Manual Focus on D600?

I have been shooting with some of my MF Nikkors lately, mostly on my D600. I'm not happy with the focus accuracy. The "green dot" is okay, but a pain to use, at least for me. Today, I went out with the F3 HP, and the difference was huge. Even without the split-prism, I could get focus quickly and accurately, by which I mean that if I focused with the matte screen, it agreed perfectly with the split-image. (Lenses used were the 105 f2.5 AI and the 180 f2.8 AI.) I have now decided to order one of the Chinese-modified FM3 screens for the D600. I'd appreciate hearing any opinion on these, including warnings about installation problems, calibration (if needed) etc.

 

Thanks to all,

Les

I never like the split image even back in the old days. I always replaced my focusing screen to one that only has matte screen. But when I did so camera like the F3 is very easy to focus manually while other like the F5 is a bit more difficult and a typical DSLR much more difficult. I don't really know why but my guesses are that on these newer cameras they didn't optimize the screen for manual focus but rather for brightness. Also the LCD layer embbeded onto the focusing screen makes it worse for manual focus.

LCD Layer?

Yes, LCD layer. All the information you see overlaid on your DSLR screen (AF points, crop area, switchable grid, etc.) is there thanks to an LCD membrane that sits on top of the viewing/focus screen.

 

You can verify this if you take the battery out of the camera. You'll see that the viewing screen gets a whole lot darker and goes out of focus completely.

 

Anyway, WRT replacing the screen: What makes you think that just because a split image is apparently easier to focus, that the resulting sensor image will be any sharper? And if you were comparing the F3's split image with its GG area, why would the plain ground D600 screen not be just as good?

 

Personally I found the dark half moons of a split image completely distracting composition-wise. So much so that I replaced all my screens with type Bs where possible.

 

Just because a split image works OK with film, that doesn't mean the focus on film is any more accurate.

For a start, 35mm film has far less resolution than a modern DSLR, so what looks perfectly in focus on film may look misfocused when viewed at pixel level on digital.

 

Secondly, a film emulsion has depth. This spreads the plane of best focus slightly, and effectively gives you more depth-of-field for a given aperture - at the expense of absolute sharpness as described above.

 

Thirdly, film is rarely magnified to the same degree as is digital when viewed on a monitor. Therefore small focus errors on film go unnoticed. So there's really no apples-to-apples comparison that can be done between film and digital's respective focussing accuracy.

 

There's also the issue that a split image needs a well-defined edge in the subject to work, whereas digital focussing can detect and work with almost invisible texture in a plain subject.

 

All I can add is that the focussing dot works adequately for me. However that's after I got used to its foibles. Some lenses need to be "edged off" slightly from the fully on green dot position. Maybe towards near focus with some lenses, and toward distant focus with others.

 

Wide aperture, i.e. f/1.4 lenses, present another challenge of focus shift on stopping down. This is due to residual spherical aberration, which also confuses both the eye and AF systems when it comes to detecting the best focus point.

 

LiveView is really the only reliable focus system.

 

All in all I think you'd be wasting your time and money on a replacement screen, but that's just my opinion.

Edited May 15, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

LiveView is really the only reliable focus system.

 

Exactly. If you're shooting under conditions when live view will work, that's the way to go.

If the green dot is OK, but focussing on what you see in your viewfinder is not... are you sure the viewfinder is not using a diopter correction that is off?

 

While no doubt the viewfinder in a F3 is a whole lot better, I do find the viewfinder in full frame Nikons really quite usable. Not ideal with super-fast lenses, but I'm often using a 105 f/2.5 on my D700, and it's really quite doable to nail it.

I'd look at the diopter as a possible easy fix and eliminate it as the problem. I recently discovered that somehow the correction on my D500 had moved just slightly. I was attributing the focus issue to camera shake, but it was simply getting the diopter adjustment back where it should be.

I've adjusted the diopter, and that's not the problem. I'll spend a little time today checking that as carefully as possible, but I don't think it will have any effect. I DO use Live View when possible, but most of the time I have to use the screen (with MF, of course).

AF focusing screens don't "jump into focus" like the older manual focus ones do. Main reason is that they don't show DOF properly, being limited to something in the vicinity of f/2.8 (or slightly larger). Or in other words, with an f/1.4 lens mounted, one only sees the DOF of f/2.8 or thereabouts, with all that implies for focus accuracy. The green dot can help but I always found it annoying to use.

So Nikon need to build me a DSLR with the screen that I can focus without the split image. It's OK if they have to take away the AF function.

Dieter, the lowering of effective aperture isn't limited to DSLR or AF screens. The F4, F3HP, F2, FE and FM viewing systems all do exactly the same.

 

For some reason, there's absolutely no change in viewfinder brightness with lenses wider than around f/2 with any of the above cameras. I've measured the ocular brightness with an eyepiece photometer. The eye can't detect any change in brightness or DoF either when the lens aperture is increased above ~f/2.

 

So fitting an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens makes the viewing screen no brighter or easier to focus than with an f/1.8 lens.

 

In fact the viewing screen brightness of every Nikon (D)SLR is entirely non-linear with respect to lens aperture. It makes me wonder what type of fudge is applied to Nikon's metering, since it's placed above the screen.

Edited May 16, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

"So Nikon need to build me a DSLR with the screen that I can focus without the split image."

- It's called an EVF in a mirrorless camera.

 

It ain't gonna happen in an SLR design without the mirror box getting ridiculously large and the screen getting a lot dimmer.

Agree. The EVF in my "primitive" X-E1 nails focus for me every time, even at f1.2. It has what is considered lousy focus peeking (sic), but I can still get the near eye almost every time.

"So Nikon need to build me a DSLR with the screen that I can focus without the split image."

- It's called an EVF in a mirrorless camera.

 

It ain't gonna happen in an SLR design without the mirror box getting ridiculously large and the screen getting a lot dimmer.

 

Why not? I just need a viewfinder the same as the F3.. And No I don't want no EVF

"So Nikon need to build me a DSLR with the screen that I can focus without the split image."

- It's called an EVF in a mirrorless camera.

It ain't gonna happen in an SLR design without the mirror box getting ridiculously large and the screen getting a lot dimmer.

 

Disagree.

Many of us can not focus manually with SLR/DSLR because it is not very bright, particularly when the scene is not bright, and it is not magnified. But I still can focus manually easily with most SLR/DSLRs that have pentaprism and a F2.8 or faster lens and the length 28mm or longer (35mm equivalent), F4 lenses are ok, only F5.6 or slower lenses will be a problem. Maybe people are using wide lenses like 15mm, 18mm, 20mm (35mm equivalent) and with those lenses it is hard to focus manually because the DOF is so deep. I dont need the split screen, or green dot, I can also see when the AF get front/back focus.

 

The EVF is actually not good for focusing, maybe because of low resolution (than optical VF), and lagging . It is also ridiculous that the EVF of the Sony A7 is bigger than a Pentax prism. I am not bothered about the mirror box nearly as much as seeing people using SLR/DSLR lenses on an MILC where the mirror box is replaced by an adapter.

John, you're talking about a DX camera right? Well a DX viewing screen is inevitably half as bright as a full-frame camera. The reason being that it has half the area of full-frame and is magnified 50% more to fill your field of view. Result; it's half as bright for a given lens aperture.

 

If you want a brighter viewfinder, then get an FX camera.

 

Transplanting the F3 screen to a DSLR won't work either. There's a light loss from the LCD overlay as pointed out previously. And as previously described, the criteria for an in-focus image on film are a lot different from those expected of a high megapixel digital sensors.

The most significant problem is the amount of light stolen by the auto focus system. The viewfinder degradation from a manual focus camera body to an auto focus camera body is huge and only gets worst going from an auto focus body to a DSLR, whether FX or DX. I believe AF takes 2/3 stop and a DSLR likely takes about another 1/3 stop.

 

I never used an AF body until I got a DSLR, so imagine my surprise. I eventually went backwards and compared my f1.2 to f2.8 manual focus lenses on my manual focus film body, auto focus film body and full frame DSLR and confirmed the differences of the view in the viewfinder.

You guys pointed out that modern DSLR (I am talking full frame) is more difficult to focus than something like the F3 because of the Auto Focus. Then give me a DSLR without AF then as long as I can focus as easily as the F3.

What's so great about manual focus?

 

I've done my share of moaning about Nikon's poor factory setup of their AF modules, but if you get a good 'un it beats manual focus hands down.

 

I know there's no way I could focus manually as accurately, consistently and quickly as a modern DSLR and lens does. Certainly not in the near-dark conditions that AF works down to. Conditions where with a film SLR, limited to a pathetic 1200 ISO, you'd just have to give up. At least with handheld shooting and "squint" focussing.

 

If film and manual focus is that great for you, then use it!

 

Technology has given us hugely better image capture devices, AF that was science fiction a few decades ago, affordable lenses that are far superior to anything from the film era, preview screens that show exactly what the sensor sees, and numerous other niceties that make photography quicker and easier than ever. You don't have to use any of these things if you don't want to. But for goodness sake realise that you're living in absolutely Elysian times to be an image maker, and stop hankering for the bad old days!

No, Rodeo, I meant all formats, mainly FX, DX, and 4/3 also.

Yes, the OVF can be darker than the EVF in dark situations.

No, the OVF does not have 10x, 20x magnifications like an EVF.

Yes, the OVF is still easier and faster for me to focus manually.

Yes, I already gave my opinions about why some people can not focus manually with SLR/DSLRs.

No, I am not interested in the theory about brighter or darker views by the same lens using FX or DX.

Yes, the cheap DSLRs use pentamirrors and they are bad.

No, I haven't had problems focusing manually with any pentaprisms.

Yes, it is also ok to focus manually with the porro-mirrors in the L1 and E300.

No, manual focusing was not great, and it is not improving as new technologies invented.

Yes, manual focusing is still needed most of the time; that is all the time that I feel serious, even when I use AF.

Yes, I sometimes use AF to quickly get almost right focus, then I move my head/body a little backward or forward to adjust the focusing manually (without turning anything)

Yes, I really have problems using EVF for manual focusing

No, I don't see any relationship between using film and manual focusing.

No, I don't see any new affordable lenses that are good (maybe because my affordability is too low).

No, I don't hang on the bad things of the old days.

Yes, there are a lot of things that are better now than before, for example ISO.

Yes, there are some things that are getting worse and worse, like the manual focusing and the replacing pentamirrors by EVFs

Yes, the LCD previews are convenient. (but that has nothing to do with EVF)

No, you can not preview what the sensor SEES or WILL see, only what the sensor SAW. The time difference may be small but is not zero.

No, previews can not be exactly what I plan to capture because of technical restrictions: Low resolution EVF/LCD, speeds are always between 1/15-1/30 because of the frame refreshing rate.

No, it can not predict what the result will be with a shot in 10 seconds, or with fllash.

No, I have no need using EVFs and/or MILCs, I am still happy with DSLR that have pentaprisms

Yes, I do feel ridiculous to replace the mirror box by an adapter and use lenses on a new camera without automatic diaphram controling

Yes, this post is already long

Comparing my D700, FM2 and F3: yes, the screen of the F3 is far brighter, larger, and it snaps more into focus. The FM2 has splitscreen, so it's harder to compare, but I don't think it's much brighter than my D700. The D700 doesn't snap as clearly into focus as the 2 film cameras.

In my experience - but I haven't measured anything - Rodeo Joe's statement rings true. Screens on none of these cameras get significantly brighter when switching between a f/2.8 lens or f/1.4 lens. Using the depth of field lever on the 50mm f/1.2 to see what it looks like at f/2 - there is no serious change in brightness at all. Between f/2.8 and f/4, there is.

 

Yet, focussing the very fast (f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses) correctly seems easier on a F3/FM2 compared to the D700. Could also be because film is that slight bit more forgiving than digital, but I do nail it easier at those ultrawide apertures with the film cameras. Yet, still doesn't mean it cannot be done on a FF DSLR; it is certainly possible so I don't really see any need for a DSLR optimised for manual focus. I prefer the versatility as we have today, where I can use my manual focus lenses without hassle, and can switch to AF lenses whenever I want.

 

 

 

P.S. I usually prefer manual focus, not because it's better. It's not in my hands anyway. But I've got a fair share of MF lenses I prefer greatly over AF lenses, and I don't like "focus and recompose", so for scenes where the point of focus lies very off-centre (which happens often for me), I often find MF simply easier and faster. AF can be a godsend, but once it's not locking on, it easily becomes very annoying to me.

John, if you can manually focus a DSLR screen faster and more consistently than an AF system, then you have my congratulations, and I hope your eyesight stays as acute as it obviously is now.

 

A few years ago I could easily detect a "shimmering" effect on the plain ground screen surface when the subject was in focus. No longer.

Maybe I just need new spectacles, but I'm sure I'm not alone in finding difficulty with manual focus. However I'm not blaming screen technology or AF systems or pentamirrors. The fault is with my ageing eyesight. Whether I'm looking through my F3HP or my D7200, it's the same story.

 

Realistically, I don't expect camera manufacturers to change their entire camera designs just because I can no longer see as well as I used to. In fact there are more viewing options available to me than ever before. Be they reliance on AF, LiveView, Focus Confirmation, an EVF or OVF. The choice is mine to make, and I really don't see what other options could economically be made available.

 

I suppose a manual focus only DSLR could be made, but it would sell like cold cakes, unsliced stale bread and yesterday's newspapers all rolled into one.

 

Let's just use and enjoy whichever of the hundreds of current or past cameras and lenses are available to us, shall we? And not waste time compiling wish lists of stuff that would only interest a minority of one.

Twelve years ago, If I could have figured out a way to mount a digital sensor on my Canon T-90, I would have! 99% of my photography is manual focus.

Ah! The (e)Film fantasy of making a sensor as thin as a piece of film, and packing all the associated electronics into a 35mm sized cassette. I remember it well.

 

I also remember thinking "Good luck with that!" and sending a memo to myself not to hold my breath.

 

FWIW, I dug out my F2s today. One fitted with a type B and the other with a centre microprism screen. With a 50mm f/1.4 lens attached; were they any brighter than the D800? - Moderately.

Were they any easier to critically focus? - Not really.

Would I get rid of the D800's AF and LiveView in exchange for the F2 screen? - Absolutely not!

I'm in agreement on the T90.

You can find the "April Fool's" digital insert somewhere on the web == many hoped it was real.

 

It wasn't