On 30 Aug 1999 03:33:30 GMT, gattzbee@aol.com (Gattzbee) wrote:

>So I've been reading some stuff where people say that it's harder to focus
>manually on a new AF system set to manual than on an old manual system. Is it
>simply a case of it's harder to learn how to focus but you'll get it in time,
>or that there will be times, no matter your experience or how good your eye,
>where you will miss the focus? And can anyone who frequently focuses manually
>on an AF system tell me whether it really is that hard or not to get subjects
>into focus? Also, I've heard that some people say that whole split image
>focusing technique on old manuals actually doesn't always work that well
>either, that it often doesn't get it perfectly right. Can anyone confirm or
>deny this?

OK, here comes the rant! (You were warned! ;-)
AF is, in my 'umble opinion, one of the silliest
things foisted on us by mfgrs. seeking to sell
whole new sets of gear to consumers...!
- AF doesn't work well (if you have a good VF
and proper eye-correction to see it well,
the common AF errors are all too obvious).
- AF is harder to use (the "focused" area
must be in the center, then the focus locked
for reframing [often too slow a process for
action work] - and AF is slower than a good
MF optical system for anyone used to MF).
- To make people feel they need AF (for what
other reason?), most AF cameras have finders
that are not sharp enough for good/easy MF.
- Most lenses sold now are slow zooms, which
are less practical for easy MF (I prefer
non-zooms, which not only provide about
8 times the amount of light at the first good
f-stop, but they are FAR easier to focus
manually - these I find more "convenient"
than slow, relatively poor zooms regardless
of the width of the FL range covered...).
Recently, while shooting an outdoor wedding
reception, I decided to take three AF lenses
(along with several MF lenses) to give AF another
try. Using an AF body with a sharp finder (no
longer made, of course...;-), it was necessary to
switch off AF almost immediately in every situation
I tried it in. With running/playing kids, the AF
couldn't begin to keep up - MF with a 24mm f2.8 AF
(and 16mm f3.5 MF) was reliable and easy; with
groups of people talking, the 28-70 was unacceptably
cumbersome in AF and I missed many good "moments"
with it until I went to MF (the 85mm f2 MF and24mm
AF were far easier to use at that point, but even
with the slow zoom, I was faster and more accurate
in MF than when using the AF system. Even with
totally static situations, the AF focus failure
rate was sufficient to induce a quick switch to MF.
Before anyone says something like "Well, did you
use the latest/best AF system?", I will say that
I did not - but having followed and tried AF gear
from the beginning to the present I will say that
with each "well NOW they've got it right" I have
seen little or no REAL improvement in AF, just
claims... AF just doesn't work very well, in my
experience. For those who say, "My eyesight is too
poor for MF", I recommend considering trying a
glasses solution (described on my web page, under
"I babble"). If you can see sharply around the one
meter distance, and if you have a camera with a
sharp viewfinder, and if you use MF lenses of
about f2-2.8 max aperture, MF IS SO MUCH EASIER
AND FASTER TO USE THAN AF, it is just plain silly
to think about using AF! Even with long and fast
teles with animals, the MF systems "pop" into
focus anywhere in the frame - but lose AF center
coverage for a moment and the long AF lenses
search for focus, generally causing the photo
to be lost. This same affect applies also to
macro work with AF - I find it impractical. I
find general photography impractical with AF
also... For those who want "point and shoot"
capability (and quality...), I recommend a good
P&S camera - they are generally much smaller
than a P&S SLR + lens + flash rig... A good MF
SLR system with a few top-class non-zooms (a
good tele zoom can be a good addition [tele
zooms are usually better optically, easier to
focus, and more useful than shorter zooms...
{"foot-zooming" is less effective with long
lenses than with short...}]) is a practical
rig, and more "convenient" than "do-all"
wide-range AF zooms that are noticeably slower,
harder to focus, and less sharp than a good MF
rig. BTW, with a good viewing optical system
(including good eye correction for one meter,
a sharp camera viewfinder, and moderately fast
non-zoom lenses), viewing screen "focus aids"
just get in the way of easy focus on a simple
plain-matte ground-glass screen... (Part Two
of the rant consists of extolling the advantages
of center-weighted manual metering vs. the
multi-segment program-exposure nonsense also
foisted on us as "necessary" by the mfgrs. - but
that is for another time...;-)