Who's better, You or your AF?

I need a little input here; hopefully you can tell me if what I've discovered about my camera's AF is unusual or if it's normal.


Obviously AF is quicker than focusing manually. But is that its only advantage? Generally speaking should AF be able to resolve as much detail as MF?


In low light I'm better than my camera nearly every time. But even at 1/800 5.6 I'm getting more resolution by focusing manually.


Should I be disturbed by this?


The body is a 40D and the lenses I've used are the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 50 1.4.


Thanks for any thoughts you'd care to share.

Do you mean with the viewfinder or with live view?


In almost all cases I can focus more accurately with live view than af. But the subject had better not move :)

The standard focusing screens make precise manual focus very difficult if not impossible. You simply can't *see* well enough. A properly calibrated AF system will win against standard screen MF.


With practice, a split prism screen or super-precision matte can achieve more precise MF but I don't feel like it would be faster than AF in many situations.


As for MF in Live View, provided you can hold the camera still and the subject isn't moving, you can almost always nail focus. I like using this method for stationary subjects while on tripod. Handheld is more difficult because you're introducing a lot more camera shake by holding the body away from your face.

Ah I meant to specify - No, through the VF - not Live View. Live View, with the 10x magnification isn't a fair comparison anyway.


I do use Canon's AF-S screen - whatever it's called, the one that's supposedly meant for MF. Honestly I don't notice much difference. The screen the body shipped with and the one I bought seem the same to me.


But there's no competition between my eyes and AF - I win every time.


Naturally I can't focus as quickly but the resolution is much better when I'm in MF.

AF "should" be just as acurate as MF, if you are getting soft images you should have your camera focus calibrated.I use lots of manual lenses, I have 13 lenses 1 of them being AF! The EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/0162.TIF-reduced.JPG[/img]


This was taken with my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 manual lens andmy XTi. Can't tell it was manual focus can you? I didn't think so.[:)]


John.

I find that I can judge focus for closeups better because usually I stop the lens way down (so what I see through the viewfinder has a far smaller FOV than the actual picture).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

This was taken with my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 manual lens

---

Nice.


Amazing that a 600mm lens can focus so close. That takes a *lot* of travel. And I see no CA. Must be a monster of a lens. Any idea how much the thing weighs?

Canoli....I have the 40D also and sometimes the AF frustrates me, especially inlow light, subjects moving, outdoors.Generally speaking I go w/the AF and temper my frustration....though I know some of the errors are my fault.


If I'm shooting a perched (I like to shoot birds) scene, I'll use live view everytime (tripod).


I'm really on the fence whetherto buy a big prime (currently shooting w/100-400)or a better focusing system body,e.g. the refurbished 1D Mark lll on Adorama is very tempting. [^o)]

I find my brother's 40D auto-focus to be somewhat inaccurate, when compared to my 50D. The 40d just does not focus as spot on like the 50D the 40d sometimes makes front or back focus, where the 50d don't. My 50d was focusing well when i got it, but then i spend some time testing and using the microfocus adjustment and now every single photo is spot on sharp.


I use a Kps 1,35x viewfinder magnifier on the 50d all the time and it makes the viewfinder like the size of the 5dmk2 (but not as easy to see), wich is great for manual focusing which i don't do a lot.


I manual focus only in live view using the magnification when on a sturdy tripod.


I rely in autofocus every time and it work perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

you should have your camera focus calibrated.

---

From
what I understand calibration is pointless unless you're calibrating to
the lens. And unless the body has the micro-adjust feature, where you
can set up all your lenses, you're stuck calibrating only one lens I
guess - which may or may not be such a good idea, depending upon what it does to your other lenses.


Is it realistic to send Canon my 40D and 3 or 4 different
lenses, ask them to test all of them and then what? There's bound to be
competing interests amongst the 4 lenses - the 50 1.4 needs a +0.3, the
17-40 wants a -0.2...


Lucky for me that I enjoy MF. AF takes half the fun out of shooting so I really don't mind, but it is a little disappointing...


****************************


One more (dramatic) question, if you guys don't mind playing along...


Here's the stakes - if someone can focus better manually and get a crisper shot, you are instantly beheaded.


If you had to nail focus - it was a matter of life or death -
and you were shooting hand held, no Live View, plenty of light - would you feel totally
confident using your cam's AF?


Would you AF in low light as well? (same stakes apply!)


Thanks for your input everyone - I really appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

I use lots of manual lenses, I have 13 lenses 1 of them being AF!

---

I've got a couple of questions for you, Fast Glass: do you use a MF focusing screen, and do you have to have sometype of converter to use manual lenses? It was my understanding that FD lenses just plain wouldn't fit on aCanon DSLR. I guess I'm assuming that some of your 12 MF lenses are FD...


Lewis

So I've narrowed the problem down to just one lens - the 50 1.4 - the rest of my glass is actually fine. At first I thought the 70-200 had an issue too but it doesn't - things look much better in the light of day today...


You think it's worth sending my camera + 50mm to Canon? If they're able to align that combo, won't it throw off my other lenses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Must be a monster of a lens. Any idea how much the thing weighs?

---

It's notvery heavy for a lens this class, it weighs 5.2 lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lcnewkirk

do you use a MF focusing screen

---

No, just the screan that came with my XTi. It's kinda hard though without a split focusing screan, but it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lcnewkirk

It was my understanding that FD lenses just plain wouldn't fit on aCanon DSLR.

---

Yes you are correct, FD lenses do NOT work an EF mount unless they are converted or use an adapter. I only have one FD lens, the FD 35mm f/2.0 S.S.C. Which I havn't converted yet, but put it in front of my camera and seems to have good IQ. The rest of my lenses are Minolta MD or MC mount.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

Generally speaking should AF be able to resolve as much detail as MF?

---

With the standard APS-C viewfinder screen and a calibrated system, I think that the f/5.6 autofocus sensors are a little more accurate than I can do with manual focus through the viewfinder. But the center f/2.8 AF sensors are definitely better than anyone can do with the standard screen.


If you use a high precision screen, MF can get close to the accuracy of a calibrated f/2.8 AF system at f/2.8, but personally I think the latter is still a little better. If you have an f/2 or faster lens, then I find MF becomes better than even the f/2.8 AF sensor, doubly so if coupled with a true ground glass or split prism viewfinder (e.g. Katzeye).


Liveview beats them all, of course, for subjects that are slow enough to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

I'm getting more resolution by focusing manually.

---

Your body and/or lens may be slightly out of tolerance at the zoom and focus distance you are using. If you had microadjustment (e.g. 50D upgrade), you might get sharper results. My 70-200 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses both required micro-adjustment.

Hooray! Someone actually mentioned the "Katzeye" system! I posted last year asking for KatzEye impressions but no one replied. [:(]


I'm sure there are reviews on other sites but this is the only photo forum I ever read and I trust you guys.


Have you used a Katz screen Daniel? Anyone else - even if it starts out "I know this guy who's girlfriend's mom's best friend had one..." Seriously, anything you know about them would be helpful to me. I've read their site many times; the metering adj doesn't bother me. I'm just curious if it's anything like the Leica split prisms. (must be the 1.6x FOV complicating things for me, as I do see a big difference with the 1-series, but I still can't get over how dinky [and dark] these DSLR VFs are).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

If you have an f/2 or faster lens, then I find MF becomes better than even the f/2.8 AF sensor

---

That's the larger aperture at work, right, allowing a brighter image in the VF?


I get the impression most folks here don't do much manual focusing, but whatever thoughts you'd care to share, I would appreciate reading them. Thanks All!


{btw, if you haven't tried it in awhile I recommend taking a day off from AF. What I've lost in blurry photos I've gained in slowing down the whole process and thinking more about each shot.}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

Hooray! Someone actually mentioned the "Katzeye" system! I posted last year asking for KatzEye impressions but no one replied. [img]/emoticons/emotion-6.gif[/img]

---

Yeah, I saw your thread. As I recall, you specifically asked for people who had used it themselves, so I didn't respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

Have you used a Katz screen Daniel?

---

No, but I would assume it's like using a film camera with a split prism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

That's the larger aperture at work, right, allowing a brighter image in the VF?

---

That's a part of it, but I was mainly thinking because the visible DOF is slightly thinner. It's not as big as the difference from f/4 to f/2.8 with the high precision screen, but it's there. With a true ground glass or split prism, the difference would be even larger.

I have used a split prism focusing screan before on myMinoltaX-700 film camera, it works great. It gives you some feedback when you have achieved accurate focus.


Hey Daniel, how does AF confirmation compare to MF or Live View? Would it be faster than MF or Live View?


John.

Personally, I find that AF confirmation is a good technique to use to supplement MF, but I don't find it any faster than MF alone. Live view is the best I think, but for mobile subjects it can be slower as you lose and re-acquire the subject at 5X.

How do you get confirmation when you're in MF mode? Do you mean your lens is in AF mode but you focus manually, and then when you think you've got it you press your shutter halfway (or press the AF button if your cam is setup that way)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canoli

How do you get confirmation when you're in MF mode?

---

Push the AF-ON button (or half-press shutter) while the lens is in MF mode and the focus confirmation will light up.

Hehe...okay - thought I was missing something there. So it's only "confirmation" if the camera agrees with you, otherwise it's AF... (lol)

Having just used the AF micro-adjustment to calibrate my lenses, both of which were quite far out, I can't imagine me ever being more accurate than AF.


Even 1 or 2 microadjustment points can make the difference between a pin-sharp and slightly soft image at wide apertures. Not only is it only possible to see that difference on a big screen (or magnified on the 5DII's screen) and IMO impossible to see through the viewfinder (with an AF screen), but even 10 microadjustment points (on a scale that goes from -20 to +20) is the equivalent of the tiniest movement of the MF ring. I just can't see me manual focusing with anywhere near that level of precision.