philip_pj wrote:
Yeah, but, Wickerprints, its just another workaround for something that intrudes on the way you want to do the job.
I always hated it, AF. The silly spots were never where you want them, you have to move the bloody camera to suit the AF, you have to careful where you put your fingers, you get no real-time feedback about whwere focus is set, you end up having to work the way the dopey system forces you to! I had one of those crazy eye control Canons at one stage, you felt like it was watching you, to see if you would make a mistake...
In pure interface terms, it is a dud, pure and simple - imagine having to look for something the focus system will 'like' focusing on. I hate it for tripod work too, where you want focus 'out of the way' to get on with the rest of the operation, but you have to move the head around due to the AF spot locations. And I feel the makers are using it to slack out of providing good VFs and screens. It also impacts on lens design, so we get bloated kilo weight zooms like the CZ ZA series instead of something like the 35-70 f3.4. Not to mention the crap underdamped focus rings and lack of scales, backfocus, quality minimisation, etc. ad nauseum. We are lucky to have any MF lenses at all...
Calming down a little, I can see why portrait street shooters may want it in some circumstances with short teles with fleeting subjects and fast lenses, but overall - uggh. ...Show more →
Not a bad summary. It would be fun to use this thread to compile a list of all the ways in which AF fails us.
philip_pj wrote:
Yeah, but, Wickerprints, its just another workaround for something that intrudes on the way you want to do the job.
LIKE I SAID: I am NOT trying to defend AF in any way. I don't have any particular love for it. But my whole point is that AF has its limitations, and there are ways of using it to maximal effect, just like any other aspect of the camera. If it doesn't fit into the way you envision yourself taking photos, then don't use it.
But I do object very strongly to this notion that the technique I described is some kind of "workaround." It's not. It's called understanding the tools you are given and knowing how to use them properly. Again, if you don't like the way it works, nobody's forcing you to use it. But don't tell me or anyone else that the technique itself is somehow less valid or some kind of cheat because it's not. I get good use out of it and it does not affect MY shooting, certainly not anywhere near as much as having to fiddle with MF on a standard screen.
At some point I'll try the super precision screens. To date I have not been in a huge hurry because I was under the impression that the VF gets significantly darker with slower lenses, and I own two f/4 lenses. But given brainiac's comment I would like to revisit this matter sooner than later. I've always liked the split prism screens, too.
Just because a particular tool doesn't work the way one ideally envisions it, doesn't mean it is somehow demeaning or less worthy or inferior to adapt yourself to use it the way it is designed. If that were the case, people would complain about their lenses, their sensors, their image processors, their lighting...oh wait, they already do. But you see my point? Everything requires adaptation to the tool to some extent. Why should AF be singled out for having to require you to adapt to its capabilities and shortcomings, when practically everything else about a camera is a limitation in its own ways?
Well, whatever. I suppose if you want to think of proper AF technique as being a workaround or a kludge or something non-intuitive to your process then you're absolutely entitled to. But that's not the case for me.
Really. For all the complaints about AF here, you would think that it was downright impossible to ever get it to work. I suppose all the tack sharp photos I've taken are just figments of my imagination.
wickerprints wrote:
Really. For all the complaints about AF here, you would think that it was downright impossible to ever get it to work. I suppose all the tack sharp photos I've taken are just figments of my imagination.
Read the title of the thread again. Many of us (not just me) simply hate AF. Surprised that people get sharp shots with AF? No. We just hate it.
My wife and I generally hate zooms, too. People probably have a problem with that, but we still hate zooms.
I have a Magic Drainpipe for sale, BTW. If you are in Toronto, look for it on CL.
cogitech wrote:
Read the title of the thread again. Many of us (not just me) simply hate AF. Surprised that people get sharp shots with AF? No. We just hate it.
My wife and I generally hate zooms, too. People probably have a problem with that, but we still hate zooms.
I have a Magic Drainpipe for sale, BTW. If you are in Toronto, look for it on CL.
That quick, eh? By pure coincidence, I happened by an older-gen L lens this weekend in my local Craigslist at a very low price. It, too, would probably have been a part of my kit for a very short time, if some other douchebag hadn't beat me to it.
I just got a pile of film back today... compared to my Leica R4 with 50 & 135, IIIc and Retina IIa, my lowly Rebel G with EF 50/1.8 and 135SF killed them all for focus accuracy... well, it was perfect while *I* blew a few shots with each of the other cameras.
ricardovaste wrote:
AF is far from being 'completely useless'. I just feel you need really high spec cameras and lenses for it to be worth while.
wickerprints wrote:
Really. For all the complaints about AF here, you would think that it was downright impossible to ever get it to work. I suppose all the tack sharp photos I've taken are just figments of my imagination.
I'm with you on this! I use AF as my primary means of focusing.
cogitech wrote:
Read the title of the thread again. Many of us (not just me) simply hate AF. Surprised that people get sharp shots with AF? No. We just hate it.
But I understand this so I've mostly kept quiet in this thread.
As I mentioned earlier I typically AF first then with a flick of the finger I'm in MF at the same focus where I can adjust for DOF or whatever. That's for still-life. For action I use tracking. And it's AF only when I'm feeling lazy or don't need (or have) DOF.
If there was a split-prism in a nice bright screen I would likely MF more maybe. The AF in my current camera can focus well even in nearly pitch black scenes. The EVF has an auto-gain feature that kicks in and goes B&W (looking like night vision goggles - bright!) for shots at about 4s f/2.8 and darker. Very nice!
mh2000 wrote:
I just got a pile of film back today... compared to my Leica R4 with 50 & 135, IIIc and Retina IIa, my lowly Rebel G with EF 50/1.8 and 135SF killed them all for focus accuracy... well, it was perfect while *I* blew a few shots with each of the other cameras.
There's a difference between *something* in perfect focus and the right thing, with the right composition, in perfect focus. For my subjects and the way I work, phase-detect AF's limited number of focus points limits my compositions to those that work with the AF system. Focus points are useless to me. A good plain matte focussing screen that allows me to focus quickly and accurately anywhere in the picture area is much more useful.
ricardovaste wrote:
AF is far from being 'completely useless'. I just feel you need really high spec cameras and lenses for it to be worth while.
mh2000 wrote:
I just got a pile of film back today... compared to my Leica R4 with 50 & 135, IIIc and Retina IIa, my lowly Rebel G with EF 50/1.8 and 135SF killed them all for focus accuracy... well, it was perfect while *I* blew a few shots with each of the other cameras.
telyt wrote:
There's a difference between *something* in perfect focus and the right thing, with the right composition, in perfect focus. For my subjects and the way I work, phase-detect AF's limited number of focus points limits my compositions to those that work with the AF system. Focus points are useless to me. A good plain matte focussing screen that allows me to focus quickly and accurately anywhere in the picture area is much more useful.
Well, good for you then. Keep using MF. But you are incorrectly implying that someone else is just happy to have "something in perfect focus" as opposed to "the right thing."
That doesn't change the fact that (1) AF is plenty useful for many, many people; and (2) you are not a better photographer for using MF. Without looking at my EXIF information, you wouldn't be able to tell which of my images were AF and which were MF.
mawz wrote:
ECF never made the transition to digital, the last ECF body was the ELan 7Ne.
It simply failed on multiple fronts. It didn't work properly with glasses, or with people who habitually squint and it was never precise enough to pick the right point with high point-count AF units. Chalk it up to Canon's version of the 'dumb 90's Camera Innovations'.
It didn't work well in the Elan 7e but it was very good in the EOS3.
helimat wrote:
Up here is it varying shades of grey, and has been for months now.
Come to Israel. We have too much of that blue stuff.
wickerprints wrote:
But you are incorrectly implying that someone else is just happy to have "something in perfect focus" as opposed to "the right thing."
Nonsense. I see it all the time among wildlife photographers; they're delighted that the near wingtip is in focus (for example) while the eye is mush. They're delighted with the dead-center composition their AF system forces on them, and they're relying on small apertures to cover up the AF system's errors. If that helps produce the photos they want, it's fine for them. It doesn't help produce the photos I want.
wickerprints wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that (1) AF is plenty useful for many, many people; and (2) you are not a better photographer for using MF. Without looking at my EXIF information, you wouldn't be able to tell which of my images were AF and which were MF.
I don't think anyone here would contest these two points.
1) AF is plenty useful for many people, because many people only use AF. How could it be otherwise?
2) No one is claiming to be a better photographer [than anyone else] for using MF, but I would be the first one to claim that I take much better photos with MF than AF.
I would be the first one to claim that I take much better photos with MF than AF.
Second in line.
If I'm trying to 'catch' a shot, the AF can definitely make the difference between getting something vs. nothing with a much higher keeper rate. When I MF for 'catch' shots, my keeper rate is WAY lower (for now ).
However ... If I'm trying to 'make' a shot, I can expect a solid B+, A- or A from AF (nothing wrong with that necessarily), whereas in order for me to ensure a solid A or A+ ... I KNOW I'll have to go MF (with tripod, 2.5x angle finder, MLU, timer) to get the best I can get, particularly when I'm trying to focus on a specific point of a contour.
I can forego the tripod and shoot handheld, but the results will vary. So it goes with MLU, timer, angle finder and Focus Method. If you aspire for critical focus to be what YOU want it to be, MF is a must. If I'm comfortable accepting what the camera thinks it should be (which I do use AF for certain applications), then that's okay, but I know my images may not critically be what I expected ... even though most times they are acceptable when I have sufficient DOF to accomodate minor variance in focus.
There's also something about MF that reveals the scene to you as you are bringing various points into & out of focus. AF ... zip, you're there. Kinda like taking the express highway, instead of enjoying a drive along the old country road. You'll definitely get there quicker, but you won't get to see things the same way.
BTW, I switched to the 1D MK II / II N for its AF capabilities, yet shoot MF 95% of the time ... with a lot of misses when I'm trying BIF, but still practicing
Ultimately, it comes down to how much control do YOU want to have over the process. For stabilty control: hand hold vs. tripod; ... vibration control: shutter speeds (high/low) vs. MLU & timer; ... exposure control: program vs. manual ... focus control: AF vs. MF.
Your call, but for me ... MF gives the greatest amount of control. Better
well... in *my* AF photos, "perfect" means focused where *I* want it focused... but it is rare that I am shooting birds nestled in a tree of branches or something similar, but when I do *I* am smart enough to turn the AF off and manually focus.
telyt wrote:
There's a difference between *something* in perfect focus and the right thing, with the right composition, in perfect focus. For my subjects and the way I work, phase-detect AF's limited number of focus points limits my compositions to those that work with the AF system. Focus points are useless to me. A good plain matte focussing screen that allows me to focus quickly and accurately anywhere in the picture area is much more useful.
yes, the control of using a tripod and manually focusing is great... in fact MF is much better on the tripod... and when I do this my shots are usually better... the trouble is that not all subjects and situations allow for this kind of shooting.
the trouble is that not all subjects and situations allow for this kind of shooting.
Those very same subjects & situations were handled masterfully by a multitude of photographers before AF ever came along.
So, just because a subject & situation is 'difficult' for MF should not deter me from using MF becasue it does 'allow' the use of MF, but rather, it challenges me to develop techniques to the level of those who went before me. I'm of the opinion that their skills were developed & honed with great discipline & much effort.
In this age, AF is certainly an option, but I find the use of MF a much greater teacher, who grades much harder ... and develops me much more for it, for which I will received greater reward.
NOTE: I'm not paying the bills with AF & jpgs, so I understand its place there as well.
... and many fine photos where taken on wet plates too... that doesn't mean I want to do it now.
I'm not arguing against MF, in fact my best lenses are all MF (Summicron-R 50, TS-E 90 and Elmarit-R 135 for D/SLR use) and I use them for most of my shooting... but I also take excellent photos with AF lenses as well... and all my AF lenses have MF switches as well...
).
