chez wrote: bhollis wrote: chez wrote: airfrogusmc wrote: johnvanr wrote: bhollis wrote: johnvanr wrote: 1bwana1 wrote:
chez wrote: 1bwana1 wrote: chez wrote:
Zone focus is only accurate if your subject is within the zone. If the subject steps out or is already out of the zone, you either give up or you have to move. In either of those cases, AF tracking is much better. This is especially true with large apertures that have a thin dof.
The point of Zone Focusing is to set the zone to the distance of the subject. You don't have to move if doing it correctly.
Zone focus is not for super fast moving subjects, or super shallow depth of field. But where it is appropriate is is the fastest most reliable for of focusing I have found. Including my Sony A1.
You are severally limiting the type of images you can produce using zone focus. You either have to have a very large dof in order to track a moving subject, giving you that large dof image, or you have to have a stationary subject with a shallow dof. Forget trying to acquire images of moving subjects ( not just side to side, but also front to back ) with a dof that isolates the subject.
You are not limiting yourself at all. In fact quite the opposite. Zone focus is a technique that expands your capability. Choose the right technique appropriate for the situation. In the proper situation zone focus is the best and fastest method. In other situations it is clearly not.
The issue here is that zone focusing is great with wide angle lenses but gets challenging with 43mm.
If I'm not mistaken, Henri Cartier-Bresson used zone focusing with a 50mm lens. And he got some pretty amazing results.
If you're willing to stop down a little, zone focusing is both very fast and very reliable. It may not result in technical perfection, but it can yield some great images.
I’m pretty sure a lot of his images wouldn’t be considered in focus and sharp enough in this day and age.
He did it because he didn’t really have a choice. Like I used to do with the Yashica 45mm rangefinder I started out with.
Nowadays, I don’t think it makes sense to spend thousands of dollars for a 60MP camera if you can’t technically perfect images with it. Artistic excellence can be achieved with any camera.
Some amazing photographs have been made with Holgas. Not many today can match his (Bressons) vision and ability to capture that vision no mater how sharp or not so sharp. Remember his great quote "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." Great photographs are not and should not be about sharpness.
Right…but also great photographs should not be about out of focus images as well. Given a great sharp image and a great fuzzy image,,.sign me up for the sharp image.
So many people live in the past with the limitations that existed then.
I don't think anyone is arguing that zone focusing is a replacement for AF. But it does have it's place, and in certain situations, e.g., street photography where you're not trying to isolate your subject with shallow DOF, but rather trying to maximize speed and stealth, zone focusing is a great option.
If you don't want to use it, that's fine, but don't tell those of us who do use it on occasion that we're living in the past.
Sure, you can use whatever technique you want…but it seems like many poopoo autofocus because their heroes from the past created nice images without it. I use a dish washer today even though back in the day dishes were washes clean by hand.
When I build a cabinet today, I mostly use power tools. But for some tasks, a chisel, hand saw or hand plane may still the best tool.
Oh, and when I've only got few dishes to wash, or I'm washing knives or fine china or crystal, I still wash them by hand.
Apr 17, 2026 at 03:26 PM
Previous versions of bhollis's message #17022509 « Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony »
