A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon 35mm SLR: manual focus vs. auto focus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 19th 04, 08:05 PM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"S. S." wrote in message
om...
Dear Gurus,

Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual
focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon
over an AF Nikon. I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier
and heavier than an MF one,


Not true- many budget AF Nikons are lighter than many MF Nikons, the N/F55
and N/F75 in particular.

and the MF lense speed is faster.


Not necessarily true- while there have been faster 35mm and 50mm (and
marginally faster 105mm and 135mm) lenses for MF Nikon, AF lenses are mostly
just as fast (and the 28mm f1.4 is available only in AF)

But in
addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF
Nikon? Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF
body? Thanks in advance for help!


Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were
never brought over to AF (and some, such as the 180mm, were apparently
improved on).

The benefits of a Nikon manual focus camera are mostly ergonomic- to those
with a more patient approach, twiddling dials and knobs can be far more
satisfying than assuming that once the button is pressed everything will
just whirr into place. If you prefer to focus manually, an autofocus lens in
MF mode will feel somewhat loose and unpleasant.

If I may use an analogy (as I am known to), the manual/automatic issue is
something like climbing a mountain versus taking the chairlift- you get the
same result, and the view is still nice, and you can even spend the ride
marvelling at the technology that is getting you there so easily- but when
you get to the bottom again, it's easy to feel like you haven't actually
done anything.

OTT maybe, but a lot of people feel this way.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


  #12  
Old September 19th 04, 08:14 PM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were
never brought over to AF (and some, such as the 180mm, were apparently
improved on).


Clarification- the 180mm was improved on in the transition to AF, which
should indicate that manual focus lenses, despite their many merits, aren't
always top of the tree.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


  #13  
Old September 19th 04, 08:14 PM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were
never brought over to AF (and some, such as the 180mm, were apparently
improved on).


Clarification- the 180mm was improved on in the transition to AF, which
should indicate that manual focus lenses, despite their many merits, aren't
always top of the tree.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


  #14  
Old September 19th 04, 10:06 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"S. S." wrote:

Dear Gurus,

Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual
focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon
over an AF Nikon.


Since the obvious difference is the method of focus, the most noticeable
difference to the user of either is the differences of the viewfinder and
focusing screen. The autofocus lenses can be manually focused, though the
throw is often shorter, and the feedback seems very loose (not very
precise).

I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier
and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster.


In general, the autofocus bodies are all bulkier. However, the lower
priced autofocus SLRs are largely plastic construction, making them
lighter than many of the manual focus bodies. Most of the older manual
focus bodies are very compact, though the mostly metal construction makes
them heavier. While there is a level of mechanical complexity to older
manual focus bodies, often many are very reliable, and quite simple to
use.

With the lenses, there are a few manual focus lenses with autofocus
matching lenses. The 50 mm choices of the same lens speed offer a
slightly lighter autofocus version, since they are mostly plastic. The
focus helical on a manual focus lens is metal barrels, which adds to the
weight. Some manual focus lenses have no autofocus equivalent, like the
35 mm f1.4, all the shift lenses, all the f1.2 lenses, somewhat legendary
105 mm f2.5, 300 mm f2.0, all Medical Nikkors, all Reflex Nikkors, and a
few others.

With the zoom lens choices, the manual focus versions are generally
heavier than the autofocus choices. It should be noted that most of the
zoom lenses are newer construction in autofocus versions, and generally
better lenses than manual focus zoom choices. If you want to use mostly
zoom lenses, stick with autofocus.

But in
addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF
Nikon?


One thing to consider is that autofocus works by comparing changes in
contrast to pick a plane of focus. Under subtle variations in lighting, a
subject or object at a fixed distance could actually cause the lens to
continue to shift focus. Of course, this is when the autofocus lock, or
even just manually focusing the autofocus lens can work better. With a
manual focus only lens, you choose the plane of focus, based upon your
eyesight, and the feedback in the viewfinder. If you have bad eyesight,
then you would probably do worse with manual focusing.

Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF
body? Thanks in advance for help!

SS


Okay, some of the autofocus bodies allow changing the viewfinder, or just
the viewing screen. Those that allow that change have screens with manual
focus aides, like a split screen view, or fine ground screen. The
contrast is generally very good, and makes manually focusing fast and
intuitive.

The kit zoom autofocus lenses, and some of the lower priced Nikon G
series lenses, have almost no manual focus grip area, making them very
difficult to manually focus. Combine that with a lower priced camera
body, like the N65, and doing anything manually focused would be
questionable.

One thing that none have mentioned so far is that shutter lag is much
longer in autofocus. Even if you manually focus an autofocus lens, often
the autofocus body is much slower to react to your finger pushing the
shutter button. Many of the manual focus only bodies are actually quite
fast responding, making them good for using your reflexes while shooting.

There is one aspect of autofocus that is very difficult to copy using
manual focus. That is follow focus of an object moving towards you, or
away from you. As the speed increases, it can be tough to follow the
plane of focus, though some of the better autofocus bodies are very good
at this.

I am one of the few people on this news group who is largely
anti-autofocus. I do not like the lack of precision, or the lack of
control. I have rented autofocus cameras, though I largely use them in
manual focus. Of those, I like using the F100, F4, and F5 (in that
order). My mom has an N65, which works great for her, though it has a
somewhat dark viewfinder, and not a very good screen for manually
focusing. I also do quite a bit of night and low light photography, using
fairly fast manual focus lenses, and manual focus bodies. In general,
that type of imagery would often make autofocus useless, or hopelessly
slow to react, or throw the autofocus assist light onto my subjects
(distracting, ruining spontaneous nature of the images).

My uses are quite specific, and rarely match how others take photos. I
hope I answered some questions for you. In general, the better autofocus
bodies allow you to easily use manual focus lenses, and really are more
versatile than just a manual focus body. If you want zoom lenses, stick
with autofocus. Hope that helps.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!



  #15  
Old September 19th 04, 10:06 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"S. S." wrote:

Dear Gurus,

Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual
focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon
over an AF Nikon.


Since the obvious difference is the method of focus, the most noticeable
difference to the user of either is the differences of the viewfinder and
focusing screen. The autofocus lenses can be manually focused, though the
throw is often shorter, and the feedback seems very loose (not very
precise).

I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier
and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster.


In general, the autofocus bodies are all bulkier. However, the lower
priced autofocus SLRs are largely plastic construction, making them
lighter than many of the manual focus bodies. Most of the older manual
focus bodies are very compact, though the mostly metal construction makes
them heavier. While there is a level of mechanical complexity to older
manual focus bodies, often many are very reliable, and quite simple to
use.

With the lenses, there are a few manual focus lenses with autofocus
matching lenses. The 50 mm choices of the same lens speed offer a
slightly lighter autofocus version, since they are mostly plastic. The
focus helical on a manual focus lens is metal barrels, which adds to the
weight. Some manual focus lenses have no autofocus equivalent, like the
35 mm f1.4, all the shift lenses, all the f1.2 lenses, somewhat legendary
105 mm f2.5, 300 mm f2.0, all Medical Nikkors, all Reflex Nikkors, and a
few others.

With the zoom lens choices, the manual focus versions are generally
heavier than the autofocus choices. It should be noted that most of the
zoom lenses are newer construction in autofocus versions, and generally
better lenses than manual focus zoom choices. If you want to use mostly
zoom lenses, stick with autofocus.

But in
addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF
Nikon?


One thing to consider is that autofocus works by comparing changes in
contrast to pick a plane of focus. Under subtle variations in lighting, a
subject or object at a fixed distance could actually cause the lens to
continue to shift focus. Of course, this is when the autofocus lock, or
even just manually focusing the autofocus lens can work better. With a
manual focus only lens, you choose the plane of focus, based upon your
eyesight, and the feedback in the viewfinder. If you have bad eyesight,
then you would probably do worse with manual focusing.

Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF
body? Thanks in advance for help!

SS


Okay, some of the autofocus bodies allow changing the viewfinder, or just
the viewing screen. Those that allow that change have screens with manual
focus aides, like a split screen view, or fine ground screen. The
contrast is generally very good, and makes manually focusing fast and
intuitive.

The kit zoom autofocus lenses, and some of the lower priced Nikon G
series lenses, have almost no manual focus grip area, making them very
difficult to manually focus. Combine that with a lower priced camera
body, like the N65, and doing anything manually focused would be
questionable.

One thing that none have mentioned so far is that shutter lag is much
longer in autofocus. Even if you manually focus an autofocus lens, often
the autofocus body is much slower to react to your finger pushing the
shutter button. Many of the manual focus only bodies are actually quite
fast responding, making them good for using your reflexes while shooting.

There is one aspect of autofocus that is very difficult to copy using
manual focus. That is follow focus of an object moving towards you, or
away from you. As the speed increases, it can be tough to follow the
plane of focus, though some of the better autofocus bodies are very good
at this.

I am one of the few people on this news group who is largely
anti-autofocus. I do not like the lack of precision, or the lack of
control. I have rented autofocus cameras, though I largely use them in
manual focus. Of those, I like using the F100, F4, and F5 (in that
order). My mom has an N65, which works great for her, though it has a
somewhat dark viewfinder, and not a very good screen for manually
focusing. I also do quite a bit of night and low light photography, using
fairly fast manual focus lenses, and manual focus bodies. In general,
that type of imagery would often make autofocus useless, or hopelessly
slow to react, or throw the autofocus assist light onto my subjects
(distracting, ruining spontaneous nature of the images).

My uses are quite specific, and rarely match how others take photos. I
hope I answered some questions for you. In general, the better autofocus
bodies allow you to easily use manual focus lenses, and really are more
versatile than just a manual focus body. If you want zoom lenses, stick
with autofocus. Hope that helps.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!



  #16  
Old September 19th 04, 10:06 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"S. S." wrote:

Dear Gurus,

Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual
focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon
over an AF Nikon.


Since the obvious difference is the method of focus, the most noticeable
difference to the user of either is the differences of the viewfinder and
focusing screen. The autofocus lenses can be manually focused, though the
throw is often shorter, and the feedback seems very loose (not very
precise).

I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier
and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster.


In general, the autofocus bodies are all bulkier. However, the lower
priced autofocus SLRs are largely plastic construction, making them
lighter than many of the manual focus bodies. Most of the older manual
focus bodies are very compact, though the mostly metal construction makes
them heavier. While there is a level of mechanical complexity to older
manual focus bodies, often many are very reliable, and quite simple to
use.

With the lenses, there are a few manual focus lenses with autofocus
matching lenses. The 50 mm choices of the same lens speed offer a
slightly lighter autofocus version, since they are mostly plastic. The
focus helical on a manual focus lens is metal barrels, which adds to the
weight. Some manual focus lenses have no autofocus equivalent, like the
35 mm f1.4, all the shift lenses, all the f1.2 lenses, somewhat legendary
105 mm f2.5, 300 mm f2.0, all Medical Nikkors, all Reflex Nikkors, and a
few others.

With the zoom lens choices, the manual focus versions are generally
heavier than the autofocus choices. It should be noted that most of the
zoom lenses are newer construction in autofocus versions, and generally
better lenses than manual focus zoom choices. If you want to use mostly
zoom lenses, stick with autofocus.

But in
addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF
Nikon?


One thing to consider is that autofocus works by comparing changes in
contrast to pick a plane of focus. Under subtle variations in lighting, a
subject or object at a fixed distance could actually cause the lens to
continue to shift focus. Of course, this is when the autofocus lock, or
even just manually focusing the autofocus lens can work better. With a
manual focus only lens, you choose the plane of focus, based upon your
eyesight, and the feedback in the viewfinder. If you have bad eyesight,
then you would probably do worse with manual focusing.

Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF
body? Thanks in advance for help!

SS


Okay, some of the autofocus bodies allow changing the viewfinder, or just
the viewing screen. Those that allow that change have screens with manual
focus aides, like a split screen view, or fine ground screen. The
contrast is generally very good, and makes manually focusing fast and
intuitive.

The kit zoom autofocus lenses, and some of the lower priced Nikon G
series lenses, have almost no manual focus grip area, making them very
difficult to manually focus. Combine that with a lower priced camera
body, like the N65, and doing anything manually focused would be
questionable.

One thing that none have mentioned so far is that shutter lag is much
longer in autofocus. Even if you manually focus an autofocus lens, often
the autofocus body is much slower to react to your finger pushing the
shutter button. Many of the manual focus only bodies are actually quite
fast responding, making them good for using your reflexes while shooting.

There is one aspect of autofocus that is very difficult to copy using
manual focus. That is follow focus of an object moving towards you, or
away from you. As the speed increases, it can be tough to follow the
plane of focus, though some of the better autofocus bodies are very good
at this.

I am one of the few people on this news group who is largely
anti-autofocus. I do not like the lack of precision, or the lack of
control. I have rented autofocus cameras, though I largely use them in
manual focus. Of those, I like using the F100, F4, and F5 (in that
order). My mom has an N65, which works great for her, though it has a
somewhat dark viewfinder, and not a very good screen for manually
focusing. I also do quite a bit of night and low light photography, using
fairly fast manual focus lenses, and manual focus bodies. In general,
that type of imagery would often make autofocus useless, or hopelessly
slow to react, or throw the autofocus assist light onto my subjects
(distracting, ruining spontaneous nature of the images).

My uses are quite specific, and rarely match how others take photos. I
hope I answered some questions for you. In general, the better autofocus
bodies allow you to easily use manual focus lenses, and really are more
versatile than just a manual focus body. If you want zoom lenses, stick
with autofocus. Hope that helps.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!



  #17  
Old September 20th 04, 01:02 AM
Ted Azito
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tony" wrote in message . com...
Actually the MF will be the heavier given similar models. They tend to be
old designs with mechanical linkages and metal bodies. The only advantage to
them is that some equipment snobs will tell you that you'll learn more about
photography from them - they are wrong, and in fact actually don't have the
vaguest idea how wrong they are, but that's the way they are, and no amount
of evidence is gonna change them.
Go for AF - and take a look at Canon and Pentax while you're at it. Nikon
has been running on empty for a while now.


As the late-for-all-intents James Doohan's character, Scotty, said,
"Ye canna change the laws of physics." You don't get something for
nothing. When you have a camera body with more functions, more
subsystems, more complexity and yet it weighs less, and we can safely
bet costs less to make, then, it's like Johnny Mercer
said-"Something's Got To Give". What gets left out is simplicity,
ruggedness, and straightforwardness of operation.

You won't necessarily learn more about photography from the MF
camera, because the AF Nikons go both ways. You can turn the autofocus
off and in fact most of the time you will. But autofocus is something
a lot of people just never will need-I'd say among people who are any
good, more than not.

Unless you are going into a field where autofocus has made a
demonstrable improvement, I'd avoid it. I'd take advantage of the
favorable used market in mechanical manual still-supported SLRs and
their optics, with the idea you can always add an autofocus body and a
couple of lenses to the system if you go Nikon.

Autofocus is just not an improvement _for most people_, and it
presupposes an electronic camera that puts you out of business with a
dead battery or electronic failure. If you can provide evidence that
this isn't so, I'd say you might change us diehards. But it is so, and
as long as it is, we're going to uphold the standard. The vast
majority of M Leicas ever made are still operational and you can
seriously consider an old M3 that isn't mint as a user camera. That
isn't remotely true of the vast majority of cameras made back then,
and the same standard shouls be applied to new purchases today-Is this
thing going to be usable in twenty, thirty, fifty years?

Otherwise, buy a disposable.
  #18  
Old September 20th 04, 01:02 AM
Ted Azito
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tony" wrote in message . com...
Actually the MF will be the heavier given similar models. They tend to be
old designs with mechanical linkages and metal bodies. The only advantage to
them is that some equipment snobs will tell you that you'll learn more about
photography from them - they are wrong, and in fact actually don't have the
vaguest idea how wrong they are, but that's the way they are, and no amount
of evidence is gonna change them.
Go for AF - and take a look at Canon and Pentax while you're at it. Nikon
has been running on empty for a while now.


As the late-for-all-intents James Doohan's character, Scotty, said,
"Ye canna change the laws of physics." You don't get something for
nothing. When you have a camera body with more functions, more
subsystems, more complexity and yet it weighs less, and we can safely
bet costs less to make, then, it's like Johnny Mercer
said-"Something's Got To Give". What gets left out is simplicity,
ruggedness, and straightforwardness of operation.

You won't necessarily learn more about photography from the MF
camera, because the AF Nikons go both ways. You can turn the autofocus
off and in fact most of the time you will. But autofocus is something
a lot of people just never will need-I'd say among people who are any
good, more than not.

Unless you are going into a field where autofocus has made a
demonstrable improvement, I'd avoid it. I'd take advantage of the
favorable used market in mechanical manual still-supported SLRs and
their optics, with the idea you can always add an autofocus body and a
couple of lenses to the system if you go Nikon.

Autofocus is just not an improvement _for most people_, and it
presupposes an electronic camera that puts you out of business with a
dead battery or electronic failure. If you can provide evidence that
this isn't so, I'd say you might change us diehards. But it is so, and
as long as it is, we're going to uphold the standard. The vast
majority of M Leicas ever made are still operational and you can
seriously consider an old M3 that isn't mint as a user camera. That
isn't remotely true of the vast majority of cameras made back then,
and the same standard shouls be applied to new purchases today-Is this
thing going to be usable in twenty, thirty, fifty years?

Otherwise, buy a disposable.
  #19  
Old September 20th 04, 01:02 AM
Ted Azito
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tony" wrote in message . com...
Actually the MF will be the heavier given similar models. They tend to be
old designs with mechanical linkages and metal bodies. The only advantage to
them is that some equipment snobs will tell you that you'll learn more about
photography from them - they are wrong, and in fact actually don't have the
vaguest idea how wrong they are, but that's the way they are, and no amount
of evidence is gonna change them.
Go for AF - and take a look at Canon and Pentax while you're at it. Nikon
has been running on empty for a while now.


As the late-for-all-intents James Doohan's character, Scotty, said,
"Ye canna change the laws of physics." You don't get something for
nothing. When you have a camera body with more functions, more
subsystems, more complexity and yet it weighs less, and we can safely
bet costs less to make, then, it's like Johnny Mercer
said-"Something's Got To Give". What gets left out is simplicity,
ruggedness, and straightforwardness of operation.

You won't necessarily learn more about photography from the MF
camera, because the AF Nikons go both ways. You can turn the autofocus
off and in fact most of the time you will. But autofocus is something
a lot of people just never will need-I'd say among people who are any
good, more than not.

Unless you are going into a field where autofocus has made a
demonstrable improvement, I'd avoid it. I'd take advantage of the
favorable used market in mechanical manual still-supported SLRs and
their optics, with the idea you can always add an autofocus body and a
couple of lenses to the system if you go Nikon.

Autofocus is just not an improvement _for most people_, and it
presupposes an electronic camera that puts you out of business with a
dead battery or electronic failure. If you can provide evidence that
this isn't so, I'd say you might change us diehards. But it is so, and
as long as it is, we're going to uphold the standard. The vast
majority of M Leicas ever made are still operational and you can
seriously consider an old M3 that isn't mint as a user camera. That
isn't remotely true of the vast majority of cameras made back then,
and the same standard shouls be applied to new purchases today-Is this
thing going to be usable in twenty, thirty, fifty years?

Otherwise, buy a disposable.
  #20  
Old September 20th 04, 02:05 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"S. S." wrote in message
om...
Dear Gurus,

Since an AF Nikon 35mm SLR will also have the capacity to do manual
focus, I am wondering what is the advantage in general of an MF Nikon
over an AF Nikon. I understand that an AF one probably will be bulkier
and heavier than an MF one, and the MF lense speed is faster. But in
addition to those, what are the benefits, image quality-wise, of an MF
Nikon? Are MF feature of an AF body the same as MF feature of an MF
body? Thanks in advance for help!

SS


If you are taking pictures of people in a crowd, such as people on the
street, or walking down a boardwalk, it is very easy for the Auto Focus
mechanism in your camera to become confused, and not know exactly who to
focus on. I find that manual focus is much more reliable in a situation like
this.....I can always crop out what I don't like in the photograph later,
and just get the particular individual that I had in focus for the shot, or
use the other people as a sort of, "background" for the individual that is
in focus, and is therefore, the real subject of the shot.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need Nikon FG Instruction Manual Amit Joneja 35mm Photo Equipment 3 August 6th 04 01:39 PM
Nikon D70 (and my 35mm Nikon equipment) Matt Clara 35mm Photo Equipment 6 July 2nd 04 11:58 AM
What's the "leica look"? TP 35mm Photo Equipment 68 June 24th 04 05:05 PM
Nikon SF-200 Auto slide feeder (like new) for sale Ronald Shu Photographing Nature 0 January 31st 04 08:46 PM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne APS Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 08:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.