# Manual focus



## anthonyd (Apr 11, 2015)

I'm toying with the idea of purchasing some MF lenses, but I need to clear some questions before I proceed. I almost never do fast pace sport photography, but portraits of people in motion (i.e., children) is a desired use, so reasonable focus speed is somewhat of an issue.

I find contrast detection AF unacceptable, so if I understand correctly, I'm bound to use a split screen or some other prism that assists with manually assessing focus.
It is also my understanding that said prisms do not work with lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/8.0 or worse, which is not a concern because such lenses are out of scope for me right now.

However, the question I have is the following. Will I be able to use a fast lens (say f/2.8) set to f/8.0 or narrower with a prism, or will that go black as well?

Besides this, is there any other wisdom that people with experience with MF lenses would like to share?


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Apr 11, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> I almost never do fast pace sport photography, but portraits of people in motion (i.e., children) is a desired use, so reasonable focus speed is somewhat of an issue.



Think about that for a minute. 

If you're not accustomed to using MF lenses, photographing children in motion is going to be quite a challenge, especially indoors. With MF lenses, focus speed will be dependent on your level of skill to manually acquire accurate focus on your subject. 

Also, you don't specify which camera body you will be using. Focusing screens are body specific, that is to say a focusing screen for a 1-Series body will not help you if you have a 7D, and vice versa. Depending on the body, you may not be able to use an interchangeable focusing screen at all.

If you're shooting at f8 with a focusing screen, the viewfinder is going to be dark.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 11, 2015)

The only manual focus lenses I've used make use of the focus confirmation light in the viewfinder. As I've really only done landscape with manual focus lenses, the subject wasn't really moving much to be an issue.

However, that said, when I have used the lens with people (who maybe moving around) I sometimes use it in a "focus trap" method. That is, I pre focus, hold the shutter button halfway down to illuminate the focus confirmation light, then move/wait until the light comes on before pressing the button to take the shot, if that all makes sense


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 11, 2015)

I've used a lot of manual focus lenses on my cameras. On the Canon side, I use Magick Lantern on my 5D3 and enable a feature in live view, where, when I press the shutter button down halfway, it automatically enables 5x magnification until I either take the photo or take my finger off the button. That method works great if you're in an environment where you can actually see the back screen well enough. The 5D3 doesn't officially have a replaceable focus screen, although the 6D does. I know Dustin Abbott uses the Canon Super Precision Matte Eg-S screen on his 6D. I think you need a 1D series to get the fancy split prism screens though.

For MF lenses on Canon, you're mostly going to be using an old lens with an aperture ring along with some adapter to mount it on your body. In this scenario, when you adjust the aperture, the viewfinder will get darker. If you found a split prism screen for your body, then setting the lens down to f8 will indeed make it unreadable. You'd have to open it up, focus, and then set it to the desired aperture. Some lens / adapter combos will have a switch that sets the aperture wide open, and then when you flip it back, it goes to the aperture set by the ring. I used a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AIS lens with an adapter that had this feature (I didn't know it existed, until one day it was accidentally set, and I thought the lens was jammed into a wide-open state!). If you use modern Zeiss lenses, those have electronic apertures, and will work just like modern Canon AF lenses, where the aperture doesn't stop down until you take the photo.

On the Nikon side, it gets a little more interesting. Their pro lines (D2, D3, D4) have focus indicators telling you which way to turn the focus ring to get the spot under the square to be in focus. When you have achieved focus, it turns into a dot. I got a D2Xs real cheap, and bought a split prism screen for it, and then I could use either the split prism or the focus dot to verify my focus. Different scenarios worked well with different methods. For Nikon AI/AIS lenses, you could set the aperture ring on the lens, but the viewfinder would stay bright. The aperture wouldn't stop down until you pressed the shutter. But again, if you used some other lens with an adapter, the viewfinder gets dark as you turn the focus ring. You can't buy split prism screens for the D3 (and maybe the D4, I'm not sure), as the split prism screens that were available would throw off the metering. Oddly enough, someone figured out you can take the Canon split prism screen, sand it down to the right dimensions and fit it in a D3, and it works perfectly, without throwing off the metering. I've done that for my D3s, and I now use MF lenses on that camera about 75% of the time. I love the experience of using MF lenses so much, that if AF speed isn't required, I'll usually grab the D3s instead of my 5D3.


----------



## Snodge (Apr 11, 2015)

If you are using old lenses with an adapter, the viewfinder can get quite dark when focussing, such as with M42 lenses. Focussing screens definitely help, however depending on the camera body, it's not always possible to change them.

There are also a small number of modern manual focus lenses, primarily made by Zeiss and Cosina (using the Voigtlander name) which are manual focus only, but have full electronic communication with the body, allowing you to have a bright viewfinder to compose and use focus confirmation, or to use the Depth of Field button or live view to focus by eye. I think that the cheapest Zeiss is around £470, and I use mine a lot since I got it - I think it's excellent value and a good place to start with any Canon body...


----------



## Neutral (Apr 11, 2015)

Manual focus is so easy on Sony A7 bodies using focus peaking and focus magnification.
Much easier than on Canon bodies.
You can use any lens brand on a7 so you can just consider a7 as compact digital back for your lenses.
You can find some of my posts here for using Canon lenses - old ones for 17TSE(last year) and recently for Canon EF85mm F/1.2L USM II on a7s
You could try and see the difference - this is better than go into useless disputes which camera system is better. Also sensor quality on a7r and a7s is much better than most of Canon sensors in all aspects.

I enjoy both a7s and a7r. 
Before I started to use them my 1DX was the camera that I liked most of all.
Now for stills I use mostly a7s or a7r with Canon lenses or with Sony Zeiss ones.
A7R mostly used with Canon 17 TSE.
There are couple of almost perfect lenses for Sony bodies - Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8 which is considered as mini Otus lens and also new Zeiss 35 f1.4 which just now became available.

Having said that all above does not mean that I do not enjoy my Canon 1DX less then before, just use it much less now - mostly for what it was acually designed originally - sport,action, events,fashion, shows etc. where instant and precise focus is absolutely requied.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 11, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> I'm toying with the idea of purchasing some MF lenses, but I need to clear some questions before I proceed. I almost never do fast pace sport photography, but portraits of people in motion (i.e., children) is a desired use, so reasonable focus speed is somewhat of an issue.
> 
> I find contrast detection AF unacceptable, so if I understand correctly, I'm bound to use a split screen or some other prism that assists with manually assessing focus.
> It is also my understanding that said prisms do not work with lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/8.0 or worse, which is not a concern because such lenses are out of scope for me right now.
> ...



When you say a prism I assume you mean a micro prism focusing aid in the screen itself. If so alternate parts do go black at f8 and it is of no use at that aperture. Same thing happens with a split screen - half goes black. In any event split screens are useless for following action. In the days of manual focus slrs if you were using slow f8 lenses - normally very long telephoto - you had to fit a plain ground screen. 

If you are using a totally manual lens and a subject that is still you can focus wide open, then stop down to meter and take the shot. Using old lenses via an adapter in this way works well, especially if you are shooting at reasonably wide apertures. 

The best bet is a camera where you can fit a true dof screen - the so called manual focusing screen, and make sure your diopter is set correctly. You can also get a chipped adapter which means you can also use your AF as focus confirmation, something that is certainly required on a fast manual lens with a camera that has the standard 'Brite-screen', which we have Minolta to thank for. 

However to be honest, in this day and age I wouldn't want to be shooting fully manual lenses in a situation where I had to work stopped down at around f8 all the time. Those days were left behind around 45 years ago.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 11, 2015)

I have done quite a bit of manual focus lately. With the 1DX, using a Ec-S precision screen and with a 5DIII, with a custom made S-screen. The S-screens give you accurate depth of field. You can see which lenses on the footer of the post. I would much rather go for an S-screen than any of the split prism screens. With the S-screen you can frame correctly and determine focus off centre. With the split/micro prism screens, you will have to do focus-recompose shooting, which is a lesser appealing option.

I am one of the antiques who started with photography back in the 70ties, so manual focus is to some extent in my back bone. I believe I am above average good at manual focus and I practice quite a bit, to keep that skill intact. But I would not attempt to photograph moving kids with manual focus. If you are willing to go to f8, then it´s OK. But wider than f2.8, almost no matter which focal length, you will get (much) lower keeper rates.

The only reason I am doing manual focus is because the fantastic Zeiss lenses come without AF. For anything that does not move much, it works very well, even at f1.4 (provided you have something with a fair bit of contrast to focus on). If someone mentions kids, or something that moves faster than a slow walk, I go for my AF lenses.

A side effect of using manual focus lenses is that you will find yourself very sharp and alert during your photography. That has a positive effect on the final result. If I skip birds and action pictures, I believe close 75% of my best keepers from the last year are shot with manual focus lenses. It´s difficult and requires practice, but it is very rewarding.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 11, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> I'm toying with the idea of purchasing some MF lenses, but I need to clear some questions before I proceed. I almost never do fast pace sport photography, but portraits of people in motion (i.e., children) is a desired use, so reasonable focus speed is somewhat of an issue.
> 
> I find contrast detection AF unacceptable, so if I understand correctly, I'm bound to use a split screen or some other prism that assists with manually assessing focus.
> It is also my understanding that said prisms do not work with lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/8.0 or worse, which is not a concern because such lenses are out of scope for me right now.
> ...



First, Manual Focus and moving kids is going to be tough and requires some skill and practice. You normally focus at full aperture, then stop down, assuming your light is constant so that you can quickly rotate the aperture dial to where you want it. By then the kids will likely be out of focus. Most optional focus screens serve to make the viewfinder darker, so you will want a wide aperture lens and bright light. Focus your lens at f/2.8 or wider, then stop it down and capture the image.

Your comment about contrast detection AF makes no sense, since it requires a autofocus lens to work, so its just another form of autofocus and will not work with old MF lenses.

Why not get a cheap Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens? They are better than all but a very few older MF lenses, they are color corrected, and autofocus and stop down automatically.


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 11, 2015)

did you practice with ur EF lenses and the AF switched turned to off already? it should give you a good idea


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 11, 2015)

Another old-timer (30 years of SLR) with mostly MF lenses (see below). I also use Zeiss lenses for their superior optical and build quality.

Re dark view finder at f/8, it depends what kind of MF lens you use. If lens has automatic aperture, like all Zeiss ZE lenses, then viewfinder is bright and only at time of exposure the aperture closes. You can of course do depth of field preview (assuming your body can do that), and then view finder gets dark, exactly as on AF lenses.

With older lenses not capable of automatic aperture (e.g., Zeiss C/Y with adapter), view finder goes dark as you set the aperture you want. For anything moving, I would not use older MF lenses. I recently upgraded my last few Zeiss CY lenses to ZE for that very reason. The only CY left is the F-Distagon 16 mm, which does not exist in ZE version.

Microprism and split indicator: With focus confirmation and a good matt screen, I am fine, no need for the extra aids, which are rather distracting. I've had every focusing screen on the planet, and now have come to just plain matt screen. There is at least one third party provider of screens (focusingscreens or something like that, easy to google). Focus confirmation is dependent on body, not lens.

Photographing children. Depends. Sitting in sandbox, no problem; running around in meadow, will take some practice. I think your keeper rate will be lower, but you composition will improve, because you don't have to be a slave to placing the object of interest on an AF sensor, or fiddle with buttons.

Re practicing MF with an AF lens, focus on a MF lens is quite different; it is designed for MF, so is constructed differently, mainly for same distance adjustment you have to rotate the barrel more. Or in other words, fine adjustments are MUCH easier on MF lens than on AF lens in MF-mode.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 11, 2015)

1. What body are you using. Not all can accept aftermarket focus screens.
2. Why manual lenses? You are restricting yourself to stopdown metering (ef are non-stop down, so full aperture to asist focus until picture is taken)
3. you might be better with a nikon body, an older d200 or d90 etc support the af-d tyoe lenses in manual or auto aperture mode. and you get full aperture ttl and focusing, unless you use very very old early f lenses.


I use manual lenses for video (couple of samyangs and an arsat) but wouldn't for action stills.


You dont have to spend a fortune, even some of the kit lenses arent bad today, and gems like the 85mm f1.8 are dead cheap.


----------



## Jeffrey (Apr 12, 2015)

I shoot frequently with my 1D-X and a Zeiss Otus 55mm lens. First, a tripod is a must. Second, I never shoot anything in motion. 

I go into live view, then magnify the image on the camera display. I then put my 4X loupe on the display and carefully manually focus on the key subject of the image. 

Exit live view, and shoot.

I enjoy great successes with this procedure, rarely ever having an image out of focus. It does take some practice to be able to focus quickly and shoot to obtain tack sharp images. 

Good luck!


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 12, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> did you practice with ur EF lenses and the AF switched turned to off already? it should give you a good idea



That is NOT the same as using a true manual focus lens.

Many Canon EF lenses have a focus throw of only/around 90 degrees, and the only exceptions that come to mind are (1) the USM non-IS telephoto lenses, (2) the 50mm f/1.0, (3) the 85mm f/1.2 I & II and (4) the 180mm macro.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 13, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> Besides this, is there any other wisdom that people with experience with MF lenses would like to share?



With a dslr, I would say don't bother unless you don't care about precise focus accuracy, especially when photographing children moving around. For the best MF experience you need lenses designed for MF (as someone else mentioned, MF with AF lenses is a poor substitute) - which of course can be very inexpensive - and a mirrorless camera with an EVF, focus magnification and focus peaking. Many mirrorless cameras have this combination of features, ranging from M43 through APS-C to FF (though if you want FF the only choice right now is Sony). I tend to prefer MF, which is mainly why I tend to prefer mirrorless.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 13, 2015)

sdsr said:


> With a dslr, I would say don't bother unless you don't care about precise focus accuracy, especially when photographing children moving around.



I think there is a misconception of what AF does. There is a difference between having something in focus, and having the focal plane where the photographer wants it. I get the impression that AF suggests that whatever the camera-lens does is the best possible, and I don't think that is really the case. That leads to many "good enough" pictures, but fewer dead on; MF gives you fewer acceptable shots, but more dead on. A typical quantity vs quality dichotomy. MF forces the photographer to think about where the focal plane should be.

I remember the winning photo one year of a BBC wildlife photographer: a jumping dolphin at an angle towards camera, all out the water filling the frame. Certainly a great shot. However, focus was in the middle of the body, not on the eye. Clearly an AF problem at wide open f-stop. 

Remember the difference between accuracy (where you want it) and precision (to 0.00001 inches/cm). Both AF and MF give you precise focus, but the question is really about accuracy and intent.


----------



## anthonyd (Apr 13, 2015)

Thanks everybody for the overwhelming amount of responses. There is a lot of good info in them. Let me clarify some issues that were brought up.

+ My contrast based AF comment: Brain fart, please ignore.

+ My camera body: 60D ... I know, I know, please bear with me. They do seem to make focus assist prisms for it. I'm not verse in the subject so maybe I'm misusing the term "prism". How about this matte focusing screen?

+ Why don't I buy a 50/1.8 ... I own the 50/1.4, 24-70/2.8II and 70-200/4.0 and I'm very happy with them (save for the front focus on the 50). I'm just looking beyond that.

+ Kids that are moving: I didn't mean kids running around and playing. For that I use my existing lenses in AF and I'm very happy. I meant kids (and adults) posing, but inevitably moving a bit. So, mostly static subjects, but not as study as landscapes. Think portraits, or candid of kids doing something like digging in the sand, or playing a board game.

+ Why f8.0?: I don't own (or plan to buy) any maximum aperture f/8.0 lenses. My concern is what happens to my 24-70/2.8 when I want to shoot a landscape at f/8.0 and I have inserted a focus assist prism in my camera. The automatic aperture setting response covered that concern.

+ Zeiss glass: Unfortunately I don't have the budget for that. I was more interested in offerings like the latest Samyang 135 that is getting good reviews and costs half of the Canon 135, as well as some old "magical" lenses like the Helios and other strange glass that Dustin often shoots with.


----------



## AlexB (Apr 13, 2015)

Anthony, I don't really have any "wisdom" for you, but I would like to share some of my thoughts from my limited experience with manual focusing on modern DSLR's.



anthonyd said:


> + My camera body: 60D ... I know, I know, please bear with me. They do seem to make focus assist prisms for it. I'm not verse in the subject so maybe I'm misusing the term "prism". How about this matte focusing screen?



Focusing screen would be the correct term. If you want to do manual focus looking through the optical viewfinder, I consider a precision matte focusing screen a must. It is very hard, if not impossible, to judge accurate focus through the optical viewfinder with the stock focusing screen. 

From what I can see in the 60D manual it supports the Ef-s Super Precision Matte screen, which is what you would want (_remember to change the custom function settings after replacing the focusing screen_). I have the full frame equivalent in my 6D and it makes a huge difference.

Like an auto focus sensor in a modern DSLR, if the subject has low contrast or is in low light, it is much more difficult for you to judge and achieve correct focus.



anthonyd said:


> + Kids that are moving: I didn't mean kids running around and playing. For that I use my existing lenses in AF and I'm very happy. I meant kids (and adults) posing, but inevitably moving a bit. So, mostly static subjects, but not as study as landscapes. Think portraits, or candid of kids doing something like digging in the sand, or playing a board game.



This is hard to say since there are so many different scenarios. As soon as something starts moving, achieving accurate manual focus gets a lot more difficult. Of course, the level of difficulty depends on several factors such as focal length, aperture, distance to subject and of course how sporadic the movement is.

Someone posing for you and intentionally moving a little bit forward/backwards you should be able to correct for with a little bit of practice. In some cases I find that it can be easier to move yourself, as in leaning slightly forward or backwards, then trying to follow them by turning the focusing ring on the lens. This is especially true at close-ups.

Kids sitting in a sand box playing and moving around gets a little more difficult, as the movement is sporadic and harder to predict. If you frame up for a head shot you will find it a lot more difficult then if you go a bit wider framing for a full body shot or the whole sand box.

That said, individual skill at manual focusing also plays a huge role. The more you practice the better you get. It is not impossible, but practice is definitely required.



anthonyd said:


> + Zeiss glass: Unfortunately I don't have the budget for that. I was more interested in offerings like the latest Samyang 135 that is getting good reviews and costs half of the Canon 135, as well as some old "magical" lenses like the Helios and other strange glass that Dustin often shoots with.



If you want to focus through the optical viewfinder, a lens where the aperture is electronically controlled from the camera (such as Zeiss ZE lenses) makes it a whole lot easier. Let me explain why:

Any lens where the aperture is controlled by your camera (Canon, Sigma, Zeiss ZE, etc), regardless whether you have set it to F/5.6 or F/11, is wide open until you press the shutter button. Once you press the shutter button the aperture then closes down to your specified setting, and once the picture has been captured by your camera it opens back up again. This allows for the maximum amount of light to enter the lens so your autofocus system can work.

Similar to your autofocus system, you need light to pass through the lens when doing manual focus so you can see your subject. The more light the easier it is to manually focus.

Lenses such as the Samyang 135mm F2 does not have electronic communication with the camera, and therefore the aperture is controlled on the lens. This means that it does not stay open and close down only when you capture the photo, but instead it will be closed down all the time and let in less light through your lens. If you only shoot wide open at F2 it doesn't matter, the lens is wide open anyway and cannot let in more light. But if you want to shoot at a different aperture, be aware that the more you stop down your lens the darker your viewfinder will get.

To see the practical difference this causes, you can look through your viewfinder with any lens attached and press the depth of field preview button at different aperture settings. This will give you a better idea then my explanation here.

-

I hope this helps a little bit. 

Manually focusing can be very fun, and very frustrating. It is not for everybody. The best way to find out is to try it.


----------



## anthonyd (Apr 13, 2015)

AlexB said:


> ... From what I can see in the 60D manual it supports the Ef-s Super Precision Matte screen, which is what you would want (_remember to change the custom function settings after replacing the focusing screen_). I have the full frame equivalent in my 6D and it makes a huge difference.



I found a list of focusing screens:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_FocusingScreens_QuickGuide.pdf

The Ef-s super precision matte screen says that it's only good for f/1.8-f/2.8. This is ok for it's primary use (I only want to use the MF lens wide open), but does it mean that it would prevent my camera from auto-focusing with my 70-200/4.0, or does it only mean that I won't be able to manually focus it (which I don't care about)?




AlexB said:


> Kids sitting in a sand box playing and moving around gets a little more difficult, as the movement is sporadic and harder to predict. If you frame up for a head shot you will find it a lot more difficult then if you go a bit wider framing for a full body shot or the whole sand box.
> 
> That said, individual skill at manual focusing also plays a huge role. The more you practice the better you get. It is not impossible, but practice is definitely required.



Yes, I do realize the risk of seriously reducing my keep rate, but I do salivate every time I see a nicely done portrait at 135/2.0 so I'd like to try it and I don't have $1000+ burning a hole in my pocket. I can afford a low keep rate because I spend all my free time with my favorite models and they haven't reached the age of complaining yet.  Besides, I can always switch back to my AF lenses when I get irritated, or shoot an event.




AlexB said:


> Lenses such as the Samyang 135mm F2 does not have electronic communication with the camera, ... If you only shoot wide open at F2 it doesn't matter, the lens is wide open anyway and cannot let in more light. But if you want to shoot at a different aperture, be aware that the more you stop down your lens the darker your viewfinder will get.



I would only shoot it at 2.8 or wider. Otherwise I would use my 70-200/4.0.



AlexB said:


> Manually focusing can be very fun, and very frustrating. It is not for everybody. The best way to find out is to try it.



I am the "I was born to suffer" type of guy when it comes to gear. 

Thanks for all the insight.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> AlexB said:
> 
> 
> > ... From what I can see in the 60D manual it supports the Ef-s Super Precision Matte screen, which is what you would want (_remember to change the custom function settings after replacing the focusing screen_). I have the full frame equivalent in my 6D and it makes a huge difference.
> ...



The AF will work fine, it doesn't go through the focusing screen. You will have a darker view through the viewfinder though.


----------



## bigdaddy (Apr 13, 2015)

Hello anthonyd, 

I started playing with MF lenses about a year ago. They are addictive and fun. 

I'll give you a run down on my experiences.

Have a 6D with the precision screen. 

Start in the 50 to 85 mm range. I find it gets a lot harder when you get into the longer focus lengths. 

My first MF lens was a Pentax 50mm 1.4 M K-mount. I even bought a second. I have the most keepers with this lens.

Then I got a Zeiss Jena(Made in the DDR) 200mm 2.8 Sonar. The few shots I managed to get in focus war great. The bokeh is super creamy.

Then I got a MC Takumar (Pentax) 85mm 1.9. I can get good photos of my kids with this lens.

The last lens I tried is the SMC Takumar (Pentax) 135mm 2.5. The 6 element model. It is also a great lens, but the 135 ist just a little to long. The are some shots hier: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.0 . There are a lot of other shost from the Takumars there as well. Its not the Samyang wide open, bit it only cost 90 Euros.

To try to get around my short comings with the optical view finder I tried a LCD loop similar do this one: http://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Foldable-Viewfinder-Magnification-Panasonic/dp/B004TDXMHM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428958081&sr=8-1&keywords=lcd+loop

It helps with the longer focal lengths because it has a built in 2.5 magnification. And allows live view focusing no mater how much sun there is. The only downside is that I feel like a dweeb when I use it in public. 

I think the next step would be to install MagicLantern on my 6D to get focus peeking. That and the LCD loop would be pretty good. At least I think so. 

Here is a great resource for the old Takumars: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Normal-Primes-c23.html

It has ben posted before, but it really is a good source of info. 

My facet for MF lenses is that it is cool and a lot of fun. But I am going to sell the Zeiss 200, one of the 50s and the 85. But the 85 is just so cool to hold and use for a 50 year old lens, that I am having doubts. The 135 is mint, and the same thing applies for its haptic and use as the 85. 

You can get a good Takumar 50mm1.4 for under $100, and a helios ever cheaper. If it ends up not being your thing, you can probably sell them for what you paid.

Well I hope this helps a little.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 13, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> MF gives you fewer acceptable shots, but more dead on. A typical quantity vs quality dichotomy. MF forces the photographer to think about where the focal plane should be.
> 
> I remember the winning photo one year of a BBC wildlife photographer: a jumping dolphin at an angle towards camera, all out the water filling the frame. Certainly a great shot. However, focus was in the middle of the body, not on the eye. Clearly an AF problem at wide open f-stop.



If you are telling me that a manual focus shot would have been on the eye of the dolphin and perfect, I'd be a skeptic. 

What is takes for a winning photo is the subject, not laboratory grade focus accuracy. You can have perfect focus and a lousy photo.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > MF gives you fewer acceptable shots, but more dead on. A typical quantity vs quality dichotomy. MF forces the photographer to think about where the focal plane should be.
> ...



The photographer can also decide where the plane is by using one shot AF and the appropriate focus point over the desired mark... dolphin is a bad example as a little unpredicatable, a more useful example might be prefocusing on a bend at a race track, or the brow of a hill or ramp etc. Somewhere you know the subject will definately be as it travels through your frame. With ring type USMs you can also shift the focus slightly manually from what the AF has selected, and by keeping half pressure on the shutter button you maintain focus until the decisive moment.

A dolphins eye could be anywhere in the frame. And besides unless you are getting very intimate with flipper the likely working distance will give you a bit more depth of field latitude in any case. With a dolphin elevated from the water, unless you are shooting from above, the ratio between the subject and the background will also assist seperation at all apertures. 

Tools like trap focus on ML enabled cameras might help here, but there are better ways. I shoot a lot of video and I do everything manually as auto settings can really screw up. With Stills I still shoot manually, but cede to AF. It is better quicker faster than me. Especially for action etc.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > MF gives you fewer acceptable shots, but more dead on. A typical quantity vs quality dichotomy. MF forces the photographer to think about where the focal plane should be.
> ...



You are missing my point. With AF you have a greater chance of getting something in focus, but lower chance of getting focus where it is desirable. With MF you have lower chance of getting anything in focus, but better chance that you get focus where you want it. AF can work in your favor, but it can also work against you. So AF is not always better.

Completely agree that there is a bit more to a good photo than focus. But an image with not spot-on focus is rarely great (unless motion blur or something of that sort is part of the communication). So while that jumping dolphin was nice, I would have never given it top rank because of the focus problem. Obviously, the jury viewed it differently, and that is fine. Just my opinion. Would the image with focus on eye not have nabbed top spot (everything else the same)? I very much doubt that, it would have been even better.


----------

