Manually Focusing on DSLRs

JamesMichael

JamesMichael

Messages
15
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
Hi folks

How many people here regularly manually focus on DSLRs? I started doing it because the AF stopped working on my 85mm and I also bought a couple of old MF primes. Initially I found it really difficult but I seem to be getting the hang of it in portrait shoots, especially when stopped down. It does involve me taking more shots though to be sure I got it. Just wondering who else does it and for what purposes.
 
I've had to do it for a couple of weeks with my 100-400L and I have hated every moment of it, as the focus motor died. Thankfully a new motor came yesterday so a few minutes with a screwdriver and all is back to how it should be. :D

Other than that, I have an old Pentacon 50mm 1.8 which I'm immensely fond of - focusing is more like guesswork at wider apertures though unless I use live view, which I hate doing.
 
•


I regularly manually focus since my fingers are in the
right position with shorter lenses… both for portraits
& macro work, and with some manual PC lenses I
used for architecture work — 24mm ƒ2.8 PC.

In studio, I almost only focus manually… old habit!
Table top work is always done with the manual focus
85,, ƒ2.8 PC.

Total is about 50/50 with AF.
 
Depends on the lens, some are easier because they are designed for it. For example, focusing on the Nifty Fifty is a PITA because of where the focus ring is where as focus ring on a Zeiss is much better, smoother with a lot more precision.

The only time I manual focus is when I use manual focus lenses.
 
All the time with a TS-E lens, its MF only but I do use live view and the Zoom function and the camera is on a tripod, otherwise no.
I was contemplating buying an MF lens so I tried it on my XT-1 and found it a PITA so I bought an AF lens
 
On a DSLR I never manually focussed as the have no focus aids and getting it right is tricky.
On an old SLR I MF all the time as they are designed for it and have focus screens which makes it easy.
With mirrorless cameras I MF occasionally when the camera won't focus exactly where I want, this camera has focus peaking and magnification in the EVF which helps massively.
 
When I had DSLR's I used to manually focus for close up stuff like flowers etc and for things when the detail is big and clear in the frame or when AF didn't stand much chance and of course I used to do things like zone focus and hyperfocal occasionally but looking through the OVF and manually focusing when the detail wasn't big and clear was a PITA as these cameras just aren't designed for it. I briefly tried some old Olympus Zuiko lenses on my 5D and although the image quality was good enough focusing wasn't.

CSC's are IMO the way forward for manual focus fans. Focusing with a magnified view is like macro at a distance :D
 
Rarely. Usually only when shooting macro.
 
When shooting Macro.

For general shooting: Almost never, the camera and lenses were spdesigned for AF, MF is a PITA,
JamesMichael said:
It does involve me taking more shots though to be sure I got it
Click to expand...

What's the point? Any technique I choose is to make things easier or better, why choose one that's harder and less effective?
 
DSLRs (indeed, all [or at least most] AF SLRs) aren't designed for manual focussing. The screens are relatively dim compared to older bodies and lack any focus aid such as split screens and/or microprisms. They do tend to have focus confirm indicators in the viewfinder but all they do is tell you that something is in focus in the AF sensor's area, not exactly what is in focus. AF lenses don't help much either; other than the much smaller (in general) focus ring, they also tend to have a far shorter angle of throw between close and infinity focus, making accurate manual focussing less easy than it used to be on older MF lenses. Modern AF lenses and bodies are far faster and more accurate than my manual efforts ever were!
 
Nod said:
DSLRs (indeed, all [or at least most] AF SLRs) aren't designed for manual focussing. The screens are relatively dim compared to older bodies and lack any focus aid such as split screens and/or microprisms. They do tend to have focus confirm indicators in the viewfinder but all they do is tell you that something is in focus in the AF sensor's area, not exactly what is in focus. AF lenses don't help much either; other than the much smaller (in general) focus ring, they also tend to have a far shorter angle of throw between close and infinity focus, making accurate manual focussing less easy than it used to be on older MF lenses. Modern AF lenses and bodies are far faster and more accurate than my manual efforts ever were!
Click to expand...

I think that these days with CSC's it's possible to say that if you have the time to focus manually you can sometimes do better than AF as you can choose the point of focus, a point that would be difficult or maybe not possible to hit with AF. As I've said before, with MF and a magnified view if you and your subject are still enough and if you want to you can choose your point of focus along the length of an eyelash.
 
woof woof said:
I think that these days with CSC's it's possible to say that if you have the time to focus manually you can sometimes do better than AF as you can choose the point of focus, a point that would be difficult or maybe not possible to hit with AF. As I've said before, with MF and a magnified view if you and your subject are still enough and if you want to you can choose your point of focus along the length of an eyelash.
Click to expand...
You're right...

Or you would be if we were talking about CSC's, but the clue is in the title ;)

This is about DSLRs
 
Phil V said:
You're right...

Or you would be if we were talking about CSC's, but the clue is in the title ;)

This is about DSLRs
Click to expand...

As I made clear in my post in reply to Nod's above. My point was that in the past as Nod notes AF was much better, I was merely making the point that now with CSC's MF can be better.

Sorry you missed that. In future I'll make things simpler for you Phil :D
 
woof woof said:
As I made clear in my post in reply to Nod's above. My point was that in the past as Nod notes AF was much better, I was merely making the point that now with CSC's MF can be better.

Sorry you missed that. In future I'll make things simpler for you Phil :D
Click to expand...
But @Nod 's point was in answer to the question re DSLR's, and in that context CSC's are irrelevant.

Like I said, (sorry you didn't comprehend) you have a point :p, but it's not relevant in a discussion about DSLR's.;)
 
Phil V said:
But @Nod 's point was in answer to the question re DSLR's, and in that context CSC's are irrelevant.

Like I said, (sorry you didn't comprehend) you have a point :p, but it's not relevant in a discussion about DSLR's.;)
Click to expand...

I'm not the one with comprehension problems Phil, although I do know you do this deliberately and repeatedly ad nauseam. The point (as I'm sure you know) is that DSLR's aren't optimised for MF, sorry you think that expanding on that is inappropriate but I do know you'd have an argument in an empty phone box
 
woof woof said:
I'm not the one with comprehension problems Phil, although I do know you do this deliberately and repeatedly ad nauseam. The point (as I'm sure you know) is that DSLR's aren't optimised for MF, sorry you think that expanding on that is inappropriate but I do know you'd have an argument in an empty phone box
Click to expand...
I think if you read my first post, you'll see that I totally agree with you that DSLR's aren't optimised for MF.

Indeed, if you were bored, you could find me saying the same thing dozens of times.

The fact that i don't agree with you that it invites a discussion of CSC's is your issue. And again, I'll point you to the thread title ;)
 
On my first SLR I used manual focus all the time because AF hadn't been invented :) On my first DSLR I found manual focusing so difficult, and so often inferior to AF, that I gave it up. On my last DSLR (Sony A550) the manual focusing aids had improved to the extent that I started using it again in situations where I suspected the AF might not be getting it right. Interestingly I found that the AF wasn't getting it quite right more often than I had suspected. So whenever I had the time to do it I started checking the AF with MF, which gave me a much better idea of the situations in which AF failed.

When I got my first SLT (the DSLR-like Sony A77, which has an EVF and excellent manual focusing aids), MF became so easy that I used it a lot more, at the same time discovering that the AF had been improved to the extent that it wasn't needed so often, even less often if I used MFA to optimise the AF on unlucky lenses.
 
I am slightly going back to manual focussing as (for me at least) I think it improves my images. In the olden days (ie pre DSLR/AF) I would spend longer thinking about my shot, (possibly because of the cost of developing film), setting it up right, being more careful with exposure and focus and generally I seemed to have many more keepers. I noticed a clear decline when I went from my old OM10 to a Nikon F401. I know that isn't the camera's fault but more technology didn't help me!
 
Nawty said:
On a DSLR I never manually focussed as the have no focus aids and getting it right is tricky.
Click to expand...

I had a D3200 which had a green in focus indicator in the viewfinder. I'm sure it's a common feature.


Steve.
 
Shooting macro, and very occasionally landscapes view zoomed LV. The trouble with using the viewfinder of a DSLR it's extremely difficult to see critical focus when using fast lenses, and the focus indicator is gives you too broad a range when using very shallow DOF. SLRs made life much easier by having split prism viewfinders.
 
Steve Smith said:
I had a D3200 which had a green in focus indicator in the viewfinder. I'm sure it's a common feature.


Steve.
Click to expand...
It only tells you 'something' is in focus.

Not really a lot of use for critical stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
A film camera I know, but on the Minolta Dynax 9 you could get a replacement focusing screen designed specifically for manual focusing, but it benefited from fast lenses as it made the viewfinder darker. Not sure if DSLR's with user changeable screens have similar screens available, or a split screen like old SLRs used to have. Also you can get right angle finders which magnify what you see through the viewfinder for more critical focus. I understand the Minolta Angle finder VN should fit Canon cameras. See http://www.minoltaflashback.com/angle-finders.html I managed to pick one up for next to nothing from Japan on ebay which came under the import tax threshold. Only annoyance is you need to adjust the focus of the angle finder if you want it in focus in both zoom settings, but the more expensive Canon one is probably the same.

The only reason I would manual focus is to take full advantage of DOF in landscape shots, which you lose when focusing on a single focal point in the image.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
It only tells you 'something' is in focus.

Not really a lot of use for critical stuff
Click to expand...

I assume it tells you that the thing in your selected focus point is in focus. However, I didn't use it. I actually looked at the image to decide if it was in focus. I know that might sound a bit radical in today's automated world!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I assume it tells you that the thing in your selected focus point is in focus. However, I didn't use it. I actually looked at the image to decide if it was in focus. I know that might sound a bit radical in today's automated world!


Steve.
Click to expand...
It does, but there's too much margin of error when using shallow DOF.

On a slightly different note, I've read various arguments on the internet about how the viewfinder in modern day DSLR's can't resolve enough detail to be able to critically focus at less than f2.8, but I can't imagine as to why this is when you're just looking through optics and I know that some folk don't seem to struggle manually focussing at f1.4 (I'm not one of them ;)) . Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?
 
snerkler said:
On a slightly different note, I've read various arguments on the internet about how the viewfinder in modern day DSLR's can't resolve enough detail to be able to critically focus at less than f2.8, but I can't imagine as to why this is when you're just looking through optics and I know that some folk don't seem to struggle manually focussing at f1.4 (I'm not one of them ;)) . Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?
Click to expand...
A definitive answer?.......
The sensor sees an f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 because it's simply the focal length/diameter of the apparent aperture. The light path to the viewfinder passes through a further "aperture" (otherwise the viewfinder would need to be the same size as the sensor) and is no longer simply constrained by the lens aperture.

The second factor is the DSLR mirror. In pre-AF SLR's then all the light entering the lens would be directed to the viewfinder (minus the attenuation caused by the focusing screen). In an AF SLR/DSLR, around 40% of the light is stolen and passes through the mirror and diverted down to the AF sensors.....the mirror being transmissive and not reflective.

Bob
 
snerkler said:
It does, but there's too much margin of error when using shallow DOF.

On a slightly different note, I've read various arguments on the internet about how the viewfinder in modern day DSLR's can't resolve enough detail to be able to critically focus at less than f2.8, but I can't imagine as to why this is when you're just looking through optics and I know that some folk don't seem to struggle manually focussing at f1.4 (I'm not one of them ;)) . Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?
Click to expand...

Not heard that one. Sounds like nonsense to me ;)

However, it is certainly true that DSLRs cannot show true depth of field at very low f/numbers through the viewfinder - anything lower than around f/2.5 or so, without a specialised focusing screen. It's the acceptance angle of the tiny prisms on the screen surface that help to brighten the image across the field of view, they can't 'see' very wide apertures like f/1.4.

Easy to check yourself if you have a fast prime like f/1.4. Look through the viewfinder with the lens stop-down button pressed, at say f/8. Then reduce the f/number and while you're looking the image will visibly brighten down to f/2.8-ish, then it won't get any brighter even at 1.4, and it won't show DoF changes. Live view shows everything correctly though.
 
I use manual focus exclusively on my dslr just as on my earlier film cameras, and enjoy it greatly, but I'm not photographing soccer matches or birds in flight. All the lenses I've chosen are manual focus, and I often expose at f/2 or f/2.8 (ie not gaining much dof from having the lens wide open). My focus screen seems plenty bright enough to do this. In fact when choosing a lens I'm more interested in how it renders and what it's bokeh is like than whether it's auto or manual focus.

When pre-autofocus slr's were all we had of that type of camera, I always opted for a plain focus screen anyway (I find focus aids in the vf a nuisance in composition).

But that's me, not the mainstream.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not heard that one. Sounds like nonsense to me ;)

However, it is certainly true that DSLRs cannot show true depth of field at very low f/numbers through the viewfinder - anything lower than around f/2.5 or so, without a specialised focusing screen. It's the acceptance angle of the tiny prisms on the screen surface that help to brighten the image across the field of view, they can't 'see' very wide apertures like f/1.4.

Easy to check yourself if you have a fast prime like f/1.4. Look through the viewfinder with the lens stop-down button pressed, at say f/8. Then reduce the f/number and while you're looking the image will visibly brighten down to f/2.8-ish, then it won't get any brighter even at 1.4, and it won't show DoF changes. Live view shows everything correctly though.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. So how do you obtain critical sharpness at f1.4 or f1.8 when manually focussing then? I assume it's more due to experience and the 'feel' for it than visually seeing it?
 
I use manual focus when focusing on a subject seen through a gap in something (e.g. leaves, fence, cage) that fools the autofocus, and sometimes when focusing on something to the edge of the frame out of reach of a focus point.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for this. So how do you obtain critical sharpness at f1.4 or f1.8 when manually focussing then? I assume it's more due to experience and the 'feel' for it than visually seeing it?
Click to expand...

Just focus as normal, the point of sharpest focus will still be the same, though if you're shooting at f/numbers lower than f/2.5-ish, through the viewfinder you'll see a bit more DoF than in the final image.
 
HoppyUK said:
Just focus as normal, the point of sharpest focus will still be the same, though if you're shooting at f/numbers lower than f/2.5-ish, through the viewfinder you'll see a bit more DoF than in the final image.
Click to expand...
But that's kind of my point. My MF is not good enough to see exactly where critical focus is when shooting say a head shot at f1.4 as DOF is too narrow. But I don't shoot MF often enough to get any better :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
But that's kind of my point. My MF is not good enough to see exactly where critical focus is when shooting say a head shot at f1.4 as DOF is too narrow. But I don't shoot MF often enough to get any better :oops: :$
Click to expand...

Focusing a head shot at f/1.4 is an art. The problem isn't really the focusing screen or whatever, it's the miniscule depth of field, like just a few mms - if the eye-lashes are sharp, the iris might be out of focus. I was using an 85/1.2 recently and tried everything including live view, but ended up using manual macro technique - focus approximately, then rock your body gently back and forth and watch the plane of sharpness moving with you. That was pretty hit and miss too, as the subject always moves very slightly too - just by breathing.

I've yet to try this kind of thing with subject-recognition AF tracking - that looks quite promising. Alternatively, if it's more a blown OOF background you're wanting rather than just v shallow DoF, then I prefer to move back with longer lens like 135/2 or even 200/2.8. Longer lenses enlarge the background more, naturally giving stronger subject isolation and great-looking bokeh, but with a bit more DoF to work with.
 
HoppyUK said:
Focusing a head shot at f/1.4 is an art. The problem isn't really the focusing screen or whatever, it's the miniscule depth of field, like just a few mms - if the eye-lashes are sharp, the iris might be out of focus. I was using an 85/1.2 recently and tried everything including live view, but ended up using manual macro technique - focus approximately, then rock your body gently back and forth and watch the plane of sharpness moving with you. That was pretty hit and miss too, as the subject always moves very slightly too - just by breathing.

I've yet to try this kind of thing with subject-recognition AF tracking - that looks quite promising. Alternatively, if it's more a blown OOF background you're wanting rather than just v shallow DoF, then I prefer to move back with longer lens like 135/2 or even 200/2.8. Longer lenses enlarge the background more, naturally giving stronger subject isolation and great-looking bokeh, but with a bit more DoF to work with.
Click to expand...
I use the body sway technique for macro, but for portraits I rely on AF tbh, having it on AF-C means that there should (in theory) be less time between acquiring focus and taking the shot. I like my 70-200mm f2.8 too (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top