms over the bulk of the viewscreen image (instead of matte) like the SL and tiny enough to be invisible like the SL then I'm all for it. In the 31 years since the SL2 was discontinued no viewfinder has met the standard set by the SL, and AF has only made viewfinders worse.