• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Manual or Auto focus which do you use the most? (1 Viewer)

T

Tog

Well-known member
Im into my photography in a little way. I used to have a bridge camera which only had auto focus and so i had no option. At the end of last year i took the step up to a dslr. I purchased a Canon eos 500d and then when i wanted to do some wildlife photography shelled out for a sigma 150-500mm lens.
A friend of mine who is also into his photography told me that manual focus was the way forward.
The problem i have is when i manually focus the image looks sharp as anything through the view finder but when i go through the pictures once im home i find that the focus is actually either a little bit past or in front of the object.
The frustrating thing is to try and make sure i get a picture which is in focus i find myself taking lots of photo's of the same object but manually focusing past the object then back in front in the hope i get a decent shot.
Now that im really getting into catologing birds i really need to learn how to focus quickly and accurately so that i dont miss that all important shot of a bird i have never seen before.

So my initial question is what do you use mostly for bright, day time shooting, manual or auto focus?

Then secondly does it sound like i may not quite have my camera set up properly if the image i see in the view finder is sharp but the image on screen at home is not?

And thirdly the sigma150-500 is a big (ish) zoom lens when at full zoom should there be other things i should be taking into account in order to get that sharp image finish?

Any tips help or constructive criticism will be greatly recieved many thanks

I am more than happy to post any pitures on request.

Rhys
 
Modern digital SLRs, unless fitted with a special focusing screen, are not designed to facilitate accurate manual focusing. There is no way you can judge focus accuracy from an itty bitty image in the viewfinder with the precision that is required to render a perfectly focused image when you examine it at 100% on a computer monitor. There is a place for manual focus, especially when combined with a tripod and Live View at 5X or 10X image magnification, but for most practical applications I firmly believe that a well calibrated AF system is streets ahead of manual focus.

As for other elements in the quest for sharpness, there are many to consider. Have a look at this thread - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=160577.

By the way, I'm not sure it's mentioned in the thread I linked to, but if you have a UV/protection filter fitted then I suggest you take it off, and use it only if shooting in harsh conditions where it will genuinely provide useful protection for your lens. Always use a lens hood for physical protection and to potentially reduce flare and increase contrast.
 
There is no particular reason to suggest that manual focusing with a modern DSLR should cause any problems, I always preferred to use a plain focusing screen with my old Olympus OM1s in fact I found that the so called focusing aids made accurate focusing more difficult and the great thing with modern DSRs is that they hve plain focusing screens. The auto focusing works well most of the time, but there are plenty of situations where manual focusing can and will give better results and it pays you to learn how to use manual focusing so that you are able to use it when the situation is appropriate.

The only real issues with using manual focusing on modern DSLRS, are where some cameras and lenses do not offer a proper mechanical focusing option for manual focusing.

The real issue these days is that auto focusing has been round for quite a long time and many people (perhaps the majority of modern SLR and DSLR users) have never used manual focusing. Regarding bridge cameras I have yet to find a bridge camera that offer easy and reliable manual focusing, perhaps the best were on the Fuji S20, 7000 and 9600 that I had but even then it was a compromise system that did not offer the accuracy of the likes of the Sony, Nikon an Canon DLSRs that I have used. I will add that I use auto focusing most of the time.
 
Last edited:
speckled wood said:
There is no particular reason to suggest that manual focusing with a modern DSLR should cause any problems, I always preferred to use a plain focusing screen with my old Olympus OM1s in fact I found that the so called focussing aids made accurate focusing more difficult. The auto focusing works well most of the time, but there are plenty of situations where manual focusing can and will give better results and it pays you to learn how to use manual focusing so that you are able to use it when the situation is appropriate.

The only real issues with using manual focusing on modern DSLRS, are where some cameras and lenses do not offer a proper mechanical focusing option for manual focusing.
Click to expand...

A factor to bear in mind is the lack of depth of field when shooting wide open with a large lens. I have found that what looks sharp in viewfinder may not be on the screen. Also eyesight correction and diopter settings come into play. Personally I always use AF if possible, maybe I've become lazy but I get far more keepers that way than using manual. Personal preference I guess but suspect most use AF.

Phil
 
Thank you for for your replies and especially the explanation Tim. A small part of me kind of thought that auto focus was cheating a tiny bit ha ha. You know the equipment is doing the job for you.

That link is a huge help too thanks again
 
speckled wood said:
The only real issues with using manual focusing on modern DSLRS, are where some cameras and lenses do not offer a proper mechanical focusing option for manual focusing.
Click to expand...
In my opinion there is a world of difference between trying to manually focus with a 35mm film camera, with split prism and fast prime lens vs trying to focus accurately with a Rebel and a 500mm f/6.3 lens. Even comparing my Pentax Super A (dating back to the 1980s) with my 30D there is a world of difference in the viewfinder experience. The Pentax is like watching a large high def TV whereas peering into the 30D is like watching a 12" portable by comparison. I've never used a Rebel but I have read that the viewfinder is even worse than the xxD models - smaller and dimmer, and also lacking any focusing aids.

Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
I only own a manual focus lens, so I certainly know where you're coming from. It was suggested to me, and I've found it to be true, that practice helps. I've gone from having maybe 1 in 3 focused, to 3 out of 4, with the rest usually not too bad.

A viewfinder magnifier will help, and you can get replacement viewfinder screens with split prisms, although I haven't tried one.

If I had AF available, I 'd use it for all but the tricky shots behind vegetation.
 
hampers said:
Personally I always use AF if possible, maybe I've become lazy but I get far more keepers that way than using manual. Personal preference I guess but suspect most use AF.

Phil
Click to expand...

A sensible statagy, I think its what most of us do but there are thos occasions where manual focussing is the only option.
 
tdodd said:
In my opinion there is a world of difference between trying to manually focus with a 35mm film camera, with split prism and fast prime lens vs trying to focus accurately with a Rebel and a 500mm f/6.3 lens. .
Click to expand...

I always found the split image prism to be a pain and as I have said preferred a plain focusing screen, I agree that the fact that we generally used fast prime lenses is also an important factor, on the matter of modern lenses when I had the Olympus 410 and 510 I did have a 4/3rds Bigma. ironically the only times I only managed to get decent results from it was by using manual focus. The person who bought it off me gets brilliant results using auto focus!
 
speckled wood said:
I always found the split image prism to be a pain and as I have said preferred a plain focusing screen, I agree that the fact that we generally used fast prime lenses is also an important factor, on the matter of modern lenses when I had the Olympus 410 and 510 I did have a 4/3rds Bigma. ironically the only times I only managed to get decent results from it was by using manual focus. The person who bought it off me gets brilliant results using auto focus!
Click to expand...

I agree with both Tim and Speckled Wood. Focusing manually with a good 35mm was much easier than with my D300 but I think that relates to the viewfinder (and therefore image) size and brightness. I much preferred focusing on a ground glass screen rather than the split image and microprism aids and changed my 35mm Nikon screens to ground glass.

Like others I generally rely now on autofocus but the ability to tweak the focus manually on occasions is helpful.

Bill
 
It was also easier to achieve acceptable focus accuracy back in the days when a 35mm negative was printed as a 6x4 (an enlargement factor of approx 4X) vs pixel peeping a 7D image at 100%, which is an enlargement factor of somewhere around 50X depending on your monitor spec.
 
Watts said:
I agree with both Tim and Speckled Wood. Focusing manually with a good 35mm was much easier than with my D300 but I think that relates to the viewfinder (and therefore image) size and brightness. I much preferred focusing on a ground glass screen rather than the split image and microprism aids and changed my 35mm Nikon screens to ground glass.

Like others I generally rely now on autofocus but the ability to tweak the focus manually on occasions is helpful.

Bill
Click to expand...

I just had a look at my Minolta Dynax 505i, the mirror appears to be larger than on my Sony alpha 230 or 550 or my Nikon D40, The mirror on an Olympus E330 seems to be smaller still, the viewing screen also seems to be larger and brighter on the Dynax 505i even with modern lenses and manual focusing does seem to be easier.
 
tdodd said:
It was also easier to achieve acceptable focus accuracy back in the days when a 35mm negative was printed as a 6x4 (an enlargement factor of approx 4X) vs pixel peeping a 7D image at 100%, which is an enlargement factor of somewhere around 50X depending on your monitor spec.
Click to expand...

But I expected my transparencies to be projected at least to 48" long axis.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Musoman
RX10 IV not focusing in AF or manual
Replies
4
Views
1K
Musoman
Musoman
A
Do you use your Nikon roofs in the rain?
Replies
16
Views
1K
quincy88
Q
tenex
What is this interesting optical design?
Replies
6
Views
832
John A Roberts
John A Roberts
J
Terra Pocket 10x25 - stiff focusing
Replies
5
Views
959
julay
J
Y
Vortex Viper HD and Bushnell Trophy - A noob’s review
Replies
1
Views
605
giosblue
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top