You got to be kidding? This autofocus!!

Brian Sweeney said:
Nikon users like using older lenses on modern DSLR cameras. Canon users do not have this luxury.
Click to expand...

Funny, my first DSLR was a Canon EOS-300D, simply because it can mount Nikon lenses (with adapter) and meter them in A mode (in stop-down, of course).
With Nikon instead, (AFAIK) you should buy at least a D200 to do the same, or just use the sunny-16, since the consumer line can't meter without electric contacts...

I find ironic that my 70's 35 f2 Nikkor works better on a Canon than on a Nikon...:D

(too bad Rokkors are just compatible with those 4/3 thing...:bang:)
 
I put a Selenium Meter on the shoe of my Nikon E3 to meter with non-AI lenses. It is full-frame.

My other Nikon DSLR's work fine with the AI and AI converted lenses.

What is the sensor-flange distance of the Canon DSLR? Why can they mount a Nikon lens, but must use optics in the adapter to work with an FD series lens? Can you use the Nikon lens in a "simple" adapter that does not require optics in it?
 
Contrast detecting autofocus? That's the best way to use the Leica rangefinder for manual focus also. Instead of finding a line or feature to superimpose you just turn the lens focusing mechanism until the contrast "jumps" in the rangefinder patch. It even works without my glasses.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Nikon users like using older lenses on modern DSLR cameras. Canon users do not have this luxury. If you want the "Look and Feel" of the classic glass on a modern camera, Nikon is the way to go for DSLR's and AF-SLR's.

If you want all-AF starting with lenses in the mid-80s, Canon is not going to lose you anything. I would not buy one, it can't take my FD mount 50/1.4 SSC.
Click to expand...

Actually Canon is better here - You can mount just about any lens on a modern Canon DSLR except for canon FD lenses however with a mount modification they can still be used. There's a few threads on FM forums with FD 85mm 1.2L's etc.

Other lenses that can be used: Rokkors, Olympus OM, Hexanons, Leica/Zeiss/VC, Nikkors, K-mount, m42... pretty much everything...
 
I cant believe this thread is this long - what can be so hard about AF? As someone pointed out on a first page of this thread - you put the lens on a camera, press the shutter halfway, it'll focus, and press shutter more to take a photo. How much simpler can this be?
If socker moms can do it just fine - and they have never ususally had anything other than disposable cameras, I cant see how a serious photo enthusiast cant use AF? Try giving someone on the street your RF camera to take your pic - see how easy that would be for them. Anyone can use AF. My friends 3 year old son can use his Nikon D whatever. Plus, didnt you post a while back that you got some digi P&S camera that was so very good? Didnt it have AF on it? AF on Nikon is not that different. At least not for simple use.
So what exactly was the point of the Original post? To say that you prefer manual focus and older technology? Thats fine and good, but no need to "dis" AF for that, as someone already pointed out.
 
fdigital said:
Actually Canon is better here - You can mount just about any lens on a modern Canon DSLR except for canon FD lenses however with a mount modification they can still be used. There's a few threads on FM forums with FD 85mm 1.2L's etc.

Other lenses that can be used: Rokkors, Olympus OM, Hexanons, Leica/Zeiss/VC, Nikkors, K-mount, m42... pretty much everything...
Click to expand...

Really? I never knew that Hexanons can be used on Canon EOS. You mean Hexanon AR? Do you know what adapter is needed for that?
 
pvdhaar said:
More precisely, they are all AF-S lenses, but the 18-55 and 55-200 are not SWM lenses. Both have no manual focus override in AF mode. There's also the sound that gives it away.. there's a profound difference in how the 18-55 churns like a little lego motor, and the 70-300 hisses its way to focus.
Click to expand...

18-55vr and 55-200vr do indeed have SWMs. Check Nikons website if you do not believe me. I don't recall if you can manually override AF w/o flipping a switch, but thats a different thing again.

/Mac
 
fdigital said:
I could be wrong (had my d300 a year ago now) but I remember using the camera in 51 point mode with 3d tracking which is supposedly using the best technology nikon has to offer, and the camera focussing on something other than what I wanted (say - something with more contrast) but within the 51pt 3d tracking mode you can't just choose to only use the single point to focus/recompose. Something like that. I didn't really understand what the point of that was - The whole 51pt 3d tracking thing sounds good in theory but I found it's only really useful in good light where the subject has good contrasty lines - like tracking a bird in c-af mode. If the background has contrasty lines and the subjects contrast is low, like an animal against a forest background it'll focus on the background instead of the animal. I was sort of left thinking - "exactly what is the point of this system?"
Click to expand...

Well you do understand that if you lock focus with say the center point, and move the camera, or the object move, whenever the target is under a focus point the camera is able to make micro adjustments to focus? You'll see the focus marker thingy jump around in the viewfinder between the focus points and hear/feel the lens work. It won't work in any given situation, and it won't get you 100 % keepers. It is also highly dependant on the quality of the lens' focus motor. I.e a Nikon 70-200vr will work better than a 100$ non-HSM Sigma 55-200. With a focus system like this and a high continuous frame rate you have good chances of getting at least get some keepers. You should also be able to use the thumb selector and move around between the focus points and choose one. Still, if it detects movement, you might see the focus point move around the frame. That's the theory at least.

My 5d works like this: I have S-af and C-af. I use center point all the time unless I have good light and I am using a fast lens and don't want to focus/recompose where i'll use out points singularly instead. If I am shooting documentary stuff with a large dof, I'll use all focus points. It focuses faster than both the d300 and the d3, point to point, but maybe not as accurately.
Yes, you can just do the same thing in the d300/d3 but then why are all those extra focus modes there? And why do they all tie in with each other so much - Why is it that when using one of the modes, you can only do limited things with the other options - that's just confusing and hard to remember/get your head around...
Click to expand...

Perfectly acceptable to find the options confusing. Now I use a dumbed down version of the 51pt AF system myself (D90, 11pts dynamic), but I've played quite a bit with a D300 and there's not much difference AF wise (the other settings related to AF are mostly identical), except of the number of focus points. I wish I had a 51pt system ;) Too bad it didn't work for you, but you seem to be happy with Canon, so it's all good isn't it? :)

/Mac
 
Ken Rockwell talks a LOT of nonsense but his D3 and D700 focus setting advice is excellent.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Acknowledgment: Many thanks to Lindsay Silverman of Nikon, who took my D3 aside and said "watch this" as he taught me how to use CSM a3, 3D tracking. Also after looking at my camera, I think it may have been Lindsay who set CSM a6, focus point illumination > brightness, to LOW to make them less obnoxious, but still quite visible. I doubt I ever would have found these on my own. [/FONT]

This works like magic on the D700, almost uncanny:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/af-settings.htm


And almost the same for the D3:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/af-settings.htm


I have not noticed any serious problem with the focus on my Canon 5D other than when using a very fast lens wide open. Almost anything can be solved by adjusting the focus points in the menu. If the camera is seriously front or back focussing you can send it to Canon with the lens and they can do an internal adjustment, but this is rare.
 
I brought my kids to school. It was a bright, sunny morning. They were happy. I saw some nice light along a brick wall. I quickly aimed my Pentax *ist DL (I know, not the most modern technology, but still, according to the manual, it should work...) and called them. They turned back and smiled. I pushed the shutter button three times, each time changing the composition a little. They turned back and went arround the corner. I checked the LCD. Yes! Great light, nice shots.

Later that day I downloaded the photos on my computer. Not one of them was focused on the subject. One was focused on a distant wall, a second on a pole on the left edge of the photo, a third on a stretch of pavement.

Later that day I ordered an M8. I've got full control again over the photos I make. I still have plenty of shots that are badly focused, but not the ones with two clearly visible kids in the center of the composition on a brightly lit morning.

I did try manual focus with the *ist DL, but I found that the tiny, tunnel-like viewfinder wasn't good enough. I even installed a split focus screen, but I never mastered the art of focus with that thing.
 
That's fine but because of your bad experience with one low end DSLR you now condemn all AF technology?


mac_wt said:
I brought my kids to school. It was a bright, sunny morning. They were happy. I saw some nice light along a brick wall. I quickly aimed my Pentax *ist DL (I know, not the most modern technology, but still, according to the manual, it should work...) and called them. They turned back and smiled. I pushed the shutter button three times, each time changing the composition a little. They turned back and went arround the corner. I checked the LCD. Yes! Great light, nice shots.

Later that day I downloaded the photos on my computer. Not one of them was focused on the subject. One was focused on a distant wall, a second on a pole on the left edge of the photo, a third on a stretch of pavement.

Later that day I ordered an M8. I've got full control again over the photos I make. I still have plenty of shots that are badly focused, but not the ones with two clearly visible kids in the center of the composition on a brightly lit morning.

I did try manual focus with the *ist DL, but I found that the tiny, tunnel-like viewfinder wasn't good enough. I even installed a split focus screen, but I never mastered the art of focus with that thing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Never really got the whole "autofocus" deal, going back to its introduction with SLRs (Minolta, pretty sure) in the 80's. Is focusing a camera really such a chore? To each his own, YMMV - etc., but even in its introduction autofocus always seemed to me to be a completely unnecessary complication that added expense, created noise, created more distraction and annoyance to human subjects (another light to blind people with...), introduced "another thing that can break" into the equation - and, to this day decades later, doesn't work all the time which adds frustration (though they have come a long way...)

... neat gimmick. I remember "oohing" and "ahhing" at them years ago too. But completely unnecessary.

In fact, I like focusing my camera. It's part of the experience and part of the tactile pleasure of the old manuals SLRs and RFs...
 
i can't believe we have such educated discussions in so many other sections of this forum and then come across garbage like this.

OMG autofocus! hug your manual focus cameras and lenses!
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what the problem is. They sell tons of the things. It would seem that lots of people are happy enough with the cameras but they probably never print larger than 4x6 and blame their own inexperience for the problem. Or maybe they're used to auto exposure being "good enough" with color negative film? If amateurs were still shooting Kodachrome and projecting on 40 inch screens they'd be SCREAMING!

Somehow or another I manage to get 36 pictures in focus, where I want the focus to be, on nearly every roll, without batteries too! Whether rangefinder or SLR. I put my brain on "auto". It controls my eyes and fingers. It's a wonderful system! Saves money on hardware, saves money on film, save scads of time.
 
I just slapped a Nikon 28mm/f3.5 Ai'D lens on my D200. This guy really rocks. Clear and clean with throughput of 42mm (my sweet spot). Plenty of movement on the focus ring to get it "right". Not bad for a $12 yard sale special.
 
This have turned into one of the werider threads I've seen. Diehard AF fans (such as me) and diehard MF fans throwing comments east and west :D Due to the very nature of rangefinderforum.com it's not surprising to see a certain..conservativism in many peoples replies. In many ways this forum is a testament to the fact that the manual focus techologies used in older cameras certainly worked well.

Still, I get the feeling there's a bit of "ludditism" here, I see no problem myself, embracing both old and new technology. One cannot seriously state that AF doesn't work or is unusable, millions of great images made over the past 20 years taken using AF bloody well proves that statement dead wrong. There's no reason to be afraid of AF, it's just another tool available for the photographer. In the end making images is what's important, is it not, not if you use digi or film, rangefinders or SLRs, Canon or Nikon.

I do admit that I find it insulting that the manual focus film diehards more or less take upon themselves an elitist coat. You're sort of not a "real" photographer if you use a modern camera with AF, bells and whistles. To be frank, thats just another approach to the art of being an a-hole.

Photography is not a crime, digital is here to stay and AF is not doping! :D

/Mac
 
It seems that those people complaining about AF have used it for a few minutes only or without proper knowledge. Now AF in general is in their eyes not usable.
20 years ago I did a one day crash course in wet printing. The results were awful. Should I proclaim now that it's not possible to achieve good results with wet printing?

You don't have to shoot sport events to find AF very useful. When I go with my daughter to the park I always try to capture her movement when she jumps or is balancing over ropes. With my M8 my brain is busy following the movement with the focus (I mainly shoot this between f2.8 an f4). Because of that the framing is sometimes not good (feet cut off etc.). With my 40D I know that the focus is right and I can concentrate on framing. My M8 is fun but for important pictures I take the AF camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom