CEVIL: Auto or Manual focus?

[kshapero]

NEX, Micro 4/3, Samsung, now Ricoh, etc. all feature their own auto focus lenses and many of them allow adapters to use our favorite manual focus lens. Is it one or another? Somehow when I use an auto focus lens, I find myself saying the hell with it and just do auto everything. For those of us finally now using digital, can we still be purists with our legacy lenses or are we fooling ourselves?
Apologies to R-D1 and M8/9 users who are still purists.

 

[Bugleone]

I did not vote as it's a largely fatuous excercise.....

The facts are that you can't do every focussing task with either method,...although manual focus comes close to doing so. Auto focus is neccessarily 'target' based but with manual focus it's easier for the photographer to think in focus 'zones' and to use hyperfocal distance etc.

Focus (sharp, out of, and zone etc) is a creative set of tools in the photographers box and has nothing to do with being a "purist" so much as being fully literate in the craft of making images.

....It's often forgotten that auto focus is MUCH cheaper to make than a well engineered helical focussing ring.

 

[porktaco]

i'm very excited about focus peaking on the nex7, but i'll use the auto kit lens too.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Well if you are using legacy glass then you have no choice but to use manual focus and be a purist, at least in part.

Bob

 

[sevo]

Both, as I own a 2.8/16 - but if I had a manual focus lens as wide as that, I would have bought a bare body.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

So far, I like focus peaking almost as much as rangefinder focusing. Eager to try it in a really nice EVF.

 

[kshapero]

So far, I like focus peaking almost as much as rangefinder focusing. Eager to try it in a really nice EVF.

NEX 7, baby!

 

[oftheherd]

I voted manual only, as that is my preference. Of course that is based on using a Sony P&S that doesn't focus as quickly as I can with manual on my film SLR. So my vote doesn't really count for much.

However, are the new SLR digital speedy at autofocus, and are they easily over-ridden?

 

[gavinlg]

Autofocus on modern cameras is very good..

 

[Nokton48]

I'm completely manual with all functions on my two Nex3's. Manual lenses, and I turned the focus peaking off (after giving it a good go) because I was not finding it to be critically accurate enough for my uses. And it was extremely distracting to me.

I'm mainly using my Nex3's with my Minolta MC Rokkor SLR lenses, and I have no complaints about the results I've gotten so far.

 

[GaryLH]

I voted both, mainly manual lenses with occasional use of the 18-55 zoom.

 

[pvdhaar]

When I bought the NEX3, I did so expecting to primarily use it for my RF lenses. The kit with the 16mm was the cheapest, so that's what I got. The adapter arrived, and I tested my lenses on the NEX. From a testchart perspective, the VC25/4, VC35/2.5 and KM-50/2 all did have the edge in image quality over the 16mm. So, what could have been more logical than selling off the 16mm? But then something happened.. the 16mm grew on me. Now that I have the NEX for almost a year, I can count the number of shots I made with RF lenses on the fingers of my hands. With the 16mm it's very close to one thousand already.

 

[shadowfox]

Both.

I find manual focusing my 300mm Zuiko lens to be very satisfying on my E-P2, as long as I'm using a tripod 😀

A the same time I'm currently drooling over the two new lenses, 12mm and the much more justifiable (price-wise) 45mm Zuikos, which are of course, AF lenses.

 

[kshapero]

When I bought the NEX3, I did so expecting to primarily use it for my RF lenses. The kit with the 16mm was the cheapest, so that's what I got. The adapter arrived, and I tested my lenses on the NEX. From a testchart perspective, the VC25/4, VC35/2.5 and KM-50/2 all did have the edge in image quality over the 16mm. So, what could have been more logical than selling off the 16mm? But then something happened.. the 16mm grew on me. Now that I have the NEX for almost a year, I can count the number of shots I made with RF lenses on the fingers of my hands. With the 16mm it's very close to one thousand already.

Hmmm....I too grew to like the NEX 16 mm lens. But it still is only used maybe 10% of the time. I wonder why you like it so much.

 

[pvdhaar]

Hmmm....I too grew to like the NEX 16 mm lens. But it still is only used maybe 10% of the time. I wonder why you like it so much.

Couple of reasons actually. Most obvious one is that it's wide, just as wide as the 25 on my Bessa, but it focusses a lot closer. Not only does that make it a superb holiday lens to suck in an entire view in the tight streets of old European city centers, it also allows me to get close to the subject and emphasize perspective. What's also great is its small size and weight and how it does AF; I can hold the camera in a a single hand away from me at the oddest angles..

Shot while already hanging overboard, and holding the NEX/16 at arms' length again..

 

[Mr. Thompson]

I voted both. For the most part I use manual focus with M-mount lenses.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I'm feeling the same about the Panasonic 14/2.8 and Olympus 45/1.8 on my E-P3.

 

[peterm1]

I have an NEX 5 and so far cannot say that I am happy with its AF. Especially when using multi focus points, I think the camera plain often gets it wrong - judging by results which are too often for too soft.

Shooting AF with a single centre focus point, in aperture priority and with the lens stopped down to at least f5.6 helps. But even so the kit lens on this body is often not as good as it should be judging by the reviews which poitn to good centre of frame sharpness (if only OK edge results).

A couple of weeks ago I bought some adapters.

Using Leica M mount glass on the camera often gives brilliant results. Focus peaking is an effective way of focussing and I think I get more keepers this way than with my M8.

But sometimes focus peaking is not quite good enough or gives indistinct color markings on some targets. When that happens there is less success. But in general its a fine way to shoot - particularly because as you are shooting stopped down there is also no focus shift to cope with. Great for lenses like the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton where this is an issue as you stop it down.

I have also been shooting with some old Pentax screw mount Takumar lenses and find they produce excellent results too - I will post some results on this forum soon.

And I have been sufficiently impressed that I am buying a Canon FL/FD adapter for my old Canon glass which has been sitting on a shelf gathering dust for quite a few years now.

 

[hlpgtf]

I only bring the autofocus zoom along for family stuff - I'll catch heck from my loving wife if I miss a daughter shot while playing around with one of my "toys"

 

[bigeye]

X2

(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)

The facts are that you can't do every focussing task with either method,...although manual focus comes close to doing so. Auto focus is neccessarily 'target' based but with manual focus it's easier for the photographer to think in focus 'zones' and to use hyperfocal distance etc.

Focus (sharp, out of, and zone etc) is a creative set of tools in the photographers box and has nothing to do with being a "purist" so much as being fully literate in the craft of making images.