Bill Pierce
Well-known
As someone who started photography when there was only manual focus and lives in a world where many shooters know only auto focus, it’s interesting to see adherents to one system or the other proclaim it’s the only way to go. That’s silly and getting sillier now that mirrorless cameras focus on the sensor itself, something that DSLR’s do only in LiveView. For most modern mirrorless cameras in most shooting situations autofocus is fine and fast. Add image magnification (and, at times, focus peaking) and manual focus achieves a degree of accuracy that it never had before. For most pictures, the choice is yours.
As an official old person who spent years in manual, let me speak on behalf of manual. For one thing, you can adapt old manual lenses to your modern mirrorless. The lenses aren’t going to cost very much; so, use the money you save to get a good adapter like the Novaflex line. Dave Burnett has always been interested in shooting with old cameras and has done some really good work with 4x5 Graphic/Graflex cameras. But he’s also fascinated with old vintage lenses for his full frame Sony digitals not so much for the sharpness, but for their character. On the other hand, I tend to be a sharpness freak and tend to use the same system to mount Voigtlander Apo-Lanthars and Zeiss Loxias, lenses that make us sharpness freaks drool. What’s the common denominator? Given the focal length and maximum aperture, these lenses are small.
We know that highly magnified, wide-open manual focus in mirrorless cameras is exceptionally accurate. Is there focus shift when you stop down? A little testing will tell you. For many lenses there is no appreciable shift. For other, magnified focusing a stop or two down from wide open will give you good results. But in actuality we are often making a meaningless fuss. Focus peaking when you are stopped down will not show you the point of sharpest focus as much as it will show you the area and range of acceptable focus, which is actually what you want when you are street shooting. This is a good way to get focusing out of the way so you can concentrate on what is happening in front of you. But so is scale focusing that takes into consideration the depth field (or just a good guess if you stop down enough).
I have a tiny bag that often travels with me just so I have a camera. It’s a body and 4 manual focus lenses, 21 to 85, with maximum apertures of f/2 and 2.8. I also have the gear that would allow me to travel with 4 similar focal lengths, excellent lenses with high apertures and auto focus but it wouldn’t be fun. It would be very heavy; actually, it would be impossible.
I don’t think autofocus needs any defense. It’s doing fine on it own. But I’d like to know your thoughts, especially if you think my choices are wrong.
As an official old person who spent years in manual, let me speak on behalf of manual. For one thing, you can adapt old manual lenses to your modern mirrorless. The lenses aren’t going to cost very much; so, use the money you save to get a good adapter like the Novaflex line. Dave Burnett has always been interested in shooting with old cameras and has done some really good work with 4x5 Graphic/Graflex cameras. But he’s also fascinated with old vintage lenses for his full frame Sony digitals not so much for the sharpness, but for their character. On the other hand, I tend to be a sharpness freak and tend to use the same system to mount Voigtlander Apo-Lanthars and Zeiss Loxias, lenses that make us sharpness freaks drool. What’s the common denominator? Given the focal length and maximum aperture, these lenses are small.
We know that highly magnified, wide-open manual focus in mirrorless cameras is exceptionally accurate. Is there focus shift when you stop down? A little testing will tell you. For many lenses there is no appreciable shift. For other, magnified focusing a stop or two down from wide open will give you good results. But in actuality we are often making a meaningless fuss. Focus peaking when you are stopped down will not show you the point of sharpest focus as much as it will show you the area and range of acceptable focus, which is actually what you want when you are street shooting. This is a good way to get focusing out of the way so you can concentrate on what is happening in front of you. But so is scale focusing that takes into consideration the depth field (or just a good guess if you stop down enough).
I have a tiny bag that often travels with me just so I have a camera. It’s a body and 4 manual focus lenses, 21 to 85, with maximum apertures of f/2 and 2.8. I also have the gear that would allow me to travel with 4 similar focal lengths, excellent lenses with high apertures and auto focus but it wouldn’t be fun. It would be very heavy; actually, it would be impossible.
I don’t think autofocus needs any defense. It’s doing fine on it own. But I’d like to know your thoughts, especially if you think my choices are wrong.
There are no wrong equipment choices… as long as you are using what works for the photographs you want to / need to make. As for me, I prefer autofocus these days. However, I’ll eventually buy another digital M I think… it’s the only manual focus system I like. Well, besides a 4x5” camera.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I rewatched 'Gandi' last night. Candace Bergen played Margaret Bourke-White. She used what looked like a Graflex 4x5. She changed film holders and cocked the shutter. But she didn't change the focus; so did Graflex have a auto-focus model?
I still like manual focus, but do use AF at family events just for speed.
I still like manual focus, but do use AF at family events just for speed.
Corran
Well-known
If you stop down enough, everything is autofocus! 
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The faster the lens, the more important is the focus.
gelatine silver print (noctilux 50mm f1.0) leica mp
Erik.
gelatine silver print (noctilux 50mm f1.0) leica mp
Erik.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
“f/8 and be there” - Weegee
Great topic. So, when Minolta’s autofocus SLR’s appeared in the 1980’s, I completely lost interest in any photographic developments for at least 10 years, aside from medium format.
After digital photography caused film camera prices to drop and I started buying all the cameras and lenses I ever wanted, I still ignored autofocus. I ignored it until a camera repair-tech friend started selling Canon Rebel G’s (EOS 500N) for under $20. I read about them on the web, became intrigued, and bought a few. They are lots of fun. That opened the pathway to autofocus for me. What followed were the F4s, Canon Elan 7NE, and Minolta Maxxum 7, to name a few.
However, you’ll notice these cameras only have a few focus points. As with my D700, I pick a single focus point and recompose. Always.
I have never been able to understand cameras which offer many dozens of autofocus points where, when you half-press the release, about 16 of them light up in the viewfinder. In that situation how can anyone trust such a camera to know where the intended focus is to be? How can the photographer not be distracted by a viewfinder image splattered with lit rectangles?
So, although I’m not averse to autofocus, I prefer manual focus. I like to see the image and depth of field change in the viewfinder as I slowly adjust the focus.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I look forward to the day when I get a mirrorless camera to use my manual focus lenses on digital. Unless I hit the lottery that will probably not be a Leica, though it would be nice to have one.
My one mirrorless camera has a fixed mount zoom, but does feature the ability to manual focus. Comes in handy when the AF just won't cooperate, but I don't make a habit of using it.
PF
My one mirrorless camera has a fixed mount zoom, but does feature the ability to manual focus. Comes in handy when the AF just won't cooperate, but I don't make a habit of using it.
PF
CMur12
Veteran
Bill, I never migrated to autofocus 35mm SLRs, as I never felt the need for it.
Today, autofocus seems alright to me for lenses of "normal" focal length and longer, but not for wide angle.
When shooting wide angle, I don't normally focus on the subject, as I do with longer focal lengths. I adjust for the zone I want in focus, and this requires a DOF (depth of field) scale to interpret for my purpose.
The DOF scale on the lens barrel is what I most miss on autofocus lenses.
Some AF lenses have a rudimentary DOF scale, but the arc of focus on such lenses is so short that the scale usually isn't very useful. And most of the latest AF lenses have no distance or DOF scale, at all.
I've read that the new Canon R-series full-frame mirrorless cameras can show DOF in the finder, but I haven't seen it and I don't know how it compares with a DOF scale on the lens barrel.
- Murray
Today, autofocus seems alright to me for lenses of "normal" focal length and longer, but not for wide angle.
When shooting wide angle, I don't normally focus on the subject, as I do with longer focal lengths. I adjust for the zone I want in focus, and this requires a DOF (depth of field) scale to interpret for my purpose.
The DOF scale on the lens barrel is what I most miss on autofocus lenses.
Some AF lenses have a rudimentary DOF scale, but the arc of focus on such lenses is so short that the scale usually isn't very useful. And most of the latest AF lenses have no distance or DOF scale, at all.
I've read that the new Canon R-series full-frame mirrorless cameras can show DOF in the finder, but I haven't seen it and I don't know how it compares with a DOF scale on the lens barrel.
- Murray
Dogman
Veteran
As far as a lightweight travel bag, my MF lenses are all heavier than my AF lenses. That's because my manual lenses are all either old Nikkors or Carl Zeiss ZF lenses--all metal and glass, inside and out. Lightweight for me would be a Nikon DX (APS-C) body and a mid-range zoom with VR. And I don't use manual focus lenses on mirrorless cameras because I don't like EVFs. My Fujis are all X-Pro or X100 models with the hybrid VFs.
I never thought much about AF until we bought a highly active puppy over 20 years ago and I found I couldn't get a sharp picture of the little rascal running around in the backyard using my old Nikon F2. So I read photo magazines and found out Canon made the better AF cameras at the time so I bought into the Canon EF family. Since then I've pretty much used nothing but AF gear of various brands and models. AF speed plus accuracy is much better than I could ever achieve using manual focus. For all practical purposes, AF will always be the winner for me. And, Murray, the Fujis have always had a distance scale and DOF scale in the viewfinder. But I find it virtually useless. It's like a digital watch. It gives you the time but without any real reference to a clock face. I like the reference of a lens barrel and the distances engraved thereon.
Manual focus is kinda challenging to my elderly eyes these days. But I enjoy using the old Nikkors and the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses. I like their character. If the subject is stationary enough, I probably will get it in focus. Or not. My cameras have a focus confirmation signal in the viewfinder which helps but, unfortunately, it's not always spot-on when shooting at ƒ/1.4 or even ƒ/2 sometimes. But they're lovely, smooth lenses and a joy to handle with distance and DOF markings lacking in many of my current AF lenses. I need to spend more time with them.
I never thought much about AF until we bought a highly active puppy over 20 years ago and I found I couldn't get a sharp picture of the little rascal running around in the backyard using my old Nikon F2. So I read photo magazines and found out Canon made the better AF cameras at the time so I bought into the Canon EF family. Since then I've pretty much used nothing but AF gear of various brands and models. AF speed plus accuracy is much better than I could ever achieve using manual focus. For all practical purposes, AF will always be the winner for me. And, Murray, the Fujis have always had a distance scale and DOF scale in the viewfinder. But I find it virtually useless. It's like a digital watch. It gives you the time but without any real reference to a clock face. I like the reference of a lens barrel and the distances engraved thereon.
Manual focus is kinda challenging to my elderly eyes these days. But I enjoy using the old Nikkors and the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses. I like their character. If the subject is stationary enough, I probably will get it in focus. Or not. My cameras have a focus confirmation signal in the viewfinder which helps but, unfortunately, it's not always spot-on when shooting at ƒ/1.4 or even ƒ/2 sometimes. But they're lovely, smooth lenses and a joy to handle with distance and DOF markings lacking in many of my current AF lenses. I need to spend more time with them.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Manual focus with my Leicas, MF Nikons, and Hasselblad. I actually enjoy manual focusing with Leicas and Nikons. I mostly shoot things that aren't moving, like buildings, mountains, and resting locomotives, so MF is often just fine for me.
Autofocus with my Nikon D700. I have come to trust AF with this camera, and to trust the plasticky lenses, which are often good enough. But it's a heavy outfit, and there are times when we need something smaller and lighter, as Bill points out; for an airline trip I take the Leica gear and/or pocket size Fuji or Panasonic P&S.
Autofocus with my Nikon D700. I have come to trust AF with this camera, and to trust the plasticky lenses, which are often good enough. But it's a heavy outfit, and there are times when we need something smaller and lighter, as Bill points out; for an airline trip I take the Leica gear and/or pocket size Fuji or Panasonic P&S.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Focus by magnifying is just old habit from initial mirrorless which had very limited AF points and no focus picking. Or it is just human factor in not trusting of electronics.
Or you can't see the screen, EVF without magnification due to eyes situation.
If camera has focus picking it is all what is needed (if you could see EVF, display well). Even with f1.4.
I use focus picking only if AF fails.
FE AF mount lenses are as low as 199 USD and still allowing manual focus. And those lenses are light, compact.
I'm about to switch to Sony due to this and better AF for human, animals eyes.
Or you can't see the screen, EVF without magnification due to eyes situation.
If camera has focus picking it is all what is needed (if you could see EVF, display well). Even with f1.4.
I use focus picking only if AF fails.
FE AF mount lenses are as low as 199 USD and still allowing manual focus. And those lenses are light, compact.
I'm about to switch to Sony due to this and better AF for human, animals eyes.
hap
Well-known
hap
Well-known
If you can’t focus on some thing then focus on everything.
https://hypeskin.com/wpbeta/product/ben-hogan-1950-us-open-1-iron/
https://hypeskin.com/wpbeta/product/ben-hogan-1950-us-open-1-iron/
Gregm61
Well-known
One of my favorite outfits. One of the great things about AF and digital, it's turned lenses that 20-25 years ago would have cost a lot of money, today are very affordable. Just had the 85/1.4 serviced and it's a buttery-smooth operator now.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Sorry Bill, I don't think your choices are wrong.
Took a cross country road trip and then followed the 2020 campaign trail with a Nikon Z6 and a bevy of Nikkor S mount rangefinder glass (and an Amedeo adapter). What a blast. Such a small package that can produce really nice results, and as you mentioned, there is a character in the old glass that the super sharp, over contrasty, modern glass lacks. And unlike yourself, I'm not a sharpness freak.
But I must say, the "zoom magnification" button on the Z6 makes focusing the tiny rangefinder lenses a breeze.
Best,
-Tim
Took a cross country road trip and then followed the 2020 campaign trail with a Nikon Z6 and a bevy of Nikkor S mount rangefinder glass (and an Amedeo adapter). What a blast. Such a small package that can produce really nice results, and as you mentioned, there is a character in the old glass that the super sharp, over contrasty, modern glass lacks. And unlike yourself, I'm not a sharpness freak.
But I must say, the "zoom magnification" button on the Z6 makes focusing the tiny rangefinder lenses a breeze.
Best,
-Tim
Doug A
Well-known
I never made the switch from RF's to SLR's for my personal use back in the day. I had the use of a Nikon F for my school newspaper gig but never felt comfortable with it. I had my Leica IIIf and my father's IIIc and never had issues with manual focus. For rapidly moving subjects like young children or animals I would focus on a stationary object in the area of the subjects, visualize a line on the ground at that distance, watch the subjects through the viewfinder and when they were about to touch the line I would release the shutter. I had a lot more hits than misses.
These days my eyesight is bad enough that I can not accurately focus a manual focus lens on an SLR or DSLR even for a stationary subject. So I am limited to either manual focus with a rangefinder or auto focus. I occasionally use my wife's Nikon F6. I find focusing with her auto focus lenses to be amazing good for stationary subjects and disappointingly bad for moving subjects. Probably more due to my lack of experience with them than to shortcomings of the camera and lenses.
In any case, it looks like I will end my personal photographing just as I started 70+ years ago with manual focus almost exclusively.
These days my eyesight is bad enough that I can not accurately focus a manual focus lens on an SLR or DSLR even for a stationary subject. So I am limited to either manual focus with a rangefinder or auto focus. I occasionally use my wife's Nikon F6. I find focusing with her auto focus lenses to be amazing good for stationary subjects and disappointingly bad for moving subjects. Probably more due to my lack of experience with them than to shortcomings of the camera and lenses.
In any case, it looks like I will end my personal photographing just as I started 70+ years ago with manual focus almost exclusively.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
One of my favorite outfits. One of the great things about AF and digital, it's turned lenses that 20-25 years ago would have cost a lot of money, today are very affordable. Just had the 85/1.4 serviced and it's a buttery-smooth operator now.
That is a really good point, about the affordability of MF Nikkor glass, for those who care to use them! I have the 180/2.8 in your photo. What could be easier to focus than that? And I'm thinking that your 85/1.4 must be super-easy to focus as well. Off and on, I have been thinking of getting a copy of the 35/1.4, that is supposed to be so excellent when stopped down.
farlymac
PF McFarland
The older AF-Nikkor and AF-D Nikkors were not much bigger than their manual focus counterparts. I use them with the Df, and a lot of manual focus lenses. The AF-S lenses, and lenses for most "modern" cameras: I think they are back to the "Bigger=Better", and I am of the belief "Not worth the gain".
But for size- just cannot beat RF lenses.
But for size- just cannot beat RF lenses.
Gregm61
Well-known
I've been pleasantly surprised how well the 180 and TC14A work together.
The 85mm f1.4 looked like new when I purchased it, but the focus was stiff and I could tell focus accuracy was "off". I sent the lens to Midwest Camera Repair and it came back one sweet unit. Focus action is light and smooth and it's tack sharp.
As a standard shooter I'm very please with the 35mm f1.4 AIS.
