OK...I have a confession...I have a hard time with manual focus. Whew! Feels great to get that off my chest! Seriously though, does anyone else have a problem focusing manually? I have even had problems using a loupe and judging critical focus on slides. This is one reason that I have never felt like I would be a very successful LF photographer.
Any ideas? I do wear glasses, but my prescription is pretty close to being in right now.
I have a problem too Nathan when I am wearing my glasses. When I have contacts in it is easier as the image in the viewfinder is larger (closer to my eye) and less variation in distance. The diopter doesn't work for me. I can never get it too the 'right' place. I think this is due to the distance not always being the same from my eye. Regardless I usually use the AF.
The older I get, the more trouble I have. Trouble is, that's not a joke. If I've been at my desk all day looking at my computer or doing ppwk, that's throws my eye's critical focusing ability right out the window for several hours usually. As much as I hate to say it I fall back on Nikon's little green focusing indicator when my eyes are out on strike, and so far that seems to work well, but it still makes me nervous. On the very few occasions when I shoot birds, etc. I just use auto-focus normally, with mixed results.
I've never used the diopter, not sure how it works. I have trouble too, and rarely use manual focus because I find the photos never turn out sharp. I just recently got the contacts that adjusts one eye for close up and one for far away, so I just can't rely on them for perfect focus.
Glad to hear that I am not the only one - though I am not happy that there are others out there with similar problems. Being into photography this is something that I almost felt a little bit sheepish about in the past. Especially since some people are so adamant about a person not needing to use AF (or to not use it for macro shooting for instance).
ME, too. My eyesight had been declining rapidly over the past few years. I wear contacts, and still have glasses that correct for close and far. I use an Optivisor for seeing the ground glass on the big camera, and often struggle with the viewfinder on the 1Ds. There is junk floating around in my eyeballs that cause intermittent focusing disabiity. Still, I manage to get sharp images, and never stop loving photography.
I'm 26 going on 27 and wear contacts/glasses. In particular I find shooting in dim conditions difficult with glasses on. Contacts are better but as you know you can't always wear them. If I need to manual focus I look for any high contrast edges and try to get those sharp first then proceed. Several exposures of differing focus would help too for insurance. When all else fails there's always AF.
True AF isn't too effective for macro but for general photography I think it works fine once you get the hang of the nine-point AF or whatever your camera has. I say use whatever gets the job done, who cares what other people say or don't say.
The tiny view offered by my DSLR has made this a bit of problem. When I look through the ful- frame finder on my F4 after a few weeks/months with the DSLR I can understand why. I want a higher magnification finder for my camera - I don't care about full frame - I just want to be able to see better.
I experimented with the 'optical rangefinder,' i.e. the dot that indicates focus. I found it to be accurate. Then I used the diopter adjustment to make an in-focus-according-to-the-dot image as sharp as possible to my eye. I don't nail focus everytime, but it's a lot hard for me to tell in digital. Somehow, looking at a slide on a light box through a loupe made it easier to judge focus. I think it might be the fact that magnification was always the same. With digital I have the infinite ability to zoom in and out. I still have to read the book, "The Paradox of Choice."
The joys of FUBAR eyesight. I've been wearing glasses (near sighted) since I was 6 and contacts since I was 18. With my contacts, I can crank the eyepiece diopter and get the viewfinder clear, but I know what you mean about trying to do the same with glasses. I rely on AF 90% of the time, using just a single AF sensor to lock focus on a specific part of the scene. This seems to work for me.
I had exceptional eyesight most of my life, but after turning 50 the terrain definitely sloped downhill. I use the diopters, and in fact they are a criterion for my choice in bodies. I also use the single focus point like Jim (AF or MF, dpending, but always watching the focus indicator in the lower left corner of the viewfinder) with results almost as good as the days when my eyes were young.
The only place I really have trouble now is when DOF is critical, as in macro shooting and especially when pressing the preview button. Things get really dark at smaller apertures and it's easy to make a mistake.
Here's something I do in such situations which helps a bunch. If time and circumstances allow I "bracket" my focus point. Hey, we bracket for everything else, so why not for focus?
A visit to your ophthalmologist or optometrist may be in order. They need to know what your particular vision needs are, what kinds of problems you are having etc. The techs for vision correction are getting better and better fast. There is a new method of grinding glass/plastic called "wave" which seems to improve sight to better than 20/20, but even then they need to know your specific requirements. It is possible that some people may need special glasses for use in photography. There are all kinds of ways to match your glasses/contacts to your specific needs. BUT your doctor needs to know what those needs are in order to best achieve your vision potential.
Grace (M.D.)
Ive had to wear glasses in recent years, but have yet to find a big problem with MF accuracy with avian photography, providing i am given the time {i think practice shortens the time needed though}. Obviously a static bird is more suited to MF, and i tend to concentrate on those moments, although there are still plenty of exponents of MF action photography around!!! {unfortunately ive never mastered that type of shooting}. No dought AF is far more versatile though.
A lot of people appear to put this problem down to the relatively small/dim viewfinders of the DX format, but ive never bought into that theory, as its too simplistic.
Maybe the old-timers amoungst us have less problems manual focusing, as we had no options in the distant past, and after plenty of practice seemed to manage quite well with slow {f8 or even f11} long teles and distracting 'blacked-out' split prism's in the viewfinders {if the body did not allow screen changing}. Adding those drawbacks to the slowish shutter speeds allowed with the usual 64 asa film speeds and unsophisticated tripods/heads etc, i think camera shake was far more of a problem than manual focusing ever was.
Its worth pointing out that it is not essential to have a sharp viewfinder-screen image for a sharp result, if the users eyes are not 100%. If someones eyesight is not great they can still focus accurately by focusing the image to its 'least' blurryness {fairly common practice in the past}.
Bearing in mind that i am talking about avian photography only {may be a different story with other branches of photography}, i don't think viewfinder brightness is as big a major factor for poor manual focusing as it is said to be {certainly in my personal experience}, and cannot be used as a 'blanket' excuse.
Ive had my D70 for about 2yrs now {a camera often slated for its dim viewfinder}, and fail to see what the big fuss is about, with MF. Until recently i used an old pentax 500mm/manual diaphram, and used to swap from the D70 body to a mamiya 645 body, if a different FOV was needed. Considering the mamiya had a very bright Beattie screen, i reckon the D70's screen to be about 3 stops dimmer, but never considered the differences to be any more of a problem for manual focusing, than i would encounter by a passing cloud obscuring the sun. Bearing in mind that a manual diaphram lens needs to be focused at its stopped down aperture {if speed is of the essence}, you can see the reason why i don't buy into the 'dim' viewfinder argument for manual focusing of avian subjects.
Its only recently occured to me why i feel that some people have problems manually focusing, as ive recently bought a MFnikkor 400mm f2.8, and this is more to do with the focusing ring's 'throw', and shooting distance.
I couldn't understand why i was getting a few oof shots when first using the nikkor, until i realised the focusing 'throw' was noticably shorter than my old pentax. This makes critical focusing relatively much more of a challenge, and frustrating {i suspect manually focusing a modern AF is even more tricky!!}. It is only over recent weeks that i have been able to solve my MF problem with the nikkor, and i do this by placing my focusing fingers on the focus-limiter ring, which has a larger diameter than the focusing ring, and therefore the 'throw' is slightly longer. As with anything in life, practice makes perfect, and although i am not quite as comfortable with the nikkor for MF, as i was with my pentax, i think i am almost back on track.
Its an interesting question, and ive no dought that the day will arrive pretty soon when manual focusing will become little more than a curiosity from the distant past.
I`m using manual focussing only (I just like it that way). I think a large part of the trouble are the screens in AF (d)SLR-s. Especially in the lower end cameras, they are very smooth and there is no definite "snap" when the image comes into focus. Some old manual SLR-s have much better screens, often with helpful stuff like microprisms. I find that the in-focus confirmation feature helps a lot with macro shooting and for landscapes, hyperfocal techniques make focussing accuracy a non-issue.
That said, I`ve been using my 28/2.8 wide open lately and it is a royal PitA. Sometimes I wonder about rangefinder cameras - arguably they focus wide and normal lenses better than SLRs.
One thing not mentioned about manual focus is that today's autofocus lenses are much more difficult to manually focus. Though it has been several years, I have had the pleasure of renting a manual focus 600mm f/4 Nikkor. Granted, one needs to make lots of turns on the focus ring, but the image will really get sharp in the viewfinder without the need forf a prism area. Today's AF lenses need to focus quickly, but I wish the gearing on the focus ring would allow us to fine tune the image.
Nathan: If you don't have significant astigmatism you can usually get a near custom eyepiece for your camera. The stock diopters have a fairly limited range, usually +1 thru -3. If your prescription is outside that range then you must wear your glasses or contacts. Remember that the purpose of the diopter is to optimize focus on the focusing screen, not the scene. To adjust it properly, remove the lens and point the camera at some light background. Set the diopter adjustment at the highest + setting and slowly come down until the viewfinder details are just sharp. Stop. If you overadjust you may still see sharp finder details but you will have to accomodate every time you look through the finder and may get some significant eye fatigue. Something else you might want to consider is a high quality angle finder that has a 2x magnifier built in. For static subjects it works great. >=))>
A good subject Nathan that represents a very important skill to some photography. First a bit on my background regarding focusing. I've been making serious landscape photos since I bought an OM-1 in 1980 in the compact SLR days. Of course there was no autofocus then so I guess that grounded me in focusing the rest of my photo days. Even when autofocus cameras became more available, I stayed with a manual focus system because I already had built up a bunch of fixed lenses for the system I used. Later when I went to 6x7, all MF were still of course manual. Then still later began large format where manual focusing is most critical to doing good work. It was only when the first digital cameras came out when I bought a tiny Minolta DimageX, that I experienced regularly the benefits of autofocusing.
As I got older my closeup eyesight fell to the usual presbyopia. I immediately began using reading glasses and these days I have extra pairs all about my home, where I work, and in my photography gear. Without reading glasses, reliable focusing on my ground glass or on my digital camera's LCD is hopeless. With reading glasses I see just as well as someone with perfect vision. When began using 6x7, I had to stop my old 35mm habit of just using the infinity detent then stopping down. So had to think more about where to set the near and far critical focus points. With a view camera given the variable movements to both front lens and rear film planes, one has to adjust focus over four quadrants of the huge ground glass. I'll use my loupe occasionally but find such awkward so the rest of the time it is 3.0 diopter reading glasses. In the field, there is no room for making quick in the ball park adjustments. One must precisely adjust as well as possible each and every time one exposes a sheet, else the result may be no better than smaller formats. And it is more than just focusing on a few parts of the ground glass as compromises are usually required since the ideal plane of receeding frame objects is rarely what is presented. Thus one decides where the near, far, left, and right critical focus frame locations are for each image that only complicates adjusting focus. From that perspective, focusing becomes more than just the mechancal skills.
The mechanical skills are basically just a distance hunting software algorithm. One tries to focus on frame elements that show detail most easily. Sometimes that is easy while at other times there is little to go by. Dark early/late day light is of course most difficult. Sometimes it is impossible and one ought to just bag it. ...David
Thanks for all the thoughts, suggestions, support and ideas. Like Hank suggested, I have started bracketing a little bit, I hope that will help me to develop better focusing habits.
I suffer from astigmatism, which means that, near or far, without my glasses everything looks fuzzy. The viewfinder diopter doesn't do the trick. For years I used manual focul lenses with my old Nikon F2. I made a habit of focus bracketing when I was shooting birds with my manual focus 600mm f5.6 Nikkor.
One thing that helps is a large, bright viewfinder with high eye-point. I'm looking forward to upgrading from my current main body, a Canon 10D to a 1D with a 1.3 crop factor and hence a larger brighter area in the viewfinder, or a possibly full frame 5D. The viewfinder in my 1.6 factor Canon makes it less easy to focus that the viewfinders in my film Nikon bodies. I assume that it is the difference between the smaller image of digital vesus film rather that a difference between Canon and Nikon. I don't have any experience looking through the viewfinder of a ful frame digital camera.
I hope others who use those cameras can bear me out, but it is my belief that the viewfinders in cameras with APS size sensors have viewfinders that penalize eyeglass wearers.
I just wanted to post an update. I sincerely appreciate everyone's thoughts and support with this thread. I find that with my new Sigma 180 macro that MF is much easier. I think the combination of a larger focusing ring, a smoother lens, and maybe some better magnification (though it still should be the same ratio) all help. One more reason that I am happy for the 180 macro.
Discussion
21 repliesOK...I have a confession...I have a hard time with manual focus. Whew! Feels great to get that off my chest! Seriously though, does anyone else have a problem focusing manually? I have even had problems using a loupe and judging critical focus on slides. This is one reason that I have never felt like I would be a very successful LF photographer.
Any ideas? I do wear glasses, but my prescription is pretty close to being in right now.
Nathan
Nathan
Regards
I will try the diopter adjustment!
Anyway, thanks again!
Nathan
True AF isn't too effective for macro but for general photography I think it works fine once you get the hang of the nine-point AF or whatever your camera has. I say use whatever gets the job done, who cares what other people say or don't say.
I experimented with the 'optical rangefinder,' i.e. the dot that indicates focus. I found it to be accurate. Then I used the diopter adjustment to make an in-focus-according-to-the-dot image as sharp as possible to my eye. I don't nail focus everytime, but it's a lot hard for me to tell in digital. Somehow, looking at a slide on a light box through a loupe made it easier to judge focus. I think it might be the fact that magnification was always the same. With digital I have the infinite ability to zoom in and out. I still have to read the book, "The Paradox of Choice."
Pete D.
Maybe someday there will be eyeball transplants.
The only place I really have trouble now is when DOF is critical, as in macro shooting and especially when pressing the preview button. Things get really dark at smaller apertures and it's easy to make a mistake.
Here's something I do in such situations which helps a bunch. If time and circumstances allow I "bracket" my focus point. Hey, we bracket for everything else, so why not for focus?
Grace (M.D.)
Ive had to wear glasses in recent years, but have yet to find a big problem with MF accuracy with avian photography, providing i am given the time {i think practice shortens the time needed though}. Obviously a static bird is more suited to MF, and i tend to concentrate on those moments, although there are still plenty of exponents of MF action photography around!!! {unfortunately ive never mastered that type of shooting}. No dought AF is far more versatile though.
A lot of people appear to put this problem down to the relatively small/dim viewfinders of the DX format, but ive never bought into that theory, as its too simplistic.
Maybe the old-timers amoungst us have less problems manual focusing, as we had no options in the distant past, and after plenty of practice seemed to manage quite well with slow {f8 or even f11} long teles and distracting 'blacked-out' split prism's in the viewfinders {if the body did not allow screen changing}. Adding those drawbacks to the slowish shutter speeds allowed with the usual 64 asa film speeds and unsophisticated tripods/heads etc, i think camera shake was far more of a problem than manual focusing ever was.
Its worth pointing out that it is not essential to have a sharp viewfinder-screen image for a sharp result, if the users eyes are not 100%. If someones eyesight is not great they can still focus accurately by focusing the image to its 'least' blurryness {fairly common practice in the past}.
Bearing in mind that i am talking about avian photography only {may be a different story with other branches of photography}, i don't think viewfinder brightness is as big a major factor for poor manual focusing as it is said to be {certainly in my personal experience}, and cannot be used as a 'blanket' excuse.
Ive had my D70 for about 2yrs now {a camera often slated for its dim viewfinder}, and fail to see what the big fuss is about, with MF. Until recently i used an old pentax 500mm/manual diaphram, and used to swap from the D70 body to a mamiya 645 body, if a different FOV was needed. Considering the mamiya had a very bright Beattie screen, i reckon the D70's screen to be about 3 stops dimmer, but never considered the differences to be any more of a problem for manual focusing, than i would encounter by a passing cloud obscuring the sun. Bearing in mind that a manual diaphram lens needs to be focused at its stopped down aperture {if speed is of the essence}, you can see the reason why i don't buy into the 'dim' viewfinder argument for manual focusing of avian subjects.
Its only recently occured to me why i feel that some people have problems manually focusing, as ive recently bought a MFnikkor 400mm f2.8, and this is more to do with the focusing ring's 'throw', and shooting distance.
I couldn't understand why i was getting a few oof shots when first using the nikkor, until i realised the focusing 'throw' was noticably shorter than my old pentax. This makes critical focusing relatively much more of a challenge, and frustrating {i suspect manually focusing a modern AF is even more tricky!!}. It is only over recent weeks that i have been able to solve my MF problem with the nikkor, and i do this by placing my focusing fingers on the focus-limiter ring, which has a larger diameter than the focusing ring, and therefore the 'throw' is slightly longer. As with anything in life, practice makes perfect, and although i am not quite as comfortable with the nikkor for MF, as i was with my pentax, i think i am almost back on track.
Its an interesting question, and ive no dought that the day will arrive pretty soon when manual focusing will become little more than a curiosity from the distant past.
Alan
That said, I`ve been using my 28/2.8 wide open lately and it is a royal PitA. Sometimes I wonder about rangefinder cameras - arguably they focus wide and normal lenses better than SLRs.
As I got older my closeup eyesight fell to the usual presbyopia. I immediately began using reading glasses and these days I have extra pairs all about my home, where I work, and in my photography gear. Without reading glasses, reliable focusing on my ground glass or on my digital camera's LCD is hopeless. With reading glasses I see just as well as someone with perfect vision. When began using 6x7, I had to stop my old 35mm habit of just using the infinity detent then stopping down. So had to think more about where to set the near and far critical focus points. With a view camera given the variable movements to both front lens and rear film planes, one has to adjust focus over four quadrants of the huge ground glass. I'll use my loupe occasionally but find such awkward so the rest of the time it is 3.0 diopter reading glasses. In the field, there is no room for making quick in the ball park adjustments. One must precisely adjust as well as possible each and every time one exposes a sheet, else the result may be no better than smaller formats. And it is more than just focusing on a few parts of the ground glass as compromises are usually required since the ideal plane of receeding frame objects is rarely what is presented. Thus one decides where the near, far, left, and right critical focus frame locations are for each image that only complicates adjusting focus. From that perspective, focusing becomes more than just the mechancal skills.
The mechanical skills are basically just a distance hunting software algorithm. One tries to focus on frame elements that show detail most easily. Sometimes that is easy while at other times there is little to go by. Dark early/late day light is of course most difficult. Sometimes it is impossible and one ought to just bag it. ...David
Thanks!
Nathan
I suffer from astigmatism, which means that, near or far, without my glasses everything looks fuzzy. The viewfinder diopter doesn't do the trick. For years I used manual focul lenses with my old Nikon F2. I made a habit of focus bracketing when I was shooting birds with my manual focus 600mm f5.6 Nikkor.
One thing that helps is a large, bright viewfinder with high eye-point. I'm looking forward to upgrading from my current main body, a Canon 10D to a 1D with a 1.3 crop factor and hence a larger brighter area in the viewfinder, or a possibly full frame 5D. The viewfinder in my 1.6 factor Canon makes it less easy to focus that the viewfinders in my film Nikon bodies. I assume that it is the difference between the smaller image of digital vesus film rather that a difference between Canon and Nikon. I don't have any experience looking through the viewfinder of a ful frame digital camera.
I hope others who use those cameras can bear me out, but it is my belief that the viewfinders in cameras with APS size sensors have viewfinders that penalize eyeglass wearers.
Thanks again.
Nathan