When you MUST get that shot: Real cameras should not be AF!

[BillBingham2]

..... For example, I used a D300 with an inexpensive 50/1.8 AF-S lens for a gig photographing an amateur gymnastics competition. My assignment was the parallel bar station. .....

Of course this sort of performance only occurred when the AF menu options were optimized for this type of work.

On the opposite end of the spectrum were weddings I did with the D700 in low light. Here again, the AF menu parameter selection was critical. The focus success rate was close to 100%... even in rather low light.

.........

I wish there was a way folks could start a thread or two and would share their "Settings" for this sort of thing. Actually perhaps there should be this sort of thread (a sticky please and thank you) for all electronic cameras. An excel spread sheet with the options in pull down or manual entry would be way cool. Perhaps someone could create a master sheet of data, one tab for each type of situation.

Thoughts?

B2

 

[Kwesi]

I will be in a position when I may have only a quick shot of someone I want to have a photograph of.


This seems to leave me some options:

2. Use the 10X magnification on the E-P2 or E-PL1 with a manual focus lens or with the Olympus 17mm or the zoom.



Thanks for your feedback. Are you also sometimes having such a thought process in your head?

Raid, I would suggest practicing with your zoom in an environment similar to the one you are about to encounter. Also try adjusting your ISO upwards to see what "your" acceptable upper limit is to improve your shutter speed.
I think you will be very pleasantly surprised with the results.

 

[raid]

Raid, I would suggest practicing with your zoom in an environment similar to the one you are about to encounter. Also try adjusting your ISO upwards to see what "your" acceptable upper limit is to improve your shutter speed.
I think you will be very pleasantly surprised with the results.

This is an important point for me. I almost always try to use ISO 100 on the EP and 160 on the M8 and M6. I will try using ISO 400 or 800 more often.

 

[raid]

All m-4/3 cameras are autofocus bodies, starting with the Lumix G1 in 2008.

Raid, I can't figure out if your problem is soft lenses or poor AF. Most every kit lens for the m-4/3 format are more than adequately sharp at mid-apertures like f/4-5.6 range.

I've always had good luck with the Lumix G series of bodies using center AF, half-press on shutter button and recompose method.

Is your real problem AF or shutter response in dim room lighting? Try S-mode (shutter speed priority), manual focus mode at a preset distance and bump up the ISO to at least 1600.

For quick shooting in bright outdoor light, it's hard to beat the Olympus 15mm-f/8 body cap lens, preset at its hyperfocal detent position. No, it's not the best lens optically, but I compensate in post with a custom development taste that corrects the geometric and chromatic distortion. For smaller sized prints, the image quality is more than adequate.

Really, with its intrinsically wider DOF, I can't see you having focus problems with m-4/3 cameras. Everyone complains how with m-4/3 you can't get adequately shallow DOF. Both Olympus and Lumix have some of the fastest-focusing bodies/lenses in the mirrorless world.

~Joe

I based my evaluation of my two lenses on what is posted online in M 4/3 forums in which users seem to favor other lenses than mine. I don;t have top M 4/3 lenses for a comparison.

 

[raid]

Hi Raid - While I've had the same thoughts as you, I cam to a very different conclusion.

I'm a big fan of manual focus (ZI, FM2N, M-glass on my A7R), not just for the images (when I get it right) but primarily for the experience -- there is sense of connection when the images overlap when shooting an RF.

Where we are different is the use of a DSLR. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you're not a big DSLR user. I use DSLR's extensively. I've had Nikon film SLR's and DSLR's for a long time, and the key to nailing the focus and exposure with a DSLR is understanding how the metering works -- for Nikon, that means matrix, center and spot.

So, primarily because I have more experience and feel more comfortable with a Nikon SLR or DSLR, I would choose it over an RF if I absolutely need to nail the focus and exposure.

I realize that's probably sacrilege here at RFF. 😱

I have never used a DSLR, Keith. I also skipped AF SLR cameras.
It is practical to use a DSLR.

 

[raid]

Raid, I would suggest practicing with your zoom in an environment similar to the one you are about to encounter. Also try adjusting your ISO upwards to see what "your" acceptable upper limit is to improve your shutter speed.
I think you will be very pleasantly surprised with the results.

I can do such practicing at no cost at home. I ill try using various ISO setitngs.

 

[raid]

As this thread is in the Photography General Interest Forum, the solution to the problem of how to quickly and reliably obtain an in-focus photograph has a simple, proven solution.

Any reasonably recent Nikon or Canon DSLR with a decent AF lens can accomplish this task.

My personal experience is with The D300 and D700 bodies and older AF-S and newer G prime lenses. When the appropriate AF system menu parameters were used, focus for moving subjects (action photography) or subjects in low light was utterly reliable. For example, I used a D300 with an inexpensive 50/1.8 AF-S lens for a gig photographing an amateur gymnastics competition. My assignment was the parallel bar station. Flash was forbidden. The D300 AF could focus on the athletes during their dismounts. The athletes were moving quickly and parents would buy photos that showed the athletes in the air during the dismount. I typically used a f 2.8 aperture. Because the photos were sold immediately after the event, there was not time for the sales people to crop. So I had to be relatively close. Even the ancient D300 with a mediocre AF lens would find focus on the first frame and then refocus flawlessly inbetween 1/200 sec shutter bursts. Of course this sort of performance only occurred when the AF menu options were optimized for this type of work.

On the opposite end of the spectrum were weddings I did with the D700 in low light. Here again, the AF menu parameter selection was critical. The focus success rate was close to 100%... even in rather low light.

Of course it took some time to study the menu system and do a bit of on-line research to find recommendations for optimizing the menu parameters. It took a bit of practice as well.

No doubt other DSLR bands are equally capable of "must have" AF performance.

Beyond my experience all one has to do is consider the countless pros and semi-pros who make a living using DSLRs for sports and event photography. If these people culd not produce "must have" shots at every gig, they would go out of business.

I never enjoyed using those DSLRs. I preferred the Zeiss Ikon M body I owned at that time. I enjoyed using that camera everytime I picked it up. But when I was being paid to get "must have" shots, I always used the unpleasant DSLRs.

I am trying to avoid buying new equipment, Willie. I do not own a DSLR camera.

 

[raid]

You could stick with the M8 or M9, guess the approximate focus, and then use the rangefinder to fine tune it. The other obvious answer, and that depends on how much light you will have, is to zone focus. That works well with Leica and Zeiss lenses because their DOF markings are clear and widely separated, especially with shorter lenses.

I am thinking of using my 1.25X for the first time ever on the M9. I could set ISO to 1000 and the lens to 1.4. or 2.0. This should work well.

 

[willie_901]

I am trying to avoid buying new equipment, Willie. I do not own a DSLR camera.

I understand and i too do not want to buy new equipment.

However that is no reason to write, "When you MUST get that shot: Real cameras should not be AF!".

It's one thing for the tool to be insufficient and quite another to decide you don't want to own that tool.

 

[raid]

I meant to say, I do not have very good AF lenses, Willie.

 

[FrankS]

The Hexar would be perfect if it had traditional manual controls option to go along with its AF and AE. I much prefer dials and rings over push buttons. I've owned and sold 3 of them in succession.

 

[raid]

If DAG repairs my Zeiss 85/1.4, I will use it on the EP2. I am very used to this combo for tight portraits in dark rooms. I would also have the M8 with the 35 Lux. It has no buffer problems like the M9.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I will be in a position when I may have only a quick shot of someone I want to have a photograph of.

While I have been favoring manual focus cameras since I started photography, and while I abhorred AF cameras when Canon switched from their FD mount away to the EF mount for AF photography, my eye sight is not 100% as good as it was when I was much younger. Errors in focusing are probable and are possible.

Before digital cameras came out, I bought a Hexar AF one year so that "just in case" I needed a sure shot, I had a great AF camera handy with me. While "everybody else" loved the Hexar, it felt like a toy to me. Real cameras shouldn't be AF, I was thinking then.

I have noticed some Leica AF cameras that RFF members seem to be enjoying and praising. Would such cameras be a good complement to my M8 and M9? I have M 4/3 cameras (E-P2 and E-PL1), but my AF lenses for the M 4/3 seem to be the low end lenses that nobody really wants to use.

There are some $1000 level new AF M 4/3 lenses on the market, but "why"?


This seems to leave me some options:
1. Use the M9 or M8 carefully with the "new" 1.25X adapter, and hope for the best.
2. Use the 10X magnification on the E-P2 or E-PL1 with a manual focus lens or with the Olympus 17mm or the zoom.
3. What else? :bang:


Thanks for your feedback. Are you also sometimes having such a thought process in your head?

Are you after colour or black and white? Didn't you post not so long ago that you should use your Rolleis more?
What's wrong with some Delta 3200, zone focus and 6 x 6? The sports finders are simple and effective for action shots. If you need a bit more pull you still have a Tele, right? Or does it have to be digital?

You could take the same approach with a film RF if you prefer.
Cheers
Brett

 

[raid]

Brett, this is a very interesting idea. I will think about it more.

 

[gustavoAvila]

In fast breaking situations, auto focus and face recognition is very useful.

My recommendation is to consider purchasing a m.Zuiko 45 F1.8.

It is reasonably priced, very sharp at maximum aperture and focuses very quickly.

Set the EP-2 to ISO 1000, shoot raw and with luck, you should be able to get a very high quality image.

Finally, I would also consider a VF-2 viewfinder for the EP-2.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

With what I shoot I go with manual / zone focus most of the time...you did say MUST right?

Now if light is good then AF may be OK for sports where you can follow the action. Still, turning quick, out of the corner of your eye, bad light and a fast shot there is not time for AF and I usually need zone manual focus.

 

[raid]

I tried last night using the M8 at ISO 1250 with the 35/2 Summicron. The results look good to me. Maybe this is the way to go?