Nobody has patience for manual focus anymore

Sonata · 06-25-2011, 01:46 PM

I've been reading this forum for a year, so I don't know how I had never heard of catch-in-focus, but I had not. I went back and read everything I could dig up on this forum on the subject. Great information!

I've been able to get CIF to work with my 50mm and 28mm lenses, but not my 135mm. Not sure what's up with that, but at least I know it works on my camera. I played with it a lot yesterday. Seems like as long as I pay attention to my depth of field, it's as good as AF - or perhaps better, since AF is hit and miss sometimes. Between this and the Katzeye that came yesterday, I should be in much better shape than before regarding manual focus.

I HAVE to have the patience for manual focus, because I can't afford AF lenses right now (and probably not for a very long time.) The more I get into things, the more I think this is better anyway. Photography, to me, is worth studying, practicing, and doing well. If I ever move to AF, at least it won't be because I think I can't learn to focus manually.

ihasa · 06-25-2011, 01:51 PM

The manual focus method I tend to use is to move the focus slowly past the point of focus, then back again, using muscle memory to stop at the right spot. Seems to work and is not much slower than AF.

Getting the K7 means I can now use liveview, which really is fool-proof, but it's a bit slow.

And now I have tried the CIF technique discussed on this thread. I've tried before but this is the first time i've got it to work. What a fantastic feature! I'll be using it a lot.

joe.penn · 06-25-2011, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Sonata

I HAVE to have the patience for manual focus, because I can't afford AF lenses right now (and probably not for a very long time.)

Remember this, just because a $1,200+ AF lens is $700 (or more) than an equivalent MF piece, that does not mean that it is a better lens, fantastic photographs can be made with AF or MF lenses...

---

**TomB_tx** · 06-25-2011, 02:19 PM

As another reply pointed out, dSLR viewfinders are just not designed for easy manual focus, since autofocus sells. Manual focus was fast and easy on all the film cameras designed for it, from the H1a I bought new in '64 through the ME, MX, LX and beyond. I never wanted autofocus.
Even plain groundglass, without focus aids, is still darn good if the finder was designed for manual. My old Exakta still works well!
Pick up any of the old fully manual Pentax film cameras and try it - but you'll never be happy with the new dSLRs after that.
I like the images put out by my K-5, but my M lenses are pain with it; and I just don't like autofocus, as I often don't agree with it and "forcing" it to do what I want is more trouble than good manual focus ever was.
I sure wish someone would do a "retro" all manual digital SLR like the MX. The Leica M9 is the digital that suits me best, but at times I like an SLR.

joe.penn · 06-25-2011, 02:39 PM - **1 Like**

One thing I would like to see is the ability to select "Focus Points" with MF lenses and tie that in with CIF - I think that would be a great feature, at least for "MF Junkies" like me.

---

**luftfluss** · 06-25-2011, 02:43 PM

At the risk of being late to this particular party and not gear-oriented, whenever I photograph an individual or group with an MF lens I focus prior to having the subject(s) assume posing. Things are just more relaxed that way.

kenafein · 06-25-2011, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by joe.penn

Or the/a third party flange'd adapter....

Certainly will Joe, thanks for that tip, but I have to wait for the UPS man for that. My current adapter is the infinity focus variety.

JeffJS · 06-25-2011, 06:21 PM

Then you know that the flanged adapter won't let you focus to infinity. Correct?

kenafein · 06-25-2011, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

Then you know that the flanged adapter won't let you focus to infinity. Correct?

I am aware, Joe pointed out he has both styles. When he targets moving objects he uses the flanged adapter without infinity focus, and other times the other adapter with infinity focus. When I sought out my adapter I bought one specifically to allow me to use infinity, never thought I'd have a need for the other type. Good thing they are cheap enough.

JeffJS · 06-25-2011, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by kenafein

I am aware, Joe pointed out he has both styles. When he targets moving objects he uses the flanged adapter without infinity focus, and other times the other adapter with infinity focus. When I sought out my adapter I bought one specifically to allow me to use infinity, never thought I'd have a need for the other type. Good thing they are cheap enough.

You don't need one. Just get some foil tape and put it around the base of the lens. The adapter won't wear out as fast though. The only M42 lenses I have are Macros so I don't think too much about it anyway (and use a flanged adapter for them).

Stone G. · 06-27-2011, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by kenafein

I have a bunch of manual lenses that I bought recently and love to play with. Shots aren't always perfect the first time, but I make adjustments and I've turned out some gems. It seems with today's point and shoots and auto focus lenses people don't have any patience for the photographer to make manual adjustments anymore, or even worse take 2-3 shots to get the right one...........

I do not agree that "people" don't have the patience to use MF lenses any more. That is: If "people" means each and everyone who owns a DSLR.

Just look at the development in prices on e-Bay and elsewhere on the better of the older M42-, K-mount and KA-mount lenses! And take a look on the Lens Club Forums at this site and see how much these lenses are still being cared for and used to produce (excellent) photos.

Of course, not relying entirely on camera automatics involves skills that have to be learned and practised before one may reach "perfection" - and surely, "some people" may not have that patience........

Sonata · 06-27-2011, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by joe.penn

Remember this, just because a $1,200+ AF lens is $700 (or more) than an equivalent MF piece, that does not mean that it is a better lens, fantastic photographs can be made with AF or MF lenses...

That is really encouraging to hear! I would love it if I never felt the need to switch to AF lenses.

Northern Soul · 06-27-2011, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by TomB_tx

As another reply pointed out, dSLR viewfinders are just not designed for easy manual focus, since autofocus sells. Manual focus was fast and easy on all the film cameras designed for it, from the H1a I bought new in '64 through the ME, MX, LX and beyond. I never wanted autofocus.

I'll second that - I had my Tamron 80-210 adaptall on today as I can't find my AF lens - must be somewhere - anyway, manual focus is not so easy as it was on my Praktica's because the viewfinder is smaller, has no split prism, and,well, my eyesight isn't as good as it was then

Catch in focus was my friend, but it's quicker if you can judge focus yourself.

hcarvalhoalves · 06-27-2011, 09:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Sonata

That is really encouraging to hear! I would love it if I never felt the need to switch to AF lenses.

For some kinds of photography - and I'm tempted to say that is most kinds - doing without AF is perfectly fine. It might even be preferred.

The thing with AF is that it takes guesses and gets it right most of the time, but when it fails, it's an epic fail. Also, I feel that relying on AF constrains your creativity because you instinctively seek for the composition that will make your camera lock focus on what you want instead of playing with something different. Or you'll be fiddling choosing a focus point and will lose the shot. Either way, it's not helping you.

AF is perfectly good when you photograph mechanically. Weddings, kids, sports, etc... you're getting paid to get the shot. So you just buy expensive zooms that focus fast, set burst mode, spam away and make sure you get it. But for everything else, I'm pressed to say one could do just as well - if not better - without AF.

I mean, no one had trouble focusing before AF, and that's about 60 years of photography. We just find it necessary today because we're spoiled and the current VFs suck.

RioRico · 06-28-2011, 06:58 AM

@hcarvalhoalves,
I express it as an over-simplification: Use AF zooms to TAKE pictures. Use MF primes to MAKE pictures. Sure, it's not that clear-cut. AM zooms can be used slowly, MF primes can be used hurriedly. And is my dependence on CIF much bettor or different that being an AF junkie? Still, primes force us to look and work more, and MF forces us to think and work more. Looking and thinking and working -- those are bad?

As you mention, AF is fairly recent. Back in the day, we had no AF nor SR nor AWB ,nor zooms even. And we shot ASA 25-32 if we wanted detail and ASA 400 (pushed to 1000!) for drama, if we could stand the grain (noise). Somehow, with RF's, and TLR and SLR VF's, and measuring and guesstimation, we often managed to nail the focus. !Milagro! Miracle! No, practice...

And P&S's. Box cameras were the original P&S's. Brownies, and Polaroids, and Instamatics, all the same tradition. They might have camera settings for portraits-groups-landscapes focus, for indoor-outdoor-bulb light, or maybe not. They mostly have slow lenses. Much looks good at a small enough aperture.

Yes, stopping-down is the key to sharp focus. That's something we should remember. A few weeks ago I drove to the top of 14,250ft / 4275m Mt Evans Colorado on a clear, very bright day. I decided that my CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 lens was appropriate. Solar glare was so intense that I could barely see thru my K20D's VF, let alone the LCD screen. So I stopped-down to f/11, and prefocused to 15m for DOF from 5m to infinity, and just worked it as a P&S. Got nice sharp pictures, you betcha, of mountaintop scenes, of the Front Range extending from Wyoming to New Mexico.

Oh yeah, that 12-blade Zeiss lens cost me all of US$7 a few months ago. THAT is why I have patience for manual focus!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 Manual Lens Front Focus & Focus Beep woes fixed	kneonx	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	14	04-12-2014 03:47 PM
10 Reasons why manual focus primes are better than those new auto focus zoom lenses	JoepLX3	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	188	07-25-2012 03:28 PM
Focus Ring on DA 35 macro makes a clicking noise; manual focus ... this normal?	eadrian75	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	04-12-2011 12:51 AM
Confirm my understand of metering w/ manual lenses focus hyperfocal focus	DeadJohn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	03-25-2011 12:31 PM
K100D Super - Focus point locked to center in Manual Focus ?	JGabr	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	01-25-2010 09:41 PM

06-25-2011, 01:46 PM	#31
Sonata New Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 24	I've been reading this forum for a year, so I don't know how I had never heard of catch-in-focus, but I had not. I went back and read everything I could dig up on this forum on the subject. Great information! I've been able to get CIF to work with my 50mm and 28mm lenses, but not my 135mm. Not sure what's up with that, but at least I know it works on my camera. I played with it a lot yesterday. Seems like as long as I pay attention to my depth of field, it's as good as AF - or perhaps better, since AF is hit and miss sometimes. Between this and the Katzeye that came yesterday, I should be in much better shape than before regarding manual focus. I HAVE to have the patience for manual focus, because I can't afford AF lenses right now (and probably not for a very long time.) The more I get into things, the more I think this is better anyway. Photography, to me, is worth studying, practicing, and doing well. If I ever move to AF, at least it won't be because I think I can't learn to focus manually.

06-25-2011, 01:51 PM	#32
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	The manual focus method I tend to use is to move the focus slowly past the point of focus, then back again, using muscle memory to stop at the right spot. Seems to work and is not much slower than AF. Getting the K7 means I can now use liveview, which really is fool-proof, but it's a bit slow. And now I have tried the CIF technique discussed on this thread. I've tried before but this is the first time i've got it to work. What a fantastic feature! I'll be using it a lot.

06-25-2011, 02:17 PM	#33
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by Sonata I HAVE to have the patience for manual focus, because I can't afford AF lenses right now (and probably not for a very long time.) Remember this, just because a $1,200+ AF lens is $700 (or more) than an equivalent MF piece, that does not mean that it is a better lens, fantastic photographs can be made with AF or MF lenses... ---

06-25-2011, 02:19 PM	#34
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	As another reply pointed out, dSLR viewfinders are just not designed for easy manual focus, since autofocus sells. Manual focus was fast and easy on all the film cameras designed for it, from the H1a I bought new in '64 through the ME, MX, LX and beyond. I never wanted autofocus. Even plain groundglass, without focus aids, is still darn good if the finder was designed for manual. My old Exakta still works well! Pick up any of the old fully manual Pentax film cameras and try it - but you'll never be happy with the new dSLRs after that. I like the images put out by my K-5, but my M lenses are pain with it; and I just don't like autofocus, as I often don't agree with it and "forcing" it to do what I want is more trouble than good manual focus ever was. I sure wish someone would do a "retro" all manual digital SLR like the MX. The Leica M9 is the digital that suits me best, but at times I like an SLR.

06-25-2011, 02:39 PM - 1 Like	#35
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	One thing I would like to see is the ability to select "Focus Points" with MF lenses and tie that in with CIF - I think that would be a great feature, at least for "MF Junkies" like me. ---

06-25-2011, 02:43 PM	#36
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,629	At the risk of being late to this particular party and not gear-oriented, whenever I photograph an individual or group with an MF lens I focus prior to having the subject(s) assume posing. Things are just more relaxed that way.

06-25-2011, 04:35 PM	#37
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082 Original Poster	Originally posted by joe.penn Or the/a third party flange'd adapter.... Certainly will Joe, thanks for that tip, but I have to wait for the UPS man for that. My current adapter is the infinity focus variety.

06-25-2011, 06:21 PM	#38
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Then you know that the flanged adapter won't let you focus to infinity. Correct?

06-25-2011, 07:09 PM	#39
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082 Original Poster	Originally posted by JeffJS Then you know that the flanged adapter won't let you focus to infinity. Correct? I am aware, Joe pointed out he has both styles. When he targets moving objects he uses the flanged adapter without infinity focus, and other times the other adapter with infinity focus. When I sought out my adapter I bought one specifically to allow me to use infinity, never thought I'd have a need for the other type. Good thing they are cheap enough.

06-25-2011, 08:48 PM	#40
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by kenafein I am aware, Joe pointed out he has both styles. When he targets moving objects he uses the flanged adapter without infinity focus, and other times the other adapter with infinity focus. When I sought out my adapter I bought one specifically to allow me to use infinity, never thought I'd have a need for the other type. Good thing they are cheap enough. You don't need one. Just get some foil tape and put it around the base of the lens. The adapter won't wear out as fast though. The only M42 lenses I have are Macros so I don't think too much about it anyway (and use a flanged adapter for them).

06-27-2011, 02:12 AM	#41
Stone G. Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Zealand, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,516	Originally posted by kenafein I have a bunch of manual lenses that I bought recently and love to play with. Shots aren't always perfect the first time, but I make adjustments and I've turned out some gems. It seems with today's point and shoots and auto focus lenses people don't have any patience for the photographer to make manual adjustments anymore, or even worse take 2-3 shots to get the right one........... I do not agree that "people" don't have the patience to use MF lenses any more. That is: If "people" means each and everyone who owns a DSLR. Just look at the development in prices on e-Bay and elsewhere on the better of the older M42-, K-mount and KA-mount lenses! And take a look on the Lens Club Forums at this site and see how much these lenses are still being cared for and used to produce (excellent) photos. Of course, not relying entirely on camera automatics involves skills that have to be learned and practised before one may reach "perfection" - and surely, "some people" may not have that patience........

06-27-2011, 07:04 AM	#42
Sonata New Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 24	Originally posted by joe.penn Remember this, just because a $1,200+ AF lens is $700 (or more) than an equivalent MF piece, that does not mean that it is a better lens, fantastic photographs can be made with AF or MF lenses... That is really encouraging to hear! I would love it if I never felt the need to switch to AF lenses.

06-27-2011, 08:22 AM	#43
Northern Soul Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The North of England Photos: Albums Posts: 494	Originally posted by TomB_tx As another reply pointed out, dSLR viewfinders are just not designed for easy manual focus, since autofocus sells. Manual focus was fast and easy on all the film cameras designed for it, from the H1a I bought new in '64 through the ME, MX, LX and beyond. I never wanted autofocus. I'll second that - I had my Tamron 80-210 adaptall on today as I can't find my AF lens - must be somewhere - anyway, manual focus is not so easy as it was on my Praktica's because the viewfinder is smaller, has no split prism, and,well, my eyesight isn't as good as it was then Catch in focus was my friend, but it's quicker if you can judge focus yourself.

06-27-2011, 09:27 PM - 1 Like	#44
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by Sonata That is really encouraging to hear! I would love it if I never felt the need to switch to AF lenses. For some kinds of photography - and I'm tempted to say that is most kinds - doing without AF is perfectly fine. It might even be preferred. The thing with AF is that it takes guesses and gets it right most of the time, but when it fails, it's an epic fail. Also, I feel that relying on AF constrains your creativity because you instinctively seek for the composition that will make your camera lock focus on what you want instead of playing with something different. Or you'll be fiddling choosing a focus point and will lose the shot. Either way, it's not helping you. AF is perfectly good when you photograph mechanically. Weddings, kids, sports, etc... you're getting paid to get the shot. So you just buy expensive zooms that focus fast, set burst mode, spam away and make sure you get it. But for everything else, I'm pressed to say one could do just as well - if not better - without AF. I mean, no one had trouble focusing before AF, and that's about 60 years of photography. We just find it necessary today because we're spoiled and the current VFs suck.

06-28-2011, 06:58 AM	#45
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	@hcarvalhoalves, I express it as an over-simplification: Use AF zooms to TAKE pictures. Use MF primes to MAKE pictures. Sure, it's not that clear-cut. AM zooms can be used slowly, MF primes can be used hurriedly. And is my dependence on CIF much bettor or different that being an AF junkie? Still, primes force us to look and work more, and MF forces us to think and work more. Looking and thinking and working -- those are bad? As you mention, AF is fairly recent. Back in the day, we had no AF nor SR nor AWB ,nor zooms even. And we shot ASA 25-32 if we wanted detail and ASA 400 (pushed to 1000!) for drama, if we could stand the grain (noise). Somehow, with RF's, and TLR and SLR VF's, and measuring and guesstimation, we often managed to nail the focus. !Milagro! Miracle! No, practice... And P&S's. Box cameras were the original P&S's. Brownies, and Polaroids, and Instamatics, all the same tradition. They might have camera settings for portraits-groups-landscapes focus, for indoor-outdoor-bulb light, or maybe not. They mostly have slow lenses. Much looks good at a small enough aperture. Yes, stopping-down is the key to sharp focus. That's something we should remember. A few weeks ago I drove to the top of 14,250ft / 4275m Mt Evans Colorado on a clear, very bright day. I decided that my CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 lens was appropriate. Solar glare was so intense that I could barely see thru my K20D's VF, let alone the LCD screen. So I stopped-down to f/11, and prefocused to 15m for DOF from 5m to infinity, and just worked it as a P&S. Got nice sharp pictures, you betcha, of mountaintop scenes, of the Front Range extending from Wyoming to New Mexico. Oh yeah, that 12-blade Zeiss lens cost me all of US$7 a few months ago. THAT is why I have patience for manual focus!