Autofocus and Medium Format

[Kirks518]

I have a pretty full stable of manual focus medium format cameras, and multiple lenses for each. I have only one autofocus MF camera, a Fuji GS645.

I'm closing in on my 51st birthday, and I use reading glasses all the time for anything remotely close. Although I haven't fully scrutinized all my negatives, I feel that I'm either not hitting focus spot-on, or when I do, it takes me a while to achieve that spot-on focusing. With the Fuji, I hit focus 99.99% of the time (unless I don't lock it before releasing the shutter).

All of my focusing screens are a) calibrated correctly and b) have either horizontal or diagonal split screens, so the only reason for missed focus is me.

So this got me thinking about moving to an AF MF system. The thought of having to rebuild a system is something I dread, but there's no point in staying with what I have if I'm wasting too much time or film with it all.

So those of you that have autofocus systems, do you use the AF most of the time, or do you find you're using manual focus enough to say that the AF wasn't fully 'worth it' to get? If you use only/mostly manual focus cameras, how is your in-focus rate?

I'm not shooting sports, but I do shoot a lot of candids of my daughter and her friends, and other things that require a relatively fast ability to focus. I find even with slow moving subjects, I struggle to focus.

And if you were to recommend an AF system, what would it be?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If you're miffed about dodgy eyes at 51, imagine would it will be l ike when you're 57+...
Invest in a quality corrected loupé for scrutinising negatives for focus errors, and remember exactly where you were focusing. Very small focusing errors can be taken care of by depth of field, but it is bad practice to simply resort solely to depth of field to take care of focus glitches when critical focus is still possible, despite difficulty to achieve critical focus.

If the camera system has it, invest in a right angle finder with switchable magnification, or have the viewfinder eyepiece fitted with a dioptric correction lens matched to your eye deficiency.

All of my images are critically focused, and I use lenses varying from f2 to f4 (effectively f5.6 with a polariser); I do have two additional viewfinder centre-spot magnification tools to call upon when things get nitty-gritty, such as using an f4 WA lens with a polariser in flat light — but sometimes it's just better to whip off the polariser and focus from there.

A lot of digital MF cameras use AF, but this may understandably not be your (or my!) desired path. And I would agree, given the obscene prices being asked of a lot of the stuff.

 

[Kirks518]

You just stated that you already have one.

True, but even though it is a medium format camera, I tend to use it more like a 35mm point-n-shoot. It's very easy to use the GA645 in auto mode, but IMO, the controls and their positioning make it cumbersome to use in manual mode(s). It's also an 'older' system, and I'm sure more recent offerings in AF systems would be faster and have more to offer. I really don't use the GA for anything I consider 'serious'.

 

[Alan Gales]

There is the Hasselblad H1 (with film back), Pentax 645N and Nll, Contax 645AF and there is also a Mamiya 645 or two that have autofocus. I would suspect the H1 to have the fastest autofocus.

I've owned both the Pentax cameras. The autofocus was slow but I didn't have any problem shooting candids of people. Of course faster autofocus would have been better. It didn't compare to my Nikon D300 which I used for sports.

 

[spijker]

I switched to AF for a similar reason. I (52) wear contact lenses with a cylindrical astigmatism correction besides the normal spherical correction. Most of the time, the lenses stay nicely in place and life is good. But if a lens rotates, the vision gets a bit blurry and it affects my ability to focus a manual focus camera. I used (still have) a Mamiya 645 Pro with a prism finder and a horizontal split / microprism screen. But I found that too often shallow DOF photos were slightly out of focus. I checked the camera, it was accurate.

So I bit the bullet and upgraded to an AF MF SLR about a year ago. I ended up with the Mamiya 645 AFD3 as it was affordable (for me), has the most advanced AF of the Mamiya AF series, accepts film backs, lenses are of good quality, affordable and relatively easy to get. I haven't used the manual focus lenses on it although that is possible. I got a good deal on the body, a Mamiya AF 45mm lens (both used) and a rechargeable battery from Capture Integration. The rest; film back, 80mm lens, 75-150mm lens over time through Ebay.

I use the AF almost all the time. I find it accurate although not overly fast. I have an energetic 6 year old daughter that is usually too fast for the AF. But if she sits/stands/hangs still for a few seconds then the AF can handle it. This (there was a url link here which no longer exists) was shot on AF. But for fast AF you should get a last generation AF 35mm camera. All AF medium format (film) SLRs are reported to have slow AF compared to 35mm SLRs. Other cameras I looked at were the Contax 645, Hasselblad H series, Rollei 6008 AF and Hy6. Hasselblad & Rollei were out of budged. The Contax 645 has supposedly slower AF than the Mamiya AFD3.

Menno

 

[Paul Howell]

I am 67 and use a Mamyia Universal rangefinder, using the split image focus is no problem at all, with my Kowa 66 with a WL finder and built in magnifying lens again no issue with focus.

 

[winger]

I have a Pentax 645N and rarely use the autofocus, but I do note the little symbol that pops up saying it's focused. I don't always go by it since it's just in the middle and my subject might not be. But it is a help even though I don't really use the autofocus. When I've tried it, it was slow, but accurate. I doubt I'd try it for sports, but I do have pictures of my son where I think I used it.

 

[RattyMouse]

I really don't use the GA for anything I consider 'serious'.

That's a shame, as the GA645 produces stellar images. I use it for serious work without hesitation.

 

[ic-racer]

Rolleiflex 6008AF

 

[spijker]

ic-racer, do you have one? If so, what's your experience with this camera. When I was looking into the various AF systems, I could hardly find any user experiences on the Rolleiflex 6008AF. I'm not going to switch again but I'm still curious about this camera.

 

[piu58]

That's a shame, as the GA645 produces stellar images. I use it for serious work without hesitation.

+1 (Ga654Zi)

 

[Jager]

I'm 63 and have normal age-related close-vision challenges... have to wear reading glasses for any kind of close range task. Reading, computer work, evaluating images. Even mundane tasks like eating or using a screwdriver. I can relate.

My experience is that I can manually focus fine (sans reading glasses) if the viewfinder is right at my eye. I'm fine with all my rangefinders (various Leicas, Bronica RF645, Voigtlander Bessa III). My Hasselblad 500C/M is also fine when I use the PME-45 prism finder. When I revert to the WLF on the 'blad I have to don my reading glasses. I do have split-image-type viewfinders in all my cameras. Depending solely upon viewfinder image contrast/pop no longer works for me.

One thing that probably helps me is continued practice. Most days I'm out for at least an hour or so with some camera. And I shoot a lot with a Leica Noctilux, a very demanding lens from a critical-focus standpoint.

 

[ic-racer]

ic-racer, do you have one? If so, what's your experience with this camera. When I was looking into the various AF systems, I could hardly find any user experiences on the Rolleiflex 6008AF. I'm not going to switch again but I'm still curious about this camera.

Someday if the price comes down. I have the 6008i.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can use glasses on my Hasselblad 503 CX with the PME viewfinder [5 times], but using contact lenses is much better. The focusing is manual, but since I can see clearly with the viewfinder manual focusing is not a problem.

 

[Chris Ross Leong]

Switched to a Hassy H1 many years after it first came out, and still have it, although now my main work machine is an H3Dii.
Single point AF and IMO deadly fast and accurate.

I'm still using rangefinders though, both 35mm and MF, and I'm 59 with specs, heavy astigmatism and the beginnings of cataracts in both eyes.
Oh, and I'm a pro and still shooting every day...

I'd look into anything RF (I also have a GA645zi, BTW) if you want to stay analog. The 6008AF is very decent still. I've been a Leica, Hassy and Rollei guy since the late 60s so that's where I've stayed, mainly because of the lenses. I've also heard great things about Plaubels, and Mamiya 6's and 7's especially.

BTW, on an another front of the same kind of topic, I'm just having my older, pre-interchangeable pre-2.8E2-finder Rolleiflex TLR sent to a pro camera mechanic to get an adaptor made up to take Hasselblad slide-in finders. This will give my old camera a newer lease of life (the prism and the chimney finder are requisites for me and my eyesight and the TLR), and I suspect a lot of other APUG folk would be interested in ordering one too, once I get it finalized.

It will have facility to shim the ground glass (GG) for critical focus adjustment, which will mean of course that the GG itself can now be anything 6x6-ish that fits into the adaptor.
Perhaps I'll have another GG made up in a film gate focus rig to do just that without having to send it out for calibration every time a new GG is mounted.

I favor the finders for Hassy/Kiev clones since they are more numerous and inexpensive than those for Rollei. Of course it's possible to build one for the original 2.8E2 and above finders, but they're very rare these days. I don't know how long it's been since I've seen a Rolleiflex TLR rigid chimney finder, but I just bought an old Hassy one for $50.

The adaptor will be non-destructive so one could simply unscrew the original WLF with GG and screw the adaptor in. Easy to replace the original WLF afterwards, if required.

All that's on another thread, BTW, but I thought apropos to this discussion, which is really about old and tired eyes!

 

[Athiril]

There's some custom contact lenses that can get you 20/10 vision iirc, some sports players use them. There's also lasik.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem with lasik are that they are permanent changes to a growing and changing eye. After about 10 years, the lasik user has to go back to using reading glasses. That happened to my girl friend and additionally she now needs correction for distance. Hard contact lenses take an effort [and some pain] to get adjusted to, while soft contact lenses are much easier to learn to use, the soft contact lenses do not correct astigmatism.

 

[spijker]

I have soft contact lenses with an asticmatism correction. They're the one month disposable type. Comfortable to wear and they give me excellent vision most of the time. Not overly expensive either.

 

[CropDusterMan]

H Series Hassie. Done.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will stick with the V Series Hasselblads for now. Remember that square is the perfect format.

 

[benveniste]

So those of you that have autofocus systems, do you use the AF most of the time, or do you find you're using manual focus enough to say that the AF wasn't fully 'worth it' to get? If you use only/mostly manual focus cameras, how is your in-focus rate?

I'm not shooting sports, but I do shoot a lot of candids of my daughter and her friends, and other things that require a relatively fast ability to focus. I find even with slow moving subjects, I struggle to focus.

And if you were to recommend an AF system, what would it be?

I use a Pentax 645n with an AB-82 split-image screen and a mix of manual focus and autofocus lenses. The autofocus system seems primitive compared to my Nikon F100, but at age 58, it does let me get shots faster than with manual focus lenses. But when I do take the time, I find that I trust the split-image screen more than the green dot. Not surprisingly, the autofocus lens I am most likely to use in manual focus mode is the 120mm macro. I have no basis of comparison with other medium-format autofocus systems; it's the only one I used. Even as a manual focus camera, I like the 645n more than the base 645.

To my mind, the major disadvantage of the Pentax 645n system is the insert system. Unless you still shoot Polaroid, this is less of a concern. The other disadvantage is that the 645d and 645Z users have made it more difficult and expensive to acquire lenses. That 120mm macro now trades at almost twice I paid for mine.

 

[DH_Studio]

I switched to AF for a similar reason. I (52) wear contact lenses with a cylindrical astigmatism correction besides the normal spherical correction. Most of the time, the lenses stay nicely in place and life is good. But if a lens rotates, the vision gets a bit blurry and it affects my ability to focus a manual focus camera. I used (still have) a Mamiya 645 Pro with a prism finder and a horizontal split / microprism screen. But I found that too often shallow DOF photos were slightly out of focus. I checked the camera, it was accurate.

So I bit the bullet and upgraded to an AF MF SLR about a year ago. I ended up with the Mamiya 645 AFD3 as it was affordable (for me), has the most advanced AF of the Mamiya AF series, accepts film backs, lenses are of good quality, affordable and relatively easy to get. I haven't used the manual focus lenses on it although that is possible. I got a good deal on the body, a Mamiya AF 45mm lens (both used) and a rechargeable battery from Capture Integration. The rest; film back, 80mm lens, 75-150mm lens over time through Ebay.

I use the AF almost all the time. I find it accurate although not overly fast. I have an energetic 6 year old daughter that is usually too fast for the AF. But if she sits/stands/hangs still for a few seconds then the AF can handle it. This (there was a url link here which no longer exists) was shot on AF. But for fast AF you should get a last generation AF 35mm camera. All AF medium format (film) SLRs are reported to have slow AF compared to 35mm SLRs. Other cameras I looked at were the Contax 645, Hasselblad H series, Rollei 6008 AF and Hy6. Hasselblad & Rollei were out of budged. The Contax 645 has supposedly slower AF than the Mamiya AFD3.

Menno

I'm in the same boat - farsighted, and losing so many shots due to not being able to MF - even with a 10X loupe on a 4x5! It's driving me insane.

I have a Mamiya 645afdii and the AF performance is "okay" at best. How many autofocus points does your AFDiii have? The AFDii has one big center point. I set it to something like "spot" focus but the area is still just a big circle which really only works accurately if the focus falls on something large enough that it covers it entirely, otherwise it splits the difference. Picking out small subject matter at shallow DOF is not really possible. With the 80mm it cane with, for example, if I wanted to shoot an environmental portrait of a painter standing in her studio with a bit of the floor and the ceiling in the shot it's a 50/50 chance I could even get just her face in sharp focus. If I stepped a lot closer so the whole AF circle fell on her face, sure. But not pulled back.

I'm trying to find the MF camera with the most (and most accurate) AF points (and speed isn't as much of an issue for me). Not having a ton of luck, yet!

 

[Pieter12]

Rollei Hy6 works for me. Plus, you can get an auxiliary adapter to correct for astigmatism that fits the 45º prism. It's not a Rollei product, but rather a correction eyepiece used for telescopes than can easily be adapted for the Rollei finder--both the 6008 and the Hy6. https://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=54

 

[spijker]

See my response in your other thread https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ocus-medium-format.181712/page-2#post-2393415