AF vs MF - DPChallenge Forums

08/03/2005 01:33:10 PM · #26

Thought so. }:-]

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/03/2005 01:33:15 PM · #27

Originally posted by terje:

Originally posted by Artyste:
I'm usually just as fast, or faster, than AF

Are you for real?

Pretty much.. depending on the light, and the AF lens, and whatnot. There are certainly times when AF is faster by far.. (such as subjects running towards me), and I use it in those situations.. but generally, I can focus just as fast in regular light manually.. and faster in low light, especially on a not-so-contrasty subject :)

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

08/03/2005 01:35:28 PM · #28

I have been experimenting with mapping the AF to the AE lock button using one of the custom functions in the 350. That lets me focus on my subject with a button press, then recompose, adjust the focus manually it if I want.

This allows me to take several shots without the AF automatically readjusting the focus away from my fine tuning (or without moving the center focus point to my subject again). It also means I can focus, and then not sit there holding the shutter half pressed while I recompose. Exposure is then calculated at the last moment (it would be nice to be able to lock both exposure and focus with two separate buttons other than the stupid shutter button, but I can't have everything apparently!)

Anyway, for anyone with the Rebel XT or the 20D I highly recommend trying this for a few weeks and see if it works better for you. Before I did this, I was always having to turn AF on and off to avoid AF refocusing my shots each time I press the shutter. This has worked out pretty well for me!

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/03/2005 01:37:16 PM · #29

Originally posted by doctornick:

Unless you have a microprism/split image focusing screen on your camera, MF is hit and miss at best in most situations. AF can focus more reliably than any human eye on today's Cameras.

Agreed, but assuming that...
- The AF point can be put on the desired point of focus
- There *is* a subject at the desired point of focus (think hyperfocal)
- There is sufficient light

I don't necessarily think the single, centered split image screen is a great tool. It forces me to focus and recompose. Bad idea in tight quarters with very fast glass. I haven't used a microprism screen, but would like to try it.

08/03/2005 01:38:07 PM · #30

I was shooting a party once, and this hot-shot photographer from a big newspaper walked over and asked if he could take a few shots.. He wanted to use MF, because it was the "correct and oldschool way". Well, the next day I processed all the photos, and of the 30 photos he shot, only one was sharp..

08/03/2005 01:40:53 PM · #31

Originally posted by terje:

Well, that proves it.. MF was at fault, definitely. The photographer controlling that MF had nothing to do with it.. nope. ;)

ANYway.. my point is.. it doesn't matter which method you use.. MF or AF.. if the one you're using is working for you, great. Who cares what other people do.

Message edited by author 2005-08-03 13:42:24.

08/03/2005 01:44:01 PM · #32

It wasn't the MF, it was his attitude that was broken.

I don't know if you ONLY shoot extreme macro and/or sit in a dark room all day focusing on a big wall. I find it unlikely that you can outperform my AF system when focusing on normal subjects.

Artyste, I bet you can draw your gun faster then Luckey Luke too? ;-)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/03/2005 01:45:39 PM · #33

Originally posted by terje:

*sigh*.. I wasn't saying that I can MF faster than anyone and that I'm the big hotshot for it.. I was just explaining why *I* use it over AF more often than not. Don't get your panties in a bunch :)

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

08/03/2005 01:46:02 PM · #34

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by doctornick:
Unless you have a microprism/split image focusing screen on your camera, MF is hit and miss at best in most situations. AF can focus more reliably than any human eye on today's Cameras.

Agreed, but assuming that...
- The AF point can be put on the desired point of focus
- There *is* a subject at the desired point of focus (think hyperfocal)
- There is sufficient light

I don't necessarily think the single, centered split image screen is a great tool. It forces me to focus and recompose. Bad idea in tight quarters with very fast glass. I haven't used a microprism screen, but would like to try it.

I'm going to try that Microprism/split image screen on my 1D II and see. You have some good points here. I guess I'm spoiled with 45 AF points...never had any problems focusing on action shots and rapidly moving subjects...there is NO way I'd be able to beat the camera in such situations.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/03/2005 01:47:52 PM · #35

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by doctornick:
Unless you have a microprism/split image focusing screen on your camera, MF is hit and miss at best in most situations. AF can focus more reliably than any human eye on today's Cameras.

Agreed, but assuming that...
- The AF point can be put on the desired point of focus
- There *is* a subject at the desired point of focus (think hyperfocal)
- There is sufficient light

I don't necessarily think the single, centered split image screen is a great tool. It forces me to focus and recompose. Bad idea in tight quarters with very fast glass. I haven't used a microprism screen, but would like to try it.

I'm going to try that Microprism/split image screen on my 1D II and see. You have some good points here. I guess I'm spoiled with 45 AF points...never had any problems focusing on action shots and rapidly moving subjects...there is NO way I'd be able to beat the camera in such situations.

I wouldn't either.. lol.. I'd love to see the person that *could* beat a good AF system on action shots and moving subjects. I'd worship them.

Kirbic does make a good point with the center split focus screen.. I didn't think of that.

Niten

Canon EOS-20D

08/03/2005 02:41:17 PM · #36

Its funny how often you hear digital photogs screaming about how closed minded other photogs are for not doing it their way.

If I'm shooting moveing subjects I like to prefocus and shoot when it gets in the focus zone. If I'm shooting still subjects I want to determain hyperfocus distance usally. I do use AF for like a people at a party or something like that.

Tim

Message edited by author 2005-08-03 14:52:45.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

08/03/2005 02:44:11 PM · #37

What does AF/MF have to do with film vs. digital?

I own a Canon EOS 50e film camera, it has AF. What's your point?

Zed Pobre

Canon EOS-20D

08/03/2005 03:03:07 PM · #38

Originally posted by terje:

I don't know if you ONLY shoot extreme macro and/or sit in a dark room all day focusing on a big wall. I find it unlikely that you can outperform my AF system when focusing on normal subjects.

If you define 'normal subjects' as ones where AF works well, you've generated a nice circular argument.

There are a number of common circumstances where I will outperform my AF, though. In fact, I was grumbling last night about a series of shots I got lazy on and trusted the AF when I *knew* it was was one of those things that made AF unreliable. Nothing unusual, just a group of singers standing in a semicircle at f/4.0. The correct focusing point was halfway between the nearest and the farthest singer, which I hoped it would get by pulling the left, right, and center points horizontally and averaging, but the stupid all-points AF actually managed to outdo itself by not only going for center, but by averaging dead center and top center. I have wonderfully clear wood grain behind and above the farthest singer. The faces ranged from soft to blurry, which I had to correct with rather significant localized sharpening.

I was smarter on a shot of a spider suspended in a web: I used AF on a single point once to get the focus close, then almost immediately switched to manual. Even at that, I goofed once as I moved and the focus zipped away to the leaves in the distance behind it, making the spider actually invisible, and had to hunt a bit to bring it back before shunting to manual.

If you trust your AF for all shots, particularly in all-points mode, you *will* get burned eventually.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

08/03/2005 03:15:26 PM · #39

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

If you trust your AF for all shots, particularly in all-points mode, you *will* get burned eventually.

I never said I use AF all the time, did I?
I can't wait until I get *burned*.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

08/03/2005 03:28:36 PM · #40

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

If you trust your AF for all shots, particularly in all-points mode, you *will* get burned eventually.

I'd get burned a lot more if I relied on MF for all shots!

sukuriant

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

08/04/2005 01:10:31 AM · #41

depends on how obscure my focus is... personally, I like manual focus... the only thing I wish is that my lens had the same focus system as the old 35mm Nikon I've used... this circle with a line through it that gets centered the more in focus it is.... *grin* (Although something tells me the new cameras use that same system... just lots of smaller ones for the AF...

Pug-H

Pentax K10D

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

08/04/2005 05:13:53 AM · #42

I use MF because the AF on my camera doesn't work properly, and it's too much of a bother to send it in for repair. I figure that the time will come soon enough for a replacement body, anyway.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

08/04/2005 05:46:21 AM · #43

AF 99% of the time, because in any situation I have encountered up to now the AF was spot on. Even with the extremely limited DOF of 200mm at f/2.8 with a distance of 1.5m (dof is couple of millimeter) or the 50 or 30mm's shot at f/1.4 from any distance.

It is also hard to manual focus. My eye correction (I can't properly see objects from 40cm to infinity) is outside the camera's correction setting and besides that, I hate putting my glasses on and off all the time. Also a bit tricky with exposure, because there's always some light comming in via the viewfinder.
Nearby my eyes are as sharp as Jacko's macro lenses. :)

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/04/2005 05:48:58 AM · #44

I came from a MF film body (OM4ti) last year, and fast ziess glass...

So I'm a MF fan, although now that I've got three L's in my bag I'm tending to use the AF+CMF a lot.

Close in I let AF have a go, then MF, and if it's a close in subject I rock, as per Kibrics technique. I also do this with the 50/1.8 which isn't C-MF, but heck, it's cheap, and unless you're in servo focus it dosn't seem to complain. :-).

For sports I use AF all the time now, the hit rate with the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses is far higher than I get with zone focusing, and it's easier on the wrists if you just rest the lens in your left hand and fire away with the right.

There's more answers to this question that members on this site...

Cheers, Me.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/04/2005 06:45:25 AM · #45

It depends what I'm shooting! Most of the time I rely on AF because I can be lazy that way! If I'm shooting indoor rollerskating (which I do a lot of) then I use manual focus because it's too damn dark and they move too damn fast for my lens' AF!

samtrundle

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/04/2005 07:10:32 AM · #46

I tend to use the Autofocus when I'm just walking around taking candids or architectural type shots. If I'm shooting static objects at home (i.e studio type shots) - which is rarely, or doing close up work - which is often, I almost exclusively use MF, I just like the extra control. Plus my eyes are still young and relatively sharp. Use em while you've got em I say!