What's wrong with manual focus?

Dogmatix

Dogmatix

Suspended / Banned
Messages
268
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all.

I have a D5000 and I notice that it doesn't have a auto focus motor built in, unlike the d90.

But, I had a go at manual focus, ok took me a minute or two to set the focus properly.

This made me think, what's wrong with manual focus? And why is it hated so much?

Ta
 
I use manual focus quite a lot for plant photography as I don't always want to focus on the closest part of the plant, however, when I take photos of things that won't keep still (my 3 year old being the main contender) then I use auto as I just wouldn't stand a chance of getting a decent photo otherwise. Nothing wrong with either method just choose the right one for the subject. My Nikon doesn't have a built in motor either.
 
I only have the AF kit lens and the rest of my lenses are all older manual focus lenses. I prefer them, easy to focus where I want plus they cost far less than the modern lenses. I never us my AF lens at all now, as most things I take photos of are stationary, ie landscapes etc while wildlife shots are easy enough with practise.
I actualy put a manual lens on at first to help me understand exposure and shutter speed and now I'm sticking with them.
 
Modern viewfinders lack the split prism that used to aid focussing back in the good old days when we shot manual. However manual is a perefectly acceptable method assuming your eyes are good enough, with live view and magnification on some cameras it should be a doddle to MF
 
Dogmatix said:
Hey all.

I have a D5000 and I notice that it doesn't have a auto focus motor built in, unlike the d90.

But, I had a go at manual focus, ok took me a minute or two to set the focus properly.

This made me think, what's wrong with manual focus? And why is it hated so much?

Ta
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with manual focus, its still used in many photographs today, from macro photography to studio work. Situations where its becomes easier for the tog to use autofocus like action photograph are a lot more common, but before autofocus, those images were still captured using manual focus, its just that life has been made easier for us when taking images, just like the AV, TV and P modes rather than M when the situation arises.
 
I find AF's far easier for the action and sport that I tend to photograph. I'd be buggered if I had to MF all the time.
 
i find manual focus very difficult in my 450D Viewfinder and am often miles out!, I'm short sighted which I don't think helps!

Live view and magnification is easy enough though.

But for moving subjects especially at lower apertures with the nifty fifty, autofocus is really useful.
 
Manual focus is great if the object is sat still or at a constant distance like said above.
It all depends on what sort of photography you do.

Spike
 
I have the same camera (D5000) and I use the AF on it all the time - only because I'm short sighted (minus 7.5) and can't see well enough to use manual - otherwise, I'd use it in preference.
 
:shake:
I wonder how you all think sports photographers (Don Morley, for example) coped in the 'old days', before AF? The answer is, they coped perfectly well, by pre-focussing on the spot where the subject would be. Even I managed ok.
AF makes it easier these days, but manual focussing is hardly difficult (admittedly, the lack of a split-prism doesn't help).
 
Sloper said:
:shake:
I wonder how you all think sports photographers (Don Morley, for example) coped in the 'old days', before AF? The answer is, they coped perfectly well, by pre-focussing on the spot where the subject would be. Even I managed ok.
AF makes it easier these days, but manual focussing is hardly difficult (admittedly, the lack of a split-prism doesn't help).
Click to expand...

I use manual focusing for motorsport quite a bit. Generally when Im panning on a car/bike and shooting through/past tree's or other obstructions that would send the focus off.
It makes you think more about the composition of the shot as you need to do the prefocus on the track and shoot when you meet your mark. Can make for some great shots if it works, or some completely pants ones when it doesnt.
 
ThomasB said:
I only have the AF kit lens and the rest of my lenses are all older manual focus lenses. I prefer them, easy to focus where I want plus they cost far less than the modern lenses. I never us my AF lens at all now, as most things I take photos of are stationary, ie landscapes etc while wildlife shots are easy enough with practise.
I actualy put a manual lens on at first to help me understand exposure and shutter speed and now I'm sticking with them.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this for me too.

I started using MF when I realised that the AF system doesn't always get it quite right. Now when I look at a photo that isn't in focus, I know it was my fault and not the camera's fault. Not only that but I often fire a few shots while twisting the focus ring, so I can choose where I want my DOF to be afterwards, and just bin the other photos I don't want. With AF that would require a mix of refocussing, recomposing, or moving.
 
HopefulM said:
I have the same camera (D5000) and I use the AF on it all the time - only because I'm short sighted (minus 7.5) and can't see well enough to use manual - otherwise, I'd use it in preference.
Click to expand...

use the diopter wheel to sharpen the viewfinder. AF on an object, twiddle the diopter wheel until your subject is sharp. Bingo, you just gave your VF glasses :)
 
D5000 has a "range-finder" function in its menu.

Custom Setting menu
Autofocus
a4 Rangefinder

set on --- :thumbs:

Switch it on and where the exposure comp. levels are in the view finder it becomes a range-finder. Turn the focus ring until the middle section is the only bit lit and you are focused.

I use a manual lens for macro (need a tripod to keep steady though). Works very well and at least doesn't rule out the use of AF-D lenses.
 
Auto focus is for us lazy people. Nothing wrong with manual.
 
4404410365_ac4a68473e.jpg


Ok it probably didn't need a photograph to show this, but I thought could it be done and the trusty P&S actually worked.
 
To be fair its generally easier and faster to auto focus, yes with some excpetions but if the auto focus systems were utter rubbish they wouldnt be there.

I shoot alot of sport and action photography and alot of the shots i get would not be possible with manual focus.

Its really what you prefer as even when using macro with the 51 point af systems of the newer cameras its hardly an issue to select which area you want to focus on
 
I prefer manual focus and with practice it can match, if not be better than alot of the fancy af systems in most cameras.

Back in college my tutor gave me some advice as to how to practice using mf on fast moving subjects. Go to the park and find some squirrels :thumbs:

Its all down to preference, like I said I prefer mf because to me it feels more involving than letting the camera do the work, and really to be able to focus quickly or whilst following moving subjects its just practice, practice, some swearing and then a bit more practice.
 
Manual focus is great if you have time to spend on a shot - not so great if you are trying to photograph a couple of kids running about! As mentioned above, manual focusing can be an issue with modern matte focusing screens and I am not 100% sure that even my D700's manual focusing indicator is spot on as I seem to get sharper focus with my old Nikon FA. I am going to invest in a couple of Katz Eye replacement focusing screens as I have heard very good reports about them, albeit they are not cheap.
 
Sloper said:
:shake:
I wonder how you all think sports photographers (Don Morley, for example) coped in the 'old days', before AF? The answer is, they coped perfectly well, by pre-focussing on the spot where the subject would be. Even I managed ok.
AF makes it easier these days, but manual focussing is hardly difficult (admittedly, the lack of a split-prism doesn't help).
Click to expand...

That's one of the techniques, the other which requires more practice was to adjust the focus as the car bird plane etc moved.

Became second nature after a while
 
I find manual focusing a real pain without a split prism. Then again my eyes are going all wonky and I have trouble telling what is in focus anyway! Can you get split prism eyepieces as addons?
 
WOW what a fantastic load of replies!

Like i said, I am fresh to the photography world, and just kept reading that auto-focus was the way forwards and manual focus was out dated.

I have had a go with manual focus, but not so great shots :( I was taking pics of birds on the bird table, managed to get the bird table perfect, but the birds were just a little bit out of focus. Bit more practice needed.

Thanks for the info on the range finder, think I'll set that to on, rather than exposure. As I simply check the liveveiw play back to see if the exposure is how I want it.

Going to a castle the weekend, so will see how I fair then.

Other thing I get confused with, is Depth of Field. But thats a whole different subject.

Thanks ever so much for the replies, any more info, will always be welcome!
 
Dogmatix said:
WOW what a fantastic load of replies!

Like i said, I am fresh to the photography world, and just kept reading that auto-focus was the way forwards and manual focus was out dated.

I have had a go with manual focus, but not so great shots :( I was taking pics of birds on the bird table, managed to get the bird table perfect, but the birds were just a little bit out of focus. Bit more practice needed.

Thanks for the info on the range finder, think I'll set that to on, rather than exposure. As I simply check the liveveiw play back to see if the exposure is how I want it.

Going to a castle the weekend, so will see how I fair then.

Other thing I get confused with, is Depth of Field. But thats a whole different subject.

Thanks ever so much for the replies, any more info, will always be welcome!
Click to expand...

Depth of Field and Manual Focus are linked :D

If your focus is a bit out but you have used a small aperture you will have a large Depth of Field and you will not notice that the subject is slightly out of focus. This would help with your bird photos.

I normally use Auto focus as I find that it works OK most of the time.
I use Manual focus in certain situations including macro and portraits.
 
Luckly I have auto-focusing lenses, but I have been looking to get more, a wide angle, fisheye, and a zoomy lens, but I'm a tight b****r and would like to go for a cheaper lens if all it doesnt have is Auto-focus.

Am i right in getting a large depth of field, is to use a low F/stop?
 
This thread has helped me out a lot, I recently bought a 50mm/f1.8 for my Nikon D60 and gave manual focus a go. I take mainly pictures of my 3 year old and then sports also.

I found manual focus really difficult whilst he was running around etc.

I would get a decent shot but the main subject would just be out of focus slightly.

Another “problem” I come across was the pictures looked fine on my camera but then when id put them onto my comp they were slightly out of focus :(
 
Whenever I am shooting stationary objects with a narrow DOF, I tend to use manual focus as it lets me control where the focus plane will be. Focus and recompose just fails with close objects and f1.8.
 
Dogmatix said:
Luckly I have auto-focusing lenses, but I have been looking to get more, a wide angle, fisheye, and a zoomy lens, but I'm a tight b****r and would like to go for a cheaper lens if all it doesnt have is Auto-focus.

Am i right in getting a large depth of field, is to use a low F/stop?
Click to expand...

For f stops and apertures it is best to use the terms large and small rather than low or high.

A small aperture = a large f stop number = large depth of field.

A large aperture = a small f stop number = small depth of field.

So using say f16 will give a larger depth of field than using f5.6.

One problem with relying an a large depth of field (small aperture, large f stop number) is that the background is in focus. If you look at some of the bird shots on here you will see that the background is out of focus thereby emphasising the bird, these shots have been taken to get a small depth of field (large aperture, small f stop number).

Have a look here http://dryreading.com/camera/index.html
click on change f stop and adjust the aperture to see the effect.
 
artyman said:
Modern viewfinders lack the split prism that used to aid focussing back in the good old days when we shot manual. However manual is a perefectly acceptable method assuming your eyes are good enough, with live view and magnification on some cameras it should be a doddle to MF
Click to expand...

some cameras will let you change the screen I have one for my 50D guess your 7D will as well.
 
MF is great - on bodies with split screen or microprism focus aids and using MF lenses with a nice long arc of travel between infinity and closest focussing distance. "Modern" bodies tend to have plain ground screens which always seem a lot darker than they used to be (even comparing an OM 10 to a D700) and lenses designed for AF tend to have very narrow MF rings as well as a very short throw from infinity to close focus.

The only time I use MF these days is when shooting Macro - and even then, it tends to be by getting it about right with the focus ring then getting it spot on by moving slightly backwards or forwards
 
Nod said:
The only time I use MF these days is when shooting Macro - and even then, it tends to be by getting it about right with the focus ring then getting it spot on by moving slightly backwards or forwards
Click to expand...
Big +1

I use a lot of manual focus at the mo - photography student on manual everything - but modern AF is perfect for moving targets. I invested a couple of days shooting time in getting to know my Nikon's focus system when I first got my D70s, then D40, then D300 and now D90. Makes a lot of difference to grabbing that quick shot when you can change AF settings quickly.
 
because its not as accurate in lots of situations. I have manual lenses and I use them when my subject is not moving but there is no way in hell I can manual focus on a 5 year old playing.


Dogmatix said:
Hey all.

I have a D5000 and I notice that it doesn't have a auto focus motor built in, unlike the d90.

But, I had a go at manual focus, ok took me a minute or two to set the focus properly.

This made me think, what's wrong with manual focus? And why is it hated so much?

Ta
Click to expand...
 
You Af advocates are baffling me :thinking:

I use MF a lot, with a standard 50D (no split prism) and shoot portraiture and specifically baby/toddler (how time flies) to great success. I've even got me a 400mm mf lens to use for nature stuff when the weather pics up a bit. We all had to use mf years ago, af is easier I agree but with practice there is no reason you can't do just about everything you can with af. It is really just a case of practice makes perfect.

Incidentaly, my photography has improved hugely since moving to mf. Every single shot I take is better thought out, focused better and the colour rendition is improved also as I can afford better quality glass this way.
 
POAH said:
because its not as accurate in lots of situations. I have manual lenses and I use them when my subject is not moving but there is no way in hell I can manual focus on a 5 year old playing.
Click to expand...

Yes you can with practice.:)

How do you think children or even sports photographers managed in the 60's for instance?
 
Nod said:
MF is great - on bodies with split screen or microprism focus aids and using MF lenses with a nice long arc of travel between infinity and closest focussing distance. "Modern" bodies tend to have plain ground screens which always seem a lot darker than they used to be (even comparing an OM 10 to a D700) and lenses designed for AF tend to have very narrow MF rings as well as a very short throw from infinity to close focus.
The only time I use MF these days is when shooting Macro - and even then, it tends to be by getting it about right with the focus ring then getting it spot on by moving slightly backwards or forwards
Click to expand...

:agree: i think that sums it up very well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top