As above thanks.
As above thanks.
you have a habit of deleting your own threads, after you have gotten answers you wanted,
doing this is no respect to members who had taken their time replying in your threads,
I do not see there is any benefits to other members for such act, in fact, I would this is a very selfish action, becos you are deleting other people posts as well.
IF you keep doing this, I will serve an infraction to each thread you've deleted, and restore all your deleted threads.
I am sorry that this is not allowed. I have no ill intentions and I was thinking that my questions are too stupid to be worth listing. I promise I will not do it again.
Please restore my previous threads. Actually I have no benefits in deleting threads. Just dun want to cluster the forum with too many of my stupid questions. For the last thread I deleted, I just thought I want to let the matter rest and I do not want the seller to see it
Last edited by maisatomai; 25th February 2012 at 01:27 AM.
if you don't ask, people won't be able to answer, and others wouldn't be able to glean knowledge from those threads if they didn't exist.
no thread serves no purpose at all
So nobody has answered his question yet
Anyway, whether or not manual focus is more precise depends a lot on your skill. I believe camera technology has advanced so much that autofocus should be more precise. The only time when you should manual focus with an AF lens is if you want to focus on something with very low contrast (in which the AF system will "hunt" a lot or misfocus), or when you want to focus on something while keeping a certain framing such that there is no AF point on your camera which will be able to place your subject on.
Both has its own advantages. To me af and mf work hand in hand. Under good light af is able to achieve focus faster for me and less variability. When the af system starts to hunt then one can use mf to aid. E.g use mf to focus and see af can lock it faster.
MF is a good skill to have since one can mount manual lenses via adapter and some good manual lenses are cheaper than af alternative.
I believe autofocus is more accurate than manual focus, especially for digital cameras. On digital cameras, you only have either LCD or a visual indicator in the viewfinder to tell that you are in focus. Of course, there are some photographers that changed their viewfinder screen to include a split prism design that aid in manual focus. But under normal circumstances you can always rely on the electronics to perform much better than your eyes.
There are some instances where manual focus comes useful. Dark scenes make most AF hunt due to lack of contrast. With your eyes a better equipment in low light areas, manual focus gives you more consistent and better gauge of something in focus. AF can also be confused in situation when you have some faint objects in the way which infuse the electronics of not knowing which object is intended to be in focus, such as branches, leaves, window grilles, or human profiles. Manual focus will be a good choice where you override. Of course, you can always try your luck and let the AF do it's job making guesses.
On the topic of accuracy, everyone here need to realize that accuracy depends largely on the setup of the camera.
MF accuracy (using focus confirm) can be tuned physically just as AF accuracy can be tuned. For Nikon cameras, there are two separate hex knobs each for tuning the accuracy of either AF or MF. it works by adjusting the mirror that sends part of the image to the focus sensor.
AF accuracy can also be tuned using AF fine tune in the camera. Remember that accuracy is very dependent on many factors, like camera and lens tolerances etc..
Even if you are using a Split prism focusing screen, accuracy can be tuned as well, by adding or removing shims... etc.
Even if you are using your eyes to determine focus in the viewfinder, you need to tune the diopter correctly.
Last edited by daredevil123; 25th February 2012 at 09:46 PM.
Was looking for something else and chanced upon this thread...
That's an interesting question to ask! I guess if you have good perfect eyesight, MF can definitely be very precise, esp so if you can magnify it digitally via the camera's LCD!
Its just a box ... ... [ ° Ō ▀ ]
to me ... mf is more precise than af
now the SPEED ..... which is FASTER.... mf or af ? .....is debatable
At F8 and >, i can quite confidently say I can MF faster than any AF currently available.... now that is OT and nothing to do with focus precision!
Its just a box ... ... [ ° Ō ▀ ]
If is ultra wide angle and at f8 there will be lots I'd depth of field which makes the photo look sharp though it may not be in 100% focus. Try on say 600mm under gd light and see if u can do that
With a uwa, and a small aperture, you can set the focus slightly nearer than midway and just shoot without focusing. Essentially turning the camera into an instant cam. Can't be faster than this.Originally Posted by gundamseed84
It is a technique when you can't focus and can be applied to the shorter lenses, just have to know the DOF. Sadly most lenses don't have this marking anymore.
usually applied to shorter lenses yep!
anyways back to the question. which is more precise? barring all things aside, and all your diopters etc are accurate, splitscreen is still more precise. here is why:
given a low contrast background, AF is sure to miss. but a splitscreen works on a different idea (getting 2 halfs to join into 1), which does allow better control imho.
however, split screen has its limitations, which is it needs a relatively fast lens, and good lighting for it to work.
AF tech has developed a lot that now it is relatively accurate. just stop down a little and your images will normally be sharp already!