Losing patience with a DSLR...

Rob Ruttan · May 7, 2008

I've had an EVolt 500 for about a year. Truth to be told, it's the first auto focus camera I've ever owned, apart from a couple of pawn shop point & shoots. Here's what's bugging me: in what I consider to be reasonable low light conditions (early evening, cloudy, aiming toward stuff in my garden...so I'm pointing away from the sky) it won't manual focus. NOW: I don't want to be a complete idiot about this. Am I being unreasonable in my demands? Would any auto focus DSLR behave the same way, or is my EVolt sort of wimpy in this regard? The answer -- switch to manual -- is pretty obvious, but I find that the manual focus ring does very little. In bright daylight conditions, the camera does wonderful stuff. But take a small step away from the norm and it seems to call it quits. My ancient Minoltas -- film and manual focus that works -- do what I want when I want. Why not my EVolt?

Tomf2468 · May 7, 2008

Every digital camera I've owned would autofocus in early evening light. Some might take 1 or 2 seconds (depending on subject and lens choice). I haven't used the EVolt, so these are just "general comments" because you mention it being your first autofocus camera:

Generally you can select a specific autofocus point in the viewfinder to be active. On some cameras the center autofocus spot is more active/fast/accurate than the others. Whatever focus spot you use, it must be aimed at something with contrast. Aiming it at blank sky or a field of snow or a blank white wall will result in either failure or very slow focus.

Hope that helps.
Tom

donbga · May 7, 2008

Rob Ruttan said:
I've had an EVolt 500 for about a year. Truth to be told, it's the first auto focus camera I've ever owned, apart from a couple of pawn shop point & shoots. Here's what's bugging me: in what I consider to be reasonable low light conditions (early evening, cloudy, aiming toward stuff in my garden...so I'm pointing away from the sky) it won't manual focus. NOW: I don't want to be a complete idiot about this. Am I being unreasonable in my demands? Would any auto focus DSLR behave the same way, or is my EVolt sort of wimpy in this regard? The answer -- switch to manual -- is pretty obvious, but I find that the manual focus ring does very little. In bright daylight conditions, the camera does wonderful stuff. But take a small step away from the norm and it seems to call it quits. My ancient Minoltas -- film and manual focus that works -- do what I want when I want. Why not my EVolt?

How well a lens can auto focus in low light depends on how fast the lens is. Moderately slow lenses don't autofocus well in low contrast and dim light conditions.

IOW, you get what you pay for.

Don Bryant

keithwms · May 7, 2008

Yeah, how fast is the lens? AF is TTL with this camera, no? Get thee a fast prime.

Joe Lipka · May 8, 2008

I have photographed with folks in old buildings where the light level is very low. We all had problems with auto-focus in low light situations. The work around in this situation (low light, indoors) was an led flashlight. Shine the led flashlight on where you think the focus should be and the camera will focus on that bright spot. Lock your focus, turn off the flashlight and make the exposure.

One of the unknown, or rarely published advantages of digital over film is digital sensors do not demonstrate reciprocity. An exposure meter recommending a ten second exposure for film must be adjusted in exposure time and possibly in development. A digital camera will suggest a ten second exposure and that is what it will be and usually be right. If it's not right, then you can override the exposure with what you think will work. And then you can check it until you get it right. In low light situations in the field, that is a huge advantage that is rarely publicized.

Pinholemaster · May 8, 2008

You get what you pay for, as the saying goes. Olympus makes fine cameras, but the EVolt 500 is not one of their high end models. For its price point, it doesn't have the features or technology found in their better cameras.

It's probably that you bought below your expectations. You need to move up in quality to get what you are after.

jd callow · May 9, 2008

Joe Lipka said:
One of the unknown, or rarely published advantages of digital over film is digital sensors do not demonstrate reciprocity. An exposure meter recommending a ten second exposure for film must be adjusted in exposure time and possibly in development. A digital camera will suggest a ten second exposure and that is what it will be and usually be right. If it's not right, then you can override the exposure with what you think will work. And then you can check it until you get it right. In low light situations in the field, that is a huge advantage that is rarely publicized.

Sadly this advantage is generally made worthless as the sensors build noise the longer they stay open. The latest Nikons 'remedy' this by applying a noise filter to long exposures -- which doesn't work to my eye.

Donsta · May 13, 2008

Joe Lipka said:
I have photographed with folks in old buildings where the light level is very low. We all had problems with auto-focus in low light situations. The work around in this situation (low light, indoors) was an led flashlight. Shine the led flashlight on where you think the focus should be and the camera will focus on that bright spot. Lock your focus, turn off the flashlight and make the exposure.

One of the unknown, or rarely published advantages of digital over film is digital sensors do not demonstrate reciprocity. An exposure meter recommending a ten second exposure for film must be adjusted in exposure time and possibly in development. A digital camera will suggest a ten second exposure and that is what it will be and usually be right. If it's not right, then you can override the exposure with what you think will work. And then you can check it until you get it right. In low light situations in the field, that is a huge advantage that is rarely publicized.

That's a fair comment Joe, but it should also be noted that we are currently blessed with some emulsions with almost unbelieveable reciprocity charaterictics... Tmax400 in B&W and some of the color slide films like Provia and Astia are truely amazing for their very slight reciprocity failure with long exposures. These are light and day compared to some of the older emulsions where seconds quickly turned to minutes of exposure.

claudermilk · May 14, 2008

Don & Keith got right to the heart of it. Considering the body, I'm betting it has a slower consumer-grade zoom on it, which will kill AF in low light. Heck, even my 20D + 50/1.8 (or the 85/1.2 when I can get my hands on one) has trouble when light levels get low enough.

You are now discovering why many of us spend silly amounts of money on very fast lenses and higher-spec bodies. It's the wider performance envelope.

MDa Re · May 17, 2008

Just wondering. Do you use the flash at all? The flash on the E500 also doubles as the AF assist light for low light light situations. You can also adjust the power of the flash.

toyotadesigner · Jun 4, 2008

Well, nothing can beat your eye and hand to focus.

I've tried several DSLRs from Nikon, Canon to Pentax, but none of them did what **I** wanted to do. IMHO it doesn't mean a camera is good just because it features a gazillion focus points - the one the artificial 'brain' selects for you is always the worst.

The ultimate AF money can buy is a Contax G2 - it **does focus** even in a completely dark room because of it's dual AF and dual distance system, and it is always spot on, even with the 90mm if you know the trick with the left and right bracket in the finder.

Unless you have to wear bottle bottom glasses or shoot sport events with a 300mm, there is no alternative to your eyes and hand, believe me. I need a solid tool in my hands, not a plastic brain that tries to override my thoughts or compositions.

Just my 2 cents

Ray Heath · Jun 4, 2008

jens g.r. benthien said:
Well, nothing can beat your eye and hand to focus.

I've tried several DSLRs from Nikon, Canon to Pentax, but none of them did what **I** wanted to do. IMHO it doesn't mean a camera is good just because it features a gazillion focus points - the one the artificial 'brain' selects for you is always the worst.

The ultimate AF money can buy is a Contax G2 - it **does focus** even in a completely dark room because of it's dual AF and dual distance system, and it is always spot on, even with the 90mm if you know the trick with the left and right bracket in the finder.

Unless you have to wear bottle bottom glasses or shoot sport events with a 300mm, there is no alternative to your eyes and hand, believe me. I need a solid tool in my hands, not a plastic brain that tries to override my thoughts or compositions.

Just my 2 cents

g'day all

i disagree, manual focus is not the answer, learning how to get the best out of the auto focus on your camera is the best solution

modern cameras do not have good focus indicators such fresnel screens and certainly not split circle systems (the name escapes me) so at best manual focusing is a guess

i turn off all the focus points except the middle one, then i "place" this focus point on my subject, half press the shutter release to focus using that focus point, then hold the shutter release half pressed, recompose the image and fully press the shutter release

auto focus works really well if you know it's limitations and how top overcome them

Ray

toyotadesigner · Jun 5, 2008

i turn off all the focus points except the middle one

That means that digital is no real progress: if the new cameras feature 57 AF point and you turn off 56 of them to use only one, something in the whole long path of development is definitely wrong.

In my own experience even the best DSLR AF will fail in dim light if the subject is out of reach of the 'help light', especially in land and cityscape photography.

The multiple point AF is part of the digital hype today promising the customers a fake benefit. Take into account the tiny viewfinder of the DSLRs and you know what I mean.

A plain and simple Stanley FAT MAX (check the data here: http://www.contractor-books.com/CB/Stanley/TLM_100_Tru-Laser.htm ) offers a lot more precision than any DSLR AF:

Accuracy: 1/4" ( 6mm) at 100-ft (30m)
Range: 2'-100' (0.6m - 30m)

jd callow · Jun 5, 2008

I agree. I much prefer to focus with my eyes (useng the patch of an RF or the gg of a VC) than that of my AF DSLR. On the flip side under the right conditions the dslr's auto focus makes for really effecient work. I move the focus point around to the object I want in sharpest focus which allows me to keep my composition framed (something I can't always do with an RF). In low light its a PITA, and even on a fast lens it's hard awitching to manual doesn't always work (same with a VC). With a RF and a bright finder I can focus in really low light. Different cameras work better in different conditions and SLR's have always been really good at a lot of things, but seldom the best for anyone thing and DSLR's are no different.

Ray Heath · Jun 5, 2008

g'day

not only dslrs jens, modern film cameras use the same concept of too many af sensors

anyway, it depends what you consider to be progress, ease of use and not having to think too much is a bonus and definite progress for many

i'm no techno head and i don't keep up with the latest supposed must have new features, but i have noticed in my photography classes that more and more p&s digital cameras are coming out with the full range of "slr" controls - PASM and more

so pretty soon many who know no better will not even need an slr to get slr like control, which is pretty much wasted on these people anyway

Ray

toyotadesigner · Jun 5, 2008

JD, if you don't like the FAT MAX, you can always use this nice tool:

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

keithwms · Jun 5, 2008

I am also a manual guy, I think I have maybe 4 AF lenses and about 30 or so manual ones. I very seldom have use for AF and usually feel like I can do a better job working manually. To me, manual focus is like having an infinite number of AF points across the frame.

I will admit that I am an RF fanatic, that style of focus in a big, bright, non-TTL VF is what I prefer for scenic stuff. But among the dslrs, my favourite for manual focus is the little Nikon D60, which is the newer version of the d40x, which I also like. The d60 has focus assist, quite similar to what I have in my mamiya 645 afd, so it's the best of both worlds- manual focusing with focus confirmation for when you want it.... plus good & reliable lens markings.

jd callow · Jun 5, 2008

jens g.r. benthien said:
JD, if you don't like the FAT MAX, you can always use this nice tool:

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Jens,
I've seen that thing and was thinking it would be perfect for assisting in zone focusing my Speed Graphic and doing semi-spontaneous street work with 4x5. Alas, I have all these plans and not enough time to do them all -- this of course doesn't even touch upon the cash thing.
g.

SilverGlow · Nov 20, 2008

Well if one uses a DSLR in the way INTENDED by the maker (Nikon/Canon) then one will manually pick and choose the appropriate focus point lock focus, NEVER recompose, then take the shot.

I shoot with fast primes nearly always, so F1.2 or F1.4 mean my DSLR acquires focus fast and accurately, and in fact more accurately then my 48 year old eyes can.

The two worse things DSLR users do is:

1. Rely solely on the center focus point. Doing this will often introduce focus errors, and metering errors.

2. Complain about DSLR AF instead of learning how to use it. Sadly, it is human nature to deflect blame.

3. There is no such thing as too many AF sensors. The more sensors the less one needs to recompose, and the less one recomposes, the less AF and metering errors are introduced.

4. If one thinkgs a DSLR AF will fail from time to time, one can say the same for our human vision, and not just for middle aged or elderly humans.

My Canon EOS film and digital bodies provide me excellent AF performance, and in nearly any light. It's about using the kit as intended by the maker.

Ray Heath · Nov 20, 2008

SilverGlow said:
Well if one uses a DSLR in the way INTENDED by the maker (Nikon/Canon) then one will manually pick and choose the appropriate focus point lock focus, NEVER recompose, then take the shot.

g'day Silver

could you possibly expand on this statement?

seems to me the "maker" intends that multiple point autofocus will make too many assumptions, the most obvious being that the system will decide what to focus on by assuming the subject to be the object closest to the camera

jd callow · Nov 21, 2008

Ray,
You can tell the camera where to focus. On the Nikon DSLR's there is a red dot/cube that you can move around the viewfinder so that it only uses the single sensor. You can use the multiple sensors to check and adjust lighting throughout the scene much like spot metering; apply it to maximize or make critical choices in DOF; and do it all without moving the camera. It is very cool.

Having said that, I'm not in total agreement that to complain about AF is to deflect blame or that AF will work in any light. There aren’t that many lenses that are F1,2 or F1,4. In good light my AF Nikon will focus as fast or faster than I can manually on an FE2. In low light I can out focus an AF. Although I own Nikon, I've shot EOS AF and it was not appreciatively different in normal light, but I have no experience in low light.

Loris Medici · Nov 21, 2008

There's no replacement for a rangefinder (with a bright VF) to focus in low light (w/o any focusing aid lightsource). An SLR (digital or analogue) simply won't do it as well... And with a RF a) you don't need a fast 1.x $$$ lens to do it b) as an added bonus, you get much better / accurate focusing with wide angle or ulta wide angle lenses... Given that, I'd always rely on AF when using an AF body, since their focusing screens are crap (unless you have the opportunity to replace them with better / more accurate ones) + the lenses' focusing strokes are usually too short to focus accurately. (AF will always do the job better than MF with those bodies and lenses - tried it, that's definitive for my case.) Agree with jd on using the camera according to their design. (Such as using local focus points instead of wide focus area...)

Regards,
Loris.

jd callow said:
... I'm not in total agreement that to complain about AF is to deflect blame or that AF will work in any light. There aren’t that many lenses that are F1,2 or F1,4. In good light my AF Nikon will focus as fast or faster than I can manually on an FE2. In low light I can out focus an AF. Although I own Nikon, I've shot EOS AF and it was not appreciatively different in normal light, but I have no experience in low light.

donbga · Nov 21, 2008

Loris Medici said:
There's no replacement for a rangefinder (with a bright VF) to focus in low light (w/o any focusing aid lightsource). An SLR (digital or analogue) simply won't do it as well... And with a RF a) you don't need a fast 1.x $$$ lens to do it b) as an added bonus, you get much better / accurate focusing with wide angle or ulta wide angle lenses... Given that, I'd always rely on AF when using an AF body, since their focusing screens are crap (unless you have the opportunity to replace them with better / more accurate ones) + the lenses' focusing strokes are usually too short to focus accurately. (AF will always do the job better than MF with those bodies and lenses - tried it, that's definitive for my case.) Agree with jd on using the camera according to their design. (Such as using local focus points instead of wide focus area...)

Regards,
Loris.

The Leica M8 is a great choice if onne wants to stay digital.

Don Bryant

SilverGlow · Nov 23, 2008

Ray Heath said:
g'day Silver

could you possibly expand on this statement?

seems to me the "maker" intends that multiple point autofocus will make too many assumptions, the most obvious being that the system will decide what to focus on by assuming the subject to be the object closest to the camera

Ray, one should never allow the camera to automatically pick and choose the focus point/s. Although the makers do allow this, it is not their intended way of using their cameras.

And if one picks and choose the FP manually, one will find the best image quality is produced, in regard to critical focus and metering.

Now if the comp is fairly dark, and dark enough to cause the camera to struggle to acquire focus lock, there are speed lights that can provide AF assisting lights, even if a flash is not desired. I find the assisting lights work very well.

Ray Heath · Nov 27, 2008

SilverGlow said:
Ray, one should never allow the camera to automatically pick and choose the focus point/s. Although the makers do allow this, it is not their intended way of using their cameras.

And if one picks and choose the FP manually, one will find the best image quality is produced, in regard to critical focus and metering.

Now if the comp is fairly dark, and dark enough to cause the camera to struggle to acquire focus lock, there are speed lights that can provide AF assisting lights, even if a flash is not desired. I find the assisting lights work very well.

yeh, isn't most of that what i said?

why your "never" recompose comment?

Losing patience with a DSLR...

Rob Ruttan

Tomf2468

donbga

keithwms

Joe Lipka

Pinholemaster

jd callow

Moderator

Donsta

claudermilk

MDa Re

toyotadesigner

Ray Heath

toyotadesigner

jd callow

Moderator

Ray Heath

toyotadesigner

keithwms

jd callow

Moderator

SilverGlow

Ray Heath

jd callow

Moderator

Loris Medici

donbga

SilverGlow

Ray Heath

Losing patience with a DSLR...

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency