Manual focus

LewisHall

LewisHall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
567
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just wondering if someone could explain how to focus manually simple, it's only because I've been watching a lot of videos on YouTube now and a lot of street photographers on there say it's best to use manual focus. I've got a Nikon D3200.

I bought the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G which is pretty quick at auto focusing so wasn't sure whether I'm best to stick to the auto focus for street or change to manual focus?
 
Personally with a DSLR I'd use AF as they're usually not really built for MF. The only times I'd use MF with a DSLR would be...

1. Macro.
2. When focusing hyperfocally or using Merklinger method, that sort of thing.
3. When zone focusing... and this is possibly what you've been reading about... Basically what you do is set the lens to focus at a distance of your choice and then set an appropriate aperture to get you the depth of field you want. For example if you have a 20mm lens fitted to your camera and you set it to focus at 10 ft and you set your aperture to f8 your DoF will be in the region of 5ft to infinity. Or something like that. The theory is that if you set the camera up manually you can then just grab a shot very quickly without the need to accurately aim and focus. At 35mm you're probably going to have to use a smaller aperture. Check some DoF tables and you'll get the idea.
 
Last edited:
I would go with auto focus for street especially if shooting moving subjects, even slow moving :) If its a situation were you can prefocus such as subjects passing an interesting backdrop then manual focus could be useful so you can be sure you have focused on the right element and you could also use zone focusing but personally I would use auto focus on most occasions for street

Edit :- Whoops Alan beat me to it, must type faster
 
jakeblu said:
I would go with auto focus for street especially if shooting moving subjects, even slow moving :) If its a situation were you can prefocus such as subjects passing an interesting backdrop then manual focus could be useful so you can be sure you have focused on the right element and you could also use zone focusing but personally I would use auto focus on most occasions for street

Edit :- Whoops Alan beat me to it, must type faster
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
i can understand the need for journos to manual focus, simply for one reason..especially if they are paps... crowds!

simply put if your using AF and trying to get the shot of say a celeb in a bundling pushing shoving crowd of elbow friendly fellow paps using AF will most likely end up with shots of other peoples heads, arms, elbows and just about everything else but your subject at hand.
by manual focusing your camera wont get sidetracking by annoying objects getting in your field of view and you risking losing the shot due to a stray nose or ear grabbing the focal point .
of course alot of lens have manual overide anyway so you can still have AF but focus manually mid shot too.
 
I do not own any auto focus lenses so I can only manually focus with my DSLR - luckily manual focus lenses are optimised for manual focussing with clearly marked distance scale which makes it really easy. I tend to leave it on about 2 metres at f/8 for shooting on the streets using aperture priority. My lens is a 28mm AI lens so has has pretty good dof at f/8 and ideal for manual focus.
 
i so used to love the split prism in my old MTL5B.. find it much harder to manual focus now. my 18-135 STM lens has a very odd electronic focus by wire manual focus system thats just to "soft" to the touch, theres no feedback from it or feeling of intuition. i think for a lot of dedicated AF lenses its the same, manual only lenses do tend to have a better feel for them when focusing by hand
 
I only use AF on moving subjects and tend to use MF with most static stuff. And yes I own a DSLR and it works just fine on manual :exit:
 
Paul Male said:
I only use AF on moving subjects and tend to use MF with most static stuff. And yes I own a DSLR and it works just fine on manual :exit:
Click to expand...

Of course it works but when you MF with a camera that was designed for MF it's a different experience.
 
woof woof said:
Of course it works but when you MF with a camera that was designed for MF it's a different experience.
Click to expand...
:agree:
Using AF cameras and lenses to MF is like using the lever on an auto car to 'play' at changing gear, it's doable, but it's not using anything for the purpose it was designed.
 
I can't think of anything worse than trying to MF when doing street photography. I've hardly got the balls to shove a camera in their face in the first place never mind trying to focus the lens myself whilst they're moving.

AF all the way for me Lewis.. much quicker and more accurate in my case too.
 
LewisHall said:
I was just wondering if someone could explain how to focus manually simple,
Click to expand...

Turn the lens's focusing ring until either the image is sharp, or you see the focus confirmation indicator in the view finder. You can also use a zoomed in live view, but that would be terrible for street.


LewisHall said:
it's only because I've been watching a lot of videos on YouTube now and a lot of street photographers on there say it's best to use manual focus.
Click to expand...


[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. Just purists pretending to be Gary Winogrand. You should use AF.
 
Think this has answered my question and seem like I'm best to stick to AF. Thanks for all your advice! :)
 
If you want the subject to stand out with narrow dof, only you know where it needs to be, the camera knows nothing!!!
Narrowing dof = increased need for mf
 
Manual focus plays its part when autofocus gets fooled. Shooting people reflected in a window perhaps, or when the main subject is behind a chain-link fence or railings. Having instant manual override on your lenses is great in these situations.

Manual focus can be done with a DSLR - I find it easier than with mirrorless TBH. :D
 
I am with the use AF camp for most situations but,manual focus has its uses,for example when photographing
birds in trees with lots of branches its nigh impossible to get an AF lock,due to hunting of the lens...
Macro is another area where its useful to manually focus especially whilst using live veiw mode,in which case
it is possible IMHO to achieve more accurate focus....
If there was no use for manual focus manufacturers wouldnt include them on lenses. ;)
 
The way MF works with street photography is to not use it. Pre-set aperture to f8 or higher, set focus distance to say 8m and off you go. No focusing means you and your camera are less conspicuous and there's no chance of a mis-focus.
That's what I use on the Fuji X10 with 23mm.
 
strumstrum said:
I like MF for a bit of stealth street when sitting outside a cafe/bar with a drink, people walk by roughly the same distance I have the camera all set up on the table, drink in one hand remote shutter in the other..:snaphappy:
Click to expand...
I like your style David :)
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
If you want the subject to stand out with narrow dof, only you know where it needs to be, the camera knows nothing!!!
Narrowing dof = increased need for mf
Click to expand...
What?
My AF system knows exactly where to focus. Because I tell it where!

If I could manually focus half as well as my AF camera and L lenses I would be really happy. And I didn't convert to AF early, I shot MF nearly 20 years.
 
Phil V said:
What?
My AF system knows exactly where to focus. Because I tell it where!

If I could manually focus half as well as my AF camera and L lenses I would be really happy. And I didn't convert to AF early, I shot MF nearly 20 years.
Click to expand...

Ah, but to MF better than a modern DSLR camera AF's you need a CSC :D and with one you can focus very accurately with the magnified view at the very widest apertures... the only catch being that you need time to do so but if time isn't a factor IMVHO manual focus with a CSC is the way to get the shot that you want first time.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
:agree:
Using AF cameras and lenses to MF is like using the lever on an auto car to 'play' at changing gear, it's doable, but it's not using anything for the purpose it was designed.
Click to expand...
It has manual functions so it was to a degree intended to be used for that purpose if you wish, the gear stick analogy doesn't apply in that way as it was never designed to be used any other way.
 
woof woof said:
Of course it works but when you MF with a camera that was designed for MF it's a different experience.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it is but I'm afraid I wouldn't know as I've never had the pleasure of using such equipment.
 
Paul Male said:
It has manual functions so it was to a degree intended to be used for that purpose if you wish, the gear stick analogy doesn't apply in that way as it was never designed to be used any other way.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't have a 'manual function' designed any more than the auto 'gear stick' which is perfectly usable. Manual focus requires a large bright viewfinder, with a decent focussing aid (not electronic if we're to call it Manual) something like a split prism. Which is what we used to have ...
Paul Male said:
I'm sure it is but I'm afraid I wouldn't know as I've never had the pleasure of using such equipment.
Click to expand...
And if you'd used a Manual focus viewfinder, you wouldn't excuse the camera manufacturers for what we now have. :)

And like I said - Auto focus is amazing.

Let's take a typical sports scenario: I'd stand on a corner on a rally stage and pre-focus on a point on the road, then when I heard the car approaching, I would pan with it and hope to hit the shutter as it hit the point I'd pre-focussed. My hit rate for the focus was about 1/2 so if everything else was variable I had maybe a keeper in every 4 cars.

Now I'll set the camera to single point with expansion (in case I wobble a bit), I favour the lower centre point (for the number plate - nice and contrasty) Servo AF, with BBF. As the car approaches, I'll hit the focus button as soon as it's in sight and let it track the car, as it gets to the apex of the bend I'll rattle off 5 or 6 shots, there'll likely be 3 keepers. So I've gone from a solid technique with a 50% or less chance of a shot every car, to a solid selection of every car.

How about a shallow DoF portrait: With Manual focus, I only had the option of focussing with the centre of the viewfinder, and recomposing, now between swinging the camera, my movement and the natural movement of the subject, the keeper rate was woeful. Nowadays, I'm fairly confident that there'll be a focus point close to the nearest eye, a quick jab of the focus button every 3 or 4 shots and I get a load of keepers from which to choose the best expression.

It's right 'the camera knows nothing' but that's OK because I know exactly what to tell it to make it do what I want.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
It really doesn't have a 'manual function' designed any more than the auto 'gear stick' which is perfectly usable. Manual focus requires a large bright viewfinder, with a decent focussing aid (not electronic if we're to call it Manual) something like a split prism. Which is what we used to have ...

And if you'd used a Manual focus viewfinder, you wouldn't excuse the camera manufacturers for what we now have. :)

And like I said - Auto focus is amazing.

Let's take a typical sports scenario: I'd stand on a corner on a rally stage and pre-focus on a point on the road, then when I heard the car approaching, I would pan with it and hope to hit the shutter as it hit the point I'd pre-focussed. My hit rate for the focus was about 1/2 so if everything else was variable I had maybe a keeper in every 4 cars.

Now I'll set the camera to single point with expansion (in case I wobble a bit), I favour the lower centre point (for the number plate - nice and contrasty) Servo AF, with BBF. As the car approaches, I'll hit the focus button as soon as it's in sight and let it track the car, as it gets to the apex of the bend I'll rattle off 5 or 6 shots, there'll likely be 3 keepers. So I've gone from a solid technique with a 50% or less chance of a shot every car, to a solid selection of every car.

How about a shallow DoF portrait: With Manual focus, I only had the option of focussing with the centre of the viewfinder, and recomposing, now between swinging the camera, my movement and the natural movement of the subject, the keeper rate was woeful. Nowadays, I'm fairly confident that there'll be a focus point close to the nearest eye, a quick jab of the focus button every 3 or 4 shots and I get a load of keepers from which to choose the best expression.

It's right 'the camera knows nothing' but that's OK because I know exactly what to tell it to make it do what I want.
Click to expand...

I hear what your saying, but your taking it to extremes, the fact you can in SOME form manually focus the camera means it is useable that way. I don't dispute that it is certainly not the best form of manual camera but even so it has the ability to be manually focused and was designed, all be it poorly compared to specialist manual focus cameras, to be used if wanted. Your never ever ever going to get an auto gear lever to change into a gear you "choose" no matter how much you play with it.
 
I love my auto focus on moving objects, works great and I'm sure it does on stationary objects as well, for me it's purely a personal use thing that I enjoy using it in a slightly more "manual" way. Might not be the best or easiest but it's my preferred method as it gives me pleasure doing it that way and my photography is purely for personal pleasure and fun :)
 
dean messenger said:
i can understand the need for journos to manual focus, simply for one reason..especially if they are paps... crowds!

simply put if your using AF and trying to get the shot of say a celeb in a bundling pushing shoving crowd of elbow friendly fellow paps using AF will most likely end up with shots of other peoples heads, arms, elbows and just about everything else but your subject at hand.
by manual focusing your camera wont get sidetracking by annoying objects getting in your field of view and you risking losing the shot due to a stray nose or ear grabbing the focal point .
of course alot of lens have manual overide anyway so you can still have AF but focus manually mid shot too.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly the sort of situation for back button AF. Not MF.

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
If you want the subject to stand out with narrow dof, only you know where it needs to be, the camera knows nothing!!!
Narrowing dof = increased need for mf
Click to expand...


What? You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Paul Male said:
I love my auto focus on moving objects, works great and I'm sure it does on stationary objects as well, for me it's purely a personal use thing that I enjoy using it in a slightly more "manual" way. Might not be the best or easiest but it's my preferred method as it gives me pleasure doing it that way and my photography is purely for personal pleasure and fun :)
Click to expand...
What is using AF in 'a more manual way'? :confused:
 
Phil V said:
What is using AF in 'a more manual way'? :confused:
Click to expand...
Poor wording, should say "I enjoy using CAMERA in a more manual way. You know what I meant your just being pedantic now. Same old same old on these forums.

Somebody does something a little different because it suits them or they get more pleasure that way or even better results for them personally and it's all "wrong". How "wrong" can it be if the camera will do it that way and it works well for an individual? I fully understand that on a forum like this all sides should be put across that's how we all learn different things but to say that a DSLR isn't much use in a particular way when for some it clearly is isn't constructive IMHO.

I hear what people are saying about a specific manual camera and that compared to a DSLR the manual side has no comparison but even so a DSLR, CAN be used in a form of manual focusing and has features designed on it to allow this. Right, wrong or on the fence, it's there, usable and for some of us works very well.
 
Last edited:
Paul Male said:
Poor wording, should say "I enjoy using CAMERA in a more manual way. You know what I meant your just being pedantic now. Same old same old on these forums.

Somebody does something a little different because it suits them or they get more pleasure that way or even better results for them personally and it's all "wrong". How "wrong" can it be if the camera will do it that way and it works well for an individual? I fully understand that on a forum like this all sides should be put across that's how we all learn different things but to say that a DSLR isn't much use in a particular way when for some it clearly is isn't constructive IMHO.

I hear what people are saying about a specific manual camera and that compared to a DSLR the manual side has no comparison but even so a DSLR, CAN be used in a form of manual focusing and has features designed on it to allow this. Right, wrong or on the fence, it's there, usable and for some of us works very well.
Click to expand...
James, you've read an awful lot from a simple question.

Take a breath, I'm not having a go, can you explain what AF in a manual way is? I can't see how that question is pedantic. :)
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
If you want the subject to stand out with narrow dof, only you know where it needs to be, the camera knows nothing!!!
Narrowing dof = increased need for mf
Click to expand...

I also believe this statement is wrong also. Just tell the camera where you want it to focus.
Some examples:

#1 Autofocus 135mm @ f2 and at or near minimum focussing distance. Have you ever tried to manual focus on a flying be?

Working bee by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#2 Have you ever tried to manual focus on wild birds in flight? Autofocus. 240mm @ f5.6
Urban wildlife by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#3 Have you ever tried to manual focus on an unplanned event? Autofocus was used here athough I had a bit of leeway shooting at f10 @ 400mm.
IMG_7369 by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#4 Even for non "photographers" find autofocus handy. My son took this (I did notice he was trying to zoom the prime) @ 135mm & f2. Moments like this do not last long.

My special day (14) by dicktay2000, on Flickr
 
RichardTaylor said:
I also believe this statement is wrong also. Just tell the camera where you want it to focus.
Some examples:

#1 Autofocus 135mm @ f2 and at or near minimum focussing distance. Have you ever tried to manual focus on a flying be?

Working bee by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#2 Have you ever tried to manual focus on wild birds in flight? Autofocus. 240mm @ f5.6
Urban wildlife by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#3 Have you ever tried to manual focus on an unplanned event? Autofocus was used here athough I had a bit of leeway shooting at f10 @ 400mm.
IMG_7369 by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#4 Even for non "photographers" find autofocus handy. My son took this (I did notice he was trying to zoom the prime) @ 135mm & f2. Moments like this do not last long.

My special day (14) by dicktay2000, on Flickr
Click to expand...

i would argue that all the above images can be shot in MF equally as well.
simple fact is AF has made us lazy ( in fact digital photography as a whole has )
coming from a background of 30 dd years i cut my teeth on a totally mechanical , fully manual Practika MTL5B.
no AV, no TV, no AF, no Auto or program mode.
set your ISO, set your aperture , set your shutter speed then frame, focus and take your shot.
no option to view it on viewfinder, no shooting off 10 shots a second , everything was slower paced and taken with precision and consideration ( 24 or 36 shots per roll you couldnt afford to waste em )

patience played a huge part in photography back then and that is what alot ( not all of course ) of photography lacks.. its all to easy to just ratlle off 30,40, 50 , 100 shots and then discard 90% of them later rather than spend some time and patience getting it right first time.

we live in a society where everything has to be done yesterday and photography is no different now.. i see alot of beginners who when looking to buy a camera often ask .. how many FPS can it do?
why is there a need to be able to shoot 20FPS.. learn to get it right with a single shot and fps will count for nothing.

i recall making the switch from my fully manual MTL to a minolta dynax 7000i.. all singing all dancing AF camra with AV and TV, full auto or manual... and being appalled at ust how bloody awful my pictures got.. simply because i got lazy, relying on the camera rather than my eye.

and now im going to contradict all what ive said!!

i use AF almost 100% of the time now... why?? cos my eyesight is buggered.. and i struggle to see in todays modern viewfinders when shooting manual if im actually in focus or not ( canon 60D ).. maybe if i had a brighter viewfinder with split prism i would shoot far more manually.

Personally i think apart from range finders and older cameras most modern day DSLR's though they have manual focus option it just cant compare to that of the aforementioned rangefinders and manual cameras.
 
dean messenger said:
i would argue that all the above images can be shot in MF equally as well.
simple fact is AF has made us lazy ( in fact digital photography as a whole has )
coming from a background of 30 dd years i cut my teeth on a totally mechanical , fully manual Practika MTL5B.
no AV, no TV, no AF, no Auto or program mode.
set your ISO, set your aperture , set your shutter speed then frame, focus and take your shot.
no option to view it on viewfinder, no shooting off 10 shots a second , everything was slower paced and taken with precision and consideration ( 24 or 36 shots per roll you couldnt afford to waste em )

patience played a huge part in photography back then and that is what alot ( not all of course ) of photography lacks.. its all to easy to just ratlle off 30,40, 50 , 100 shots and then discard 90% of them later rather than spend some time and patience getting it right first time.

we live in a society where everything has to be done yesterday and photography is no different now.. i see alot of beginners who when looking to buy a camera often ask .. how many FPS can it do?
why is there a need to be able to shoot 20FPS.. learn to get it right with a single shot and fps will count for nothing.

i recall making the switch from my fully manual MTL to a minolta dynax 7000i.. all singing all dancing AF camra with AV and TV, full auto or manual... and being appalled at ust how bloody awful my pictures got.. simply because i got lazy, relying on the camera rather than my eye.

and now im going to contradict all what ive said!!

i use AF almost 100% of the time now... why?? cos my eyesight is buggered.. and i struggle to see in todays modern viewfinders when shooting manual if im actually in focus or not ( canon 60D ).. maybe if i had a brighter viewfinder with split prism i would shoot far more manually.

Personally i think apart from range finders and older cameras most modern day DSLR's though they have manual focus option it just cant compare to that of the aforementioned rangefinders and manual cameras.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Well said.

I see the advantage of AF if you're getting paid to get the shot, but for the sheer pleasure of photography I prefer manual (though I generally use a rangefinder) - I'm more involved in the experience and don't feel like I'm pointing a computer at my subject. Add a manual prime, or even go as far as using film and home developing - I don't think it's a coincidence that my favorite pictures have taken the most time and effort to produce.

That said I don't do macro or zoom stuff. I capture things as I see them with my eye, so if it's far away, it'll look it!

ped
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top