Marty Bingham wrote:
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.
Marty
The point is that you don't have to recompose when manual focusing. With AF, it may be focus -> compose. With MF it's compose -> focus.
As an aside, tracking with MF also requires finesse, but can easily be accomplished by a competent photographer.
kakomu wrote:
I don't know if he can. He's ON all the time.
That's not true. In fact this is the first thread I've seen him "ON" in. There have been some exceptionally good and informative posts from him with an incredible amount of self-effacing humility.
Marty Bingham wrote:
Understood. But how does that change anything I have said?
Focus recompose is frowned upon because it has a strong potential of rendering the point of focus out of focus. If your lens has a shallow DoF and you tilt the lens, you'll focus at a point that is further when you recompose the image, which can easily leave the point of focus out of focus.
Bifurcator wrote:
That's not true. In fact this is the first thread I've seen him "ON" in. There have been some exceptionally good and informative posts from him with an incredible amount of self-effacing humility.
Most of the posts I read authored by Wicker tend to be very angry with a fair amount of impatience and a willingness to argue many points, frequently with a fair amount of vitriol to boot. Sometimes he can offer good advice and be civil, most of the time, I would describe his attitude as "bitter" and "annoyed", such as in this thread.
Bifurcator wrote:
Totally depends on the body you're talking about.
I was tracking ducks with a Rebel XT and a Nikon 300mm f/4.5. Granted my keeper rate was low, I hadn't practiced very much with a long lens and tiny body.
telyt, I see two more duck shots but with all due respect that doesn't answer my question. Those could be two out of forty..........not being accusatory......I'm just sayin'
Here are some shots with consecutive frame numbers, shot in AF.
mh2000 wrote:
very very few people do ... the reality of the world is that very few people are shooting MF lenses on cameras designed for AF.
Concur about 10 Gazillion percent.
And of course, this is a MAJOR consideration on why the manufacturers are taking the industry in the direction they do. I don't think anyone here is saying that the majority of people SHOULD be shooting MF ... just that we have a strong appreciation for MF, and dislike certain compromises that AF creates.
At the risk of another analogy being misunderstood ...
Car manufacturers make the vast majority of cars with an automatic transmission. Most people drive cars with automatic transmissions. Fewer people (%) than ever even know how to drive a manual transmission. Most people don't want to drive a stick. Most people are too busy texting, twittering, downloading, mp3'ing and talking to be driving a stick.
HOWEVER, car enthusiasts & engineers around the world KNOW that maximum performance & control comes from a manual transmission. Some people are passionate about the difference between a manual transmission vs. automatic. Other people couldn't give two hoots about it, citing all kinds of reasons why the automatic is 'better'.
The fact that automatic transmissions dominate the industry, does not change the fact that for control & performance, manual has advantages that an automatic transmission cannot have ... (although they do continue to get better & better).
So it is with MF vs. AF ... MF is not for the masses, but enthusiasts do appreciate the difference ... not everyone does.
kakomu wrote:
Focus recompose is frowned upon because it has a strong potential of rendering the point of focus out of focus. If your lens has a shallow DoF and you tilt the lens, you'll focus at a point that is further when you recompose the image, which can easily leave the point of focus out of focus.
Jeeze..you guys are too much
I understand that. I only brought it up because somebody used that as an example of how he would have made a certain shot in MF mode. Let's move on please.
let's imagine a situation where we have a person standing and a lens ~ 6 feet away from them. We want to focus to a point on their face. We'll call this point A. The camera is located at point B.
The composition calls for pointing the camera lens at the person's neck. If we were to extend a line perpendicular to the film plane, straight through the lens and straight through the person and at the same time extend a line parallel to the film plane through point A (the face), these lines would intersect at point C. Point C is where we would want to focus in order to render point A (the face) in focus while pointing the camera at the person's neck.
AB, BC, AC is a right triangle. Thus, given the Pythagorean theorem, we know that the distance from A to B (camera to face) is longer than the distance from B to C. So, if we focus at point A (the face) but recompose to point the camera at point C, we will have effectively focused behind the point of best focus to render the face in focus.
Thus, I can effectively show why focus -> recompose isn't a good method to use (mathematically to boot!).
Marty Bingham wrote:
Let's move on please.
Marty
Oops. Sorry, didn't read this until after my post. Well, Math is my first name (seriously!).
kakomu wrote:
I don't know if he can. He's ON all the time.
Bifurcator wrote:
That's not true. In fact this is the first thread I've seen him "ON" in. There have been some exceptionally good and informative posts from him with an incredible amount of self-effacing humility.
kakomu wrote:
Most of the posts I read authored by Wicker tend to be very angry with a fair amount of impatience and a willingness to argue many points, frequently with a fair amount of vitriol to boot. Sometimes he can offer good advice and be civil, most of the time, I would describe his attitude as "bitter" and "annoyed", such as in this thread.
I must have missed those ones. Anyway, suffice to say that >I< have primarily only seen good info and a cool head. If I'm wrong: oh well, maybe he'll get it from this exchange and be less affronting. <shrug>
Bifurcator wrote:
Totally depends on the body you're talking about.
kakomu wrote:
I was tracking ducks with a Rebel XT and a Nikon 300mm f/4.5. Granted my keeper rate was low, I hadn't practiced very much with a long lens and tiny body.
Yeah, I actually had a mistake and misread you saying this specifically about MF lenses - in which case you're right on! For AF/Digital tho it depends on what kind of AF is employed for tracking. If it's phase-detection with a 2 dimensional area SIR (secondary image registration) chip like in my D2x or my A2 then it's probably going to rock!
- and then there's tripod shooting, at f/1.2
Do that with AF? You gotta' be kidding.
How about wide-angle shots done close? - Like shooting a crowd in a club.
With AF? Impossible to be precise. I guess if you just have a "point & shoot" mentality then it would be OK. -Assuming the bloody AF can even track in that light.
A lot of macro shots as well. AF would be absurd, so you flip the switch on your AF lens, and you've got that bloody short-throw focus ring to deal with. Feh.
------------------
For those who still don't understand: Once you get comfortable with MF, using AF is like having a tiny gremlin dancing on the top of your camera, constantly messing about with your dials.
I find myself typically using AF when I'm trying to merely record an event. If I'm shooting an event for the shelter I volunteer at, I use AF fairly extensively. If I'm trying to make a good picture, I'll usually revert to MF.
jeez... some of us were comfortable shooting MF because that was all that was available... and *then* we started skeptically using AF after it came out... and we didn't call our images "data" either!
For really wide angle shots you are usually better not focusing at all and just using the scale.
Yes, macro is usually much easier to shoot w/MF.
Cableaddict wrote:
- and then there's tripod shooting, at f/1.2
Do that with AF? You gotta' be kidding.
How about wide-angle shots done close? - Like shooting a crowd in a club.
With AF? Impossible to be precise. I guess if you just have a "point & shoot" mentality then it would be OK. -Assuming the bloody AF can even track in that light.
A lot of macro shots as well. AF would be absurd, so you flip the switch on your AF lens, and you've got that bloody short-throw focus ring to deal with. Feh.
------------------
For those who still don't understand: Once you get comfortable with MF, using AF is like having a tiny gremlin dancing on the top of your camera, constantly messing about with your dials....Show more →
...interesting that just a few days ago in another more neutral thread I was casually telling someone of the benefits of MF lenses...
I honestly shoot more MF gear than AF gear, but when I do shoot AF gear I use AF successfully for ~99% of my shots... I can easily work with what I am shooting and live without hating one or the other... I guess I'm a pacifist. For many subjects I like shooting quality MF lenses, but I hate stop-down metering... that's why the MF lenses I shoot on my Canon gear are the TS-E lenses... Leica on my Leica... Oly on an Oly... etc. etc.
For 1.2 on a tripod the D2x had no problems at all in any of it's AF modes. I always got what I expected to get. In the proper mode - spot-on! Same with the A2 but it's 2.8 which is a bit different - especially on a 2/3 sensor.
for wide angle at clubs and in crowds I use tracking.
In a very crowded area I can track a face in the middle of moving crowd. or a shoe, or a swinging hand. And focus is right on when shutter release is pressed. Even my A2 can do that.
This is my A2 tracking in a fast moving shopping crowd in very low light at ISO 64:
From the feet shots (and even a few above) on down to the red car they are mostly all tracking. The feet were tracked and (at 1/10 to 1/50 shutter with Sony's Anti-shake) if there was not too much camera movement they were all right on. These are massive crops too so the average shot is ~ 30% even tho the frames are tiny. I think all were manual exposures BTW and actually most were using tracking (I don't think all though).
Also the tracking wasn't like shutter-release right after a lock on. It was scan the scene with my eye, lock on and track something of interest for 3 to 15 seconds, SR press, next.
And this is the lowly A2, the D2x was MUCH better even than this - which by itself is phenomenal IMO!
Bifurcator wrote:
For 1.2 on a tripod the D2x had no problems at all in any of it's AF modes. I always got what I expected to get.
You must not be picky. Suppose the camera is nose level, but you want the eyes in focus, or a particular can on a table, or whatever. You're not going to move the camera up & down to get the proper lock, so you settle for more focus points, which is a compromise.
Bifurcator wrote:
for wide angle at clubs and in crowds I use tracking.
In a very crowded area I can track a face in the middle of moving crowd. or a shoe, or a swinging hand. And focus is right on when shutter release is presse !
Once again, you must not be picky. Track a face? What if the face you want in focus in not in the center of your shot? Oops.
I suggest you save money and DO buy a P&S. It's all you need!
