Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

Sirius Glass · Mar 29, 2007

PatTrent said:
Automation makes it easier, but doesn't really add anything other than that, IMO and experience.

Yeah, I am still trying to figure out why the Program Mode and Automatic Mode do not improve the composition with my Nikon!

Suggestions? :confused:

Steve:rolleyes:

Paul. · Mar 30, 2007

Interesting thoughts here, have to say for myself I just prefer manual focus, tried auto could not get on with it and gave the camera away. To each his own and mine is manual thanks.

Regards Paul.

kwmullet · Mar 30, 2007

the Autofocus Problems Page

I was a little surprised that seventy-some posts into the thread, no one had posted the URL to the Autofocus Problems Page, but I found that the Dead Link Removed was a dead link, so thanks to the Internet Archive, I found a 2006 version of the page. Lots of really good information here, especially on why manual focus on AF cameras is not as good as manually focusing manual focus cameras.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060503072923/http://medfmt.8k.com/third/af.html

If, for the rest of this and all successive lives, I never have to wait on a camera to hunt for focus, or have to give thought to which focus sensors are where so I can place them over what I want in focus, or have to wait for the camera to do anything other than take the freakin' picture when I press the shutter release, that would be just fine with me.

-KwM-

Roger Hicks · Mar 30, 2007

kwmullet said:
I was a little surprised that seventy-some posts into the thread, no one had posted the URL to the Autofocus Problems Page, but I found that the Dead Link Removed was a dead link, so thanks to the Internet Archive, I found a 2006 version of the page. Lots of really good information here, especially on why manual focus on AF cameras is not as good as manually focusing manual focus cameras.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060503072923/http://medfmt.8k.com/third/af.html

If, for the rest of this and all successive lives, I never have to wait on a camera to hunt for focus, or have to give thought to which focus sensors are where so I can place them over what I want in focus, or have to wait for the camera to do anything other than take the freakin' picture when I press the shutter release, that would be just fine with me.

-KwM-

I'd never heard of it. Thanks!

And amen to all your other observations.

Of course you'll now get devotees of indvidual systems saying, "But Canons aren't like that" -- "But post-March, 2003 Nikons aren't like that" -- etc.

My favourite post so far was to the effect of, "Why spend money trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?"

Cheers,

R.

kwmullet · Mar 30, 2007

Tech vs. Craft

Apologies ahead of time if this post causes this otherwise fine thread to degrade into Another Damned Digital/Analog Bicker. if it does, I'll just ignore the thread and try to learn my lesson about such comments, but...

To my mind, this all has to do with a conundrum affecting all postwar art: where should the line go, one side of which you use technology to do your work and the other side of which you use craft.

Some people use craft rather than tech because it just feels more organic to them, and they really don't argue that one yields better art than the other. Some use tech rather than craft because they might see that any effort eliminated toward the mechanics of art is a good thing. Some folks select craft or tech because they do feel one or the other gives better results.

Maybe it all boils down to whether you're a tv dinner or a make dinner from scratch person.

-KwM-

Nick Zentena · Mar 30, 2007

copake_ham said:
Obviously most professionals have shown a preference for AF over MF in most applications

Have they?

How many MF focus 35mm pro cameras have been made lately? Say the last 10 years? If you can't buy a MF pro camera how can you say people have made a choice?

If pros were so in love with AF why is it so less common in medium format?

copake_ham · Mar 30, 2007

Nick Zentena said:
Have they?

How many MF focus 35mm pro cameras have been made lately? Say the last 10 years? If you can't buy a MF pro camera how can you say people have made a choice?

If pros were so in love with AF why is it so less common in medium format?

Nick,

The point of my post was to suggest that we avoid dividing ourselves into hard-line factions.

You chose to parse my post to contrary ends.

Why?

reub2000 · Mar 30, 2007

Nick Zentena said:
Have they?

How many MF focus 35mm pro cameras have been made lately? Say the last 10 years? If you can't buy a MF pro camera how can you say people have made a choice?

If pros were so in love with AF why is it so less common in medium format?

There not made because they don't feel they would sell. Asn further proof of this, Canon surpased Nikon in the profesional market because they got AF right with a lens based motor in their EOS system.

polaski · Mar 30, 2007

Thank you, thank you, thank you

Thank you to KWMullet for identifying the new location of the Robert Monoghan files. I have missed them sorely.

Where else would I have learned so much about Century Precision SLR lenses that not only focus manually, but focus with a considerable amount of turning, turning, turning .... Makes me kind of think about where I'm standing and where my subject might show up, and plan accordingly.

kwmullet · Mar 30, 2007

polaski said:
Thank you to KWMullet for identifying the new location of the Robert Monoghan files. I have missed them sorely.

Where else would I have learned so much about Century Precision SLR lenses that not only focus manually, but focus with a considerable amount of turning, turning, turning .... Makes me kind of think about where I'm standing and where my subject might show up, and plan accordingly.

Well, thanks, but it's not so much a new location as it is the location of an Internet archive for web pages that seem to have disappeared for one reason or another. It's like a backup for the web. I always keep a "Wayback" button on my browser's bookmark toolbar. That way, if I encounter a dead link, I might be able to pull up a list of archived copies of that page to choose from.

With 85 billion web pages archived since 1996, chances are what you're missing might be found there.

http://www.archive.org/

-KwM-

mawz · Mar 31, 2007

Nick Zentena said:
Have they?

How many MF focus 35mm pro cameras have been made lately? Say the last 10 years? If you can't buy a MF pro camera how can you say people have made a choice?

If pros were so in love with AF why is it so less common in medium format?

I'll note that within the last 10 years at least four pro-level MF bodies have been available.

The Nikon F3HP was discontinued in 2001, as was the Pentax LX. The Contax RTSIII was also discontinued around then, and the Leica R9 is still available new. All are pro 35mm MF bodies.

Personally, I suspect that 1/250th flash sync did in the old pro bodies as much as AF did. Certainly in Nikon land, going to an F4 from an earlier F gained you fairly massive improvements in the flash system (Wider ISO range for TTL[against F3], 1.6 stop higher flash sync[2 for an F, 1.6 for F2 and F3], distinctly improved flash metering, standard ISO shoe), not to mention integrated winder/drives (why was there no winder for the F3? only the MD-4 drive that is overkill for most applications, the F2 had the nice, lighter MD-3) and vertical controls. And metering improved as well between the AF pro bodies and the earlier MF pro bodies(spot metering, matrix metering). While later MF bodies got a lot of the improvements that the AF pro bodies did (the R9 and RTSIII are closer in form and capability to an F4 or EOS 1 than a F3 or New F1) they were never mirrored in the more popular systems.

As to medium format, I'll note that the three most common systems today (sold new) are all AF or AF capable 645 systems (Hassy H series, Mamiya 645 AF, Pentax 645). AF 645 systems have come to dominate the MF market, at least for new sales (used is dominated by the older 6x6 and 6x7 systems that are difficult to impossible to get new these days, aloong with dirt cheap older manual 645 kit)

snegron · Apr 1, 2007

mawz said:
I'll note that within the last 10 years at least four pro-level MF bodies have been available.

The Nikon F3HP was discontinued in 2001, as was the Pentax LX. The Contax RTSIII was also discontinued around then, and the Leica R9 is still available new. All are pro 35mm MF bodies.

Personally, I suspect that 1/250th flash sync did in the old pro bodies as much as AF did. Certainly in Nikon land, going to an F4 from an earlier F gained you fairly massive improvements in the flash system (Wider ISO range for TTL[against F3], 1.6 stop higher flash sync[2 for an F, 1.6 for F2 and F3], distinctly improved flash metering, standard ISO shoe), not to mention integrated winder/drives (why was there no winder for the F3? only the MD-4 drive that is overkill for most applications, the F2 had the nice, lighter MD-3) and vertical controls. And metering improved as well between the AF pro bodies and the earlier MF pro bodies(spot metering, matrix metering). While later MF bodies got a lot of the improvements that the AF pro bodies did (the R9 and RTSIII are closer in form and capability to an F4 or EOS 1 than a F3 or New F1) they were never mirrored in the more popular systems.

As to medium format, I'll note that the three most common systems today (sold new) are all AF or AF capable 645 systems (Hassy H series, Mamiya 645 AF, Pentax 645). AF 645 systems have come to dominate the MF market, at least for new sales (used is dominated by the older 6x6 and 6x7 systems that are difficult to impossible to get new these days, aloong with dirt cheap older manual 645 kit)

Let's not forget to mention the Leica M series stillbeing produced today. They even made the M8, but as far as I know, the lenses are all manual focus.

Also, the Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 are still available new. Neither of them are autofocus.

There have been very good AF cameras, like the Nikon F5, F6, F100, and several Canon models as well. What probably "did in" the old pro bodies was the research and new approach of the companies toward the development of the highly profitable pixy cameras. The new generation of consumers leans toward total automation. Why go through all the trouble of turning a nob with two fingers when your camera can do it for you? A sign of this was when canon produced theirf irst eyefocus SLR's where your eyeball was in control of the focus (the Elan series).

The new thought process was "look what my camera can do" instead of "look what I can do with my camera."

Hence, autofocus. Also, the profit on newer autofocus lenses and cameras is substantialy higher than with manual focus lenses. Older pro manual focus cameras and lenses were more labor intensive and the costs of metals has gone up. It is cheaper to make circuit boards than it is to make metal gears.

Why manual focusing instead of auto-focusing SLRs?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency