Manual focus

Horses for courses....

I use AF most of the time...

But for night-time low light stuff on tripod I'd use MF

And at the weekend I had a go at street photography using MF and zone focussing and got pretty good results...

AF or MF - just another tool in the arsenal surely?
 
ive not found an old mf film camera and a modern dslr much different when it comes to manual focus apart from the split image bit in the middle but id prefer a plain focusing screen to split image really (im comparing my nikon fm2 to nikon d610 here) - in fact the d610 is easier to manually focus if anything as the fm2 has a fair bit of dust build up due to its age
 
boliston said:
ive not found an old mf film camera and a modern dslr much different when it comes to manual focus apart from the split image bit in the middle but id prefer a plain focusing screen to split image really (im comparing my nikon fm2 to nikon d610 here) - in fact the d610 is easier to manually focus if anything as the fm2 has a fair bit of dust build up due to its age
Click to expand...

A pretty crucial bit of kit IMVHO. With film RF's and SLR's you usually have some sort of focus aid but with many DSLR's all you get is the standard focus screen and personally I find judging critical focus difficult unless the subject is big in the frame. Modern DSLR's are ok if you're going for max DoF or just deep DoF but difficult for precise manual focus IMVHO. - unless the subject is big in the frame and you can clearly see what's in focus and what isn't. You may have focus confirmation to help you with some body and lens combinations though.

If the focus was off on cameras of old it maybe didn't matter as most people usually only got relatively small prints so you couldn't really see that Uncle Joe stood at the back was in fact out of focus whereas these days people pixel peep at 200% on screen and nit pick every technical, compositional and/or other error and Uncle Joe will be seen to be out of focus in 5 second flat and indeed any even slight focus miss will be relatively easy to see.

The beauty (or at least one of them) of a CSC or a live view equipped DSLR is that you can manually focus very accurately as you can see the scene at x10 or whatever magnification the cameras gives you and choose your precisely point of focus arguably more accurately than the camera can with AF. Shooting with a CSC and manual focus becomes just like shooting macro at a distance... if you have the time to call up the magnified view and focus precisely.
 
I've said in that statement I worded the sentence incorrectly, AF in a manual way is gibberish. The whole context of what I'm saying is AF works great so does MF. The camera does both perfectly well for me.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Some of you need to man up, manual focus is perfectly possible with all cameras ...
Click to expand...
You'll have to point out who said it's not possible.:D

All we've learned is that one person's 'too much hassle' :arghh: is another persons idea of a 'fun challenge':cool:.

My only gripe - some people push these 'manual' techniques as if they're what everyone should aim for, with macho 'doing it properly' rhetoric:notworthy:, which is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. And of course is the source of the OP's frustration :)
 
I think the moral of this thread for the OP is try things in different ways if there are different ways, some things work for others and some don't. I would be the last person to say only this or that is correct. MF works for me in many situations and a DSLR will perform adequately for the majority of us using it in MF mode. I couldn't live without my AF in many situations especially motorsport but as above, for some people they find MF works for them.

OP, try everything ............... lol
 
Last edited:
its a bit like using manual exposure all the time - some people dont consider it "real" photography unless you use fully manual exposure and i was a bit like this when i first got a dslr but now i tend to mainly use aperture priority for convenience
 
Personally I don't like the idea of going back to my early days of fully manual (no rangefinder or inbuilt light meter) cameras for a lot of subjects.
Estimating the exposure (even with the help of guides that came with the film) and estimating subject distances resulted in a lot of technical failures.

TTL metering solved most of the exposure problems and a split image range finder solved a lot of the focussing problems for relatively static subjects or repeative action.
When it came to moving subjects follow focus lenses helped a lot (they were very expensive and I never owned one).

Yes I took a lot more time shooting three 36 rolls of transparency film at a days motor sport, however using a modern camera I can consistently get results that I could only dream about all those years ago.
Keep in mind, even as a hobbyst, when you may have "clients" photography is not always fun so why make things harder especially when shooting in the pouring rain or as one motor sport photograher said "this isn't fun any more" when shooting trackside (no shade) on two consecetive 40C (100+F) days.

Of course if autofocus has problems I will switch to manual focus or on some shoots it will be my first choice.
 
Last edited:
One of the benefits of the digital world and these community websites is that relatively new people can acquire knowledge and experiences of other people. That is great.
The downside is that people who think they know about a topic - but in reality don't - promulgate ideas / opinions that are incorrect and confuse newbies re best practice.
With my last post, I am guilty of that sin. And for that I apologise.
I hadn't realised that AF lenses were capable of a level of manually controlled focussing.
Whatever you do and however you do it, enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
AF lenses have shorter travel, worse feel, sometimes bad focus ring placement
modern crop dslr's have focus screen thats smaller and made more for the slow kit lenses.

so a old pre AF film slr with a classic 50mm 1.4 should be easier to use.

i like the mechinicalness of film and the feeling of really taking a picture and the noises :)
 
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've manually focused on bees quite a few times!

I'm an AF fan though.
 
minnnt said:
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.
Click to expand...


I have a manual focus 14mm lens which works a treat for street. f8, set the focal distance to 2 or 3 foot, gives me a huge depth of field to work within. f11 covers just about everything.
Custom function mode for the camera of auto ISO, min shutter of 1/125th, all beeps and rear display/image review off.
It saves that extra 1/2 sec that you use to focus the image that half press of the shutter, so it's instantly responsive.
I also sometimes us mf on race tracks, prefocus on the corner or piece of track.

However the majority of my photography I use AF.
It's a tool - you use what you think is best or to the way you like to work. There's no right or wrong.
 
When I started out in photography back in 'cough' AF did not exist. All my focusing was manual, football match action shots were down to good timing and manual focusing, not easy and there was many a wasted frame on a roll of 36!

Quite a few people who shoot street want to experience the whole retro thing, rangefinder, manual focus and many people want to develop their own images in the darkroom. Most of these people were born in the Digital age. There's nothing wrong with that and that's a whole new skill set to master.

I personally think that AF is so good now with the ability to drop a focus point anywhere in the frame it makes MF redundant, there are a few exceptions to the rule and I prefer using MF when shooting macro.

If you enjoy using MF for everyday subjects then good for you, having been there, done that and got the t-shirts I'm happy to use fast AF technology to get my image. There is no right or wrong way it's the final image that's important.




Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
manualfocus-g said:
Why drive a car with a manual gearbox?
Click to expand...


Because a manual gearbox (including paddle shift auto) gives full control over shift points, and therefore more performance.

Manual focus gives you less performance.


You need to work on your analogies.

Just be honest and admit it's because you've got the wrong lenses for what you shoot :)
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
When I started out in photography back in 'cough' AF did not exist. All my focusing was manual, football match action shots were down to good timing and manual focusing, not easy and there was many a wasted frame on a roll of 36!
Click to expand...

To be fair, it was quite easy with that split prism focusing circle. You don't get that with today's cameras often
 
Byker28i said:
To be fair, it was quite easy with that split prism focusing circle. You don't get that with today's cameras often
Click to expand...

You can have an electronic split prism in the Fuji XT1, I don't like it though as it is only B&W and quite low in contrast, I can't actually see where the split is!

What does work nicely on the XT1 is being able to have BBF in Manual focus mode, so I can hit the back button and AF, and then tweak the focus manually should I desire. In fact with it set up like this is another little side effect is that in continuous focus mode, I can use the back button to snap straight into single focus instantly and toggle between the two without having to search for a lever on the front of the camera. To be fair the C-AF is terrible though, I have yet to get a keeper from it. I prefer focus trapping as Phil Young described above in manual focus.
 
I started with a box brownie type thing. Look down through a viewfinder, having set up aperture and focus before hand.
If only I knew at 5 what I know now... :D

img_8702-jpg.13372
 
I shoot some street in MF - because using old film cameras, I don't have a lot of choice! I have two totally different approaches in street. 1. I discreetly use a small 35mm zone focus compact (Olympus XA2). It resets to an intermediate distance whenever I open/close the clamshell. Advantages are - speed, discreet, challenge, silent. People are not as intimidated by a compact 35mm than they sometimes are by a chunky DSLR complete with a huge noisy lens. 2) The opposite. I use a massive chunky clunky Bronica SQ-A medium format with a waist level finder. It's more direct and honest, although looking down into a WLF makes me feel that I've got my invisibility cloak on. When I scan the film later though, I'll often see subjects staring into the lens - although out of curiosity more than anger. The Bronica is manual everything, not as much as a light meter.

What you do learn to appreciate with an old manual film camera is depth of field. I'll use fast film, to enable a small aperture. Then if haven't got time to accurately focus, I'll go for distance guestimate on the lens guide, and hope for best.

When I did use a DSLR a a lot, it was using an old mf lens - the Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7. I usually managed to capture street and even protest perfectly well with MF on a DSLR. Having said all of this, I agree, if I had some good modern lens on a good DSLR - I'd opt for AF.
 
Last edited:
I have a manual focus lens on the d800 (samyang 85 f1.4)

I love it! Did I buy it because I love manual focusing? Hell no. I bought if because it was all I could afford - the af versions were much more expensive.

I'm going to upgrade to an af version when I can afford it (hopefully when sigma update their 85 f1.4)

That said it's satisfying getting a shot if the kids at f1.4 manual focusing. My keeper rate is nowhere near that of the af lenses.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Well using manual focus gives you more battery performance :) Plus I can focus more accurately - I have millions of focus points in my eyes :D
Click to expand...

You can not focus more accurately manually, not for the subjects you posted above: You're just fooling yourself. I know it's all very hipsterishly trendy to use old manual lenses, but as your own blog says, "Let’s just get something straight for a minute…the camera you use is just a tool." ,so you should be using the right tools for the job: MF on car races and show jumping events is just madness. If I'd hired you to shoot either of these for me, and saw you arsing around with manual lenses I'd fire your ass. While you may be great at manual focusing, you'd be much better with AF, and for sports, getting the moment captured is what matters - I'd want the photographer concentrating on the game, and capturing great moments and not be arsing around with his gear.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You can not focus more accurately manually, not for the subjects you posted above: You're just fooling yourself. I know it's all very hipsterishly trendy to use old manual lenses, but as your own blog says, "Let’s just get something straight for a minute…the camera you use is just a tool." ,so you should be using the right tools for the job: MF on car races and show jumping events is just madness. If I'd hired you to shoot either of these for me, and saw you arsing around with manual lenses I'd fire your ass. While you may be great at manual focusing, you'd be much better with AF, and for sports, getting the moment captured is what matters - I'd want the photographer concentrating on the game, and capturing great moments and not be arsing around with his gear.
Click to expand...

Lucky I'm not a pro sports shooter then innit?!

I shoot for fun mostly, and prefer to focus my shots manually with high quality lenses. I like to have complete control and I don't get that feeling with AF lenses. Perhaps you need to accept that some people simply prefer to be more engaged with their photography?

Edit: Just to get back to the original point, and to make a little more sense of what I'm trying to say ;)

It's perfectly possible to manual focus anything. It must be, or else no-one would have taken great pictures before the advent of auto focus! I much prefer to use mf lenses for 90% of my photography because it makes me feel more engaged, I can specify exactly what I want in focus without having to move a fixed size dot about using a keypad and because I get to use lenses that render the sort of images I prefer.

Your point about sports is valid - it's easier to use AF on a larger target that's moving at speed. I have a lovely Canon 300/4L for that purpose and if I wanted a higher keeper rate (for a paid job, for example) then I would use it. But I don't as the feeling of accomplishment is not there for me and the rendering is flat.

For most people AF is the obvious method of focus and I wouldn't recommend manual focusing an AF lens other than for landscape, macro or for hyper-focusing as they are much harder to use in that manner. And the latter should only be used if you have issues with using AF (noise, speed, accuracy etc.) and you know what you are doing. IMO :)
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
Lucky I'm not a pro sports shooter then innit?!

I shoot for fun mostly, and prefer to focus my shots manually with high quality lenses. I like to have complete control and I don't get that feeling with AF lenses. Perhaps you need to accept that some people simply prefer to be more engaged with their photography?
Click to expand...
It's not about being 'engaged'!

What is it with photographers and p***ing contests instead of conversations?

If you're a photographer purely for fun, and you want to play with gear and have a sense of achievement then there's nothing wrong with manual focus, 35mm film, or vintage cameras. But if you just need to ensure that you'll 'get the shot' then take the best technology you can get your hands on to help you achieve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You can not focus more accurately manually, not for the subjects you posted above: You're just fooling yourself. I know it's all very hipsterishly trendy to use old manual lenses, but as your own blog says, "Let’s just get something straight for a minute…the camera you use is just a tool." ,so you should be using the right tools for the job: MF on car races and show jumping events is just madness. If I'd hired you to shoot either of these for me, and saw you arsing around with manual lenses I'd fire your ass. While you may be great at manual focusing, you'd be much better with AF, and for sports, getting the moment captured is what matters - I'd want the photographer concentrating on the game, and capturing great moments and not be arsing around with his gear.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but if you have time I'm convinced that MF is best. Of course you don't always have the luxury of time but I usually do and at x10 (or whatever it is) mag I can focus on something I can't even see by eye. Lovely :D I'm sure that AF will focus on something but choosing your point of focus along the line of a vein on a leaf or an individual hair is an addictive thing :D especially with a 30 year old lens that cost £15 :D
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
I shoot for fun mostly, and prefer to focus my shots manually with high quality lenses. I like to have complete control and I don't get that feeling with AF lenses. Perhaps you need to accept that some people simply prefer to be more engaged with their photography?
Click to expand...


Fine... enjoy being engaged. :)
 
LewisHall said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you are shooting from the hip I'd say manual focus otherwise probably auto!
 
kennysarmy said:
If you are shooting from the hip I'd say manual focus otherwise probably auto!
Click to expand...

Focal distances printed on a lens are ok but unless you have eyes in your hips then it will be more luck than judgement. You will increase your odds of OOF shots considerably using this MF technique.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Focal distances printed on a lens are ok but unless you have eyes in your hips then it will be more luck than judgement. You will increase your odds of OOF shots considerably using this MF technique.
Click to expand...

But you might also get some shots you wouldn't otherwise have got!

You saying you can't learn to frame without looking through the viewfinder?
 
kennysarmy said:
But you might also get some shots you wouldn't otherwise have got!

You saying you can't learn to frame without looking through the viewfinder?
Click to expand...

No, never mentioned framing, that's a different subject - if a shots worth getting then it's worth using your eyes and getting it in focus !

Whilst stealth-hip-grab shots are trendy, if people don't have the nerve to photograph conventionally. Most of these hip street shots are pretty appalling in my option. It's all horses for courses !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top