Is Autofocus as relevant as it is often presumed

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

center/focus/recompose is certainly not a good way to get accurately focussed photographs with moving subjects and shallow DOF. Likewise putting a AF point on the intended focus point/AF lock/recompose is not effective. I do not use any central focussing aids, I use the entire viewscreen to focus, because that's where my desired focus point might be: anywhere on the viewscreen. This way I can skip the recompose step and make the exposure when the critter's posture is right because I've been able to keep the composition the way I want it while the animal shifts forward, backward, up, down, left or right, changing the plane of best focus several times a second.

 

Many photographers who have not used a well-designed manual-focus camera will not comprehend how it's possible to use the viewscreen in this manner, because they only have experience with the crippled viewscreens of AF cameras. There is a HUGE difference between manual focus with an AF camera and manual focus with a camera designed for it. And many wildlife photographers using AF cameras will focus manually because the AF system locks onto a near wingtip instead of the eye, or gets confused when the bird flies past a cloud or a tree.

[tom0511]

center/focus/recompose is certainly not a good way to get accurately focussed photographs with moving subjects and shallow DOF. Likewise putting a AF point on the intended focus point/AF lock/recompose is not effective.

Thats why I often do not use the center AF point but another one so I dont have to recompose.

I just can speak for myself- no problem to focus the 200/2.0VR precisly for a high percentage with the D3 but a lower rate of keepers with the 180/2.0 on a R9. ( I tried several different screens from Leica and brightscreen)

(not only caused by recomposing, but also by other factors- like small movements from subject and/or photographer). I feel I can concentrate better on the subject because I have to care less for the focus. Maybe there is also more training and experience needed to manually focus.

Rangefinder works good for me as long as there is not much movement in the image and as long as its not f1.0

Wideangle is great with rangefinder but a pain with manual focus SLR IMO

[wildlightphoto]

Thats why I often do not use the center AF point but another one so I dont have to recompose.

 

Unfortunately a wild animal doesn't keep its eye on an AF focus point. In there photos it might look like the the bird is perfectly still but that's the illusion of the still camera; the bird is in constant motion (the vB software does not allow me to include this many photos so they're links instead of in-line images):

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/sogr02.jpg

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/rnph01.jpg

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/lbhe01.jpg

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/ybma01.jpg

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/wsja02.jpg

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/stja03,jpg

 

Feel free to superimpose your camera's AF focus point pattern on these photos to see which focus point the eye falls on. A good ground-glass focussing screen is also handy for evaluating several points of focus simultaneously; for example with the Mountain Bluebird below I wanted the eye, back and wings to be in focus, and I can see this in an instant with a good manual-focus viewfinder (Leicaflex SL in this case):

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/turdidae/mobl00.jpg

 

If the bird held still for more than 1/100 sec and if I had been able to use a tripod in the rough terrain instead of a monopod I might have been able to stop down a bit from f/4 to ensure an adequate DOF but the reality of wildlife photography is that I am using the lens' maximum aperture 95% of the time so the manual-focus viewfinder allows me to place my very limited DOF more accurately. A camera with AF as we presently know it does not have a viewfinder that allows this.

 

The easy way to do approach these subjects is to allow the AF focus points to dictate composition. I'd rather compose the photos as I see fit, not as some product planner sees fit.

[AlanG]

Unfortunately a wild animal doesn't keep its eye on an AF focus point. In there photos it might look like the the bird is perfectly still but that's the illusion of the still camera; the bird is in constant motion ...

 

Are you able to follow focus on the eye of a bird or do you typically wait until the bird moves into a pre-selected plane of focus to shoot?

 

In any case, as I said before, your need is very specialized and does not come in to play for a very large number of shooters when they make a purchasing decision. I know your opinion of the SL2 but are you saying that there isn't and never can be an adequate focusing screen for your manual focusing needs in any current or future AF DSLR? Is this simply because the SLR mirror on AF cameras does not send as much light to the prism? And that small loss of light is the deciding factor?

[sdai]

By all accounts, Leica should not build a camera which will attract a lot of people, think about this:

 

1. They don't have the manufacturing capacity to meet a popular demand.

2. They don't have the support facility to serve a large customer base.

 

If everyone wants a Leica, it will be a disaster ... expect 2 years to get your order filled, and 5 years to have your camera serviced. LOL

[wildlightphoto]

Are you able to follow focus on the eye of a bird or do you typically wait until the bird moves into a pre-selected plane of focus to shoot?

 

I follow-focus and follow-compose when the bird is nearly in the posture I want so that when the moment occurs I can fine-tune the focus and make the exposure.

 

In any case, as I said before, your need is very specialized and does not come in to play for a very large number of shooters when they make a purchasing decision.

 

I would hope that greater compositional choices would not be a specialized need.

 

I know your opinion of the SL2 but are you saying that there isn't and never can be an adequate focusing screen for your manual focusing needs in any current or future AF DSLR?

 

Earlier in this thread I wrote: "Alan, you have explained exactly why AF as presently incorporated into cameras is useless to me." Please note the phrase "AF as presently incorporated into cameras".

 

Is this simply because the SLR mirror on AF cameras does not send as much light to the prism?

 

It's as much because of the design compromises made because of the light loss as it is from the light loss itself.

 

And that small loss of light is the deciding factor?

 

What do you consider small? 35% light loss is typical.

[rick_dykstra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

 

Hi Alan. Wow - good question. I think maybe you are a psychologist or one of those gifted folk with ESP, 'cause you've really hit the spot.

 

I love the look of slides and really enjoy loading up a new roll. I grew up in modest circumstances where film was a luxury, usually linked to family holidays. For me it still feels extravagant to pop the lid of a fresh roll of Fuji film, to get a whiff of the emulsion and load it into a gorgeously built Leica.

 

Years ago, when asked by the pro lab techs, "When are you going to go digital?" I always said, "Only when it's better, cheaper and more convenient." A month ago I bought a Canon A720 IS point and shoot - a wonderful little camera for what it is. Just a moment ago I uploaded images from a concert by my kids' band, taken yesterday by my wife. Some are OK but most are not - the light wasn't good. They would have been spectacular if taken with a Leica M or R, but mum isn't practiced in using them and I can't play guitar and shoot pics at the same time. BUT, she did make a four and a half minute movie with this little Canon, and its great!

 

To answer your question - if Leica does not announce a DSLR this year (or if it doesn't allow uncompromised use of my manual lenses) I'll find myself annoyed by the nagging lure of a Nikon pro DSLR and VR lenses. In the meantime I would continue to shoot my favourite slide films with Ms and Rs and look out for a good DMR.

 

Here's a link to my kids' band, with Canon P&S pics from concerts over the last few days. I should ask an M8 equipped friend to come along and shoot us next time - then we'd have some decent shots.

http://web.mac.com/theberrysband

 

Regards, Rick.

[Alessandro Fanchin]

Many photographers who have not used a well-designed manual-focus camera will not comprehend how it's possible to use the viewscreen in this manner, because they only have experience with the crippled viewscreens of AF cameras. There is a HUGE difference between manual focus with an AF camera and manual focus with a camera designed for it. And many wildlife photographers using AF cameras will focus manually because the AF system locks onto a near wingtip instead of the eye, or gets confused when the bird flies past a cloud or a tree.

 

Thank you, this is exactly one of my points, better explained.

[AlanG]

...I would hope that greater compositional choices would not be a specialized need....

 

What do you consider small? 35% light loss is typical.

 

By specialized I mean long lenses with very narrow depth of field. Don't make it sound like only your method allows for unlimited compositional choices. Perhaps it helps for your type of photography but not in all types. With more depth of field one is free to compose any which way and not have to worry about focus accuracy to the degree it matters to you. For instance, I shoot a lot of interiors with very wide lenses at f10. So I don't I have to pay much attention to focusing on those.

 

And lots of types of photography allow for more time to recompose after AF focusing. Most of my photographs are very tightly composed.

 

As for 35% light loss. That isn't even a half stop. I am surprised you'd notice it or that it would bother you so much. Doesn't our vision accomodate for this?

[AlanG]

Hi Alan. Wow - good question. I think maybe you are a psychologist or one of those gifted folk with ESP, 'cause you've really hit the spot...

 

 

Not a psychologist (although it runs in the family) and no ESP. It just seems obvious that shooting film and using old cameras won't be the best solution forever. At one time I thought 4x5 was the only real way to do the work I do. But when I got a 35mm digital camera (original 1Ds) I looked at my work differently and wouldn't go back.

[wildlightphoto]

By specialized I mean long lenses with very narrow depth of field. Don't make it sound like only your method allows for unlimited compositional choices. Perhaps it helps for your type of photography but not in all types. With more depth of field one is free to compose any which way and not have to worry about focus accuracy to the degree it matters to you. For instance, I shoot a lot of interiors with very wide lenses at f10. So I don't I have to pay much attention to focusing on those.

 

And lots of types of photography allow for more time to recompose after AF focusing. Most of my photographs are very tightly composed.

 

As for 35% light loss. That isn't even a half stop. I am surprised you'd notice it or that it would bother you so much. Doesn't our vision accomodate for this?

 

Alan, if you're shooting a lot of interiors with very wide lenses at f/10 it would seem that hyperfocal focussing would be plenty good enough, and AF would be irrelevant.

 

35% light loss is about 2/3 of a stop. A 50% light loss is one stop. And at the risk of repeating myself, it's the design choices the camera makers have made to compensate for the light loss as much as the light loss itself that compromise the viewfinder quality.

[AlanG]

Alan, if you're shooting a lot of interiors with very wide lenses at f/10 it would seem that hyperfocal focussing would be plenty good enough, and AF would be irrelevant.

 

35% light loss is about 2/3 of a stop. A 50% light loss is one stop. And at the risk of repeating myself, it's the design choices the camera makers have made to compensate for the light loss as much as the light loss itself that compromise the viewfinder quality.

 

I don't always use AF. I have 6 MF lenses. That is my point. One does not have to use AF to focus and recompose all of the time for some types of photography.

 

You are right about 35% being 2/3rds of a stop. I guess I was drifting. But what do you mean by compensation? Their viewing screen choice that doesn't support manual focusing to your liking? I know the standard screens are not optimal for MF but doesn't anyone make a replacement screen that will work? Or is there more to it than that?

 

Of course in general you are correct that AF cameras have moved away from being optimized for MF. But it seems that a lot of people can accept the compromise.

[wildlightphoto]

... it seems that a lot of people can accept the compromise.

 

Or they're not aware of the difference.

[jrc]

One of the weird things about the Leica forum is that so many people seem ready to condemn others' choices of machinery -- particularly the specialists and the traditionalists. I personally don't care whether AF can hold a flying bird, because I have to think, did I ever shoot a flying bird on purpose? Uh, no, I don't think so. Or maybe once, back in '86...

 

What's wrong with having a fully autofocus-capable camera, that also has manual controls and available manual lenses and interchangeable focusing screens? Don't like autofocus, turn it off. Let the rest of us have it.

 

Like everybody else of a certain age, I manual-focused for years -- wait, for decades -- because I had no choice. Now, as I get deeper into my sixties, I find that my eyes don't work as well as they used to, and that AF is much faster and more accurate than manual focus usually is (not always.) But I'm lucky -- I have a camera that offers both! When I'm working with my D3 and Nikon lenses, I get a much higher percentage of hits than I do with the M8. But sometimes I put a Zeiss ZF lens on the D3, and manual focus! Gee whiz!

 

I have to say, I think most people -- including most people on this forum -- also would get a higher percentage of hits if they bothered to learn how to use a good fast AF. I'm not talking about what they prefer to do, I'm talking about hits. If there was some way to set up a double-blind test, I think you could prove it. I even think you could prove it with bird photos, though the tester would have to know how to use AF.

 

But my main gripe here is the intolerance for something that's a major convenience for some people, while not harming others. It's like complaining about having a ramp outside of a public building, along with stairs. Sure, they used 1 penny of your personal tax money to build the ramp, but you only use the stairs, so your attitude is, screw all those wheelchair-bound people who can't use the stairs.

 

On a practical, non-rant basis, I think the R10, if there ever is one, needs autofocus capability, or its going to be in even worse competitive shape than it is now. That competitive shape is already terrible, and the R10 hasn't even appeared yet -- have you seen a Zeiss lens on a D3 or an R lens on a 1DsIII? How much better can the R10 be? IMHO, the R10 has to offer the best DSLR image quality, hands down, plus the basic modern conveniences -- autofocus, full "program" control, dual card slots, high ISO capability, etc. as well as full manual control -- or it's a dead duck.

 

JC

[sdai]

Just for the record, I do not always agree with Doug but right on this subject, I'm on his side ... simple, for two reasons:

 

1. manual focus will work the best on a manual focus dedicated camera, there are many decent AF cameras already, if one wants one there're plenty choices

 

2. I wish I'm wrong but I don't believe Leica can do better auto focus than Nikon, Canon or Sony ... so if they can't make it, then why bother even trying from the beginning?

 

If they can't do two things best at the same time, then please, do ONE thing right first.

 

I'm speaking on my own behalf so feel free to disagree but I already have Nikon, Canon and I am planning to add a Sony, I don't need another AF camera ... I also already have Hasselblad so I don't need another so-called larger than 35mm FF camera either.

 

All I'm here for is a 35mm FF manual focus camera ... how difficult is that?

[Guest Bernd Banken]

One of the weird things about the Leica forum is that so many people seem ready to condemn others' choices of machinery -- particularly the specialists and the traditionalists. I personally don't care whether AF can hold a flying bird, because I have to think, did I ever shoot a flying bird on purpose? Uh, no, I don't think so. Or maybe once, back in '86...

 

What's wrong with having a fully autofocus-capable camera, that also has manual controls and available manual lenses and interchangeable focusing screens? Don't like autofocus, turn it off. Let the rest of us have it.

 

Like everybody else of a certain age, I manual-focused for years -- wait, for decades -- because I had no choice. Now, as I get deeper into my sixties, I find that my eyes don't work as well as they used to, and that AF is much faster and more accurate than manual focus usually is (not always.) But I'm lucky -- I have a camera that offers both! When I'm working with my D3 and Nikon lenses, I get a much higher percentage of hits than I do with the M8. But sometimes I put a Zeiss ZF lens on the D3, and manual focus! Gee whiz!

 

I have to say, I think most people -- including most people on this forum -- also would get a higher percentage of hits if they bothered to learn how to use a good fast AF. I'm not talking about what they prefer to do, I'm talking about hits. If there was some way to set up a double-blind test, I think you could prove it. I even think you could prove it with bird photos, though the tester would have to know how to use AF.

 

But my main gripe here is the intolerance for something that's a major convenience for some people, while not harming others. It's like complaining about having a ramp outside of a public building, along with stairs. Sure, they used 1 penny of your personal tax money to build the ramp, but you only use the stairs, so your attitude is, screw all those wheelchair-bound people who can't use the stairs.

 

On a practical, non-rant basis, I think the R10, if there ever is one, needs autofocus capability, or its going to be in even worse competitive shape than it is now. That competitive shape is already terrible, and the R10 hasn't even appeared yet -- have you seen a Zeiss lens on a D3 or an R lens on a 1DsIII? How much better can the R10 be? IMHO, the R10 has to offer the best DSLR image quality, hands down, plus the basic modern conveniences -- autofocus, full "program" control, dual card slots, high ISO capability, etc. as well as full manual control -- or it's a dead duck.

 

JC

 

Thanks!

[sdai]

I think the R10, if there ever is one, needs autofocus capability, or its going to be in even worse competitive shape than it is now ... plus the basic modern conveniences -- autofocus, full "program" control, dual card slots, high ISO capability, etc. as well as full manual control -- or it's a dead duck.

 

What are the odds that Leica can beat the Japanese brands in these areas you've mentioned, John?

 

Zero.

 

If they can't make it or make it even slightly less than perfect, they will look even worse.

 

the R10 has to offer the best DSLR image quality, hands down,

 

Which is the real deal ... if they could beat Canon, Nikon, Sony in this ONE SINGLE area, all other "features" just become trivial and negligible.

 

Forget about Nikon lenses, do you really believe the ZF lenses are better than the R lenses? I don't ... not even close. By the time Nikon folks really get their hands on the 25MP monster camera ... all hells will break loose, the super high density sensor is like a 100x magnifier, all nasty things of those sub standard optics will get exposed under the Sun.

[stunsworth]

One of the weird things about the Leica forum is that so many people seem ready to condemn others' choices of machinery -- particularly the specialists and the traditionalists. I personally don't care whether AF can hold a flying bird, because I have to think, did I ever shoot a flying bird on purpose? Uh, no, I don't think so. Or maybe once, back in '86...

 

What's wrong with having a fully autofocus-capable camera, that also has manual controls and available manual lenses and interchangeable focusing screens? Don't like autofocus, turn it off. Let the rest of us have it.

 

It's called having a debate, and is what people do when they disagree in a forum. If Doug Herr prefers manual focus - I assume it's Doug Herr you are referring to, then he's perfectly in his rights to say so, and more to the point explain why. Others are equally free to disagree with Doug and explain why. Which is what I guess you are doing.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

I manually focus my M6TTL ... obviously for it doesn't have autofocus. 70% I am able to "hyper-focus" with my 28 and 35mm I have grown accustomed to this. Some shots I miss. others a good as intended.

 

 

However I have recently acquired a K20D with 3 Pentax limited lenses 21, 40 and 77mm these are autofocus lenses and I must say I can get into AF mode- Not so much for the 21 but with the 40 and 77 I really like it.

 

I have pondered purchasing the M8, I still was upon purchase of the K20D but I seem to have become accustomed to AF which I use 100% on the Pentax up until now.

 

I like AF and I don't see any quality issues with using it either, for one thing it is fast and very precise ...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Like everybody else of a certain age, I manual-focused for years -- wait, for decades -- because I had no choice. Now, as I get deeper into my sixties, I find that my eyes don't work as well as they used to, and that AF is much faster and more accurate than manual focus usually is (not always.)...

 

I remember years ago hearing Ann and Carl Purcell say that they switched to Minolta when the Maxxum came out because as they had gotten older they found it harder to focus manually. The Maxxum came out in 1985. They seem to have done ok with it:

 

Pictures of the World

 

I once was president of the Washington DC chapter of ASMP and now am a member of APA. So I got to know a lot of top photojournalists and other shooters. (Including several NG wildlife shooters.) All of them shot with MF cameras for many years and everyone I can think of switched to AF cameras. So that left Leica out of the running. The only exception that comes to mind was Fred Maroon who stuck with Leica SLR film cameras as best I know. He passed away a few years ago and I don't know if he stopped shooting much earlier than that.

 

The AF technology has been getting refined and improved for about 23 years now. And Leica is the only SLR company I can think of who doesn't offer it. (Medium format manufacturers have had it for some years too - Rollei, Hasselblad, Contax, Mamiya.) I guess those who want non AF film cameras also have the choice of a lot of used gear from various brands.

 

I just spent a few minutes with my old Nikon F2 cameras (I don't have anything left from Nikon that is more current.) I compared focusing on them with my original 1Ds and 5D. I have one Nikon with a 45 degree split rangefinder surrounded by a microprism and another with a grid screen that is matte in the center. My Canons have their grid screens with no manual focusing aids. Well I had an easier time seeing and manually focusing with the Canons while using a 24-105 F4 zoom than I did with the Nikons and 35 f2 and 85 f2 lenses. That was giving the Canons a two stop handicap. Now maybe the SL2 is much better than the Nikon F2. (I recall that newer Nikons were brighter too.) But keep in mind that newer Canons and Nikons supposedly have better viewfinders than my cameras have.

 

I can't take issue with Doug as he knows what he likes, and it obviously has great importance to him. But in my opinion we may be splitting hairs as lots of people seem happy with the viewfinders in AF cameras.

 

I have no idea if Leica can match or beat Nikon or Canon in AF or any other "high tech" way. But should Leica make a DSLR and should that camera have AF maybe they can make it work well in MF mode too.