Autofocus craze?

[acute]

<p>I read comments on various lenses, some extremely pricey, and folks tend to be caught up about autofocus speed, or lack thereof. Is this a generational thing? To me, autofocus is just as aid, not a necessity. I remember when there was no autofocus. Photography doesn't stop without it. If there is some fast action sport, you've got to manage without autofocus. Figure out from where to where your lens will focus and shoot. Shut off the autofocus. I can't believe I read comments such as: "so and so lens is very good and sharp but too slow to focus for shooting sports events". C'mon! That's where you come in! Don't wait for the camera to do it all for you. Am I missing something here?</p>

[will_daniel1]

Andrew, it is indeed a generational thing, but understandable. When an industry provides a function that a whole generation gets accustomed to and comfortable with, it had better work as advertised or it's no good. Some other examples just in my lifetime: full-aperture, through-the-lens metering; automatic exposure; zoom lenses as standard equipment; blinking tail light turn signals on cars; air bags; seat belts; laws against driving drunk; uniform traffic lights with the sequence red, amber, green so that color-blind people can obey them (or not); not having to worry about getting drafted; electronic calculators (and people who forget that their computers are the biggest calculators on their desks); microwave ovens, etc.

[William Kahn]

<p>Just like anything thing else that's automated, autofocus is not going to meet all your needs all the time. There will be many times when manual focus is the better option. Anyone who buys a camera for the autofocus function is headed for occasional disappointment - and you'll hear about it right here...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yes, you are missing something. The bar has been raised on the <em>results</em> that are expected in certain kinds of shooting. It's not that you can't get <em>a</em> shot of a fast moving subject in (for example) a sports situation. It's that people are now looking for <em>the</em> perfect frame out of a series. For example: I sometimes shoot sporting dogs, working in the field. They are often running towards me (or past me at an angle) as I work to capture them at their best. There is a limit to how long such a session can occur, and I may have only one opportunity to make things work at all.<br /><br />Extremely agile 3-D AF system (like that found in Nikon's D3, D700 and D300 bodies) coupled with lenses that have very responsive AF performance mean that it's possible to capture high speed, dynamic tracking sequences with every frame in focus. And that means that out of a dozen frames, there's a better chance of getting what the customer (or publisher) wants to see ... a stride with feet just so, or ears just so, or crossing a background object just so. If I'm spending a valuable (and hard to arrange) day in pursuit of such material, you better believe that anything that can improve the keeper ratio is worth considering.<br /><br />And whether or not my customers can be articulate about the underlying technology that allows me to not miss such fraction-of-a-second moments, they know what they want to see. And now they <em>expect</em> that sort of output - because now they know it's possible. Just like color is now possible.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>The focus screens in modern DSLRs are not designed for MF. If you've got time, you can use LiveView on some cameras to set up scencis and check DOF etc., but shooting birds or shots like the dogs above, fast AF raises the "keeper rate" subsubtantially.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Matt, you, as usual, I think, have hit the topic right on, but thanks for the dog shots. You do this so well it's always a pleasure to see them.</p>

<p>Personally, I suspect that AF is just a fad that will soon pass, at least that's what I read in some major late 1980s mainline photomagazine. :P</p>

<p>As for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>focus screens in modern DSLRs are not designed for MF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is less true than it was. Even with my old eyes, I find the <em>newer</em> cameras just fine, even without putting in any special screen.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Metering can be considered a mere aid. Likewise with flash technology. An LCD screen is just an aid and so on. Heck, we could go back to huge glass plate cameras hauled around on carts and be seen as 'real' photographers. There little point in criticizing others for merely discussing whether certain equipment is suitable for them, especially when that equipment is "extremely pricey".</p>

<p> </p>

[dangoldman]

<p>if you're shooting something thats moving, mediocre autofocus simply deosnt cut it... I shoot with both, and the types of shots i take with each are dictated by whether i am using my autofocus kit or not. Im not going to blow through a roll of film to get one shot (ok... i've done that... a few times... but thats not the point here). And, as a thread just a week ago said, manual focusing on a modern body is very difficult in comparison to a body (viewfinder and prism design) designed for it. I've done it, a few times, but its not always dead-on, compared to if i just used manual focus. If you';re shooting statics, or portraiture, it could be argued that its easier to focus manually, as its easy to focus on the specific point that you want. Again, this is easier with a viewfinder that actually has some contrast in my experience. Perhaps the better/modern SLR's have better viewfinders now, but my rebel screen is horrible - especially when compared to my A1.</p>

[acute]

<p>Matt:<br>

Very nice picture of the dogs running. Another way to handle this kind of a shot is to focus in front of the approaching dogs and as they enter the "in-focus" zone, you snap the picture. This kind of a photo is not anything that was impossible before the introduction of the autofocus lens.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I didn't say it was impossible, Andrew. I've been photographing sports in one way or another for over 30 years, and did years and years of it with manually focused rigs. I also know (from long personal experience) that using the method you describe would not have produced the 12 (over two seconds) <em>in focus</em> shots that included the one shown. The dogs moved over 50 feet, diagonal to me, during those two seconds, and <em>every</em> shot was in focus. Those two seconds were the only chance I ever had, or ever will, to get both of them in the same frame. And because of nimble AF, I had my choice of several good exposures to show their owner. And these are folks who care about things like whether or not a photograph shows off the dogs' conformation, hip structure, and other subtle things that go way past simply having the dog at the moment they were in focus. <br /><br />It's not about <em>can</em> you get action shots with poor AF or no AF. It's about the fact that customer expectations and competition have permanently changed things. I did three such shoots that same weekend. The shot above was sold as a 30-inch framed print, and the same equipment was used to produce several other prints for that weekend's customers. The "very pricey" equipment that made that high action shot success rate possible would completely pay for itself in just two or three such weekends of shooting.<br /><br />The point is that it may indeed be silly for someone who doesn't actually <em>use</em> such tools to fret continuosly over how well they work. But believe me when I tell you that if I <em>don't</em> use those tools, someone else will, and it will be them selling the $300 prints instead of me. And even when competition and customer expectations aren't issues for you, you can still kick yourself for having perfect focus on a lousy expression, and a blurry capture of the perfect moment from five feet and a 10th of a second earlier. Good AF, when it matters, <em>really</em> matters.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Andrew, I'm a fellow old-timer, and I have a very good manual focus technique. That said, it's great to be able to center an AF point where I want it, hit a button with my thumb. Then POP! The focus is right there. My technique is still somewhat manual, but it's computer assisted. That speeds my work and gets me more usable shots. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It is not a generational thing.<br>

I haven't been doing photography all that long, and in fact never seriously bothered with film cameras (yet). So, according to the generational stuff, I should be all automated press a button type.</p>

<p>Sorry, I'm not. I'm more and more enjoying manual focus lenses; it gives an extra layer of "having done it yourself". They work fine on my DSLR, they're old but the ones I have now are of stunning quality. I love those lenses, and in many situations, they are perfectly fine.<br>

And sometimes those MF lenses are completely the wrong deal, and AF makes all the sense in the world. Matt is, as often, completely spot on (and his photos sure prove this point - how could a dog owner not want those photos?).</p>

<p>There is a time and a place for everything. Because you do not see the need for something, does not mean there is no need.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I'm an MF guy for about 90% of my work. Thanks Mat, for putting the other side into perspective for many of us.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Another way to handle this kind of a shot is to focus in front of the approaching dogs and as they enter the "in-focus" zone, you snap the picture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try that with boxing (which I shoot) or basketball and see how far you get. I'm sure it all sounds nice, but for anyone working these days, your method is a zero.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Shut off the autofocus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shut off your own autofocus if you want, but don't tell me what to do.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>What I find most interesting is when someone who shoots stills, landscapes and flowers and such, puts down another camera, not their brand of course, because it doesn't have state of the art auto focus. Then turns around and says the area where that other camera is clearly superior for what they do is something that doesn't matter, not just to them, but at all! I still use a view camera and other manual focus cameras, but do enjoy focus aids in a dSLR as my eyes get older!</p>

<p>I welcome all of the great innovations, but I also think that there is a lot of expensive overkill in many areas, in many models. But that is what sells the next greatest thing. Smart people just buy what works for them and is important to their getting their image and ignore the rest!</p>

<p> </p>

[geoffs1]

<p>I've been using auto-focus only relatively recently (five years). For most of the stuff I shoot I wouldn't go back to pre-focusing or any of the techniques I used before (since about 1975). AF lets me concentrate on framing and timing. I love it. With that said, it is just a tool, and it requires skill to use effectively.</p>

<p>FWIW, I really love my 7D's finder configured to show which AF points are being used; it really keeps me appraised of the what the AF system is doing.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Andrew, seems you are hinting I am a little bit lazy in my golden years. Right you are. Same with automatic transmissions, power washers and stuff.</p>

[plasma181]

<p>"Try that with boxing (which I shoot) or basketball and see how far you get. I'm sure it all sounds nice, but for anyone working these days, your method is a zero."</p>

<p>Yes, that's why nobody could shoot boxing or basketball ............ or running dogs ............. before autofocus was invented. </p>

<p>I remember reading a review of the manual Nikon FM3a, which I eventually bought, a few years ago. Some guy lamented that before the FM3a, he was trapped in "autofocus hell". </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>If you look at the history of boxing photos, it was unusual to get that many good action shots. A lot of the classic boxing photos don't show action at all. Basketball was similar, except for the remote controlled cameras over the hoop, which required radio control.</p>

<p>Maybe you can give your history with sports photography. I've done before I had autofocus and after and have over ten thousand photos, and quite a few published, to show what can be done. Let's see what you've done here.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Ah yes, a good old fashioned pissing contest! Fact, good sports was done before autofocus. Fact, good sports is being done with it. I did a lot of "action" work for Nike with an RB67 laying in mud as runners went by--so what? Auto focus also allowed me to do some things for them that would have been more difficult without it--so what? I think the whole argument is getting out of hand. No one who knows anything can say that a great auto focus system is not a good thing for sports, but it doesn't mean great shots weren't or couldn't be done without it. Seriously, guys, get some perspective. Anything that can make us more productive and get better shots is a good thing. And if someone wants to do it with manual focus, I am all for that as well. You are all just wonderful!</p>

<p>I have a certain amount of disdain, as should be evident in my original post, for those that ballyhoo things that don't mean anything to the work they do and use it to diminish anyone else. I also have a problem with folks who diminish others or what they do. Can't we all just get along?:))</p>

[gary_sempler]

<p>Unless its a landscape or studio work , use AF.It helps us make money and get more shots in focus</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Its progress, Its like anything else from 3 channels of analog TV to 2000 HD channels to information that is available on your phone in seconds when in the past your phone was mounted to a wall and just used as, well, a phone. No doubt you can manually focus but the autofocus in todays cameras/lenses is pretty good so why not use it when you can. If they had good auto focus in the past do you think they would have used it? </p>

[acute]

<p>OK! I like autofocus. Are we OK now? Start breathing again! Slowly. Look: no gun in my hand: I'm walking away backwards: I'm getting into my car: I'm driving away. Are we good? Sheesh!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Not to worry, Andrew - relax. You <em>don't</em> have to like AF, and nobody cares! Just don't scold other people for talking about its manifestions in various pieces of gear when it has some bearing on what they create. I like MF when I'm shooting products, and I like quick AF when I'm shooting high speed organic things. But no need to wag fingers at others' techniques and choices. I realize that it's more stimulating to start a thread by coming out swinging, but don't be hurt if you get unapologetic counter-points from those who read it. This was actually a very civil exchange, for one of those "You know what's wrong people today? I'll tell you!" threads, all things considered.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Oh, here we go to the next generation--a no focus camera--well, everything in focus!</p>

<p>http://www.physorg.com/news192211412.html</p>