Why do we have autofocus?

Many of us on here grew up using MF and learned our trade on SLRs long before the advent of digital photography. Split focus screens and focusing rings made (MF) very quick on SLRs, quick enough to capture the action at football matches. There is still a place for MF lenses today (Macro etc) but AF DSLRs offer speed and accuracy that eclipse most subjects. MF lens on DSLRs acutely hinder focusing at speed for fast moving subjects and are less efficient in my opinion.
 
I learnt on manual focus cameras.
Not all of them had focus aids like rangefinders or other focus aids, like a ground glass screen. You just estimated the subject distance (or very rarely measured it with a tape mesure) and set the distance marker on the lens.
Also on not all cameras did you have to move your hand away from holding the camera to the focussing knob. I am thinking of a TLR (although it has been many years since I have used one).
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would be interested to know if you learned photography on manual or AF cameras? I ask because with AF gear, designs have made the manual focussing option much less convenient and a choice of last resort, rather than a fully valid way of working. This can be seen in the way focussing rings have stopped being the main part of the lens that you grip, and instead are often a narrow band at the end of the lens, in many cases requiring you to move your hand to focus, then shift it back to steady the camera.
Click to expand...

Plus the lack of markings, short focus throw making manual focus harder than it could be
 
Ironically, my first ever AF SLR (Minolta 7000) had a completely plain screen, and I found it far brighter and better to focus on than the Pentax SLRs I'd owned previously with split prism etc. Hoping the D610 will be similar.
 
Wasn't it the Konica 35AF that was the first camera to have autofocus? The AF stood for automatic focussing. Blame Konica. Not Apple.

Before that I had autofocus on my first enlarger. The £25 Zenith enlarger in a briefcase. Once focussed, if you move the head up and down, it would keep the image sharp through a mechanical linkage. There's Soyuz technology for you!
 
ianp5a said:
Wasn't it the Konica 35AF that was the first camera to have autofocus? The AF stood for automatic focussing. Blame Konica. Not Apple.

Before that I had autofocus on my first enlarger. The £25 Zenith enlarger in a briefcase. Once focussed, if you move the head up and down, it would keep the image sharp through a mechanical linkage. There's Soyuz technology for you!
Click to expand...
It was built to do a job unlike today where items are built for marketing and to sell to people regardless.I would love to see the test card on a 55 inch wide screen TV !
 
I blame the dumbo's who fall for it all rush out and buy the stuff. Megapixels man! And 3D TV. They keep the prices up too. Grrrrrrrr.
 
Last edited:
Had my first chance to take a few pictures with the D610 this morning, and I'm really pleased with the quality of the screen for focussing. However I am going to have to re-learn exposure, because I've no real idea what the camera is seeing in terms of tonal range after more than 2 years with a Sony EVF.
 
boliston said:
its all about being able to shoot 4k video and shoot at insanely high iso that seem to be the main marketing gimmicks now
Click to expand...

Yes. Now that the megapixel number is not a marketing point, the ability to photograph black cats in coal cellars at night is the most important feature!


Steve.
 
ancient_mariner said:
if you learned photography on manual or AF cameras?
Click to expand...
•
I started on Nikkormat. Then the F series to F3HP. My first AF
was the F4E but it was still all films then.

I went on with film until the D3X was out… only with this camera
did I move most of my production to digital. After the Phase One
IQ280, I did not buy film any more.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Many of us on here grew up using MF and learned our trade on SLRs long before the advent of digital photography. Split focus screens and focusing rings made (MF) very quick on SLRs,
Click to expand...

Viewfinders were also generally a bit better when people used MF - the quality of the VFs seemed to drop off in the mid to late nineties and on cheaper DSLRs in the 2000s. I think that gives people a false impression of how difficult MF was with a half decent SLR - when it was actually very easy.
 
ST4 said:
It is easy with the SLR. Compose using the OVF then use the live view to focus critically and use the histogram preview mode. Works everytime ;)
Click to expand...

And there's the added advantage that the live view is from the sensor itself - unlike a focusing screen or separate AF sensor which is on a separate light path and may be slightly offset compared with the sensor.
 
Dryce said:
Viewfinders were also generally a bit better when people used MF - the quality of the VFs seemed to drop off in the mid to late nineties and on cheaper DSLRs in the 2000s. I think that gives people a false impression of how difficult MF was with a half decent SLR - when it was actually very easy.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's due to having a much smaller image circle for APS-C and use of pentamirrors instead of pentaprisms. My brother has a D5500 with 18-140 for Christmas, and we compared cameras a little last night. The combination of tiny image circle and zoom with a smaller max aperture gave a very dim viewfinder that made focussing his camera manually almost impossible in a dimly lit room, whereas the D610 wth f1.8 lens was relatively easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top