Jump to content

Why manual focus?


edward_h

Recommended Posts

I've seen a lot of questions lately regarding using manual focus

lenses on cameras that have AF. I've been trying to rationally come up

with explanations as to why a person would want to do such a thing.

 

I routinely photograph events (dancing, concerts, martial arts

exhibitions) and couldn't possibly expect to get more than about 10

sharp pics per event if I were to switch off my AF. I can understand

macro folk not using AF, but why not use it shooting sports, street

and snapshots? Why force yourself to use MF?

 

Why would a personal forgo a technology that makes taking sharp

photographs easier? My thoughts/theories are as follows:

1) Autofocus follows the wrong subjects.

2) People have been using MF for several decades, why change now?

3) MF lenses are ever so much sharper than newer AF lenses.

 

If any of y'all have any theories of your own I would be more than

glad to hear them. I want to understand what makes MF-folk people tick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll pick choice number 1: my wife, a novice photographer, routinely complains about the

auto [out-of]-focus setting on my camera (a Nikon F60) when taking candid people

photos. The classic problem she runs into is taking a picture of 2 people, standing side-

by-side: whatever is in the background between the two heads ends up nicely focused, but

the people are blurry. It takes a lot of practice to use the novice-features effectively.

 

(Number 2 reminds me of Woody Allen in the movie _Sleeper_. asking about how to switch

the orgasmatron to manual.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've only tried manually focusing an AF camera/lens, I can

understand your frustration. Manually focus a manual focus

lens on a camera that has a viewing screen designed for manual

focus use is much easier.

<p>

There is some practice involved in refining the skill, but like

the old Volkswagen commercials said regarding their transmissions,

"after awhile, it becomes automatic".

<p>

Once your eyes and hands have learned the skill of follow-focusing

on a good manual focus camera, it's hard to beat. It's fast,

extremely accurate, very easy to control, and it always

focuses on exactly the part of the subject that YOU want it

to focus on, regardless of where that part of the subject is

in the viewfinder. The question becomes, why would anyone

want to switch away from a system that works so well?

<p>

But your original question was regarding using MF lenses on

AF bodies. Reasons may vary, but perhaps they wanted to get

an AF body to go digital, or get some advanced flash capability

or something. Some old MF lenses may be somewhat special-purpose

and either very expensive or unavailable in AF versions (105mm f/2.5

Nikkor is one example, PC shift 35mm f/2.8 is another).

<p>

I don't think your 3rd reason is what motivates many people. I'm not

aware of any MF lenses that are significantly sharper than their AF

counterparts, except to the extent that the AF counterparts

sometimes mis-focus, indirectly causing a loss of sharpness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A male's ability to focus a lens is at it's peak at age 18. I knew a couple of sports shooters, Randy Reid at my newspaper and a Sports Illustrated photographer by the name of Andy Hayt. These guys could shoot a football game (day or night), and when you edited their film you would find 30 out of the 36 photos tack sharp.I am sure now that they are older they are using AF , but having the ability to have that kind of hand-eye coordination was amazing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.. I will attempt to take a stab at this one from my personal experience, and sadly enough, disappointment with the technology for the particular type of images I am looking to capture. I have a passion for shooting motorsport, Formula One to be precise, and shot over 14 gigs of photos at the 2004 Canadian GP over a four-day stint in Montreal.

 

I used a Canon 10D and employed a number of Canon L series AF/USM lenses? Each of which upon inspection confirmed that the AI/Servo/AF was simply too slow to accurately track an object either approaching me or retreating as all of the images produced were soft. After having a conversation with a friend of mine who has been shooting F1 since the early 70?s he kept on stressing to forego the AF and pre-focus on the area where I wanted to capture the moment... I understand that some sports are more predisposed to this technique than others but I have also done this while shooting baseball games as well as football and with great success. But that?s me?

 

Hope this gives you a different viewpoint on the AF/MF battle.

 

Happy shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOS has one feature that's an interesting hybrid: Depth focus, where you set the min and

max distances you want in focus and the camera sets a focus point somewhere in between

with an aperture that should get both in focus. Many people do this manually by

experienced guesswork, but it's nice to know some engineers have attempted it. Note that

the points should be fairly close so that your aperture isn't F16 and your shutter speed is

reasonable.

<P>Why manual focus? -->>> Decisive Moment!<P> Prefocus allows totally split second

timing, I still use prefocus for street photos, 10 feet at F11 with a wide lens, AF seems to

deny the decisive moment, though newer AF systems are finally getting close, the Canon

20D is surprisingly fast.

<P>As my eyes get older and focussing screens get flatter... and AF gets better, I find AF

is a tool that's finally

something I don't mind using.

<P>I still mix and match, using old Manual Focus lenses with adapters on my Canon 20D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norman Perkel has covered several of the reasons, such as the inability of AF systems to track at some speed ranges, but it is the second reason he gives, pre-focus on an area to capture a moment, that is IMHO the more critical for control of composition.

 

Despite the sophistication of some AF camera viewfinders the focusing spots they allow one to choose do not always work for the composition you are trying to achieve. If you are attempting an off-center composition, or one with a lot of negative space in the center of the image, MF will allow you the greater control you need. For panning shots, which typically benefit from an off-center composition, my experience is that MF results in a higher success rate. MF does require that the sports photographer have a detailed knowledge of their sport and where the action that will make for a successful shot will develop. That may sound difficult, but who among us actively shoots things we are not interested in?

 

This does not mean that AF has no place in sports photography. In motorsports there are situations, the start, the crush of cars at the first corner, blown engines and accidents that are all more suited for AF, but for shots where you?re trying to capture a moment, as Norman so succinctly put it, MF makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it, I can prefocus an AF camera at least as fast, if not faster, than a MF camera. I aim at the spot I want in focus and lock focus. What's so hard about that?

 

There's a lot of "so and so said" on this thread, maybe that indicates a lack of experience with this kind of shooting. I shot a professional boxing event a few weeks ago, four of us with credentials shooting at the ring, four of us shooting with autofocus. I don't think anyone missed the "decisive moment" because of autofocus, although two of us (me included) missed it because the official's legs were in the way. There's no way manual focus or any kind of anticipation could have changed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF is only an option, a tool to suit a purpose. In most cases it is fine for sports work as long as you are aware of its limitation, one of which, as an example, is the subject you have locked focus on in auto servo mode suddenly changing direction, and the focus point latching onto the background and causing the lens to run out to almost infinity and start to hunt for something to lock onto, or doing the same thing by shooting between two subject in the frame.

Or as Norm mentioned the AF is just too bloody slow or unreliable for the job at hand

 

At times, when you can choose the exact place that you want to capture the image, and manually focus on that point, taking the pic the moment that the subject arrives there, either by following the action with panning ,or holding the camera still and relying on good reflexes to capture the shot as you previsualised it.

 

Another advantage of using this method when appropriate and as opposed to AF, is you know beforehand that you are going to get the shot, and not have some dumb contrast seeking, colour blind, mechanically linked. sometime useful tool letting you down at the last second.

 

Although I respect your opinions generally, I reckon that in this case you are shooting from the lip Jeff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Well I came into AF from 20+ years of MF, one major point is that it depends on what kit

you are useing. Now if I was like Norman and handicaping myself by useing a 10D for

F1 shooting then I would have probably gone back to MF! But I didn't, I use 1V's and

1D's, for the vast majority of situations they focus and track far better than most people

can, including me.

 

Now only having extensively used Canon AF I can only comment on that but I doubt if

Nikon are much different. The functionality of the AF is astounding, not only One Shot and

AI Servo, but adjustable sensativity, adjustable speed, multipule switching and accessing

methods, and instant focus preset, I'm sorry but focusing is far more versatile and

accurate now than then.

 

In answer to Edwards original three points, 1) AF can follow the wrong subject, but it can

be programed or over ridden to not do so, 2) This is a valid point, I must be honest I was

sceptical at AF's abilities, but after trying it was more than convinced, but some diehards

will always stick with what they know or feel comfortable with, 3) MF lenses are not

sharper than AF ones, obviously some MF lenses are sharper than some AF lenses but if

you talk about comparative ones my old MF 300 f2.8 is not sharper than my AF 300 f2.8.

 

I think part of the problem is that one system without tuning can not do everything well

and for something as simple as focusing it is tempting, especially pre digital, to ignore the

options and choices and just not use it rather than make a big investment in time and

money to investigate and test all the combinations of settings or, get on your soapbox

because consummer grade kit does not work as well as pro kit. Duh! Why would anybody

buy an $8000 or $4500 camera if a $1200 one did the same job? You can however buy the

same (very nearly) AF system in a $700 camera as the $8000 one if you use film (EOS 3).

 

Take care, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10D is not necessarily a handicap for photographing Formula 1 racing, as this excellent 10D shot by Santi Martinez Romero proves. Could a 1D or 1D Mk11 have done any better?

 

Talent and skill plays a very big part.

 

I would go as far as to say the 1D Canon and similar professional cameras have enabled many mediocre pro sports photographers to capture quite spectacular images that have nothing to do with the photographers reflexes or talent.

 

Of course for the talented sports photogs, the 1D and its compatriots make sports photography akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Erin,

 

I never said you could not take a good picture with a 10D at a F1 event. But most people

given the choice would use a 1 series body over a 10D in that situation not least of which

because the AF is much better. The example you give, whilst nice, is not the kind of shot

that really taxes an AF system anyway, it's a clear uninterupted shot with good contrast

and the subject is moving in a smooth path at relatively slow speed, any sport shooter

worth the tag could do that effortlessly in MF.

 

Your last two comments I am in complete agreement with and I think this proves my point,

mediocre people can get the shot because the AF is so good and talented pro's can shoot

fish in barrels because they don't have to think about much of the stuff that they used to

enabeling them to think differently and about other stuff i.e. composition, and the

morgage!

 

TAke care, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was shooting with my EOS 5 (film) I used to MF quite a bit for the standard, predictable action stuff such as pan shots and head on action etc, though for race starts I'd use AF. Mind, the job was made considerably easier with a lovely big, bright viewfinder and nice focusing screen. When I switched to digital, first with a D60 and then with a 10D, manual focusing wasn't that much of a viable option because of the small, dim viewfinder. I also found that the increase in the volume of material I was shooting made AF a better tool to use.

 

The AF on the D60 was hard work, and the slightest bit of dust would confuse it, resulting in the frustrating loss of some crash / incident shots, but it was worth using nonetheless. In comparison, the AF of the 10D is less likely to lose the lock, and with 7 focus points as opposed to the D60's 3, is far more responsive and so less shots are lost. However, I only have a single focus point active at any one time, usually the centre one.

 

The key with the slower-focusing DSLRs is to make sure you track the cars for an adequate length to time prior to taking the shots - that way, the hit rate is pretty high, though obviously nowhere on par with say, the 1D Mk2. Using only one active focus point also reduces the risk of the camera locking onto the wrong subject. In the main, with the D60/10D it is all about developing good focusing technique while understanding the limitations of the camera that is the path to getting a good return of shots.

 

I've shot SCSA racing (and other forms of motorsport) for the motorsport press for the last two seasons with either a D60 or a 10D and while I've had my work cut out at times, neither has stopped me from getting the shots I needed. In fact, I don't think I would have captured a couple of big incident sequences this season if I'd been shooting exclusively MF, as things on an oval happen just so damned quickly...

 

Take for instance a crash that started with one car backing into the T3 wall at Rockingham. Started off pretty simply enough, but on the way back down, collected a bunch of tighly-grouped cars and before anyone knew it, one of them was barrel-rolling along the grass. The whole incident only lasted about ten seconds or so, but if I'd been using MF, there's just no way I'd have got a sequence of 12 shots that I produced with the 10D...<div>00ALaP-20783384.jpg.56c6e81c2cf15c7b957a1ba8b1359e6a.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...