The majority of the masses state that unless a lens has AF it is no good. Sure glad we are not part of the majority otherwise we would have to part with Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, Rokkor, Tilt+Shift/PC, Bellows, MP-E ...
Imagine being restricted only to Canon AF, Nikon AF,... lens
Manual focus allows me to focus anywhere in the FOV not just where the sensor focus points are. Even auto-focusing and recomposing position I have found that it was not always dead on.
I still use AF for action.
I also use it for getting me in the general area of focus then I switch to MF to complete the focusing before taking the shot.
The number of keepers AF vs MF is no contest, MF wins by a large margin hands down.
The last thing I don't like with AF, I become a machine gun snapshot shooter, I don't take the time to plan out the shot.
"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"
I'm not wishing to split hairs or start an argument, but based on what I see, you could argue that critical focus is on the branches around the cardinal as well as the cardinal.
Clearly, most af systems are going to be fooled by this shooting situation. When I want to take a shot of an animal surrounded by vegetation I use AF to get close and MF to hit what I believe to be critical focus. I would never expect my cameras to nail the shot that you are trying to make. Furthermore, I am forever confounded by AF systems and often shoot mf because of my lack of trust. However, I always begin w/ AF, shoot the safety, and then work to my satisfaction. This speeds up the process.
While the canon 80-200L is a great optic, it is inherently slow to focus and lousy for switching between mf & af... the newer 70-200 series lenses allow you to work w/ AF buttons away from the shutter release and mf w/out have to hit a switch... though I am sure that you are aware of this.
Some Canon lenses (and a good deal of Sigmas) just can't do AF properly.
Incidently, the one lens that I would wager that is used in AF over 99% of the time (all users), the EFS 18-55, was the one lens that got me started with Manual Focusing, because the AF hunted a lot. I rarely use AF now as a result, except with my 70-200, but i only use AF with that guy in low-light.
You guys have to remember, these lenses (for lack of better terms) are made to replicate the abilities of the human eye. Unfortunately, technology isn't at a point where lenses can imitate the eye's almost-lightning-fast focusing ability. For the time being, be satisfied with AF getting reasonable close, and your eye and MF ability getting closer.
Concur that AF can provide a 'safety' shot ... when you're trying to shoot a 'safety' shot, or provide a little more expediency. It is hard to trust AF in many scenarios, but it does have it's place. Sports & kids comes to mind, but then again sports have been around WAY LONGER than AF ... and magically those who shot before AF came along, got it done masterfully without AF.
BTW ... AF is nice for those of us who are becoming vision challenged ... fighting a good fight, but certain inevitabilities are likely to prevail.
Jos Tesseract wrote:
You're only vision challenged when looking through the tiny viewfinder. That impediment surprisingly disappears when you review on the PC... funny...
Still... AF is problematic because of backfocus.
The problem also disappears when you look through a better viewfinder. Backfocus isn't an AF problem, it's a QC problem.
OwlsEyes wrote:
AF works with the right lens, right camera, right subject.
This is the important bit of the discussion for me so far. And that remark is so simplified and directly to the point already there's really nothing left to say. More examples to communicate maybe but that really says it all.
I was VERY happy with the AF on my D2x and my A2 is very close to same level of performance in that regard. Especially tracking! WOW! What an awesome feature! I couldn't even have dreamed about such a feature when I started in with 35mm "portable" photography back in the 50's. Technology guud!
The talking heads line just popped into mind: "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawn mower." If you know the context of that line it fits here nicely. I think in the next some-number-of-years, if we don't blow ourselves up, the AF problem will be completely solved. I'm thinking along the lines of the R&D that's being done with range cameras. Not to be confused with range-finder cameras.
Basically focus/refocus, DOF selection, and bokeh type will become post processing choices or post acquisition in camera options to the end user. There are already working prototypes and the technology is VERY exciting!
Imagine the kinds and qualities of lenses that can be designed when focus is not a consideration at all!
I have no issues with AF or MF use on my camera's. There are times when I prefer MF, but a majority of the time, I prefer AF.... especially when using larger aperture lenses like the 85mm f1.2 or 50mm f1.2.
AF has it's limitations. However, in the example of the cardinal shot provided, I don't think it's the AF to blame but rather the focal length used and the camera's capability to pinpoint and tell the lens what to focus at. In cases, like that, I think MF works better - especially when the camera's AF system has several other points it can choose to lock on to.
pascal03 wrote:
However, in the example of the cardinal shot provided, I don't think it's the AF to blame but rather the focal length used and the camera's capability to pinpoint and tell the lens what to focus at. In cases, like that, I think MF works better - especially when the camera's AF system has several other points it can choose to lock on to.
cogitech wrote:
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.
You are absolutely right, only I look at it in an entirely different way. Most of the points that people have added in this discussion deal with the functionality of AF, I want to add my part taking a sidestep.
Let me first say that I am a hobbyist. Therefore the sole reason for me to take a picture is my own satisfaction. The process of taking a picture is central for me.
I like to put as much of my own in those pictures as I can. What you said about AF is exactly what I dislike about it. It is a dumb mechanism that tries to think and work for me and frustrates my own creativity.
I fail to see the enjoyment of photography when I hand over this agency to a machine.
I can really understand the added value for professional reasons because - lets just be honest - clients only care for the end product. I have shot many pictures that have it all for some people, but fail to satisfy myself.
When I take pictures for myself it is not about how sharp somebody's nose is in a picture, but I want to congratulate myself that I captured the moment as I saw it. If I miss focus this way then so be it, but when I do hit everything as I intended, I can at least congratulate myself for it.
AF is pretty much unavoidable when using older, less capable DSLRs: ones that lack "live view" (or the equivalent) and with view finders that are crappy enough to make manual focus difficult to impossible. Even the 5D is hard to manually focus w/ lenses like the 85/1.2 without the enhanced focusing screen. Of course it's hard to focus reliably with AF as well with such a lens. It was with the 1Ds II that I first came to appreciate what AF could do, e.g., with a lens such as the 24-70L. I could dial in focus points to minimize recompose actions, and in most conditions would get a pretty high rate of in-focus shots. That said, for reliable, critically sharp focus, I find now that nothing beats live view + 10X zoom + manual focus. This is what I now use essentially at all times except on rapidly moving subjects, where AF often still adds real value.
Kevin, which AF focus point would you use for this photo? Or, do you think live view would have worked to get the eye in focus? This is cropped slightly from the sides, no vertical crop.
i think it really all comes down to each situation, and if you are denying that then you are.... in denial.
Different cameras and lenses have completely different capabilities, and that combined with the infinite variables you can encounter from day to day in even the same settings, it is impossible to simpley say "MF works better"- the appropriate statement would be "MF works better for ME".
Is there a book that teaches MF? I'm starting to learn MF focus with my Nikon body and found that I rely on the focus confirmation dot most of the time. When I shoot at 1.4 or 1.8, the dot usually isn't that reliable.
JimU wrote:
i prefer my MF 50s, manual ISO, manual WB, manual transmission but long for a dish washer. my AF 35/1.4 & AF 85/1.4 have nice thick & direct focusing rings, but are not dampened. AF is pointless at night.
What you guys hate is Canons deplorable AF. Pick up a pro Nikon and your AF issues will wash I away. I've just shot 47 rolls of film over the last week, all MF, so it's not like I don't MF the hell out of some lenses, but I do appreciate AF when I need it. Being able to properly use and employ autofocus is a skill in and of itself.
I'm sure that TWoK remembers when i was teaching him the basics (damn he's come a long way), and i always point out that KNOWING how to use an AF system is a very important skill to learn.
