Both those scenarios work perfectly without compromise for me. Whatever your case, now we're approaching a "yes I can" <--> "no you can't" back and forth - which isn't very fun.
It's simple for me to obtain critical focus where I want when I want without compromise and in low light with either the D2x or the A2's AF. Especially on a normal tripod with a proper ballhead. I don't always do it that way but it works when I do. That's what I know. YMMV.
cogitech wrote:
Well thanks for the critique, guys. For me, this was my first chance ever to shoot a cardinal. I wasn't out birding (I don't do that) I was out for a walk with my family.
I think it is insulting, to say the least, that you decide to question my decision to shoot the cardinal. It was there. I shot it. I presented the shots as an example of why I hate AF, and how manual focus is something that I can rely on far more than any AF system. The subject matter is irrelevant to the discussion, but since you know there is no "winner" in this argument, you decide to insult the content of the photo. Juvenile and brutish, to say the least.
My co-worker told me something politically incorrect but very fitting today; arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: even if you win, you're still a retard.
And with that, I will say one last time that I hate AF, regardless of whether the cardinal deserves a portrait or not....Show more →
my apologies. i didn't mean to demean your photographic choices at all. i do quite a lot of birding - such as one can living in the middle of chicago. when i see a bird that i have never photographed before i get very excited and invariably take a hundred or so shots of it even if it is in a position that means none of the shots will look particularly attractive. i have only seen an indigo bunting twice in my life so the last time i saw one i took about fifty shots of it even though it was strongly backlit and so far away it is only about 100 pixels high at 100% magnification. i would not bother to take the pictures you took of your cardinal because i have the good fortune to have many cardinals (relatively) happy to pose for me in more accessible locations every day on my walk to work - not because i think you were foolish or a poor wildlife photographer to shoot the cardinal as you did. this is why i said "different people have different needs and desires as far as images go." upon rereading my post i can see how it could have appeared more derogatory than i intended when i posted it. again, my apologies.
as far as arguing on the internet goes here is a fitting webcomic: http://xkcd.com/386/
(i highly recommend this comic strip for anyone with a math/science background. also, if you hold your mouse over any of the comics an extra punch line will appear in the alt text)
Bifurcator wrote:
For 1.2 on a tripod the D2x had no problems at all in any of it's AF modes. I always got what I expected to get. In the proper mode - spot-on! Same with the A2 but it's 2.8 which is a bit different - especially on a 2/3 sensor.
!
sorry, this is kind of off topic but i wasn't aware that there existed an autofocus f/1.2 lens that could be mounted on the D2x. did i miss a very interesting lens or were you just speaking generally about the autofocus performance of the D2x and not specifically about using f/1.2?
cogitech wrote:
Not many of us do, because most people either haven't used a real manual focus lens, forget what it is like and/or simply don't care. AF has been around so long that most people think it is the only option. They see that MF switch on the lens and wonder why it is even there.
Add to this general trend the fact that today's cameras are, for the most part, nearly useless for manual focus and the trend is continuing further in that direction. Exhibit A; the 7D.
All things considered, I suppose I should consider myself lucky to have an "adequate" viewfinder and the option of a high precision focusing screen. If it were up to the AF Nazis, all cameras produced would be just like the 7D.
And that brings us to an important point; AF forces a manual focus compromise. Everyone says "Yeah, but with AF we always have the option to flip the switch." Balls! We have the option of flipping the switch on a lens with a not-even-half-baked focusing ring with an uber-short throw and trying to focus it in a sub-standard viewfinder lit up by only 60% of the light entering the mirror box. It is AF that forces this compromise and I, for one, would rather be completely without any AF system in trade for a real focus ring, a bright, large viewfinder, and a selection of extremely precise focusing screens.
I would still own an AF camera, but I would rarely use it....Show more →
I would not. Not only that I find AF very useful but when I MF, I actually prefer to do it in my AF lenses (Rng-USM ones, not AFD) than in my MF lenses.
I also had the 40D with EF-S screen and now I have the 7D and I find that MF is a bit easier.
RustyBug wrote:
Concur about 10 Gazillion percent.
And of course, this is a MAJOR consideration on why the manufacturers are taking the industry in the direction they do. I don't think anyone here is saying that the majority of people SHOULD be shooting MF ... just that we have a strong appreciation for MF, and dislike certain compromises that AF creates.
At the risk of another analogy being misunderstood ...
Car manufacturers make the vast majority of cars with an automatic transmission. Most people drive cars with automatic transmissions. Fewer people (%) than ever even know how to drive a manual transmission. Most people don't want to drive a stick. Most people are too busy texting, twittering, downloading, mp3'ing and talking to be driving a stick.
HOWEVER, car enthusiasts & engineers around the world KNOW that maximum performance & control comes from a manual transmission. Some people are passionate about the difference between a manual transmission vs. automatic. Other people couldn't give two hoots about it, citing all kinds of reasons why the automatic is 'better'.
The fact that automatic transmissions dominate the industry, does not change the fact that for control & performance, manual has advantages that an automatic transmission cannot have ... (although they do continue to get better & better).
So it is with MF vs. AF ... MF is not for the masses, but enthusiasts do appreciate the difference ... not everyone does....Show more →
Enter DSG, the best of both worlds. What can I say? I love technology.
Ah, OK, my bad. There's been so many rude posts lately I guess I'm loosing my sense of humor a little. Anyway no harm done. Thanks for straightening it out!
BTW, tracking is full field - I couldn't find an A2 or D2x specific live sample but here's the D5000 This is like the A2 but the A2 uses a much smaller area cursor and seems to be faster than this D5000 demo. The A2 uses just "+" shaped cursor and is probably more alike to this speed: http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=U29JTFdacWuRpcF9RTDg Here's kinda what the AF chip is seeing: Here's AF on the D2x: http://revver.com/video/106276/nikon-d2x-configuring-autofocus/ But again, no good tracking in-action vids for the D2x. Bummer.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I would not. Not only that I find AF very useful but when I MF, I actually prefer to do it in my AF lenses (Rng-USM ones, not AFD) than in my MF lenses.
I also had the 40D with EF-S screen and now I have the 7D and I find that MF is a bit easier.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
out of curiosity what makes manual focus on the 7D better, the bigger viewfinder? and what are you shooting with the 7D? i can see manual focus for long telephotos being easier, but wide angles and lenses faster than f/2.8 would surprise me.
sebboh wrote:
my apologies. i didn't mean to demean your photographic choices at all. i do quite a lot of birding - such as one can living in the middle of chicago. when i see a bird that i have never photographed before i get very excited and invariably take a hundred or so shots of it even if it is in a position that means none of the shots will look particularly attractive. i have only seen an indigo bunting twice in my life so the last time i saw one i took about fifty shots of it even though it was strongly backlit and so far away it is only about 100 pixels high at 100% magnification. i would not bother to take the pictures you took of your cardinal because i have the good fortune to have many cardinals (relatively) happy to pose for me in more accessible locations every day on my walk to work - not because i think you were foolish or a poor wildlife photographer to shoot the cardinal as you did. this is why i said "different people have different needs and desires as far as images go." upon rereading my post i can see how it could have appeared more derogatory than i intended when i posted it. again, my apologies.
as far as arguing on the internet goes here is a fitting webcomic: http://xkcd.com/386/
(i highly recommend this comic strip for anyone with a math/science background. also, if you hold your mouse over any of the comics an extra punch line will appear in the alt text) ...Show more →
No apology necessary. Your explanation makes plenty of logical sense to me. I misinterpreted your particular response. Sorry to include you in my response.
sebboh wrote:
out of curiosity what makes manual focus on the 7D better, the bigger viewfinder? and what are you shooting with the 7D? i can see manual focus for long telephotos being easier, but wide angles and lenses faster than f/2.8 would surprise me.
Yes, it's the bigger viewfinder. But it also have some kind of fine granularity in it. Very convenient.
My current gear list is:
Canon: 10-22, 17-55/2.8 IS, 60/2.8 macro, 135/2, 300/4 IS.
Mamiya:35/3.5, 120/4 macro.
I'm sorry if this is naive, but how exactly is the AF/MF debate different than using Program or Priority modes vs. full Manual mode? I'm speaking primarily to those who seem to look down on AF users for giving up some control to the camera.
Speebs wrote:
I'm speaking primarily to those who seem to look down on AF users for giving up some control to the camera.
I don't look down on anybody for using AF, I just much prefer to use manual focus because I don't want my compositions and attention tied to the AF points in my viewfinder. I also find manual focus to be more accurate and reliable for the type of shooting that I do. When I switched to using manual focus, I found that my attention shifted from inside the camera to out in front of the camera. I don't have to think at all about what the camera's AF system is doing. This has improved my photography more than I could have imagined. Far more than what mode I choose to shoot in.
Speebs wrote:
I'm sorry if this is naive, but how exactly is the AF/MF debate different than using Program or Priority modes vs. full Manual mode? I'm speaking primarily to those who seem to look down on AF users for giving up some control to the camera.
it's not really different and i think most of the condescension in both debates is largely unwarranted. this thread doesn't seem to have been started as a "mf is better than af" thread so much as an "i hate af because it is not capable of the task i want it to do" thread. more of a complaint about the effectiveness of a technology than a statement that there is no reason for the technology to exist. different people shoot different kinds of shots and thus need different levels of control. if you can get all of your shots to come out exactly the way you want using auto mode and autofocus then the only reason to shoot manual anything would be because you enjoy the experience of manual shooting. if one takes the kind of shots where various auto modes regularly fail to produce the desired effect or where autofocus regularly fails then it makes sense to do things manually.
cogitech wrote:
I don't look down on anybody for using AF, I just much prefer to use manual focus because I don't want my compositions and attention tied to the AF points in my viewfinder. I also find manual focus to be more accurate and reliable for the type of shooting that I do. When I switched to using manual focus, I found that my attention shifted from inside the camera to out in front of the camera. I don't have to think at all about what the camera's AF system is doing. This has improved my photography more than I could have imagined. ...Show more →
Speebs wrote:
I'm sorry if this is naive, but how exactly is the AF/MF debate different than using Program or Priority modes vs. full Manual mode?
You are EXACTLY correct . . . it isn't.
That was exactly my point regarding degrees of control (which I even referenced specifically regarding metering as one of several examples). Manual focus, manual metering, manual processing, manual transmissions, manual etc. gives a degree of control that auto-anything can't fully achieve, but we may still find auto more convenient & more than willing to accept auto in our efforts ... particularly as auto everything continues to improve greatly.
I don't think there was ever an intent to 'look down' on anyone who uses AF (as most of us all do use AF at some time) ... but simply to defend the virtues of MF as having certain characteristics that AF had to compromise in order to achieve AF.
Rusty: That was a very good way to put it as the "non-ranting" way to read the thread title finally sank in.
AF has undoubtedly made the MF-process a great deal of damage. Focusing control rings, standard-installed matte-screens and viewfinder optics have all lost a lot of precision/performance due to the amount of slack that AF has cut the camera manufacturers in those departments. This is indeed a very good reason to "hate AF".
But I do have to say that the "straight" up/down way to read the thread title is indeed inflammatory, bordering to trolling.
And if any of the MF birding/sports-shooters are telling at least half-truths in here, then I'm mightily impressed. I've met a lot of photographers, and none has ever claimed to be able to follow quick passes in football/soccer/hockey/basketball or erratic bird-flight half as well as a well tuned AF system. For static or slower, more linear movement compositions then by all means, but.... Really?
