Is Autofocus as relevant as it is often presumed

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

Wel, yes, Alan, that is a very effective technique, and I think lenses (and cameras) designed for AF dictate something like that, but is basically a workaround to maintain control. So I will rate you in the "manual focussing group":p

[robert_parker]

I have a strong preference for manual focus and maybe hold the illogical paradigm that if you have a lens where autofocus is not inclueded, they can spend more money on the design and the glass...

 

my experience has been that in certain dynamic situations, such as photographing a parade in Chanatown, manual focus is great but autofocus wouldn't half have come in handy for a number of shots... ...I guess it's a skill thang.....

[AlanG]

Wel, yes, Alan, that is a very effective technique, and I think lenses (and cameras) designed for AF dictate something like that, but is basically a workaround to maintain control. So I will rate you in the "manual focussing group":p

 

Yes I PROUDLY am in the manual focussing group.

 

I am not sure why you call this a workaround. It seems to me that this is how the camera is designed to be used, That is why an AF lock button exists and why the AF button can be re-programmed for independent thumb use. The early generation Nikon AF system was too slow for me but I find the current Canon AF to be very fast, accurate, and effective even in low light. (I don't have much experience with other brands of AF cameras.) It performs much better and more quickly than I could do with any manual focus slr or rangefinder and I've owned many of each type.

 

When one needs critical focus on a specific subject there is no way that an AF camera can be expected to know what specific point in the scene you want. (Canon used to make a camera that tracked the eyeball and focused on where you looked.) Eventually AF cameras will be better at tracking a specific point and holding it in constant focus.

 

What I am saying is that AF is a very valuable tool for me despite the fact that I mostly use it "manually." So the criticism I see being heeped on it by many is unjustified as it is all in knowing how to use it properly for you application.

[thrid]

I'm split on AF.

 

- I find it impossible to do a lot of work like street photography etc with AF. It's too slow,

and the need to focus and reframe is not practical. You need to be able to simply raise the camera, frame and make the shot instantly. This type of work really calls for f8 (or f16) and be there. Scale focus, pre-set your exposure and bang away. I've found that I can successfully scale focus on the street down to about 4-5.6 with a 35 or 50, between 3 - 8 meters.

 

- I find AF to be very useful for shooting on the run (like in a moving crowd), below f5.6. I have a Canon 1-v and can shoot on the run, wide open and still get shots that are in focus. You simply can't do that with a manual focus camera.

 

Ultimately I prefer manual focus. But then again I also never use auto exposure. I must be one of the only people on the planet who runs a super automated camera like the 1-v in total manual mode...

 

What I really want is an autofocus camera with lenses that sport proper DOF scales, so they can be used both ways (are you listening Leica?)

[greenhillm]

I find autofocus very useful with my Digi-2. A splendid camera.

I'm "usually" very careful to have the camera pointed at the main subject, half-pushing the shutter button to establish focus and exposure, followed by re-framing then exposing.

This sequence has become second nature and causes no significant delay.

I may have been lucky (or may have low expectations), but most images seem satisfactorily focused.

I use a similar sequence with my M6ttl. Having established the exposure, focus on the subject, re-frame, expose.

 

My opinion for what it is worth.

 

Regards,

 

 

Michael

[wildlightphoto]

When one needs critical focus on a specific subject there is no way that an AF camera can be expected to know what specific point in the scene you want.

 

Alan, you have explained exactly why AF as presently incorporated into cameras is useless to me.

 

What I am saying is that AF is a very valuable tool for me despite the fact that I mostly use it "manually." So the criticism I see being heeped on it by many is unjustified as it is all in knowing how to use it properly for you application.

 

I don't see that knowing how to use it will help the critical focus situation, particularly when the critical point of focus (a bird's eye for example) is in constant motion and I want a composition other than one dictated by the camera's AF points. This is a situation I encounter far too often to rely on the crippled viewfinder of an AF-centric camera.

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't see that knowing how to use it will help the critical focus situation, particularly when the critical point of focus (a bird's eye for example) is in constant motion ...

 

So on top of face and smile detection, Leica needs to add a "bird's eye detection" function into the AF module ...

 

Panasonic has struggled several decades trying to be a Sony No.2 - never made it in ANY aspect, ... I hope Leica won't waste their energy struggling to be a Nikon/Canon No.2 because Leica is already No. 1 in manual focus.

 

Who told Leica that people are demanding auto focus in their next camera? when? where? this guy is a sucker ...

[dalippe]

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

 

Funny, the process you describe is what I mean when I say "autofocus." It never occurred to me that there are "serious" photographers who use autofocus in any other way. And I completely agree with you regarding the accuracy and ease of working this way.

[dalippe]

I don't see that knowing how to use it will help the critical focus situation, particularly when the critical point of focus (a bird's eye for example) is in constant motion and I want a composition other than one dictated by the camera's AF points. This is a situation I encounter far too often to rely on the crippled viewfinder of an AF-centric camera.

Doug,

 

I don't understand how a manual focus fixes the problem for you. You have even fewer choices of composition if you must keep the bird's eye in the center of the viewfinder where all manual focus cameras place the focusing aids. Or are you talking about focusing using the ground glass of an SLR without any of the manual focusing aids?

 

David

[sdai]

Or are you talking about focusing using the ground glass of an SLR without any of the manual focusing aids?

 

I believe that's exactly what he is doing though I'm not 100% sure ... Doug and I had a lot heated discussions on this right here on this board. After all, I blew a thousand bucks on a SL2 and understood what he was talking about. LOL

[AlanG]

I don't see that knowing how to use it will help the critical focus situation, particularly when the critical point of focus (a bird's eye for example) is in constant motion and I want a composition other than one dictated by the camera's AF points. This is a situation I encounter far too often to rely on the crippled viewfinder of an AF-centric camera.

 

I never said it was perfect or the best solution for every application. Your need is very specialized and my needs are very broad. If you don't like it or find it doesn't work for you then that's that. It is my understanding that the D3 and 1Ds Mark III have improved their viewfinders. (I've looked through both but can't say I was studying them.) My point is that it may be possible for a modern AF camera to support a screen that will give you good MF focusing too.

[rick_dykstra]

I'm a sucker for these auto/manual threads ...

 

The advantage of manual focus with bird photography is being able to focus anywhere on a ground glass screen in a split second, while simultaneously composing the shot.

 

I'm perfectly happy using manual focus with M and R systems for all types of photography, except soccer action, where Nikon and Canon autofocus systems have produced a much higher saleable shot rate. They are power tools in the hands of a tradesman, rather than hand tools being used by a craftsman.

 

I would not be the slightest bit troubled if the new Leica DSLR is manual focus only. I would see autofocus as an unnecessary cost driver. Still, I can understand why other photographers and Leica themselves might see the advantages of going autofocus.

[wildlightphoto]

Doug,

 

I don't understand how a manual focus fixes the problem for you. You have even fewer choices of composition if you must keep the bird's eye in the center of the viewfinder where all manual focus cameras place the focusing aids. Or are you talking about focusing using the ground glass of an SLR without any of the manual focusing aids?

 

David

 

I'm using the 'ground glass' (actually matte plastic) rather than any central focussing aids, and in order to maximize my compositional options I've replaced the universal screen in the R8 with the plain matte screen. Using this screen, as Rick has written, I can simultaneously focus and compose. I like Rick's hand/power tool analogy too.

[sdai]

My point is that it may be possible for a modern AF camera to support a screen that will give you good MF focusing too.

 

In fact, such a screen may not be needed at all with the 1Ds3 or the D3 if one doesn't insist on focusing using the ground glass - I'm sure it's different ways to work, special needs, etc ... what I do with my Canon is to use the Cfn to put the camera in single AF point mode and spin the af point in circles ... I normally limit the points down to 11 ... all cross type, so it's pretty quick, and the 1D series' focus confirmation is dead on.

 

I don't have a D3 but I believe one could do the same ... unlike Canon's af points running in circles, Nikon's af points travel along a zigzag path, which might be slightly more difficult but I have no doubt most people can handle it just after playing for a little bit.

 

I will no longer argue about the pros and cons on AF vs. MF ... I only think that Leica is wasting their time and money on the AF stuff if all these crazy rumors are, after all, true.

[Alessandro Fanchin]

I hate autofocus. Since I wrote many times on this and the previous Forum about that, let me be short:

 

1. Its is distracting. You have to think where to aim to make it work, then usually you have to move the camera. Cumbersome, loosing time.

 

2. It slows down the speed of the picture taking, so many times you will lose the right instant.

 

3. It is power consuming.

 

4. It adds nothing but price to the optical value of a camera or a lens.

 

5. It is another delicated mechanism to care for.

 

6. I hope that lenses without autofocus will be produced again also for Nikon, etc.

 

7. I hope that the future Leica DSLR will have the possibility to use lenses without autofocus and in general the possibility to switch off it completely.

[AlanG]

...

 

6. I hope that lenses without autofocus will be produced again also for Nikon, etc.

 

7. I hope that the future Leica DSLR will have the possibility to use lenses without autofocus and in general the possibility to switch off it completely.

 

Nikon still produces 8 standard lenses and 4 PC lenses that are manual focus. I think if there had been enough demand they would have kept more in production.

 

I have 6 manual focusing TSE and PC lenses for my Canon and I don't have any problem focusing them.

 

The AF can be turned off. I know that with Canon and the L lenses it is possible to manually focus at any time whether the lens is set to AF or not.

 

As for focusing on a center or other specific point and then re-framing. I think most people did that with SLRs that had a central split rangefinder or microprism. And that is how all rangefinders cameras are used. So this procedure is nothing new for many of us.

 

As for your other point about price of AF vs. non AF. I can't say what it has added to the camera costs but there certainly are some very inexpensive AF cameras out there. (A Canon Rebel T2 film camera and zoom lens is about $275.) The AF lenses seem to be priced about the same or lower than their MF equivalents. (The Nikkor 24 2.8 manual focus is $375 vs. $309 for the AF version - B&HPhoto.)

 

As for slowing down the picture taking, it speeds it up for me.

 

And while AF does add complexity the reliability and durability seems pretty good.

 

Consider on the new Hasselblads, the AF meechanism is also employed to make very fine adjustments to account for each lens's focus shift that occurs when the lens aperture changes. So AF can be used to improve the overall optical precision.

 

So while I respect anyone's personal choice to use manual focusing I don't think there really are that many actual drawbacks in having an AF camera system. And in my opinion, there are a number of pluses.

[AlanG]

I forgot to mention that Zeiss also makes manual focus lenses for Nikon cameras. And there certainly are plenty of used Nikon MF lenses in perfect shape if you want them. But I don't expect that Nikon will start issuing its newest designs in manual focus.

[tom0511]

I hate autofocus. Since I wrote many times on this and the previous Forum about that, let me be short:

 

1. Its is distracting. You have to think where to aim to make it work, then usually you have to move the camera. Cumbersome, loosing time.

 

2. It slows down the speed of the picture taking, so many times you will lose the right instant.

 

3. It is power consuming.

 

4. It adds nothing but price to the optical value of a camera or a lens.

 

5. It is another delicated mechanism to care for.

 

6. I hope that lenses without autofocus will be produced again also for Nikon, etc.

 

7. I hope that the future Leica DSLR will have the possibility to use lenses without autofocus and in general the possibility to switch off it completely.

 

Personally for moving subjects and people I do like AF.

I have used MF for years and still do with my M8 but I get more consistent focus with af.

 

1)Example: when I shoot our kid I choose a focus point (which often is not in the center)-I then keep continous AF (activated with my thumb) on the eye and take the image when I like the moment.

With a center oriented manual focus system (like rangefinder or split screen) you can only focus in the center. If the subject is not in the center you have to continously focus recompose etc etc

 

2) focus fine tuning in the camera for several lenses, as Nikon offers, is great and leads to very accurate focus for all my lenses. If I need adjustment its 2 minutes. If I need adjustment for a MF lens I need to send it in for calibration and pray that its improved when I get it back.

I get good focus with the M8, but I get very accurate AF with he D3, not just good. (again-talking about moving subjects)

 

3) Sometimes AF is just faster. I am talking about good AF (like that in a D3 for example. Bad/Slow AF is a pita.

 

Overall I enjoy to have both systems and to bbe able to choose.

[rick_dykstra]

So while I respect anyone's personal choice to use manual focusing I don't think there really are that many actual drawbacks in having an AF camera system.

 

Hi Alan. I also respect the personal choices of others - and use autofocus when I need it.

 

But imagine this - you are a wildlife photographer (a common enough and intended application for the Leica R system) and the challenge is to take shots of critters that will knock peoples' socks off, so much so that they will actually hand over their hard earned cash and buy framed prints or books on display in galleries. Perfect focus and composition is required.

 

The reason the shots you try for are special is that the critters are not easy to photograph. They move so fast, are so timid and are there in front of your lens for such fleeting moments (one second - perhaps two) that there is simply no time to be fiddling with focus sensors or anything else. With many, the slightest movement from you and they are gone, never to return. With many, you get one shot and then they're off, never to return.

 

When you see or hear the critters approaching you have already frozen with your eye to the viewfinder and your hand on the focussing ring. You might stay frozen like that for 10 or 20 minutes, cursing under your breath because your back started aching from the second minute. Extraordinary patience and technique is required. People who do this learn that at times autofocus can work, such as photographing a grizzly bear at 40 meters with a 600/4 as it runs toward the camera. But if its photographing a fairy wren with a 560/5.6 at 2 meters as it jumps around in a puddle, autofocus is simply not the best option.

 

The shot linked below is full frame. Both the male and the female were moving every second or so. The composition was being continuously adjusted, almost unconsciously in the background. He lifted his head and looked to the side at a thornbill out of frame. Half a second to tweak the focus. Bang. Gone.

 

Superb Fairy Wrens

 

I've often thought I should switch to video-ing these critters. It would be so much easier than taking stills.

 

Some will have noticed that Doug and I tag-team on these focus threads. It's because we understand what's behind some of these critter shots. Allow me to stretch an analogy. I work with air crew types and was chatting with a senior pilot friend at an airshow. An F/A-18 was dancing in the twilit sky out in front of the hospitality chalet we were standing in, beers in hand. After a while he said, "Oh, well done!" at what looked to me like just another turn by the noisy fighter. The only others to show appreciation (somewhat ostentatiously) were a group of young guns in flight suits. My friend explained what it took for the pilot to pull off that maneuver. Without his expert commentary I would never have understood - the skills, technique, physical control and years of practice. And yet it made perfect sense - a human/machine interface achieving peak performance.

 

I have a high level of appreciation for the way Leica fosters peak performance in photography. One of the ways it manages this is by tuning in to photographers like Doug who are at the peak of their craft, using their products. Given Leica's history and design philosophy, if they move to autofocus I feel confident they will remember the importance of human/machine interface and in doing so, cater for manual focusing at the peak of its performance potential.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

...I have a high level of appreciation for the way Leica fosters peak performance in photography. One of the ways it manages this is by tuning in to photographers like Doug who are at the peak of their craft, using their products. Given Leica's history and design philosophy, if they move to autofocus I feel confident they will remember the importance of human/machine interface and in doing so, cater for manual focusing at the peak of its performance potential.

 

I know what you are saying but my point was that I think one can get an AF system and manual focus very successfully. But if some users don't think so then they will have to use whatever works best for them. Nobody can predict if Leica will make a DSLR let alone if it will offer AF, or if it will focus easily with MF lenses or AF lenses in MF mode. Consider that an awful lot of sports and wildlife shooters use AF cameras. Whether many focus manually with them I can't say.

 

In any case, if Leica doesn't make a new DSLR or if they do and it doesn't suit you, what is the plan for the future? Shoot film, DMR?