Auto focus making people lazy?

Matt thanks a lot, this is really useful especially with my Macro lenses to stop "hunting" but also compositionally this is quite a good idea, for a lot of subjects, look through viewfinder, decide which is the main part for metering. Meter. Now decide which is the main part of image press AF button, re-position if necessary. Shoot. Been testing this with excellent results. So THANKS a lot for the tip.

My pleasure

I've been using this method since the *ist-D... my thumb is the focus, my finger is the shutter - and it's etched into my brain! Can't work any other way now!

This method is cool for kids, fast moving stuff, etc, etc. You can pre-focus with the AF button, then jab the shutter when the subject gets to your pre-set point - kind of like manual, but with AF.

Also incredibly useful in low light settings - focus on demand by pointing at some high contrast area, then reframe and shoot without hunting!!

Matt

The only downside of this setting, I am using it to, is that when you want to use interval shooting on the K20D you have to keep your thumb on the AF button before firing the shutter. It needs a lit focus confirmation otherwise it refuses to work.

Thanks ‘Unlocker’,
I had a go manually shifting the focus on the DA*300 (and DFA 100mm macro) while keeping the shutter release half pressed and it works a treat.

I guess once the K10 has initially flagged the focus as ok you can move off focus and the shutter will still fire.

The whole reason for buying a DSLR is running costs, simple as that. I can not afford to use countless films to get that one good shot but prefer to take multiple shots at no extra cost. So long term saving a DSLR is a better option for me than to use my aging Chinon CE5.
Also very few shops where I live now develop 35mm film anyway.Also its been a long time since I had my own darkroom and having a family removes the idea for at least another eighteen years

I liked the split screen focusing on my Super ME, but can't seem to get to grips with the focusing on my *istDL. As (kindly) pointed out by you guys, some of my early pics were slightly out of focus, ( I can actually see that now!). So I've taken to use auto focus as a method of training my eye, but I do like the idea of going back to manual focus.

On my 70-162mm lens I don't have the option of auto, and my focus hasn't been criticised when I've used that. But that might have been luck.

I use manual focus often but really depends on the situation , dont think its being lazy its just what creates the desired result in the circumstances.....

[IMG]http://www.redbubble.com/people/duroo/art/1328015-1-tiger#[/IMG]

[quote:3496ace15f="duroo72"]I use manual focus often but really depends on the situation , dont think its being lazy its just what creates the desired result in the circumstances.....

None of your arguments relate to DSLRs. They relate to digital cameras generally. And you appear to have a very limited idea of what digital offers.

First, if it's just runnung costs you are concerned about, then any digital camera will lower your shooting costs - it doesn't have to be a DSLR.

Second, digital gives you much greater control over your images generally. You decide on colour balance, crop, contrast, saturation, etc., etc..

Third, digital is immensely more convenient. You have pictures instantly, and you have instant feedback. You can store and view your images on computer,; email them across the world; place them on the web; print them; as you please.

And auto-focus has nothing to do with digital specifically - the benefits apply equally to film. For some people, whose eyes are not what they were, AF is essential. It's also very useful for fast-moving situations, like photographing children. But MF is always available when it is appropriate to use it.

To say it is laziness to use AF is to exhibit another sort of laziness - mental laziness. The same sort of laziness that leads to saying that cost is the "sole" reason for using digital.

G

Cost wasn't a consideration for me.
switching from film to digital, was all about improving quality and workflow.
There's alot of hidden costs you didn't have with film....
TIME (editing), computers, memory cards, software, harddrives, cd/dvds, inkjet papers and inks...

sure you save on film.....

I used to spend on film, developing, printing. (approx $375.00 cdn) on a wedding job.
I saved that, but now spend about $480.00 on iPod, dvd's, inkjet paper and ink, photobooks.

The trade off?

I invest more time per project, give more value, and charge a little more than double what I used to.

the reason for slrs is the choices and versitility.
Sometimes af saves time, sometimes it saves the shot, other times it's manual.
nice to have both!

So what's the significance of this tiger? Sorry, but no tiger looks like this. It has fur, not spikes.

I'd like to see a less over-processed version.

Are you intending to come across as a pompous arogant poster or is it just your style? perhaps you should check the comments posted under my tiger image - just because you feel its not right dosent mean it is or isnt - each to their own. A tutorial writer on a well known digital imaging magazine has commented that it is one of the best tiger images he has ever seen - so if your up for the challenge lets see some of your photos?

It must be getting late!

The tiger looks fine on my monitor, possibly a little over-sharpened for my taste but we don't know if that is just the resizing for the web that has caused that. The water is quite an odd colour - is that how it was?

Nice tight crop.

The thing about your photograph is that it has nothing to do with manual as opposed to automatic focus.

The apparent sharpness in this image is down to a particular editing style, whose merits are down to whether you like that kind of look or not. I happen not to, because it looks unnatural to me. As John says, a bit oversharpened - but that's just my subjective view.

But I'm sure that a tutorial writer on a well known digital imaging magazine knows far more than me, so why should you care what I think?

I feel complimented that you should feel the need to rebuke me for my opinion - thank you.

Just my opinion - which you're free to agree or disagree with - there's no reason to react so violently to it.

The composition is very pleasing, apart from the slightly distracting top left hand corner.

If, all of a sudden, it's a requirement to post award-winning photographs before one may express an opinion on someone else's, then I'm the first to admit that I fall way short of whatever challenge you're referring to.

I've posted lots of photos. One or two of them aren't too bad, although most mark me out as the barely-beyond-beginner that I am.

Sorry if that precludes me from having an opinion.

Hi John,

Thankyou for your polite comments and questions on my image , this is a pseudo Hdr shot from one shot , yes perhaps its a little sharp i think it was the hdr process but im happy with it , the water was this colour mainly because she had amused her viewers by taking a p in it acting dignified and regal during her ablutions - ignorance is bliss eh!!!
What made it a little tricky to capture was the fact she was approx 50 yards away and i was having to shoot her through a perspex viewing window in bright sunlight - im happy with the end result , ive only had my dslr 3 months and im still getting to grips with it as well as pspp and hdr techniques.
Id still like Chrisa's work so we can review it............