Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

jmailand · Mar 23, 2007

I started out with manual focus, I have lost very few shots because of focus. I think a depth of field scale or preview switch for me is more important. I have ruined more shots because of a too narrow focus range. I have a couple newer Minolta Maxxums I picked up reasonably cheap since the digital explosion. If I'm going to shoot kids or sports, I might use them because my nieces and nephews move around a lot, but thats very rare for me. Most of the time my subjects don't move very much so I stick with the older manual focus cameras because my lense for them are superior to the zooms my Minolta has. Also the batteries if present last much longer.

James,

firecracker · Mar 23, 2007

The newer 35mm film AF SLR cameras are quite complicated with all these tiny nobs and dials that have nothing to do with firing the shutter! I've never had any patience to figure out what each setting really does, so I've never owned one.

Chan Tran · Mar 23, 2007

It's many times easier to use manual focus. With AF I have to point the focus point to what I want to focus on, lock focus then recompose. It's a 2 step process plus it's a bit less accurate if you turn the camera after focus is locked. I can focus anywhere on the focusing screen when I do manual focus.

Soeren · Mar 23, 2007

firecracker said:
The newer 35mm film AF SLR cameras are quite complicated with all these tiny nobs and dials that have nothing to do with firing the shutter! I've never had any patience to figure out what each setting really does, so I've never owned one.

Not neccesary true. Pentax MZ5 is very basic and "oldfasioned" in handling and The Nikons I own are... yes ok... more complicated than a FE but not so much that you have to read the manual to start shooting. The basics are still straightforward. You can easily set it to M and MF and shoot away. The Canon T90 was as complicated if not more and that was a manual focus. There are lots of modes and gimmicks that I never use but I still find the ergonomics, handling, balance and viewfinder of my F100 or F90X better than the FE2. Zooms in generel lacks the DOF scale but all my AF lenses has one. It might be better on AIS lenses than on AFD lenses but still it comes down to routine and knowledge to get it right. Offcource AF fails sometimes but so does MF, at least for me but then again my eyes are not those of a falcon.
I wouldn't dismiss either AF or MF both have their forces.
Cheers Søren

copake_ham · Mar 23, 2007

Bentley Boyd said:
Since my main interest is portrait photography, and I always focus on the nearest eye of the sitter, I would personally find autofocus about as useful as an ashtray on a motor bike.

But with matrix AF, you could frame the eye in the chosen matrix point on the focusing screen and it would perfectly focus on that point.

reub2000 · Mar 23, 2007

Steve Roberts said:
"Usually" and "most" - there's the rub!

For me, it's in the same bracket as automatic exposure (or even automatic transmission in cars!)

The purist, I suspect, will always want to have full control over what his machine is doing, but perhaps with some types of photography (sport, reportage, nature, etc.) that "full control" includes the option to decide to use auto-everything!

Steve

It is very rare that autofocus is really off. The only time when it really fails in low light conditions, or with a lack of contrast. And by lack of contrast I mean a blank peice of paper, and texturless white wall and other things with absolutly no detail. Try using a rangefinder on such a subject. Of course this may be different with a different lens system. And early systems (and many of Canon's prime lenses) using micromotors and the like can be slow. (Watch painfully as the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro slowly focuses to 1:1 and the slowly focuses farther until it's focuses on your subject. Not a lens to use for autofocus.)

firecracker · Mar 23, 2007

Soeren said:
Not neccesary true. Pentax MZ5 is very basic and "oldfasioned" in handling and The Nikons I own are... yes ok... more complicated than a FE but not so much that you have to read the manual to start shooting. The basics are still straightforward. You can easily set it to M and MF and shoot away. The Canon T90 was as complicated if not more and that was a manual focus. There are lots of modes and gimmicks that I never use but I still find the ergonomics, handling, balance and viewfinder of my F100 or F90X better than the FE2. Zooms in generel lacks the DOF scale but all my AF lenses has one. It might be better on AIS lenses than on AFD lenses but still it comes down to routine and knowledge to get it right. Offcource AF fails sometimes but so does MF, at least for me but then again my eyes are not those of a falcon.
I wouldn't dismiss either AF or MF both have their forces.
Cheers Søren

I know overall they are not nearly as complicated as the functions that DSLRs provide now. Well, speaking of a zoom, I heard Canon has a zoom fuction on a LCD screen on the back of the latest DSLR camera body...

Roger Hicks · Mar 23, 2007

reub2000 said:
Try using a rangefinder on such a subject.)

If the white wall as got a faint crack in it or a decent-sized bug on it I can focus on it. You may not want to believe that the rest of us know what we're talking about, but you might be surprised...

Cheers,

R.

reub2000 · Mar 23, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
If the white wall as got a faint crack in it or a decent-sized bug on it I can focus on it. You may not want to believe that the rest of us know what we're talking about, but you might be surprised...

Cheers,

R.

And autofocus would lock onto the crack in the wall. However, your not very likely to want to focus on a textureless wall. After all, textureless white walls don't make very interesting photographs! My point being that AF will lock onto a subject in real world conditions with good acuracy.

Roger Hicks · Mar 23, 2007

reub2000 said:
My point being that AF will lock onto a subject in real world conditions with good acuracy.

Everyone else's point being that they've had enough times when it won't.

Cheers,

R.

Andy K · Mar 23, 2007

I recently acquired a Nikon F65 as a glovebox camera. To be honest, even with it on full auto I find it slower than my all manual cameras.

sanking · Mar 23, 2007

My opinion is in the minority here but I am certain that I get a far higher percentage of well focused negatives when using my AF Fuji GA645Zi than when using Fuji medium format range finder cameras. And I use these cameras much as many people use 35mm, as walking-around cameras where opportunities present themselves suddenly and rapid reaction is important. In use I just lock in on the part of the scene where I want the plane of optimum focus and then re-frame in the viewfinder. In the last two years I have exposed over 3,000 frames with this camera in AF mode and could count on the fingers of my two hands the poorly focused ones.

Sandy King

Lee Shively · Mar 23, 2007

I'm one of those who uses both manual and auto focusing SLRs. I ridiculed autofocus for years until I finally bought one of the cameras and started using it. I was surprised at how accurate it could be.

There are times when manual focus works best and there are times when autofocus works best for me. The biggest obstacle with autofocus is learning when to use it and when not to. I tend to get lazy. When that happens, the autofocus will sometimes start hunting or failing to find focus. It's pretty much always my fault when that happens. I can't blame the camera--it's just a dumb machine with a sometimes equally dumb operator at the controls.

Paul Howell · Mar 23, 2007

For the most part I use 35mm with long lens, 300 to 500mm, both zoom and primes, at least in the Sigma SA 7 and 9, it takes a while for the auto focus to lock on due the long throw of focusing a long lens, not only does it take time but eats up battery power. With shorter lens, 80 to 200 or 28 to 105 auto foucs works rather well, but the power drain is still problamatic. Even with 2 bodies I hate to have to change batteries in the middle of a shoot. I know that Sigma has a poor reputation for it's auto focus so I dont know if Canon or Nikon has any of these issues.

Soeren · Mar 23, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Originally Posted by reub2000
My point being that AF will lock onto a subject in real world conditions with good acuracy.

Everyone else's point being that they've had enough times when it won't.

Cheers,

R.

In Which case the AF user will switch to MF on the same camera
Some like the mother, other may prefer the daughter Point is, do/use what suits you best and f/63
Cheers
Søren

Daniel_OB · Mar 23, 2007

I have F6 Nikon fitted with autofocus lens and did not use autofocus nor one single time). What I figure out is that I am concentrated on where is the point my camera will focus on, especially when it moves, instead to concentrate on composition. Manual focusing gives me 100% freedom to compose and to concentrate on composition rather then where is my point of interest and hunt it all the time. Hunting with autofocus make me to crop that small negative which I just do not accept. Anyway it is only one but and most important technical think why I use manual focusing.

www.leica-R.com

Degenetron · Mar 23, 2007

I see a lot of posts here saying it's more ccurate, manual ofcus lenses are cheaper and more durable, etc.. To me it's more about the fact that im doing it manually. It adds to the feeling of achievement when getting a picture just right. You know you set it up yourself, there were no programmed/automated processes involved. I guess if you're a professional photographer, all that matters is the end result. To me it's the process. I might not get as many pictures or as fast as i would with an auto focusing or auto anything.. but i still get to know i set everythign up just like it should be when i get a good pic.

Roger Hicks · Mar 23, 2007

Degenetron said:
I see a lot of posts here saying it's more ccurate, manual ofcus lenses are cheaper and more durable, etc.. To me it's more about the fact that im doing it manually. It adds to the feeling of achievement when getting a picture just right. You know you set it up yourself, there were no programmed/automated processes involved. I guess if you're a professional photographer, all that matters is the end result. To me it's the process. I might not get as many pictures or as fast as i would with an auto focusing or auto anything.. but i still get to know i set everythign up just like it should be when i get a good pic.

YES!

R.

Sirius Glass · Mar 23, 2007

I posted before that I use AF unless the AF starts searching and then I switch to MF. I forgot to add that may be I do not have enough experience with this to comment since I only shoot 50 rolls of 35mm a year plus varing amounts of 120.

Steve

Roger Hicks · Mar 23, 2007

Stever said:
I posted before that I use AF unless the AF starts searching and then I switch to MF. I forgot to add that may be I do not have enough experience with this to comment since I only shoot 50 rolls of 35mm a year plus varing amounts of 120.

Steve

Dear Steve,

I generally prefer to get the picture before I find out whether or not AF will let me take it. Like you, I don't shoot that much: probably 5,000 to 10,000 frames in an average year.

Cheers,

R.

Sirius Glass · Mar 23, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Steve,

I generally prefer to get the picture before I find out whether or not AF will let me take it. Like you, I don't shoot that much: probably 5,000 to 10,000 frames in an average year.

Cheers,

R.

I find that my undeveloped photos always perfect.

Steve

Peter Black · Mar 23, 2007

I may just have missed it somewhere in this thread, but no-one seems to have mentioned eyesight and/or the wearing of glasses. I moved into AF when I found that my focus was just slightly off on occasions with MF, and this was sometimes linked into the time of day, type of light, etc. I have no doubt that on some occasions AF has been the right thing for a shot, but equally I dislike the focusing screens that tend to come with AF cameras, so it isn't always just a case of switching the lens to manual.

I far prefer a split-image screen and even better a 45 degree one, and would choose it for preference as long as the lens wasn't one with a small maximum aperture that leads to blacking out half of the spit image. Hyperfocal distance is way easier with MF and saves messing about with putting the AF point halfway into the shot or waving the lens about until the actual AF point you want lights up.

Sirius Glass · Mar 23, 2007

Frankly, if my AF lenses had the hyperfocal scales on them, there are times when I would use them.

Steve

HerrBremerhaven · Mar 23, 2007

Quite simply I prefer to manual focus. Maybe I am a control freak.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Amund · Mar 23, 2007

I find that working with shallow DOF, manual focus wins every time, there is a certain hand/eye cooridination that just works, while AF tends to find that single strand of hair to settle on, when I want the eyes in focus instead...

Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency