Manual focusing. Why so proud of it?

[PhotoTime]

Below is an example what MF can do for me which I can't do with AF.

I find the focus on the mushroom very well done and the rest of the area blurred out.

I am using a Carl Zeiss 50 f1.4 (rollei mount) for this photo.

Hi,

Looking at the photo, I am not sure why you cannot use AF on it. The object is quite big, and it should be easily be focused on. If you are using 50mm F1.8 AF lens, you should be able to obtained similar result easily. The rest of the area blurred out is not a matter of MF or AF lens, it is the aperture that you used.

Regards.

 

[Anthony Lee]

Why don't you just post a similar photo shot with the 50mm f1.8 to prove your point.

Hi,

Looking at the photo, I am not sure why you cannot use AF on it. The object is quite big, and it should be easily be focused on. If you are using 50mm F1.8 AF lens, you should be able to obtained similar result easily. The rest of the area blurred out is not a matter of MF or AF lens, it is the aperture that you used.

Regards.

 

[brownie01]

Hi,

Looking at the photo, I am not sure why you cannot use AF on it. The object is quite big, and it should be easily be focused on. If you are using 50mm F1.8 AF lens, you should be able to obtained similar result easily. The rest of the area blurred out is not a matter of MF or AF lens, it is the aperture that you used.

Regards.

How about trying to focus aback scene behind a fence?
Try it using AF.

 

[sinned79]

Hi,

Looking at the photo, I am not sure why you cannot use AF on it. The object is quite big, and it should be easily be focused on. If you are using 50mm F1.8 AF lens, you should be able to obtained similar result easily. The rest of the area blurred out is not a matter of MF or AF lens, it is the aperture that you used.

Regards.

look closely again at my photo. the level of bokeh for the hand and foreground is very different.

 

[PhotoTime]

Sorry, I do not have a DSLR, and I only have a old 50mm manual lens. So, I am unable to show you any result. I do agree that you are more in control with MF as you can focus whereever you want without being bothered by the AF, and you are proud of your CZ Lens.

Maybe the CZ lens handle the out of focus better, it produces better result. I did not do any comparison before, but my consideration is how to make my subject stand out. Just to think about it, if you are using a 85mm, 105mm, 135mm or even 200mm lens, will you still get similar result? What if you are using 50mm, but using a small aperture, what will be the result?

I think I will let the case rest here, as it will be OT for this thread.

 

[sequitur]

Everybody just has a different philosophy about how they would like to approach photography.

Choosing to manual or auto focus is just one of them. So there's really not too much to complain about.

For me, manual focusing brings back the tradition, the basics, and the fun in photography. Not everything is automated, and it gives me the freedom to control my focus point the way I like it, and ultimately dictate my output as according to my wishes, rather than because of some form of electronic algorithm.

And because it's manual focusing, I can choose to throw an entire photograph out of focus if I wish, or control these amounts precisely for whichever effect that I would wish to achieve. AF assumes all photographs have a necessary sharp point of focus - MF doesn't. That's probably the beauty of the freedom of control.

 

[sinned79]

Sorry, I do not have a DSLR, and I only have a old 50mm manual lens. So, I am unable to show you any result. I do agree that you are more in control with MF as you can focus whereever you want without being bothered by the AF, and you are proud of your CZ Lens.

Maybe the CZ lens handle the out of focus better, it produces better result. I did not do any comparison before, but my consideration is how to make my subject stand out. Just to think about it, if you are using a 85mm, 105mm, 135mm or even 200mm lens, will you still get similar result? What if you are using 50mm, but using a small aperture, what will be the result?

I think I will let the case rest here, as it will be OT for this thread.

its still different.

u see, for AF points, its fixed at those angles, u cannot adjust it.

u do a AF point (eg 9 points) on my this photo then u will get what i am trying to say.

 

[BananaDiver]

look closely again at my photo. the level of bokeh for the hand and foreground is very different.

hi bro... sorry for my poor knowledge but isn't it the lens quality, distance and the aperture tat u are shooting that affects the bokeh?
i mean... i can easily AF and get the same spot on focus but that's just me... everyone have their preferences... so just do whichever works for you...

i would prefer my dog to get the morning newspaper for me than getting it myself... but more importantly the news better be good... if not it will be wasted effort... get it?

 

[BananaDiver]

its still different.

u see, for AF points, its fixed at those angles, u cannot adjust it.

u do a AF point (eg 9 points) on my this photo then u will get what i am trying to say.

hmmm... you are correct in this sense... if my 9 point AF does't work... i will just manual override and MF... but if my lens only have MF then no choice but to MF...

 

[azul123]

Wow 5 pages.. are we passionate about photography or what?

Alright, I would give my reason why I would turn to manual focusing. Try using your fastest lens and AFS AFC during F1, you might get a few good shots but manually focusing at a pre-determined focus point and snap shutter when F1 car passed by it will get you a much higher chance of getting more good shots.

That doesn't mean AF is not good, in most situation AF works wonderfully, but aren't we missing out if we solely depend on AF that we forgot how MF can be better in selective situations? DCA rightly pointed out in the very beginning some situations AF just can't do it. So, if you slapped on a Digital Lens well capable of AF, why can't turn to MF if the situation calls for it?

Of course lah if MF and show blurry shots forget it lah.

../azul123

 

[azul123]

In summary, like someone pointed out 'Selective Focusing', is the reason why someone would want to turn a good Digital AF lens Manual. You know some people take the time to really know their MF lens? a turn to left or right by so much is how much distance subject moves forward or backwards, that's for those legacy lens lah but for digital lens there is not much play to really get the finetune, a small turn means a big jump in subject distance.

So, in essence it makes less sense to use MF on digital modern lens now except like the F1 case maybe. Well, my 2 cents.

../azul123

 

[azul123]

I just thought of another reason why a modern body and a modern digital lens might be turn into MF. There is LiveView and using MF zoom up 100% gives you precise focusing.

../azul123

 

[wootsk]

AF is good, but I still pratice using MF. There are two main reason why I pratice MF,
1. I am a lover of older and rangefinder lens that I can mount on my camera with adapter, those glasses can only MF.
2. There are time when AF doesn't focus properly and I need fine tuning.
I would suggest AF users to pratice using MF and add on a spilt screen or other MF aids as it helps them to improve their focusing skill and rather than complaining on stuff such as lens has back focusing problem etc...

 

[wootsk]

Hi,

Looking at the photo, I am not sure why you cannot use AF on it. The object is quite big, and it should be easily be focused on. If you are using 50mm F1.8 AF lens, you should be able to obtained similar result easily. The rest of the area blurred out is not a matter of MF or AF lens, it is the aperture that you used.

Regards.

Hello, he is using a Carl Zeiss 50 f1.4 (rollei mount) for this photo. When you mount a adapter lens on your camera, your lens doesn't AF motor, it only has AF confirmation (if you buy the chip) and it isn't as much accurate as compare to using a MF aid like spilt screen.

The thinner the DOF, the more accurate your focus need to be. Try shooting using the old canon F0.95 or lecia notilux at wide open, tougher to handle but more rewarding if sucess.

 

[azul123]

I think TS has already stated that he has no issues about legacy lens for MF, just asking why would anyone turn digital lens into MF.

../azul123

 

[timothychanzl]

Personally I feel there is little reason a AF lens should be used in manual, unless doing macro work on tripod.

I mean, AF lenses have a very short throw (the distance the focus can rotate). And its made this way for a reason - so that the electronics can quickly control the focus.

I like the long throw of legacy manual lenses. However, I don't know exactly how it affects optics. Any who knows care to share?

 

[clubgrit]

I have been reading a lot of postings here and elsewhere and one thing i notice is that some people are very proud of manual focusing. I can understand this if they are using legacy lenses on their digital camera bodies, but what I'm curious about is, why with their digital lenses too?

Maybe when it comes to shooting macros, landscapes and fireworks, with a digital lens , it might gives a person a better control at focusing on a specific desired area where the sharpness is intended to be at most. I for one, used manual focus too when the needs arises. But what surprises me is that, why in situations like shooting portraits on the go (not in studio) or when the model changes pose faster then you can say supercallifrangeelisticespielidocious for example? Some are very proud to focus manually before pressing the shutter. Then when its slightly blur, will say things like "oh i manual focus it. Dont like to use AF" Or "Need to practice more. At least i use manual focus." Are they under the impression and delusion that anything that is done manually makes them a pro?

I'm not saying that we should be a slave to technology, but the technology is there for a reason, if not there is no point for R&D of every camera company to implement it in their product. Its like having a perfectly workable remote control for your tv but you still wish to stand up from your sofa and walk over to the tv set and manually change the channel or volume. Now how many of us actually do that? :bsmilie:

My point is why must die die manual focus when its unnecessary, when you can use AF to shoot?:dunno: Can MF lovers please enlighten me on this? Maybe i can jump into the bandwagon too. :lovegrin:

Well, many reasons have been given here already. However, it does not make sense to say "at least I focused manually", that is difficult to understand too, even for me who focuses manually but for a reason, not just for the sake of focusing manually. I have never heard anyone say that. You should have asked them :think:.

Ideally, if having AF lenses, use both MF and AF as needed, they are just ways to get the job done.

On a side note, in an interview with Jackie Chan (everybody knows who he is I guess), he does not use remote controls. He does stand up to go to the TV. His rationale is to keep fit and alert, not lazy.

.