Do you manual focus only because you have to?

<p>If you manual focus because your lens doesn't auto focus or your camera has trouble focus in the situation then I certainly understand. If you manually focus because you want to I would understand too because I myself do. My question is that is there anyone out there that wants to manually focus but yet wants a split image to do it?</p>

<p>If I capture landscape or macro on a tripod and the subject is not moving so that I have time, I prefer to manual focus via live view in these days (and of course I am talking about digital). The split-image focusing aid was last century's technology.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun. That half-black distracting blob in the centre of the focusing screen was never a useful "aid" IMHO, and a type B screen would be swapped in ASAP if available.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with the focus-confirmation spot or Live View with MF only lenses. In fact a dandelion chipped Ai-S lens offers the ability to use focus-trap very successfully. Something you can't do with an AF lens!</p>

<p>BTW, I'm a spectacle wearer with far less than perfect eyesight, and can still usually get better focus with one of Nikon's modern plain screens than relying on AF. Not as fast as the camera of course, but in good light a "sight" more accurate. I also know my lenses well enough to apply a little nudge in the near or far direction as needed.</p>

<p>Long after AF became available in the film era did I still use manual focus - even with AF lenses; I only transitioned into AF when I purchased my first DSLR (and the D70 is certainly not a camera you want to do manual focusing with). However, I was never a friend of the split image screen and removed it from all my cameras as soon as possible - I very much preferred the matte screens (Type B or the E-type (which is a B with grid lines)). Nowadays, I try to avoid manual focusing whenever possible.</p>

<p>Currently, I use manual focus lenses mostly on the Sony A7 - the instant access to two magnification levels makes manual focusing a breeze - much better than the optical viewfinder on a DSLR and certainly better than any rangefinder I ever tried.</p>

<p>Recently, I tried again to use the 105/2.5 on the D300 - the focusing was hit or miss. Don't seem to have nearly as much trouble on the D700 - even though the viewing area on an FX viewfinder is at best some 30% larger than on a DX body.</p>

<p>I probably use manual focus much more than AF on my DSLR, m4/3, and SLR bodies. Where I can, I've also installed split image screens, although on the m4/3 that is irrelevant as zoomed live view makes perfect focus a snap. When I'm shooting in the woods, manual view is usually the best way for me to ensure the detail I want is in focus. When I'm in the city or around the lake or local river, I usually use AF. My RF bodies, which I use probably once or twice a month, of course, have split image or coincident focus...which is what I grew up with in the 1950s.</p>

<p>I prefer AF when possible. It's just easier and seems more accurate. I do have one lens that is manual, and that's the 24mm PC-E. I use the green dot to focus it most of the time. I don't think I've ever owned a camera that had the split screen deal (does the Rolleiflex?) I only MF when I have to. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I really never liked a split-image prism, the ground glass or micro-prism were easier to use. For landscape or other things the regular Nikon screen is fine, and it is easy enough to use with my Rokinon Tilt Shift manual focus lens, and any other manual focus lens I have.</p>

<p>This is with a D700, or D800 penta prism finder. The D200 was too dim and I did not like it.</p>

<p>By far I prefer AF on small&fast shooting cameras, but I also shoot with manual focus lenses on "old" cameras, where the split image became a must under certain situations. Split image screens are certainly disturbing, but when light levels are not optimal (not only this, you can shoot under very good light but to focus on a subject placed under a flat dark shadow), a split image screen could be the "only" way to do it, in a reasonable time and accuracy.</p>

<p>In the past, I also replaced the original microprism/split screen with "B" ones, but these days, my eyesight ask for them... I have returned to the "K" ones.</p>

<p>If you shoot with a DSLR, or with AF SLR cameras, the electronic rangefinder aid could replace the split screen under that mentioned conditions. But with manual focus cameras, I need the split to assure focus; on medium and large format cameras, I use to take a loupe to confirm focus on the screen, taking longer times to have the shot. With this cameras I cannot switch from horizontal to vertical to place the "split cut" (and they use to be tripod mounted as well), so it makes the split not useful at all.</p>

<p>BTW, split image screens work better with certain focal lenghts, so if you are out of that range, the black portion become more obvious. I may be wrong, but I try to remember there were different split screens for different focal lenght ranges, isn`t it?</p>

<p>Having said this, I don`t have a split image screen on my D700... Maybe because what I don`t find interesting is to shoot with manual focus lenses on such good AF cameras. I don`t see the point of using e.g., a 50/1.4Ai instead of a 50/1.4AFS, even for "manual pleasure`s" sake (except for Live View shooting, e.g., macro work). If I had to shoot manual focus lenses on my D700 all the time, for sure I`d use a split image screen (here I think I`d find the split image way less distracting than the off-screen rangefinder aid).</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the replies.</p>

<p>AF bodies - I AF even on a tripod with a dSLR. Just used to it and it gives good results. I have my prime lenses with AF fine tuning. </p>

<p>The MF I do are with film bodies that doesn't have AF at all. </p>

<p>Like Dieter I went into (serious) AF with my 1st DSLR. I had an early Mid 80s AF bodie and one short zoom before, bought used with the intension to maybe picture friends when I already got tipsy (like other folks used their P&Ss) but my other film bodies were all manual. - for focuing screen preferences Microprisms seem nicer to have than half darkened out split screens. I even installed a microprisms only screen in one camera and liked it a lot. My memory of split screens might be wrong though. - Of course they were and are annoying behind slow zooms, but with the lens lines I have these days I could give the idea another try. If I had screen choices for a DSLR I would go for microprisms But so far I have been happiest with rangefinders. - No real experience with focusing according to displays yet.- I'd love to try it tethered for some studio work.</p>

<p>I always liked the split image on the old F, but it does not work well with slow lenses and small finders. When I was routinely using F's I had a second one with a plain screen, specially for longer, slower lenses. When I got an F4 I got used to doing without it altogether. I've always had a flip up 2x magnifier for the most critical times.</p>

<p>On my D3200, I generally use AF when I can, because it is accurate, and the slow lenses are hard to manually focus in the nasty little viewfinder. I also use a number of older MF lenses, and have found that it is possible most of the time to work them well with a combination of the focus confirmation dot (which must be run back and forth to zero in on a correct focus), zone focusing by the scale on the lens, and magnification (a DK21M always, and a 2x flipup sometimes). A split image would be a poor choice here, I think, because the view is already rather small, and it would be dark when using the usual slow DX lenses. I'd be happy to have it occasionally, but would hate to be stuck with it the rest of the time. </p>

<p>The one lens for which I really miss a microprism is the 85/2.8 micro. It's MF and the critically short depth of field makes it pretty hard to get sharp with my aging eyesight. </p>

Manual focus is occasional quicker for selective focus on subjects or objects in a crowded scene, especially with shallow DOF. The AF assisted focus and recompose trick can result in slight focus error with fast lenses used wide open.

 

I'd like a split image assist for almost any

camera, at least as an option. My vision had

deteriorated just enough to need reading glasses

to see the camera controls and screen, but not

enough to need bifocals or contacts. So that makes the matte screen less useful to me now than it was several years ago.

 

Most of my digicams with viewfinders have diopter

adjustments to assist with manual focusing. Focus

peaking helps but only my Fuji has it.

 

With my FM2N and F3HP the split image assist

helps a lot, even when I can't see clearly enough

to focus on the matte screen. The eyepiece on my

F3HP is buggered up so a screw in diopter won't

fit.

<p>I don't like the split image because it clutters the viewfinder and in some circumstances makes it difficult to focus in the underlying area if there is no edge or line at that point. I prefer a clean matte screen with good in/out of focus contrast, if available. Unfortunately the default screens on most DSLRs are not very good for manual focus and the quality of the viewfinder optics also can be less good than required for manual focus. Katz Eye screens I can speak very highly of but they don't make them for 100% FX viewfinders. Their screens in fact have split images; I just ignore the split image and focus on where I want the subject to be in focus. Focusingscreen.com seem to make alternative screens (e.g. modified Canon S type screen for wide aperture lenses) for many FX camera bodies.</p>

<p>I use several manual focus lenses with varying regularity and would appreciate Nikon to offer screens and viewfinders that are better optimized for manual focus of wide aperture lenses, so that one doesn't have to depend and wait for 3rd party support. </p>

<p>I was wrong. There were different <em>fresnel</em> type screens for different focal lenghts; the split portion has nothing to do with it.</p>

<p>I use mostly AF now, especially when shooting sports. But I strongly prefer MF and find it to be easier and more reliable.<br /><br />Before digital, I used F2 and FM bodies. I had several screens but I think the one I used was a K, the one with ground glass plus a split image rangefinder and a microprism ring in the middle. Despite what others have said, as long as you have enough light and a fast enoug lens that it's not blacked out, focusing on a straight line with the split image is absolute. It is either in focus or it's not. In my experience, it's guaranteed. Microprism is the next best thing. Ground glass is good provided the lens is long enough that in focus/out of focus is clear. Doesn't work as well with wide lenses.<br /><br />With a non-moving or minimally moving subject, MF is dead on. I don't have to worry about what AF spot I'm using, I don't have to worry that the camera will refocus on something else after I lift my finger off the shutter release, I don't have to worry about what focusing mode I'm in. I focus and that's it. Unless I change it or something moves, it stays in focus. Sure, I can still screw it up. But I don't have to worry that the camera is going to screw it up for me.<br /><br />One of the situations where I most prefer MF is in focus. If I've got a person seated and the camera on a tripod and I've focused on the near eye, I can shoot all I want forever. No focus-and-recompose with each shot to keep the focus spot on the eye, not compromising on composition because one of the gazillion AF spots isn't in quite the right spot, etc.<br /><br />I've shot baseball, football, basketball and all sorts of news with MF. Only thing I've shot that I don't think I could have done (at least not as easily) is figure skating. Skaters move extremely fast and without defined places to prefocus on (like the net in basketball or the bases in baseball). Even with AF I probably throw out at least a third of the shots.</p>

Years back I shot a lot of college and local sports, all manual focus. I think nothing of it because I've done so much it's like

riding a bike.

BTW, I never use a split screen, I focus only on the matt. Especially with my big 400mm f3.5 that is laser sharp still.

<p>I've used and prefer manual focus for 40 odd years. Occasionally I might use AF on a 50mm (1.8), tho for some reason I still end up shooting in manual :>).</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>I prefer manual focus I suppose because that's how I learned to do it. Unless it's something simple I find AF to be more trouble than it is worth. I'm another one of those who never cared for the split image screens and like the E screen best. In fact I need to go find one or two.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...is there anyone out there that wants to manually focus but yet wants a split image to do it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji X-T1 + Metabones Speed Booster + Nikkor 50/2 converted to AI. Absolutely superb manual focusing with either the center spot or dual image mode.</p>

<p>The piss poor focusing screen on my D800 is no comparison to the P screens on my F2 and F4. Since I've never been a fan of tripods or live view, my manual focus Nikkors get less use than I'd like, and certainly less than they desrve these days.</p>

<p>So I guess those who wanted the split image screen are those who rather AF if possible. Because I heard so many wishes that Nikon makes the split image screen for some DSLR's. I found that using the split image is very much like using a single point AF only that it's slower and requires you to turn the ring. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Do you manual focus only because you have to?"</p>

<p>"My question is that is there anyone out there that wants to manually focus but yet wants a split image to do it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use auto focus on my compact digital cameras because manual focus is too difficult, too slow, and too inaccurate.</p>

<p>I manually focus my medium format film cameras because auto focus is not an option.</p>

<p>I manually focus my 35mm manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>I manually focus when I attach my camera to a telescope.</p>

<p>Back in my younger days, even though I had a complete set of view screens for my Nikon F2 bodies, I routinely used the ground matte Nikon B screen for focusing. As my eyesight deteriorated, I found it necessary to use the split image Nikon A screen in order to accurately manual focus. It was not until a friend gave me an auto focus film camera and auto focus lens that I begain using auto focus. I added a Nikon F4 and few auto focus lenses to my inventory. However, since my lens inventory consisted primarily of manual focus lenses, I continued to manually focus.</p>

<p>When I begain using digital cameras, I had difficulty using the smaller viewfinder on my DX digital SLRs to accurately focus manually. I installed a split image KatzEye view screen in my dSLR but it did not help enough. I was forced to buy more auto focus lenses.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

<p>Bebu, another vote for your theory.... In general I prefer manual focus - it gives me complete liberty on where to put the focus, no fiddling around with "focus-and-recompose" which doesn't work well at f/1.4 and so on. Plus, it gives me a bit more idea of being actively involved in making the photo. Of course that's complete and utter nonsens, but it's a silly sense of satisfaction. I've got a FM2n with split-image screen, and a F3 with a E-screen. I very very much prefer the F3's screen. The D700 isn't bad either, in my view. The split-image forces the same stupid 'focus and recompose' technique which I simply don't like.</p>

<p>That all said, the FM2n otherwise is fine as the viewfinder is quite bright all around. I've got another SLR with a full matte screen which is too dark except for the centre spot (which has no further aids except being a lot brighter); unless in bright light, I cannot see well outside of the centre spot what is in focus and what not. So i hope this week another screen will solve that, even if that'll be a split-image prism. As long as it's muich brighter all across the frame, it'll be better for me. I'll happily ignore that pesky split-image in the centre ;-) So, a reasonably bright screen first and foremost, and next as little further aids as possible...</p>

<p>I use MF when it makes gobs of sense, like with macro and with careful landscape composition.<br /><br />I find AF to be way easier for most things I actually shoot pictures of, though.</p>