I try not to focus at all on a shot-by-shot basis, when possible I prefer to use wide lenses prefocused and get closer. I mostly photograph people in motion from up close and for me it is imperative that the camera takes a photo when I press the button, no ifs or buts, no lenses going bzzt-bzzt or squinting through VFs/RFs while twisting rings and half-pressing buttons. There is however one camera that I absolutely love its AF function and cant wait to use it, especially when the light is low, and that is the Hexar AF. You can take this thing in the closet, I'm talking pitch black and it will still focus instantaneously, accurately, predictably and quietly. It uses some kind of infrared system which I'm not entirely sure how it works but as far as I know they dont make it anymore, which is a shame. Because the AF on that camera definitely doesnt suck.
Wow, you got those first two MF? - But Auto-exposure, I assume?
Were these hand-held, or on a tripod/ gimbal head? I would think that hand-held, moving that fast, MF would be a little tough, yes? If that's how you did it, is there a trick?
Spyro P. wrote:
It uses some kind of infrared system which I'm not entirely sure how it works but as far as I know they dont make it anymore, which is a shame. Because the AF on that camera definitely doesnt suck.
It's a wave bounce over time to determine distance. I've had a few cameras that used it. It works! Here's the wiki for it. My current camera (as did my D2x) uses "2D phase detection" described just below at that link - which is why full-time subject tracking rocks so hard on those cameras!
Because you can make the focus of your image the edge of the frame .Very difficult to do when you have to pick a focus square,lock focus, and then recompose and then hope that it is in focus
-Jim
Cogitech used manual focus to make this thread, but will use autofocus for his reply... So look at General Gear Talk (front-focus) or PRO digital corner (back-focus) to find this reply.
Great discussion so far. Maybe I should just leave it at that...
Nahhh, just kidding. You know there's no way I can resist the urge to criticize AF and show off my MF skills. It's in my blood. Try talking a Lion out of eating that baby Impala. It's just not going to happen.
Anyway, I went for a walk yesterday with my family, my 5D and my Magic Drainpipe. (Right away the AF crowd perks up; "But that's not USM, it's old AF technology!"). Don't worry folks, I wasn't trying to track any Bugatti Veyrons or anything. Just a nice little bird, as you'll see.
Now, don't ask me why, but I decided to give AF a shot. I suppose it was because I had a moment of doubt in my MF skills. Time is of the essence when you have a chance like this. Often these birds are gone before you can even aim, and I had to crunch through some thickish weeds, twigs, etc. to get close enough (it's an 80-200mm lens, after all).
Here are the 100% crops from the initial, contiguous series shot with AF:
Jim Schemel wrote:
Because you can make the focus of your image the edge of the frame .Very difficult to do when you have to pick a focus square,lock focus, and then recompose and then hope that it is in focus
-Jim
My G1 will happily do that. CDAF doesn't have fixed AF points ;-)
That said, I'm a MF guy primarily. Even when I do have to focus and recompose (a requirement with an RF)
I like this thread, as many things are very recognisable for me!
It also made me think why I haven't used a single af lens in almost two years now.
Main reason is that it gives more satisfaction when I take a picture that is more my product instead of the camera (which is why I like working in RAW format too )
I use AF for paintball photography and hate it more and more each day. My subject tracking has only improved as time goes on, and yet my keeper rate does not trend to match. The last event I shot was the worst yet and had something like 90% of all shots just slightly out of focus. No errors on my part, the subjects were centered, I tracked them consistently, the center AF point was often on a ridiculously contrasty spot, and yet focus was just off, sometimes by feet. It wasn't consistently back or front focus either, so we can skip that song and dance.
It's very frustrating to be doing everything right and have the camera be doing everything wrong. I'm starting to believe AF systems are simply abysmal unless you shell out for pro-series bodies, and I'm not even sure if those would solve my problems (Nor do I care to spend $2000 finding out).
Wow, you got those first two MF? - But Auto-exposure, I assume?
Were these hand-held, or on a tripod/ gimbal head? I would think that hand-held, moving that fast, MF would be a little tough, yes? If that's how you did it, is there a trick?
thanks, all were shot handheld at a 700mm equivalent (leica 350mm on a 4/3 camera). i definitely was in aperture priority mode for the pelican shots, i may have been in manual for one of the kinglet shots. the first two shots of pelicans were actually much easier to manual focus. while the pelican's were moving pretty fast (especially the one diving) their movements are very predictable and given the great distance from the subject no large movements of the lens or focus ring are necessary. focussing while panning and handholding just requires a little practice before it feels natural. the only time it becomes difficult is when you have to reposition your focusing hand (this only becomes an issue for me if i end up turning the focus ring more than 100 degrees).
the kinglet shots were actually quite difficult. if you're not familiar with this bird, they are only very slightly larger than a humming bird (head on shot is from around 2 meters away with a 700mm equivalent lens), just as hyper, and very erratic. these birds are constantly bouncing around in random directions. i always shoot bursts of these birds and usually the bird facing one way in the first shot of the burst, the opposite direction in the second, and typically is halfway out of the frame in the third. i am completely unable to track these birds with the lens - i track them with my left eye and i swing the lens wildly about. i have never used a fast usm lens on them, but the nikkor 80-400 VR (on a D1x) can almost never achieve focus on one before it is gone. my success rate with manual focus is much higher - though still very low, i have a lot of difficulty with subject blur due to movement.
cogitech has pointed out biggest problem shooting birds with autofocus - tree branches and leaves. whenever i see a shot like the one he was taking i immediately turn off autofocus (on the rare occasion that i have an autofocus lens). autofocus would never have worked on any camera for this shot because there was no unobstructed part of the cardinal: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4321790665_a865158369_b.jpg
AF works with the right lens, right camera, right subject. I'd argue that an 80-200L (non usm/non manual focus over-ride) is the wrong lens for the the type of photos Cogitech was trying to make. Use a 300 f2.8 on a 1DII or 7D and you would nail the focus.
I'm not saying that AF is best all the time, but I will say that most of the birds displayed did not hit critical focus (Doug Herr's being the exception).
Like most who love the alt-thread forum, I grew up w/ manual focus... shot Contax RTSI, II, III bodies for about 6 years, Nikons for 3 years, Pentax 645 for 5 years, and Hassy CM's for 5 years. Manual focus is a pleasure to use, but AF & wildlife go together like peanut butter and Jelly.
With all that said... Seboh... love the MF on your cardinal... dreamy shot and well done.
cheers,
bruce
wolfloid wrote:
Don't these examples just point to the importance of knowing when you can use AF to good effect and when not?
To me, it is yet another example of AF letting me down. Why I ever thought it would do a better job than me... I don't know. A momentary lapse of reason.
I can't remember the last time I shot something that required AF, or even made me wish that I had used AF, but it seems that every time I have used it I have regretted it. Here I find myself, yet again, regretting it.
thanks, i was really happy with how the cardinal shot turned out as well. i assume you are correct about a 300mm f/2.8 on a pro body. however, there is no af camera/lens combinations in my price range that is up to the birding tasks i want them to perform. so for a non pro wildlife photographer manual focus may be better.
as far as focus goes the images appear to have gotten softer when i used flickr to downsize them for these forums - they looked sharper at 1600 pixels than at 800. on full sized inspection the diving pelican is very close but not quite dead on. the two pelicans are both slightly out of focus because i focused between them trying to get both in. the head-on kinglet has perfect eye focus, but at mfd on a 700mm equivalent everything not in eye plane is out of focus. the kinglet taking off is almost certainly slightly off focus, but i can't tell for sure at 100% crops because there is also a fair amount of motion blur.
OwlsEyes wrote:
AF works with the right lens, right camera, right subject. I'd argue that an 80-200L (non usm/non manual focus over-ride) is the wrong lens for the the type of photos Cogitech was trying to make. Use a 300 f2.8 on a 1DII or 7D and you would nail the focus.
I'm not saying that AF is best all the time, but I will say that most of the birds displayed did not hit critical focus (Doug Herr's being the exception).
Like most who love the alt-thread forum, I grew up w/ manual focus... shot Contax RTSI, II, III bodies for about 6 years, Nikons for 3 years, Pentax 645 for 5 years, and Hassy CM's for 5 years. Manual focus is a pleasure to use, but AF & wildlife go together like peanut butter and Jelly.
With all that said... Seboh... love the MF on your cardinal... dreamy shot and well done.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
OwlsEyes wrote:
I'm not saying that AF is best all the time, but I will say that most of the birds displayed did not hit critical focus (Doug Herr's being the exception).
Well, you apparently missed the fact that my images are all 100% crops. At approximately 50% you can easily see that my manually focused shots are, in fact, critically focused:
When I shot mostly festivals, parades, events and such AF was a help and delivered good results. But now I do mostly macro, portraits, wild birds, a little scenery. Can't remember the last time I used AF. OK, I use my thumb and AF to get me quickly to the subject sometimes. But it is MF for the fine tuning.
)