MF on a dslr. Tricky or am I missing something?

B

benhaha85

Messages
64
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
:help:Is manual focusing a pain on a dslr (Canon 1000d in my case)?

I acquired some older lenses off my Dad as he has an old OM slr sitting around gathering dust so I got a 50mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/3.5 (both Zuiko lenses). I picked up a cheap OM to EOS adaptor off ebay. No problems there, the lenses fit fine (infinity focus etc).

I've got some great photos off them, but my keeper rate is shocking. I take the photos and they looks fine on the preview, but when I pull the pictures onto my pc 75% of the time then focus point isn't where I thought it was. :shrug:

Obviously when I stop the lenses down this isn't so much of a problem but if I'm trying to isolate the subject from the background a lot of the time the focus is in front or behind the subject. There's no real pattern to this so I've ruled a lens problem out (am willing to be proven wrong though).

So am I doing something wrong or is it just a pain to MF on a dslr? Is it due to the smaller viewfinder compared to that of a film camera? I had a go on my friend's vivitar and that was comparatively easy to focus with.

Cheers
 
I find it more difficult to MF on my D3 as the focussing screens are now so fine it's difficult to judge the correct focus...

Older MF cameras had deliberately coarse screens with extra focus-aids like split prisms and fresnels to assist the user.
With AF, none of that is required, so manufacturers make the screens as fine as possible so we can see the subject more clearly...makes MF focussing a be-atch though...
 
Like Rob said, plus you're using a crop format DSLR and they all have much smaller viewfinders. Even the 7D with it's supposedly '100% lifesize' viewfinder is being misleading with the measurement method they use - it's still effectively much smaller than full frame because the lenses are 1.6x shorter focal length for the same field of view

You'd be fine with a full frame DSLR that you have fitted with the right focusing screen (usually several options) but that kind of defeats the object of getting some cheap lenses!

BTW, that's one the reasons why they're cheap. Using old MF film lenses on digital isn't great :( They're great for macro though :) Stick some extension tubes on them - these will do nicely - only eight quid! http://www.amazon.co.uk/MACRO-EXTENSION-TUBES-CANON-Camera/dp/B001CWZE6A
 
You have a couple of nice lenses there, what you need is a split prism focus screen for your camera, various ones availabe, from about £20.ish.

Dave.
 
HoppyUK said:
BTW, that's one the reasons why they're cheap. Using old MF film lenses on digital isn't great
Click to expand...

I beg to differ! Using old MF lenses on newer DSLRs is great! You've just got to work harder. Since I started using them my keeper rate has gone up and up. Instead of firing off shots with gay abandon you are forced to compose your shots much more carefully, and think before you press the shutter. This is a good thing.

I did find you have to really work hard at getting your diopter adjustment spot on. Once you've done that things should improve. I would also suggest you 'focus bracket'. I have started using the slow multi shot function on my 50D - as you press the shutter turn the focus ring in tiny increments either side of what you think is focused. Between 3-5 shots is usually enough. You also have to find the strengths and weaknesses of each lens. For instance, I bought a Tamron Adaptall 35-80 SP from The23rdman a while back. I was gutted in that I just couldnt seem to get sharp shots with it. However I perservered, adjusted the diopter several times and things got better. I now find its superbly sharp between f5.6 - f11 when used for closer subjects, but not so hot wide open or with distant subjects. It's one of my favourite lenses now. It's also amazing for macro.

I wouldn't say MF lenses are for everyone, but as you already have them, keep at it and find what works best for you. Maybe a focus confirm adapter?

I've heard a lot about the split prism focusing screens - one problem with those is they can affect metering, something that personally puts me off the idea.

Keep practising :thumbs:
 
Thanks guys, those were the answers I expected. If you find it difficult to MF on a D3 then I'm certainly going to have issues!

Hoppy: I hadn't considered extension tubes atm, I thought they were a lot more money. For 8 quid though I might have to give them a bash.

Dizidav: That sounds like the sort of thing I'm looking for. How would this affect me when I'm using my normal AF lenses though?

Ste: Cheers, some practical advice is always good. I've certainly got better as I've practised, I suppose I was just looking for a cheat! I've adopted the focus adjust type of shooting, hopefully at least one of the shots will focus on what I want!
 
You can get an OM-EOS chipped adapter that will fool the AF on the Canon to do AF confirm so you get the green light and red dot in the view finder when you hit focus. They're usually only a couple of quid more than the simple metal ring adapter.
 
benhaha85 said:
Thanks guys, those were the answers I expected. If you find it difficult to MF on a D3 then I'm certainly going to have issues!

Hoppy: I hadn't considered extension tubes atm, I thought they were a lot more money. For 8 quid though I might have to give them a bash.

Dizidav: That sounds like the sort of thing I'm looking for. How would this affect me when I'm using my normal AF lenses though?

Ste: Cheers, some practical advice is always good. I've certainly got better as I've practised, I suppose I was just looking for a cheat! I've adopted the focus adjust type of shooting, hopefully at least one of the shots will focus on what I want!
Click to expand...

Those tubes are absolutely basic - no lens-to-camera communication at all. Three different length threaded tubes, plus separate camera and lens mounts for either end. But that's perfect for your application.

I've got a set and they're well enough made. Bargain :)
 
matt2martin said:
You can get an OM-EOS chipped adapter that will fool the AF on the Canon to do AF confirm so you get the green light and red dot in the view finder when you hit focus. They're usually only a couple of quid more than the simple metal ring adapter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they aren't that expensive. When I bought mine I just went for plain M42-EOS adapters because the AF confirm ones available were not that accurate, however I know this situation has now changed, and the current available ones are a lot better.

I dare say the split prism screens are great for some people, it's all about finding the right thing for you.

I would also give a big :thumbs: to the extension rings - I got a cheap (£6) set and have had brilliant results with them. Especially when I use them all, plus a Jupiter 135mm and a reversed Helios 44M 58mm all together. This = mental magnification but incredibly tiny DOF. Not sure of the exact magnification but I was able to fill the entire frame with two letters from a £1 coin.
 
Cheers guys, think I'll order me some extension tubes when I get home, certainly less money than a proper macro lens. There's no interaction between the lens and body now so I'm not losing out on anything.

I got my adaptor ring off the 'bay, I wasn't sure whether to get an AF confirm one as I wasn't sure it was worth the extra, but I think I'll get one anyway, at least that way I won't have to keep swapping the adaptor between lenses.

I didn't even mention that on the 50mm I can focus more easily, so the new adaptor will go on the 135mm.

Think I'll give the screen a miss for now, don't really want to be tinkering when this is my first body. SWMBO would kill me if I broke it!
 
Arkady said:
I find it more difficult to MF on my D3 as the focussing screens are now so fine it's difficult to judge the correct focus...

Older MF cameras had deliberately coarse screens with extra focus-aids like split prisms and fresnels to assist the user.
With AF, none of that is required, so manufacturers make the screens as fine as possible so we can see the subject more clearly...makes MF focussing a be-atch though...
Click to expand...

With some DSLR bodies, such as my Canon 5D, you can get replacement screens that are more suitable for manual focus, some with split prism and/or fresnel focusing aids.

One other factor is that the AF mechanism leeches some of the light that would otherwise have gone to the viewfinder in a manual focus camera, so the viewfinder is dimmer and less easy to focus with even with those in place.

I notice instantly whenever I pick up my Canon A-1 or AV-1 how much brighter the viewfinder is. It makes it a lot easier to judge what's in focus.
 
I'm pretty lucky that I have a Panasonic DMC-L1 as my digital camera, as the Autofocus still gives the green light even when using the older manual lenses, I also tend to use the Live view more and it has a magnifying view which means you can generally get the focus spot on.
 
Musicman said:
...One other factor is that the AF mechanism leeches some of the light that would otherwise have gone to the viewfinder in a manual focus camera, so the viewfinder is dimmer and less easy to focus with even with those in place...
Click to expand...

Do what? :cuckoo:

Are you entirely sure you know what you've just written here? I think your basic understanding of how these cameras work is flawed, mate...
 
Arkady said:
Do what? :cuckoo:

Are you entirely sure you know what you've just written here? I think your basic understanding of how these cameras work is flawed, mate...
Click to expand...

I think what he means is that AF lenses are set wide open when focusing and then close down when the shutter is fired. With MF lenses you have to either set the aperture manually and accept the limited light getting through which makes focusing tougher, or focus with the lens wide open and then shut down to the correct aperture, which runs the risk of losing focus accuracy.
 
The23rdman said:
I think what he means is that AF lenses are set wide open when focusing and then close down when the shutter is fired. With MF lenses you have to either set the aperture manually and accept the limited light getting through which makes focusing tougher, or focus with the lens wide open and then shut down to the correct aperture, which runs the risk of losing focus accuracy.
Click to expand...

Not since the 1950's they don't - you're confusing manual-focus with a manual-diaphragm, something cameras have not had in decades.
All cameras since then have had automatic diaphragms that meter and allow focus at the widest aperture, only stopping down to the 'taking-aperture' when the shutter is tripped.

The only factors governing light transmission to the focussing-screen (which is what accounts for the brightness or lack thereof) is the lens' maximum-aperture (the faster the lens, the brighter the image when focussing) and the efficiency of the mirror.
Some (most, actually) mirrors are half-silvered, allowing partial transmission to the primary exposure sensors located behind the mirror and in front of the shutter.
At the moment of capture, secondary sensors measure light reflected off the film-plane (or nowadays, the CCD) and adjust the exposure accordingly if the camera is set to any of the automatic exposure modes - in manual mode the exposure remains as set by the user.
 
Arkady said:
Not since the 1950's they don't - you're confusing manual-focus with a manual-diaphragm, something cameras have not had in decades.
All cameras since then have had automatic diaphragms that meter and allow focus at the widest aperture, only stopping down to the 'taking-aperture' when the shutter is tripped.

The only factors governing light transmission to the focussing-screen (which is what accounts for the brightness or lack thereof) is the lens' maximum-aperture (the faster the lens, the brighter the image when focussing) and the efficiency of the mirror.
Some (most, actually) mirrors are half-silvered, allowing partial transmission to the primary exposure sensors located behind the mirror and in front of the shutter.
At the moment of capture, secondary sensors measure light reflected off the film-plane (or nowadays, the CCD) and adjust the exposure accordingly if the camera is set to any of the automatic exposure modes - in manual mode the exposure remains as set by the user.
Click to expand...

Rob, with MF lenses, or at least with Canon, this happens. I should know, I've been using MF lenses on my 350D and 40D for ages.
 
That's not quite 100% accurate Arkady. Yes most of these lenses work in that manner but when fitted to modern Dslrs unfortunately that mechanism doesn't work. My M42 adapters have an aperture pin flange, to hold the pin in the manual position so I can adjust the aperture. My Tamron adaptall lenses also work in a similar manner. If fitted to cameras they were originally designed for then yeah, the aperture would work as you describe.
 
Not since the 1950's they don't - you're confusing manual-focus with a manual-diaphragm, something cameras have not had in decades.
All cameras since then have had automatic diaphragms that meter and allow focus at the widest aperture, only stopping down to the 'taking-aperture' when the shutter is tripped.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm getting very confused here - the MF lenses that I use on my GF1 all have manual diaphragm, eg Canon FD lenses which I think are from the 70s.

Maybe they worked differently on their original cameras? They just stay at whatever aperture you set them to on the ring.
 
Well I have an old AI-Nikkor (circa 1980) that works fine on my D3 (after I input the correct parameters for non-CPU lens data) - meters and focusses with the diaphragm open and stops down in the manner I described at the moment the shutter is tripped.

M-42 lenses with a screw-attachment are the pre-1950 lenses I was referring to...
Ever since the Pentax-K mount (the first company to introduce bayonet-mounts), things have been different

Maybe it's a Canon-thing...

I've also been taking photos for 38 years BTW...


None of that relates to how difficult it is to manually focus a lens on a DSLR though - if you're dumb enough to try using a 50-60-year old lens on a modern camera, WTF do you expect...lol
 
All my M42 lenses are circa 1980's with the exception of my Jupiter 135mm and my Helios 44M-2 which are from the 70's. My Tamrons are from the 80's too.

I don't see why using old lenses on new cameras is 'dumb' at all - it's fun and for the outlay involved versus the possible excellent optical quality achievable, much more intelligent than spending thousands on new lenses, provided you can achieve good results. As I said earlier, yes you have to work a bit harder, but when you crack it, it is extremely rewarding. I wouldn't call that 'dumb' at all, if anything it's quite the opposite.
 
Rob, I respect you 'n' all, but it may be that you don't actually know everything.

It IS more difficult to focus manually on a CANON digital camera for the exact reason I outlayed.

Oh, and I don't appreciate being called dumb when you haven't got your facts right...lol or not.
 
From what I've read on the subject, Canon EOS is about the best mount for most of the old MF lenses to use. Nikon being one of the worst (and you'll have to forgive me for forgetting the technical term for this) due to the distance between the sensor and the back of the lens.

Arkady you're talking about using an old Nikon lens on a Nikon camera, we've been talking about using other manufacturers lenses on Canon cameras. It's a totally different kettle of fish.

That said, focusing is focusing whatever the camera/lens/mount type. When manually focusing there are plenty of issues and plenty of techniques to overcome them. As I said originally it probably isn't for everyone but for those of us who are happy taking pictures without ultra modern focusing aids doing all the hard work for us it can be an absolute joy.

Photography should never be just about the equipment though, it's all about the results. I'm very happy for all the gear heads to laugh all they like at my ancient photographic equipment. I'm the one getting just as good quality from lenses costing just £3.00. :thumbs:
 
Musicman's comment is technically correct. The mirror in a DSLR is not wholly reflective and some of the light passes through it to be deflected onto the AF sensor. This means that the light going to the viewfinder is slightly lower. This wasn't necessary before autofocus cameras were created. In practice however, there is little visible difference. A far more visible difference is the use of the less efficient pentamirrors in budget DSLRs instead of pentaprisms.
Ste Manns comment is worth expanding. The lens to sensor plane distance is different with different mounts. Canon has one of the shortest. This means that a lens designed for another mount usually needs a spacer to focus correctly on a Canon camera. Conveniently, you can put an adaptor in that space and still maintain infinity focus.
 
eccles said:
Musicman's comment is technically correct. The mirror in a DSLR is not wholly reflective and some of the light passes through it to be deflected onto the AF sensor. This means that the light going to the viewfinder is slightly lower. This wasn't necessary before autofocus cameras were created. In practice however, there is little visible difference. A far more visible difference is the use of the less efficient pentamirrors in budget DSLRs instead of pentaprisms.
Ste Manns comment is worth expanding. The lens to sensor plane distance is different with different mounts. Canon has one of the shortest. This means that a lens designed for another mount usually needs a spacer to focus correctly on a Canon camera. Conveniently, you can put an adaptor in that space and still maintain infinity focus.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what is that distance called? Can't remember now, I'm getting old...:thinking: As you say it's what makes the EOS mount one of the best to use these old lenses on.

To all doubters - take a look on flickr, do a search for manual focus, M42 or whatever and you'll find a lot of extremely good pictures taken with very cheap old lenses on DSLRs. (in amongst the rubbish ones of course, mostly taken by me :D )
 
I use an old prime lens on my DSLR (a 55mm 1:2 SMC Pentax on a Samsung GX1L) and I love it - I'm pretty accurate with manual focus, and I get the little light confirmation when I am focused correctly. If I switch the body to AF the shutter won't fire UNTIL the light comes on, so I can actually hold the shutter release and slowly twist the lens until the light comes on where it'll fire.
 
eccles said:
Musicman's comment is technically correct. The mirror in a DSLR is not wholly reflective and some of the light passes through it to be deflected onto the AF sensor. This means that the light going to the viewfinder is slightly lower. This wasn't necessary before autofocus cameras were created. In practice however, there is little visible difference
Click to expand...

Thanks for picking up the point. However, I wouldn't think that the difference is insignificant when Canon take 40% of the light for the AF system.

Specs for the 5D MkII and 1Ds Mk III

Canon UK - 5D said:
Quick-return half mirror (Transmission: reflection ratio of 40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF600mm f/4 or shorter)
Click to expand...

Canon UK - 1Ds Mk III said:
Quick-return half mirror (Transmission: reflection ratio of 37:63, no mirror cut-off with EF1200mm f/5.6 or shorter)
Click to expand...

Nikon don't seem to publish the transmission ratios of the half-mirrors their DSLR bodies on their UK or US sites, but I'd be surprised if it were much different. I've seen figures elsewhere that Pentax bodies run at 35:65 ratio to supply the AF mechanism with light.

eccles said:
A far more visible difference is the use of the less efficient pentamirrors in budget DSLRs instead of pentaprisms.
Click to expand...

My 5D has a pentaprism, not a pentamirror. I'll stand by my earlier comment that the difference between using the viewfinder on that and one of my 1980s A-series Canon cameras (or my early 60s Yashica J-3 for that matter) is almost literally like night and day. :)
 
I manual focus lenses (including adapted M42 lenses) on my D200 (which is a crop-sensor camera with the typically smaller viewfinder than full-frame) with no problem. I can't even see how it would be difficult, if it looks in focus to me it is and when it is out of focus, it looks out of focus.

My suggestion: maybe an eye test is in order? :P

Not sure about Canons, but my Nikon D200 has a little focus confirm thing in the viewfinder. Even if I couldn't tell if the lens is in focus or not, the little green dot can.
 
Arkady said:
Not since the 1950's they don't - you're confusing manual-focus with a manual-diaphragm, something cameras have not had in decades.
All cameras since then have had automatic diaphragms that meter and allow focus at the widest aperture, only stopping down to the 'taking-aperture' when the shutter is tripped.

The only factors governing light transmission to the focussing-screen (which is what accounts for the brightness or lack thereof) is the lens' maximum-aperture (the faster the lens, the brighter the image when focussing) and the efficiency of the mirror.
Some (most, actually) mirrors are half-silvered, allowing partial transmission to the primary exposure sensors located behind the mirror and in front of the shutter.
At the moment of capture, secondary sensors measure light reflected off the film-plane (or nowadays, the CCD) and adjust the exposure accordingly if the camera is set to any of the automatic exposure modes - in manual mode the exposure remains as set by the user.
Click to expand...

That isn't the layout of modern cameras. It sounds like you are referring to something like the Olympus OM-2, which was a pretty much unique creation. And a long time ago, 1980.

There have been various configurations over the years, but as far as I know all contemporary DSLRs have (for many years) had the AF sensors in the base of the mirror box, fed by the piggy-back mirror on the back of the main mirror, which in turn gets its share of the light through the main mirror's semi-silvered centre section. So yes, that will steal some light from the viewfinder.

All metering is done in the pentaprism/pentamirror, including flash metering.

The OM-2 (and derivatives) was the only camera to read the ambient exposure off the film surface and/or shutter curtains, in real time. Some cameras later used a similar idea for flash metering (eg Canon T90). All this had to be abandoned with digital, due to the mirror-like surface of the sensor.

As others have pointed out, modern DSLRs are just not as good for manual focusing as old film cameras were. I have a Minolta SRT101 which is about 40 years old and, while it admitedly has a 50 f/1.7 lens which makes a big difference, the viewfinder is big, bright and it's easy to focus with the central micro-prism spot. Though I distinctly recall that old MF cameras were not so good at anything over about f/4 when the micro-prisms and split-image aids blacked out.

I just don't think it's such a priorty these days. The viewfinder is for composing the picture, and as long as the AF works okay, if money and weight can be saved with a penta-mirror instead of a prism, it will be. The viewing image with a crop format DSLR is also inherantly quite a lot smaller, which is counter-productive.
 
Going back to the OP, is it possible to use live view with these lenses? I use it all the time with my EF/EF-S lenses and am getting much better focussing in MF than I used to.
 
I'm not sure what your shooting, but I use the LiveView for MF, and use the 5x or 10x magnification (the + zoom button) especially for macro shots with a cheap set of extension tubes :D, with LiveView what you see focus wise is what you get!!
 
Bythesea said:
Going back to the OP, is it possible to use live view with these lenses? I use it all the time with my EF/EF-S lenses and am getting much better focussing in MF than I used to.
Click to expand...

Yes. For some reason though, I often found live view would be very dark when I tried my m42 lenses, and I still haven't figured out why. Quick way to get around that is to simply pop the flash up - it brightens the live view display up. When you're about to shoot, pop it down again. Works good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top