Actually, it was a 1D MK II ... non-servo mode, prefocused, but something moved a smidgeon ... no biggie, DOF would have covered it, but AARRGGHHH, did not fire !! Happened a couple other times till I figured out what was going on. Someone can claim operator error ... guilty as charged (sort of), but could not have happened shooting MF.
Yeah, I understand what your talking about. Terribly frustrating. There are several different modes on the pro Nikons as I suspect there are on the 1Ds. I always use release priority and never miss a shot because of a dead shutter release.
Release priority is a must on any AF system. It amazes me how tolerant some people are with non-fires - you lose so many good ones! I also loathe it on my Hexar AF, only real fault of that camera. The technology (AF) worked better in the imagination of the designers than it does in real life.
As an old fart who got into photography before AF, I confess that manual focusing, like myself adjusting exposure based on how the light changes, or merely getting the decisive moment shooting one shot at a time...rather than in bursts...is merely a preference for the sense of engagement in the process I get from doing it myself...
...there's a greater sense of control...and of accomplishment...a greater sensing the odds of success and failure....which I don't mind terribly, the meeting and beating the odds I mean...the sense that it wasn't the camera, but me, who got the shot...
jay tieger wrote:
As an old fart who got into photography before AF, I confess that manal focusing, like myself adjusting exposure based on how the light changes, or merely getting the decisive moment shooing one shot at a time...rather than in bursts...is merely a preference for the sense of engagement in the process I get from doing it myself...
...there's a greater sense of control...and of accomplishment...a greater sensing the odds of success and failure....which I don't mind terribly, the meeting and beating the odds I mean...the sense that it wasn't the camera, but me, who got the shot...
sorry to bump up a thread that seems to have finally died, but i just came across some interesting comments regarding manual focus in Thom Hogan's review of the nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR. i just wanted to point out that this is a pro photographer who does a great deal of wildlife photography with the latest greatest gear (i have no idea whether he makes more money with his photos or with his writing) talking about a lens that he says has excellent autofocus speed and accuracy, yet he still ends up mentioning pretty much all the points the supporters of manual focus did on this thread. here is the relavent portion of the review (i'm assuming most people on the alt forum aren't terribly interested in a review of this lens but it can be found at bythom.com):
"And I use the focus override capability of the lens a lot--the viewfinders on the pro cameras are just barely good enough to know when you need to do this, so make sure you've got your diopter setting dialed in right. With these tweaks, I use the automated focus system to do the crude work and I constantly finesse it to get a finer degree of control. Unfortunately, this isn't something you pick up in a day. You really have to practice these things because they all interact to some degree. But my hit rate is higher than if I just relied on the autofocus system by itself in a constant mode.
The ring action for both zoom and focus is pretty good, though not superb. After six years of use, mine has some slop to it I'm not sure Nikon can get out through servicing. The focus ring, by the way, goes almost 360 degrees to get from minimum focus distance to maximum. This couples with what I wrote in the previous paragraph: if you fine tune the focus manually, you have a very large degree of adjustment available to you. Even on subjects a fair distance away from you your focus tweaking can be measured in millimeters if you've got a steady hand. That I like very much. Indeed, I'd be complaining about it if it weren't so".
Vivitar 120-600 @ 600mm + Kenko 1.4X (840mm) on 1D MK II N
f8, 1/500, ISO 640, monopod & angle finder
Practicing some manual focusing technique.
It took a bit of coaxing in PP to get this ... but getting this on one shot without a tripod @ 840mm ... I'll take it. I just wish I knew how to better handle 'purple fringe' in PP.
Kent, just desaturate purple as much as possible in Lightroom. The red insulators (?) don't seem to have any natural purple to them, so this shouldn't affect IQ - at least not in this case.
Great thread! I find if I have AF, and I'm shooting moving horses, AF is a must. The moment there is stillness, I'm mindful of the focus point and adjust the MF as needed always.
AF is not absolute you nail it focus tool. Combined with MF it is great, so long as the camera is setup for it.
Charles ... agreed about the augment of AF. Funny though, I've been shooting sports lately at the JC using manual focus FIRST ... and sometimes exclusively. I'm not very quick at focusing, but it forces me to really think about the game and anticipate with pre-focus.
BUT THEN, when I do get out my only AF lens (EF 100 2.0 + TC's) the AF is nice for augmenting my mind for the game ... rather than using the AF instead of my mind. I find that if I start with AF ... I get 'lazy' and don't THINK as much.
It's funny how I can get a higher 'keeper rate' with AF ... but I get BETTER keepers with MF.
Having migrated to ZE lens, for general photography, I love the MF with Eg-S screen, and thinking about the composition of the shot, rather than thinking did AFget it right. I liken it to amount of information your brain has to process, bit like an analogue and digital clock. The analogue clock you know the time immediately, but digital you have process 4 bits of information, and decide what time it is.
I wonder how people are able to MF accurately with the viewfinders in today's SLRs? Even with the -S screen on my camera, my manual focus precision isn't really any better than AF. Perhaps if viewfinders still had a .85x magnification like they did 30 years ago, my accuracy would improve. But most 35mm SLRs today are closer to .70x. With f/2.0 lenses and faster, my MF results aren't much better than AF.
Do all these MF proponents have 20/20 eyesight?
Or are they relying on a split-prism screens? Viewfinder magnifiers?
Or are they simply shooting with smaller apertures?
When I shot Canon, 10D, or 40D.. I never had consistent results.. tree branches or not. When I manual focused with Nikon D300.. I couldn't get my keeper rate high enough to rely on it ( but the D300 had great autofocus ).. Pentax was slow to auto focus.. and the few primes I had.. the throw was so short It made me crazy.
So now I must go full frame.. hopefully that will help manual focus. I HATE relying on auto focus if I have the time to manual focus.. hopefully full frame will help.
I am somewhere in between. For wide angle lens, e.g. Distagon 28/2.8 and 35/2.8, I have no choice but MF, and it worked out OK for me (without liveview). But for the long end, 70-200/4L IS still is a better choice, IMHO, AF being part of the reason.
I don't like the liveview simply because I can't keep zooming in and out to find the best focus while hand held the heavy camera in an awkward way. Besides, it slows down your shooting, significantly. Monopod may be the better choice.
Stargazer78 ... I'm with you wishing for better viewfinder and a 100% silver mirror.
Personally, I do have a microprism split screen, but mostly just use the matte area for general shooting (per Paul, et al) ... using the split mostly for close-up work. I do use my angle viewfinder quite a bit however (1.25x & 2.5x). On 1.25x I can still see the entire screen ... on 2.5x I lose view of a bit on the ends, but it is usually to go along with the split finder for close work anyway, so usually, no biggie.
I usually focus wide open and stop down via aperture 'clicks' to shoot when I want to stop down, but it is usually only a stop or two depending on the lens. I don't typically stop down to compensate for focusing accuracy (except for sports), but for DOF control/placement or image sharpness.
As for 20/20 ... me & my 'coke bottles' do still use the diopter adjustment.
But I think the real 'trick' is the persistence & commitment till you get comfortable with it. Practice, practice, practice ... and more practice (without using AF). BTW are you using AF glass in MF mode ... or MF only glass? There can be a significant handling difference in the build that can make it easier or a chore.
stargazer78 wrote:
I wonder how people are able to MF accurately with the viewfinders in today's SLRs? Even with the -S screen on my camera, my manual focus precision isn't really any better than AF. Perhaps if viewfinders still had a .85x magnification like they did 30 years ago, my accuracy would improve. But most 35mm SLRs today are closer to .70x. With f/2.0 lenses and faster, my MF results aren't much better than AF.
Do all these MF proponents have 20/20 eyesight?
Or are they relying on a split-prism screens? Viewfinder magnifiers?
Or are they simply shooting with smaller apertures?
can't speak for the other manual focus proponants but last time i had my vision checked it was 20/10. i feel like it's gotten worse since then, but i'm sure it is still better than 20/20. i think my vision advantage is negated though by using a dslr for telephoto work that must be in the running for the smallest viewfinder out there (olympus e520). no focus aids. the autofocus on the e520 is slow enough and inaccurate enough though that it is not hard to beat.
Jay ... +1 for old farts, before AF & sense of accomplishment.
I'll never be able to 'out gun' an AF 400 2.8L with my MF skills ... but I'll never be able to afford one either, so MF works well when you use the 'old school' tricks of the trade (acknowledging that I'm not doing it for $$$)
BTW ... anybody got an extra 400 2.8L laying around they want to donate to a worthy cause ...
Maybe I can get a gov't grant to fund a study of psycholgical impact from shooting AF vs. MF. I'll need to buy plenty of exotic bodies & glass and I'll need to pay at least eight different people to use it, and of course they'll have to keep they 'used' equipment after the study is finished ... whaddya think, who's in?
