Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

Dave Wooten · 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.

Well Gee Whiz, that is not even 200 rolls.

I probably have about half of that still to develope (in 35 mm) from 1973.

donbga · Mar 23, 2007

film_guy said:
Forgive me for asking this, but I see a lot of people are still using manual focusing SLRs/rangefinders instead of switching to auto-focusing cameras. Is there a reason? I know that sometimes manual focusing is more accurate, but what other benefits are there to using manual-focusing cameras, especially with 35mm?

Not batteries required!

Degenetron · Mar 23, 2007

donbga said:
Not batteries required!

Thats one good reason there. I'm pretty new to photography, atleast as a hobby as apposed to just documenting the present for the future, but i'd say thats my main practical reason for dumping digital. No batteries needed. Same goes for any sort of automated prosess. It's not needed, so why use it..

Tony Egan · Mar 23, 2007

I went to Nikon F4 for concert photography and due to weakening eyesight. Even though F4 is not a fast AF body I would never go back to MF for this kind of photography - focussing is faster and more accurate. If performers are relatively still, pre-focus and use of AF lock button can be very effective. If necessary it's a quick flick to MF if required.

I also use Mamiya 7 and xPan RF and I would not agree focusing is faster with these cameras or demonstrably more accurate in the majority of shooting situations. I use the RFs more for landscape and tend to use hyperfocal focussing.

I have occasionally "missed" shots due to hunting which is the most annoying thing about AF in low light conditions but the other advantages outweigh this.

As others have said many times, cameras are tools. Get to know all the features and functions and use the appropriate tool for the job. Some people "feel" better about MF. No problem with that and perhaps they make better pictures working that way. Objectively, no reason I can see why an AF shooter could not make an equally good picture with a different tool in the majority of situations.

Why use an MF RF? Comparative silence and the ability to be unobtrusive in certain situations. For me that would be the main advantage of such a tool.

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 23, 2007

donbga said:
Not batteries required!

My battery died today on my Canon New F-1, which I hadn't used for a few weeks, so I forgot what I needed to do to use it in all manual mode, not having had this happen in some years, and the shutter wasn't firing. I had to remove the dead battery (for some reason, I thought I was supposed to keep it in the camera), then I replaced the motor drive, and it turned out that the shutter worked on most speeds except for the very slow speeds (this I remembered), as long as I used the release on the camera body, but the motor drive still cocked the shutter and wound the film, and I could keep shooting that way. I had a handheld meter handy.

copake_ham · Mar 23, 2007

Oh no, now the thread has gotten bogged down in "the battery thing"!

Time to get down to boiling the animal parts to get the gelatin....

Yep, you know where this thread is headed.

All actors, have assumed their regular roles. We just need Roger to start talking about his trek in Tibet to meet the Dali Lama whilst* fording raging streams that would have shorted out any batteries should he have been so naive as to rely on a camera using such.

The fact that the Dali Lama now uses an i-Pod to listen to his favorite chants has ....

Is there a reason why folks need to take some kind of near-religious fervor position over simply options like AF and MF? Is there some "sin" if someone enjoys using a tool that others eschew such that they need to turn the "apostate" into an outcast?

Anyone got enough wood around to burn those AF'ers at the stake?

I mean really, c'mon folks are you all really THAT bored waiting for Spring that you're now going to start arguing over batteries! Again! :rolleyes:

*FWIW, Using the British term "whilst" rather than the U.S. "while" is also an opening to shift the thread into the "who's version of English is better" and all of those permutations. We haven't had one of those segues in quite some time.

As Jackie Gleason would say "And away we go....!"

marsbars · Mar 23, 2007

For me I prefer MF as I have more lenses and it forces me to shoot methodically not from the hip. I do have an AF camera and use it for times when I need faster focusing and motorized film advance. Plus AF lenses are much more expensive for good primes and the market is pretty good for fast primes in MF. I like both but use the MF a lot more. Plus the limited need for batteries is a plus. If the meter in my MF stops from no juice I can usually wing the exposure if needed. Use what you like as long as it gets you good shots.

film_guy · Mar 24, 2007

How do you do hyperfocal distance focusing with a cheaper plastic lens which doesn't have a depth of field scale? I've experienced autofocus failures before on the EOS 3 in low-light situations, but in those situations, the lighting and viewfinder's too dark for me to do any manual focusing.

But doing hyperfocal distance focusing on a manual fisheye lens is just awesome! When it's done right, everything's sharp from 3 feet to infinity.

Andy K · Mar 24, 2007

copake_ham said:
Oh no, now the thread has gotten bogged down in "the battery thing"!

Well it is a fair point when discussing the pros and cons of af and mf. If the batteries in my F65 die, it becomes a paperweight, the entire camera dies. Also the batteries it uses are not readily available outside of photographic stores or larger chemists. My OM-1, Bessaflex and R3M on the other hand are still quite usable even with dead batteries.

eddym · Mar 24, 2007

Peter Black said:
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.

Very good point. By the time I hit 50 I began having problems focusing cameras, both 35mm and 120. With my TLR I found myself raising my eyeglasses as I looked down into the WL finder, looking for the sweet spot that would focus my eyes on the screen. An Intenscreen helped, but for 35mm I decided to buy my F100, my first AF camera.
I find manual lenses very hard to use with the F100, because I can't focus manually without a split image or microprism aid anymore. The little "focus confirmation" light is way down at the bottom left of the screen, and is very hard to use, especially if you are trying to follow action.
On the other hand, my Leicas still focus perfectly!!!

benjiboy · Mar 24, 2007

Keep it simple

copake_ham said:
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.

I'm sure what you say is correct, but in my case I prefer things that are low-tech I can see no reason to use advanced technology to solve a problem that I don't have, It's like using a space rocket to pull a farm cart, however I can see that for some types of sports? action photography this advanced matrix A/F system is invaluable.

snegron · Mar 24, 2007

All this talk about the virtues of maual focus vs. autofocus has just inspired me to go out and shoot a few rolls of slide film tomorrow with my F3HP and a few prime lenses! The thought of hearing the gears winding on my F3's motor drive as I manualy focus an image and click the little chrome button to capture what I see is one of the most enjoyable feelings I can imagine!

It is probably just a state of mind, but I feel I have more participation in the creation of a captured image when I use manual focus lenses. It feels real.

MattKing · Mar 24, 2007

Being a curious sort, from time to time I look at the myriad of dig*tal gear available. I find it entertaining to note that it is a rare camera indeed that even gives you the choice to manually focus. Not surprisingly, those are the cameras I find most interesting.

I wouldn't mind having autofocus as an accessory or option, but none of my cameras do, so I do without.

By the way, one pet peeve: I wish people wouldn't refer to manual focus as MF - I invariably take that to mean Medium Format, and I get really confused .

Matt

eddym · Mar 24, 2007

snegron said:
The thought of hearing the gears winding on my F3's motor drive as I manualy focus an image and click the little chrome button to capture what I see is one of the most enjoyable feelings I can imagine!

god, I love it when you talk dirty like that!!!

eddym · Mar 24, 2007

MattKing said:
By the way, one pet peeve: I wish people wouldn't refer to manual focus as MF - I invariably take that to mean Medium Format, and I get really confused

...or worse!

elekm · Mar 24, 2007

film_guy said:
Forgive me for asking this, but I see a lot of people are still using manual focusing SLRs/rangefinders instead of switching to auto-focusing cameras. Is there a reason? I know that sometimes manual focusing is more accurate, but what other benefits are there to using manual-focusing cameras, especially with 35mm?

There are many people who simply want complete control of the creative process and not leave it up to some algorithm that might work or might not.

And then there's that school of thought that feels that auto processes, including digital, make you a lazy photographer.

flashgumby · Mar 26, 2007

copake_ham said:
Is there a reason why folks need to take some kind of near-religious fervor position over simply options like AF and MF? ...

... I mean really, c'mon folks are you all really THAT bored waiting for Spring that you're now going to start arguing over batteries! Again!

Actually, you mean 'fervour' don't you? And I'm waiting for Autumn, Spring is many long months away.

Yep, I guess I'm as bored reading these pointless arguments as you are
I just came from the Pop Photo site to this one tonight because I'm sick of the Film vs. Digi garbage there, and look what I find. The APUG version of the same thing.

Live and let live!

Gordon.

DBP · Mar 26, 2007

copake_ham said:
*FWIW, Using the British term "whilst" rather than the U.S. "while" is also an opening to shift the thread into the "who's version of English is better" and all of those permutations. We haven't had one of those segues in quite some time.

As Jackie Gleason would say "And away we go....!"

Actually, the range of interests among APUGers that leads to those sort of segues is one of the things I enjoy about this site. Among my favorites were the threads where trolling posts quickly turned into food and recipe discussions.

polaski · Mar 28, 2007

Mind over matter

I've never been truly able to put the blame for a bad photograph on my equipment, but I've come close.

In a recent office party, I switched to an auto-focus kit lens, and found the autofocus hunting, and hunting, and hunting. It was having as much trouble focusing as I do with my 60-year-old eyes. I'd rather make the mistake myself and hope to learn from the experience.

I do admit that the focus confirmation indicator when I am using manual focus on the Pentax istDS is a useful hint that I am close to correct.

Using my Retina IIa, I depend completely on my estimate of distance, the focus scale on the lens, and a depth-of-field estimate. With that camera, I know I am more accurate than the rangefinder.

PatTrent · Mar 29, 2007

In my youth, as a sports photojournalist for a small local newspaper, I used only manual cameras. No problem. We used hyperfocal distance settings where practical, otherwise we pre-focused on the spot where the peak action was expected to occur. We set our shutter speeds and lens apertures in advance--and left the settings unchanged.

Whenever I get caught up in the new technology, I just recall those days to remind myself of what little we really need. I even occasionally saw, in the distant past, people shooting action with view cameras!

reub2000 · Mar 29, 2007

PatTrent said:
In my youth, as a sports photojournalist for a small local newspaper, I used only manual cameras. No problem. We used hyperfocal distance settings where practical, otherwise we pre-focused on the spot where the peak action was expected to occur. We set our shutter speeds and lens apertures in advance--and left the settings unchanged.

Whenever I get caught up in the new technology, I just recall those days to remind myself of what little we really need. I even occasionally saw, in the distant past, people shooting action with view cameras!

I have to ask, how many usable shots do you get by doing this? How about indoor sports?

eddym · Mar 29, 2007

I used to shoot horse races (harness races, barrel races, rodeo) with a Rollei TLR. I prefocused and used the sports finder. All the shots were "useable," at least in terms of being in focus and sharp.

Steve Smith · Mar 29, 2007

Bentley Boyd said:
It's like using a space rocket to pull a farm cart.

Now that sounds like fun!

Steve.

copake_ham · Mar 29, 2007

PatTrent said:
....

Whenever I get caught up in the new technology, I just recall those days to remind myself of what little we really need. I even occasionally saw, in the distant past, people shooting action with view cameras!

You are certainly correct that we often lose sight of how little may be required to achieve a task. We're all guilty to some degree in life of confusing wants with needs.

As to the MF to AF issue; leaving view cameras aside, the simple fact is that the history of the 35mm camera development has been a progression to ever greater convenience with the goal of improving professional work flow. This includes the move to dSLRs.

Obviously most professionals have shown a preference for AF over MF in most applications (particularly sports photography), as well as now favoring d****** over film (alas!). This is indisputable.

But for a minority of pros and many of us amateurs for whom efficient work flow is not necessarily a priority, it's quite reasonable for some to prefer MF to AF and vice versa. This is all I meant when I said I didn't understand why these kinds of issues have to viewed as dividing people into separate sects with a kind of religious fervor.

At the end of the day, the only real concern is to have fun with whatever tools you enjoy using!

PatTrent · Mar 29, 2007

reub2000 said:
I have to ask, how many usable shots do you get by doing this? How about indoor sports?

Actually, it was easier indoors than out sometimes. As to usuable shots, nearly all of them were if you set your exposures correctly. For basketball, focus (hyperfocal) at the baskets/loops and for baseball, focus at 2nd base most of the time (otherwise at home plate, and know how to switch the focus quickly from one spot to the other). For football, you could use various lenses and focus points, etc.

What also made it workable was that I would go out to shoot with no less than 3 SLR's, with different fixed-length lenses or sometimes with different focus points.

My point is simply that it was possible to do everything with fully manual cameras then that you can do with auto-everything cameras today--it just took more gear and/or more forethought. Automation makes it easier, but doesn't really add anything other than that, IMO and experience.

Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

Dave Wooten

donbga

Degenetron

Tony Egan

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

copake_ham

marsbars

film_guy

Andy K

eddym

benjiboy

snegron

MattKing

Moderator

eddym

eddym

elekm

flashgumby

DBP

polaski

PatTrent

reub2000

eddym

Steve Smith

copake_ham

PatTrent

Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency