auto focus and why don't people manually focus.

[paulbrogden10]

Hello Guys and gals

I wanted to talk about photography in general here as I watch alot of youtube reviews and get very anoyed at people reviewing lenses such as the sigma 150-600 complaining that it is not sharp. I am sorry to say this but when I look at their images they seem to be ignoring the rest of the photo as I can clearly see that the image is sharp.

In many instances I can see the branch near to the bird their trying to photograph is sharp to my eye any way. It seems to be auto focus is a fine bit of technology but it will never be able to do the job better than the human eye can. I wonder why people never use manual focus more often. When I went to college I learned every thing regarding manual focus processing film and the like it seems to me auto focus has made people lazy.

Come on people use manual focus more often. A true photorapher does not need auto focus to get the image he needs. It seems to me a skill that photographers have forgotten. It takes time to practise many times when the auto focus started hunting because it got confused i would use manual control and get the image messing about using auto focus can make you miss the shot your after.

I remember my first SLR in the film days and loved the eye detection focus as I was the one chosing which part was in focus just by looking at it I really miss that meathod of focusing. Take care Paul.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@paulbrogden10 wrote:

Hello Guys and gals

I wanted to talk about photography in general here as I watch alot of youtube reviews and get very anoyed at people reviewing lenses such as the sigma 150-600 complaining that it is not sharp. I am sorry to say this but when I look at their images they seem to be ignoring the rest of the photo as I can clearly see that the image is sharp.

In many instances I can see the branch near to the bird their trying to photograph is sharp to my eye any way. It seems to be auto focus is a fine bit of technology but it will never be able to do the job better than the human eye can. I wonder why people never use manual focus more often. When I went to college I learned every thing regarding manual focus processing film and the like it seems to me auto focus has made people lazy.

Come on people use manual focus more often. A true photorapher does not need auto focus to get the image he needs. It seems to me a skill that photographers have forgotten. It takes time to practise many times when the auto focus started hunting because it got confused i would use manual control and get the image messing about using auto focus can make you miss the shot your after.

I remember my first SLR in the film days and loved the eye detection focus as I was the one chosing which part was in focus just by looking at it I really miss that meathod of focusing. Take care Paul.

---

Most of us use AF most of the time. If you don't have enough experience with modern cameras to understand why, it probably isn't worth the time it would take to explain it to you. I don't know when you went to college, so things may have been very different then. They certainly were when I was in college; but that was 60 years ago, and the camera I was using was a Nikon S-2. Every so often we have to listen to some pompous critic tell us that we ought to go back to the way they did things in 1950 and that we're lazy and stupid if we don't. I'm tired of hearing it; and if that offends you, so be it. And I'm pretty sure that I'm as "true" a photographer as you are.

[TTMartin]

---

@paulbrogden10 wrote:

Hello Guys and gals

I wanted to talk about photography in general here as I watch alot of youtube reviews and get very anoyed at people reviewing lenses such as the sigma 150-600 complaining that it is not sharp. I am sorry to say this but when I look at their images they seem to be ignoring the rest of the photo as I can clearly see that the image is sharp.

In many instances I can see the branch near to the bird their trying to photograph is sharp to my eye any way. It seems to be auto focus is a fine bit of technology but it will never be able to do the job better than the human eye can. I wonder why people never use manual focus more often. When I went to college I learned every thing regarding manual focus processing film and the like it seems to me auto focus has made people lazy.

Come on people use manual focus more often. A true photorapher does not need auto focus to get the image he needs. It seems to me a skill that photographers have forgotten. It takes time to practise many times when the auto focus started hunting because it got confused i would use manual control and get the image messing about using auto focus can make you miss the shot your after.

I remember my first SLR in the film days and loved the eye detection focus as I was the one chosing which part was in focus just by looking at it I really miss that meathod of focusing. Take care Paul.

---

Not using the automation of the camera you have available doesn't make you a better photographer. That's like saying a good photographer will always ignore the camera's light meter and only use rules of thumb like the Sunny 16.

dSLRs lack the manual focus tools like the split prism and microprism collar of old SLRs. And the best known company for aftermarket dSLR focus screens with those focus aids (Katzeye) has ceased production.

Higher end cameras do have spot focus that does a good job at auto focusing through branches.

I also reprogram my AF ON button, to function as an AF OFF button so I can temporarily suspend AIServo AF to manually focus when needed.

I do agree that many people do not understand that Auto Focus isn't completely automatic and that it takes knowledge of it to use it successfully. These three videos by Canon USA's Rudy Winston though a little dated will still 'remove the veil of mystery, which for many photographers, surrounds their Canon EOS camera's autofocus system'.

A Look at The Canon Autofocus System Part 1

A Look at The Canon Autofocus System Part 2

A Look at The Canon Autofocus System Part 3

[ebiggs1]

"...  the sigma 150-600 complaining that it is not sharp."

Paul,

First, a lot of the reviewers you read and watch on Youtube simply do not know what they are doing or talking about.  I have seen the same things from those folks as you. I, too, wonder, what?  Another thing is lots of people confuse blurry with OOF. Blurry is not the fault of the lens.  It is the photograapher's fault.  At 600mm, and on a cropper, you are talking serious focal length.  Along with all its issues besides its benefits. A 600mm lens is not easy to use!

Next most modern DSLRs are nearly impossible to MF.  Some have aids to help but are no where as good as the old split prism of yesteryear.  Some DSLRs have accessory screens to help.  That's good.

The plain and simple truth is a modern DSLR in P mode with AF and IS turned on will provide a better photograph that you can manually.  Most of the time that is.  The real killer to this fact of life is it can do it very much faster than a manual mode human mind can.

I started photography in the mid '50s.  I probably wouldn't still be doing it, if it were not for the technology.  I still do some MF but only if I have time on my side and AF doesn't seem to work.  The fact a lens doesn't have IS is not a deal breaker for me. I didn't have IS for the half of my career.  And don't think "spray and pray" is a new term. It is not!  We did it.

As a side note, I have all three of the new super zoom 150-600mm.  I can tell you the best thing you can do for these lenses is a REAL tripod.  If you think you got a sturdy enough tripod get the next bigger one.  Blurry is not OOF.

[paulbrogden10]

I must say a lot have responded to this post in a negative way I could get angry and start hitting back but its not worth it and I am a bigger person then some of the people on here. In regards to what have been said saying auto focus is better than what a good photographer can do in manual is total crap.

I started photography in 1997 went to college for 3 years and about another 3 years after that. What I will say is I can manually focus better than auto focus especially on difficult subjects such as a models eye or a squirrel surrounded by branches.  I can say auto focus hunts a lot in low light as well. This is my point when people complain about lenses not being sharp but when I look at their photos I can clearly see the wrong part of the image is sharp and this makes me think auto focus is not the end and be all.

Yes I do think auto focus has made people lazy you might have an image in the centre but its the eye to the right you want in focus. Please don’t get me wrong the auto focus is doing what it is supposed too but the auto focus processor cannot read the mind of the photographer.  Yes I do think auto focus has made people think they can take a good picture. Focusing manually and composing a shot was seen as a skill but know anyone can buy a SLR and think they can be a photographer.

Trust me I can manually focus and get sharp images I am not saying auto focus is not a great thing and for sport and quick action I would say it is certainly faster than what I can achieve what I am saying don’t complain about a lens not being sharp. It’s not the lens it’s the focus point I have beaten auto focus before where it was focusing on the completely wrong thing and I had to override what it was doing but in most cases when I do take control I have missed  the shot what I am trying to say never relay on auto focus to do the job for you.

Especially if you depend on the shot to make a living. I do think these days any one can buy a cheap SLR and take pictures and think they’re a photographer.  I leaned the old way of shooting  focus compose think about what your shooting change the angle make it look different. This is how you get award winning photographs not just spray and pray. Like a quote from a film any fool can pull a bloody trigger.

[cicopo]

I bought my first digital in 98 which was a long time after taking my basic photography course. I learned on MF cameras BUT they had focusing aids like a split screen prism which we no longer have. I do know how to get the most from my AF & haven't ever tried Live View to fine tune my focus but have done it by eye using the viewfinder several times. As an action photographer I rely on my AF & it gets the job done, but I can do my part when it can't decide what I'm trying to focus on in tough conditions. As for people writing reviews they aren't qualified to write it's now the norm thanks to manufacturers giving people goods that are so easy to use right out of the box the buyers think skill is also included.

As an example (and I can write for hours with these) there was a thread back when this forum was relatively new where someone wanted to know why there was a red square lighting up in his viewfinder when he pressed the shutter button. He / she had no idea what it was, what it meant, nor whether it was a problem. Obviously they didn't read the first few pages of the manual nor think it might help because they bought a "professional" camera. Hopefully that kind of buyer will learn it's not the tools that do the work nor the diagnostics, it's the operator who decides what tool fits the job & how to make the tool do what needs doing.

[paulbrogden10]

Hello cicopo

I totally agree with you photography is some thing you learn and through practice you get better. Its nice to meet you and yes any one can buy a 500mm f4 lens but do they know how to use it is the question.

[ebiggs1]

"... people writing reviews they aren't qualified to write it's now the norm ..."

This is my main point.  Too many reviews are doen by folks that don't understand what they are doing or talking about. If you take nothing from this, take this to heart.

"...  my point when people complain about lenses not being sharp but when I look at their photos I can clearly see the wrong part of the image is sharp ..."

I think I agreed with you on this!  To ofthen the lens or the camera is blamed for the lack of a photographer's talent or skill.

"Trust me I can manually focus and get sharp images ..."

I never doubted you couldn't.  More power to ya! 

[Waddizzle]

"As a side note, I have all three of the new super zoom 150-600mm.  I can tell you the best thing you can do for these lenses is a REAL tripod.  If you think you got a sturdy enough tripod get the next bigger one.  Blurry is not OOF."

It also should go without saying that you should also have a very robust tripod head, especially with the big lenses. 

How much is enough?  Good question.  I didn't get the performance I liked until both head and tripod were rated at least ten times the maximum load I would use. The reason is twofold. 

One, raising the tripod column effectively cuts the maximum load that you can safely use.  Who is to say by how much, but raising the column does make it more unstable.  The most robust video tripods have no center column, just a bowl for mounting the video head.  Furthermore, a raised center column on a lightweight tripod can resonate in a slight breeze like a tuning fork, which is not good for photography.  I have two Induro tripods that have 32 [8M AT-313] and 77 [Alloy 8M 100mm bowl] pound ratings, plus a monopod rated over 40 pounds.  I stand over 6  feet, so I like tall tripods, which also happen to be some of the most robust out there.

Two, some tripod heads will drift slightly [backlash?] when you tighten them after lining up your shot.  The longer the lens, the more acute the shift can be.  I have three pretty strong heads: Induro PHD3, Induro PHQ3, and a Benro B3.  Of the three, the PHD3 is hands down the strongest.  At 1000mm focal length pointing at the moon, the moon barely moves when I tighten down the PHD3 head. 

The Induro PHQ3 is nearly as good, but is rated for less weight.  The Benro B3 most significant shift at 1000mm focal lengths.  But, these are the extremes, a large, off-center load.  All of these heads are rated for 40+ pounds, and I'd give 5 stars to all of them.  Each has a distinct advantage, and use, over the others.  I have tried a couple of others and passed them along to my sons.

[paulbrogden10]

hello Waddizzle

since your talking on here I am having a hard time deciding between the 100-400 mark 2 and sigma 150-600 c and sport which should I go for for wildlife ? I have the canon f4 300mm  but have been looking for a btter lens also considered the sigma 500mm prime f4.5. non os.