sebboh wrote:
this thread doesn't seem to have been started as a "mf is better than af" thread
It sure smelled that way to me. When it didn't turn sour fast enough the topic starter felt the need to fan the flames. I could see it coming from a mile away.
cogitech wrote:
Great discussion so far. Maybe I should just leave it at that...
Nahhh, just kidding.
You know there's no way I can resist the urge to criticize AF and show off my MF skills. It's in my blood. Try talking a Lion out of eating that baby Impala. It's just not going to happen.
theSuede wrote:
And if any of the MF birding/sports-shooters are telling at least half-truths in here, then I'm mightily impressed. I've met a lot of photographers, and none has ever claimed to be able to follow quick passes in football/soccer/hockey/basketball or erratic bird-flight half as well as a well tuned AF system. For static or slower, more linear movement compositions then by all means, but.... Really?
hope you didn't interpret my statements as saying i could do that. i only claimed to be better than a crappy autofocus system . ducks and pelicans are easy to track - and i would never describe them as erratic. small birds like kinglets and warblers are hard to keep in the frame let alone focus track - i've not met anyone who claimed to have a high success rate tracking them with either manual or autofocus. i've never tried sports photography so i can't comment.
sebboh wrote:
ducks and pelicans are easy to track - and i would never describe them as erratic. small birds like kinglets and warblers are hard to keep in the frame let alone focus track -
You may want to reconsider that statement. Look at the next to last photo in your other post. It's sitting still on the ground with no obstructions but it's out of focus. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864690/0#8101258
Marty Bingham wrote:
You may want to reconsider that statement. Look at the next to last photo in your other post. It's sitting still on the ground with no obstructions but it's out of focus. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864690/0#8101258
Marty
sorry, i'm afraid i'm not sure what statement you think that picture contradicts (edit: just to be clear i really am confused)? the fact that i said in two posts that kinglets are hard to photograph? or that i said i do better with manual focus for them than with autofocus on the 2 dslrs i have used regularly?
the focus on that shot is actually perfect on the bird's left eye (where i aimed). the minimal dof puts the other eye slightly out of focus. you can look at a larger version if you don't believe me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28476552@N04/4034060057/sizes/o/. obviously i would have preferred more dof but had neither the light nor the time to stop down. incidentally, what makes you think it was still? the bird was foraging which involves lots of jerky movements and took flight out of the frame during the 4 frames i fired of this burst.
You misunderstood. By AF Nazis I meant the people who design and sell AF bodies that have crippled manual focus abilities, due to the inherent compromises made for the AF systems.
The people who simply accept the AF systems and the corresponding compromises are more like those unfortunate, brainwashed people of the Third Reich who submitted to the propaganda. Not really guilty in the full sense, but not "Schindler", either.
sebboh wrote:
sorry, i'm afraid i'm not sure what statement you think that picture contradicts (edit: just to be clear i really am confused)? the fact that i said in two posts that kinglets are hard to photograph? or that i said i do better with manual focus for them than with autofocus on the 2 dslrs i have used regularly?
Oops. I didn't copy/paste the critical part of your statement which was i only claimed to be better than a crappy autofocus system Thanks for the chance to clarify.
the focus on that shot is actually perfect on the bird's left eye (where i aimed). the minimal dof puts the other eye slightly out of focus.
Not really. Both eyes are equally out of focus. Probably because from that angle they are very close to the same focal plane. Beyond that, the composition is not suited to highlight an isolated eye shot. It looks like an accident. The only thing remotely in focus is a small patch of breast feathers, but even that's a stretch. The link isn't working.
incidentally, what makes you think it was still?
Both feet on the ground. Wings tucked in. No motion blur, which would have been obvious at the 1/100th second SS that you used to take the shot.
The people who simply accept the AF systems and the corresponding compromises are more like those unfortunate, brainwashed people of the Third Reich who submitted to the propaganda.
Oh........now I get it.
Are you serious? That's even more condescending than your original statement.
Are you serious? That's even more condescending than your original statement.
Marty
That is not my intention. It is a bad analogy to begin with, and a worse one to extrapolate from. My mistake.
The first point is, very accurate manual focus is very much a real possibility and, once it is achieved on a consistent basis it can be far more pleasurable and rewarding than an average AF system.
This assumes that the photographer has gained a certain level of proficiency through plenty of practice.
I have. Several others here have. Hence, we love MF and as time goes on we have less and less use for AF systems.
I had a relapse and tried AF again (at the start of this thread, you see what happened). This event reminded me of why I hate AF so much, and why I should never doubt myself again.
The second point is, it is the AF systems that impose compromises and limitations on those of us who would choose to use MF. If a camera manufacturer spent as much R&D on implementing a MF system that allowed us as much manual control of focus as possible, rather than on yet another implementation of an AF system that can never be "just right", then MF would become much more "mass consumable". There are all sorts of things they could do today for MF that would make AF systems nearly irrelevant, and as such hand the control back to the photographer.
So, I hate AF because a) it almost invariably lets me down if I use it and b) the existence of the technology in my camera reduces my ability to fully exploit its manual focus function.
If this makes AF shooters feel like they are being attacked, I will not apologize. That feeling is much more of a reflection on the AF shooters than it is on me.
Both feet on the ground for a nanosecond. Kinglets are notoriously difficult to track let alone keep a focus point on one. Here one nanosecond, gone the next.
Warblers are nearly as kinetic as kinglets. Both feet on something means it hasn't been there for a half second and won't be there in the next half-second.
Marty Bingham wrote:
Oops. I didn't copy/paste the critical part of your statement which was i only claimed to be better than a crappy autofocus system Thanks for the chance to clarify.
Not really. Both eyes are equally out of focus. Probably because from that angle they are very close to the same focal plane. Beyond that, the composition is not suited to highlight an isolated eye shot. It looks like an accident. The only thing remotely in focus is a small patch of breast feathers, but even that's a stretch. The link isn't working.
Both feet on the ground. Wings tucked in. No motion blur, which would have been obvious at the 1/100th second SS that you used to take the shot.
sorry about the link here is the largest crop i can get out of flickr (the original is at home and i am not) http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4352779206_e72e430664_o.jpg
the image is somewhat soft due to the lenses poor performance at mfd and there might be some motion blur from me or the bird. the shot is handheld at 700mm equiv, 1/100, f/4.8 as i sat on my butt and shot between my feet. it certainly looks to me as though the bird's left eye is sharper than anything else in the picture not in the same plane. i certainly never claimed that this photo was particularly well composed. i just like the pose with her glaring at me. i did not compose to highlight an isolated eye shot, that was only shot i could get. i certainly never expected the bird to come that close.
as far as claiming to be better than my cameras autofocus, that is something no single shot could ever prove. cogitech did a good job of demonstrating he was better than autofocus by showing all the shots he took in both modes. i'm afraid i can't do something similar in this situation because i didn't have an autofocus lens with me. i can say i've fired over 1000 shots at kinglets using autofocus and less than 1% of them were in focus. this bird is the specific reason i decided to try a manual focus telephoto (it was a lot cheaper than a d300 and 300mm f4). my success rate with these birds is much higher now with manual focus, so yes i am better at focusing than my particular cameras are. this doesn't mean i am exceptionally good at manual focus - it is a combination of me being decent at manual focus and my cameras having slow and/or inaccurate autofocus.
for those interested in such things it was taken handheld in a snow storm at 400mm (800 equiv) using a nikkor 80-400mm VR at 1/60 of a second on an olympus e520 shooting at 1600 iso.
helimat wrote:
Who needs a lens to stop down when it performs like that wide open?
Indeed!
(Mat's referring to the fact that my FD 300/4 L conversion was only partially successful, in that I can only use it wide open. For $182, I'm OK with that )
BTW, thanks guys. I've really enjoyed all the shots in this thread (MF or otherwise).
I remember when Minolta first came out with AF. I was shooting a Nikon FE, Fujichrome 50 (it didn't have a name like Velvia back then) with a 75-150 Series E & a Tamron 300 5.6 and never even flinched about using AF.
I was 'kicking butt' just fine with such a simple approach. I put the camera down for a couple decades and then when I decided to pick it up again, things aren't the same.
I bought some nice AF glass and a well reviewed AF body. AF was working ok enough for general stuff, but when I tried to do anything with critical focus by 'flipping the switch' ... I couldn't get the glass to do it. I would even come up oof on a GBH that was sitting still. I even went to the eye doctor TWICE for new prescriptions (which were the same, corrected to 20/10).
THEN, I switched to a 1D MK II for its pro AF system ... SAME STORY when trying to 'flip the switch' and use AF glass in MF mode. THEN, I found this place called ALTERNATIVE GEAR & LENSES ... picked up some old MF only glass and VOILA. Now when I shoot MF with MF lenses, I get MF precision (depends on me of course).
But what is really kind of neat is when you couple a tight tolerance MF lens that has good handling, with an adapter that as AF confirmation (or a Nikon body), you can gain some advantage of technology (focus confirmation) with great precision engineering. On some bodies, you can even get an audible indicator that coincides with focus confirmation. Use it a bit, and you can even develop a Pavlovian response ... hear the beep, fire the shutter. Of course, this is limited to the same AF points as with AF lenses, but it can be helpful for certain types of shooting as well. I can only imagine what it might be like to use 'Live View' with MF lenses.
Oh, and somehow the MF lenses don't seem to overshoot focus all the way to mfd or infinity before trying to come back.
Also, when using MF lenses ... I've never had a 'mis-fire'. It is possible for the camera to not let you release the shutter when the focus point is not in focus (as in recomposed). I literally had a mis-fire for my daughter's graduation using AF (even though I had prefocused because I didn't want it to hunt in the dim light) for THE Diploma-Handshake shot. My next daughter's graduation was shot MF ... no mis-fire.
. ducks and pelicans are easy to track - and i would never describe them as erratic. small birds like kinglets and warblers are hard to keep in the frame let alone focus track - i've not met anyone who claimed to have a high success rate tracking them with either manual or autofocus. i've never tried sports photography so i can't comment.