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."
telyt wrote:
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.
You need to read more carefully. I'm not saying that there aren't such people out there. But when you responded with that statement you made it sound as if you were telling other people on this forum that they were just happy to have something in focus. And I think that's insulting. You're using that as an excuse to justify the use of MF but it has no bearing on those of us who use AF properly and get what we want in focus. Don't presume to tell me or anyone else that we don't choose the "correct" focus point.
mh2000 wrote:
... and many fine photos where taken on wet plates too
I think the argument of RAW vs. jpg would be a bit more equitable to the argument for MF vs. AF. RAW & MF are both issues of individual manual control, whereas AF & jpg incorporate an acceptance to the pre-programming of the equipment ... i.e. a choice of control level.
RustyBug wrote:
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....Show more →
I really, really hate this attitude. I resent this "MF is a better teacher" thinking. It reeks of elitism, as if to say MF is a purer way to take photos. That's why I wrote what I did with those two points I made earlier. Look at point #2.
Here's the bottom line, folks. I use whatever tools I have at my disposal and I use whatever best facilitates my creative vision, regardless of whether that means shooting MF or AF. I don't care about those who went before me or some grand photographic legacy that I should live up to. If I did, I'd be working with gelatin silver on glass plates. I don't have any aspirations to be like anyone else except to be my humble self.
There is as much technique to using AF as there is to using MF. There is as much technique to using a 3 fps body as there is to using a 10 fps body. There is as much technique to using ISO 100 as there is to using ISO 6400. There is as much technique to using digital as there is to using film.
telyt wrote:
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'm not Kevin but I would have used any one of the upper focus points, pretty much a no brainer. As far as the photo, I would have deleted it due to poor composition. It needs more space at the top. Using a focus point toward the top of the view finder would accommodate that.
But regardless of all that, are you implying that you can consistently manually focus on the eye of a moving duck, through its flapping wings? Please.........
As far as the shots of the cardinal, to me, they illustrate more of a lack of ability to operate a camera's AF system than any exceptional ability to use MF on a stationary object. I guess you can look at it either way though.
Hopefully this argument will go the way of the film vs digital dinosaur. We all know how that one turned out
No, I think the thought that went into a shot while preparing a wet plate probably slowed you down and the extreme effort probably made you much more careful in getting the shot just right.
AF does not have the timing of shutter release pre-programmed, it is still up to you to confirm that everything is set and focused the way you want the shot... and OMG! every AF D/SLR I have ever used had also had a MF switch so I could go to MF whenever *I* choose to... get that, the flexiblity of shooting AF or MF!!!! Wow, that is limiting. sheesh. And your stupid jpg comparison is just a sideways slap implying that anyone using AF is somehow putting out inferior images. Get over yourself!
(And remember, you are talking to someone who shoots more MF lenses than AF, so it's not like I have to defend myself... I could play the MF snob card myself if I chose to).
RustyBug wrote:
I think the argument of RAW vs. jpg would be a bit more equitable to the argument for MF vs. AF. RAW & MF are both issues of individual manual control, whereas AF & jpg incorporate an acceptance to the pre-programming of the equipment ... i.e. a choice of control level.
...and the cute girl with pink stripes in her hair working at the lab appreiciated it when I picked up the prints last night... told me how film images just look better too.
Marty Bingham wrote: .........and I'm sure the three people left on the Kodak assembly line appreciate it.
Sorry guys ... I wasn't playing elitist or snob card ... just trying to give props to those who went before us as a point against the excuse that people give against MF.
As for the better teacher thing ... MF slows ME down and makes ME think more and makes ME see more ... thereby it teaches ME better. I understand that AF has its own learning curve ... and I have given credence to AF earlier. Just that there are certain things that AF can't / doesn't do.
While many people say just flip the switch from AF to MF, Cableaddict's point regarding the short throw and loose feel of the focusing ring is significant. The other thing that AF can't (or I don't know how) do is consistently control whether your desired point of focus is at the front or rear of your DOF.
I'm not bashing AF & saying that MF is elitist, I'm just saying that many people are minimizing the virtues & value of MF. It's not as simple as flipping a switch, like some would make it out to be.
As for the RAW vs. jpg, it wasn't a bash ... just another illustration of degree of control choices. Not any different than using an in camera reflective average weighted meter vs. a spot meter, vs. an incident meter. They are varying degrees of control. How much control you need for a given application can vary. Given the option, MF has the greatest amount of control.
Apologies, if anyone took this as elitist . . . I was just trying to present an analogy that MIGHT help someone understand a different perspective.
THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE MUCH BETTER THAN I IN ALL ASPECTS OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
Many are here, whom I respect & aspire to learn from, so please don't confuse a guy who is simply trying to give encouragement in the form of . . . "it can be done with MF" (even if it is more challenging at times) ... as being elitist.
Marty Bingham wrote:
But regardless of all that, are you implying that you can consistently manually focus on the eye of a moving duck, through its flapping wings? Please.........
As far as the shots of the cardinal, to me, they illustrate more of a lack of ability to operate a camera's AF system than any exceptional ability to use MF on a stationary object. I guess you can look at it either way though.
Hopefully this argument will go the way of the film vs digital dinosaur. We all know how that one turned out
Marty
i'll bite. how would you correctly use the cameras autofocus to get accurate focus on the cardinal? judging by the size of the bird in the 100% crop i would guess that a single autofocus point would not be able to see between the branches. if i had to use autofocus i would focus on an unobstructed object at the same distance and recompose. given a choice i would manual focus because that is faster (for me) and more accurate than focus and recompose.
as far as tracking duck eyes with manual focus goes, it's not that hard with a little practice. i can do it with better than 50% accuracy and i'm sure telyt who has a lot more experience and skill than me can do it much better.
i would certainly not argue that manual focus is always better than autofocus, but there are certain situations where it definitely is. both have their uses and autofocus has lot that needs to be improved before i consistantly choose it over manual focus.
Because it forces the manufacturer to shorten the throw, and loosen the feel, of the focus ring.
Otherwise, why not have it, just in case, but this is a pretty important factor. It's the reason I don't own a Canon 85/1.2
At the end of the day, this is why I just sold my 85L. Mine stayed in manual focus bc the af was so limiting. It was slow, unpredictable, and I didn't like how the points were arranged in the camera.
Because it forces the manufacturer to shorten the throw, and loosen the feel, of the focus ring.
Otherwise, why not have it, just in case, but this is a pretty important factor. It's the reason I don't own a Canon 85/1.2
+1
manual focus on autofocus lenses is atrocious and leads me to have both autofocus and manual focus lenses of the same focal length for different types of shooting.
+1
manual focus on autofocus lenses is atrocious and leads me to have both autofocus and manual focus lenses of the same focal length for different types of shooting.
... which is a drag .
Takes up more space in the bag & more weight on the back & fewer $$ in the bank. If the AF alone could serve everything "so well", why would people make the duplication?
very very few people do... that might not be apparent when you hang out here with the 20 or so people active on this board... the reality of the world is that very few people are shooting MF lenses on cameras designed for AF.
RustyBug wrote:
... which is a drag .
Takes up more space in the bag & more weight on the back & fewer $$ in the bank. If the AF alone could serve everything "so well", why would people make the duplication?
RustyBug wrote:
If the AF alone could serve everything "so well", why would people make the duplication?
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.
Precisely. Hence, the compromises. If the manual focus compromises that are made for AF were not present, more people would be successful with manual focus and more people would enjoy it and use it as much as we 20 people do.
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.
Yes, just like my Pentax LX. Oh for a digital version of that! And for all I care for it can also have a B&W optimised sensor.
sebboh wrote:
i'll bite. how would you correctly use the cameras autofocus to get accurate focus on the cardinal? judging by the size of the bird in the 100% crop i would guess that a single autofocus point would not be able to see between the branches. if i had to use autofocus i would focus on an unobstructed object at the same distance and recompose. given a choice i would manual focus because that is faster (for me) and more accurate than focus and recompose.
A couple ways come to mind right away. First, just like you said, focus on an unobstructed object at the same distance PRESS THE FOCUS LOCK BUTTON and recompose. Or just use a little finesse to combine what the camera is telling you and what your eyeball is telling you and press the shutter release at the appropriate time.
More importantly, don't get caught up in the minutiae of operating the camera and forget that, for the most part, a bird in a pile of sticks doesn't make a very compelling photo.
as far as tracking duck eyes with manual focus goes, it's not that hard with a little practice. i can do it with better than 50% accuracy and i'm sure telyt who has a lot more experience and skill than me can do it much better.
yes, of course... if AF was not available people would either be better at what was available or not bother...
As a film user I'm not constrained to AF-only cameras and shoot both.
cogitech wrote:
Precisely. Hence, the compromises. If the manual focus compromises that are made for AF were not present, more people would be successful with manual focus and more people would enjoy it and use it as much as we 20 people do.
.........and I'm sure the three people left on the Kodak assembly line appreciate it.
.