Marty Bingham wrote:
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.
oh well, i was hoping there was some key component of autofocus technique i was missing.
i agree, i would not have bothered to take that cardinal picture. i have lots of cardinal pictures that i like much better than anything i could make from that bird in that location. i posted one in this thread as a demonstration of a shot that would not be possible using autofocus. different people have different needs and desires as far as images go though.
Marty Bingham wrote:
That's not very consistent.
Marty
true, but i haven't spent much time practicing and it is better than either of the dslrs i've used regularly can do with autofocus. i have to hope the $8000 camera/lens combination most pro wildlife shooters use could do better. sadly i don't think i'll ever feel justified spending that kind of money on a hobby.
Marty Bingham wrote:
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.
But it goes WAY past that, Marty.
When you manually focus, you can play with the COF, and compose an artistic shot as regards the focus of the entire composition. Maybe there isn't going to be one exact point that needs to be the the focal point, but rather I'm looking at everything at once, and focusing to taste.
You can't do that with AF and a focus lock.
Similarly, you can't compose DOF / COF with auto or stop-down metering. (unless you enjoy holding-in that bloody DOF preview button.) - but this is for another thread, I guess.
sebboh wrote:
+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.
So, you're stuck between trusting the harebrained AF, or lugging around several extra lenses and trying to manually focus using a small, dim viewfinder that usually doesn't have any focusing aids. (Do they even bother to sell DSLR focusing screens with split image, uPrism, etc.?)
It's a real shame that most all low and middle end digicams come equipped with such puny, useless viewfinders. You shouldn't need some gimmick like 'live-view' to accurately focus the bloody camera.
sebboh wrote:
i agree, i would not have bothered to take that cardinal picture. i have lots of cardinal pictures that i like much better than anything i could make from that bird in that location. i posted one in this thread as a demonstration of a shot that would not be possible using autofocus. different people have different needs and desires as far as images go though.
Well thanks for the critique, guys. For me, this was my first chance ever to shoot a cardinal. I wasn't out birding (I don't do that) I was out for a walk with my family.
I think it is insulting, to say the least, that you decide to question my decision to shoot the cardinal. It was there. I shot it. I presented the shots as an example of why I hate AF, and how manual focus is something that I can rely on far more than any AF system. The subject matter is irrelevant to the discussion, but since you know there is no "winner" in this argument, you decide to insult the content of the photo. Juvenile and brutish, to say the least.
My co-worker told me something politically incorrect but very fitting today; arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: even if you win, you're still a retard.
And with that, I will say one last time that I hate AF, regardless of whether the cardinal deserves a portrait or not.
Because it forces the manufacturer to shorten the throw, and loosen the feel, of the focus ring.
I think this may be the one statement that the majority of both camps can agree on. At least for those who know the difference.
I've gotten used to the plasticy airy feeling of MFing an AF lens but every time I use a MF only lens It just feels better and dialing it in is more precise. Not to mention that I don't have to worry about bumping it out of focus or being worried about barrel-slide under the weight of the front glass + filters (on zooms).
My co-worker told me something politically incorrect but very fitting today; arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: even if you win, you're still a retard.
cogitech wrote:
You know there's no way I can resist the urge to criticize AF and show off my MF skills.
"Stupid useless $^**$* *&$(#!!!"
On second thought, don't bother. I won't be using it again for a long, long time.
Many of us (not just me) simply hate AF…………. We just hate it.
the AF Nazis
and my favorite......
arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: even if you win, you're still a retard.
Hey, it's hard to dispute such scientific data
Juvenile and brutish, to say the least .............absolutely.
But seriously, what did you expect from a thread with an inflammatory title and such a baited opening line.
As far as the cardinal photo, I did not offer a critique, my point was to not get so caught up in the instrument that you overlook it's purpose. It's like the guy who knows 101 ways to make love but has never had a girl friend. Everybody laughs at him.
I usually don't give this section of the forum a second look but the topic popped up on the home page, recent post area and I thought I'd check it out.
The thread is either a full blown pissing match or a spirited debate among the regular posters.
If it is the latter, sorry for butting in. If it's the former....carry on!
Marty
PS; Some of you guys remind me of the comic book guy on The Simpsons.
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?
My point is that 'correct' is in the eye or mind of the beholder. Your correct point is wrong for me.
How do YOU know that? I haven't posted any pictures, and neither has anyone else to whom you made your comment in response. You wrote something completely irrelevant in response to mh2000's post and basically insulted him. Shall we revisit? If you were not specifically addressing mh2000's post, then why did you quote him and then lead off with that statement?
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.
Marty Bingham wrote:
... focus on an unobstructed object at the same distance PRESS THE FOCUS LOCK BUTTON and recompose...
Assuming the unobstructed object is the correct distance from the camera, when working with shallow DOF, in the time it takes to recompose the subject and/or photographer will have moved enough to change the subject-to-camera distance so that the subject is out of focus. Even Canon recommends against this technique, recommending instead to either focus manually or to choose a different composition.
I don't shoot BIF, or anything "fast". 95% of my stuff is people shots, of which 85% is weddings. Not so fast moving, but moments appear and disappear in a big hurry. I can honestly say that 99% of my shots are all MF - simply because I don't use EF lenses, but alt-gear.
I come from a MF background, and with the split-image screens in my bodies I have no issue at all focusing fast. Now when I miss focus, I know it's because I chose the wrong f-stop or simply goofed. If I were to get out-of-focus shots with EF lenses, I'd be thinking that my gear was malfunctioning. In addition - I have no worries that my solid alt-gear focus or aperture ring will fail. The more automatic/electronic controls are present, the more chances are it will fail. It's like a computer hard-drive: not "if", but "when".
wickerprints wrote:
How do YOU know that? I haven't posted any pictures, and neither has anyone else to whom you made your comment in response. You wrote something completely irrelevant in response to mh2000's post and basically insulted him. Shall we revisit? If you were not specifically addressing mh2000's post, then why did you quote him and then lead off with that statement?
What an incredible waste of time this has been. I have over 800 photos I need to process and here I am trying to be fair-minded about a subject that clearly very few people actually care to think about rationally.
I have no interest in debating this topic any further. I like my photos, I like my technique, and I do perfectly fine because I know how to use what I have. No amount of AF or MF is going to replace using my brain and using my creativity, and no amount of complaining about your tools is going to make up for the lack of skill.
That being said, I appreciate AF because it lets me take pictures when I'm drunk.
But, in all seriousness, while I like my 100 f/2, 10-17 fisheye and 20-35, I just use them less and less all the time. It's unfortunate that I purchased them as I feel bad about how little I use my AF lenses as a whole anymore.
wickerprints wrote:
What an incredible waste of time this has been. I have over 800 photos I need to process and here I am trying to be fair-minded about a subject that clearly very few people actually care to think about rationally.
Then, by all means, attend to your photos instead of the forum.
telyt wrote:
Assuming the unobstructed object is the correct distance from the camera, when working with shallow DOF, in the time it takes to recompose the subject and/or photographer will have moved enough to change the subject-to-camera distance so that the subject is out of focus. Even Canon recommends against this technique, recommending instead to either focus manually or to choose a different composition.
When recomposing the only difference between manual and auto is the need to press the focus lock button.
Camera and subject movement issues apply to MF and AF focus methods even when one doesn't recompose. That's where finesse and or focus tracking can be used by a competent photographer shooting in AF mode.
