[timw4mail]

I had at one time used a fish eye lens (16mm Zenitar) set to around 3 feet to take image of a woodpecker I was feeding on my left hand. I fired non stop on the right hand until the bird flew away in around 5 seconds.

You have a choice shot out of those?

[danielchtong]

You have a choice shot out of those?

Long story indeed

Fisheye lens shooting birds (Page 1) - Gallery - Manual Focus Forum

This was actually a series of shots and I will not be able to replicate it . While I was shooting with my long lens , I found a woodpecker circling me ready to come down for some food. I took down my camera with a long tele and pulled out my other camea with short lens which happened to be a fish eye. It was just plain luck looking back the exif of it happening all within 5 seconds. I know now that downy woodpecker is actually a very jittery bird hardly ever been shot at such close distance . It was done with Zenitar manual 16mm lens.
I did not use manual focus with my right hand while handfeeding it on my left. I did zone focusing at F4 I believe .

[DeadJohn]

...There is practically zero chance that any AF camera (Canon Nikon Sony included) can manage these two shots (while panning)....

Your 3rd shot is a good photo because we can see the bird clearly. MF or AF can manage that.

Shots 1 and 2, though, IMO, are not keepers regardless of focus because of all the foreground branches. It's like taking a photo through a screen door. AF will lock onto the screen. MF can focus on the correct object behind the screen, but that photo is still spoiled by the screen.

[talk about a bear]...It's hard to resist giving a cutie like him a cookie.

I hope you were able to resist. Feeding encourages bears to hang around people. That in turns leads to injury and death for people plus bears.

[luftfluss]

Crossing paths when you know he is there is one thing. Suddenly aware that he has come up from behind is another thing altogether. This is more like stalking behavior and really is not very cute. I have worked around black bears for many, many years and they may seem cute, but they are known to stalk humans.

Obviously you will respond as you wish, but most bears have forgotten to watch the Disney films and are not aware of how we expect them to act. So they generally act as they normally would. Wild and somewhat unpredictable. Be careful. And please don't start feeding them.

I was being lighthearted, but you are absolutely correct. Bears - any wild animal - can be inscrutable and dangerous. I like my bears, but I'm not Timothy Treadwell delusional.

I hope you were able to resist. Feeding encourages bears to hang around people. That in turns leads to injury and death for people plus bears.

Yup. I scatter birdseed on my lawn, but that's it. Where I live there is sufficient population density that "friendly" human-wildlife interaction can sometimes have tragic endings. I've seen it more than once.

Anyway, a recent photo again taken with the A400/5.6. More cuteness...

[luftfluss]

Long story indeed

Fisheye lens shooting birds (Page 1) - Gallery - Manual Focus Forum

That's so neat! Well done!

[stevebrot]

Manual focus is a valid and more commonly-used technique than many would think. Appropriate use cases include (sometime paradoxically):

• Where intelligent subject choice cannot be left to the camera
• Where missed focus means missed shot
• Where critical/fine focus is an absolute requirement
• Where AF-C + "spray 'n pray" are simply dumb
• Where AF simply sucks

Genres that frequently meet the above criteria include: birds in flight (surprise!), birds at perch, wildlife (see bear above), many action sports (surprise again!), motor sport (track), portraiture, macro, product work, street work, landscape (duh), and architecture (duh again). I personally use manual focus quite a bit, partially because I have a fair amount of manual focus glass and often use non-AF cameras and partially because sometimes, it is the right thing to do. Below are a few examples:

Which cyclist do we want?
My K-3 might have done a better job, but the K10D was totally confused by the peloton. The bikes were approaching on the curve at about 25 mph. I switched to manual focus and got the shot.


K10D, Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited

Poor light and fast action
The sun was setting and the guys with the big white lenses had packed it up. I was able to soldier on with pre-focus and pan.


K10D, Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited


Much easier to do using manual focus
Yes, this was with a manual focus lens, but managing this level of selective focus using AF is not worth the trouble.


K10D, Tamron 70-150/3.5 (02A)


Getting acceptable focus for pertinent details is a challenge when doing camera p0rn. Again, much easier to do using manual focus.


K10D, Pentax-FA 35/2


Low key + complex surfaces
Aside from the relative ease of doing this using manual focus, it would have been a disaster using AF. FWIW, this was taken with my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) which is poorly suited for manual focus, but we make do. I could have used a different lens, but that is what was on the camera.


K-3, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C)


Duh...
No further comment needed.


K-3, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C)


Steve

[fehknt]

After trying for a while with autofocus, I got this in manual focus: Shared album - Devin Grady - Google Photos
Auto focus didn't have a chance on DIF (dragonflies in flight)

[danielchtong]

My K-3 might have done a better job, but the K10D was totally confused by the peloton. The bikes were approaching on the curve at about 25 mph. I switched to manual focus and got the shot.


Steve

Steve, Great shots of the cyclist and your choice of MF is well rewarded



Even the best AF system hunts from infinity to the min focus distance. MF is just so simple to manage.

Even for my 300mm lens, typically, I set the focus ring to around 100 ft away for BIF shots. I won't fire until the bird is within my range. Then I fire and adjust the focus ring the same time based on what I see on the view finder. My turn of the focus ring (it is butterly smooth for A*300mm F:4) is no more than 15 degree around before the birds flies away. My biggest problem is making sure the subject is in my frame.
The camera re sample below did not hesitate in my case. It just fired non stop. And it would have been entirely my fault if I could not lock on the focus.



You can see the exif of these two images (sample below) were 1 split second apart of the same bird. By the time I reached the third one, the bird was out of my frame as it was flying more or less towards me

[luftfluss]

Even the best AF system hunts from infinity to the min focus distance. MF is just so simple to manage.

That's why some lenses have a focus limiter switch.

[danielchtong]

That's why some lenses have a focus limiter switch.

That means it hunts within a range as set.
The point that I want to make is that it is super fast to manually turn the focus ring in the case of MF. And the camera never waits for focus confirmation in whatever manner.

---------- Post added 06-10-2017 at 06:09 AM ----------

After trying for a while with autofocus, I got this in manual focus: Shared album - Devin Grady - Google Photos
Auto focus didn't have a chance on DIF (dragonflies in flight)

Wow that is spectacular. I never managed BIF shots tinier than a sea gull

Daniel

---------- Post added 06-10-2017 at 06:20 AM ----------

This part of argument is interesting. I nailed the focus (on head and eye of the same bird as shown below with a k100D).





1. If I used AF.c , will I make it?
2. K100D can only manage 3 FPS in the best scenario. I am sure, If I used a 10 FPS like the newer Pentax camera or Nikon or Canon, I would have yielded at least another 2 keepers in 2 different pose of the same bird. That would have been really cool.

[LensBeginner]

Why do you need AF?
Manual Focus does help . For UWA shots with its gigantic depth of field, all you need for infinity shots is just set it to infinity. You can fire at will. If your subject is 10 ft away just set that to 5 -20 ft...everything will be in focus except 50 feet away This is call zone focusing (MF speak )
Try that. It is fun just to get rid of the need to focus (auto or otherwise)
I had at one time used a fish eye lens (16mm Zenitar) set to around 3 feet to take image of a woodpecker I was feeding on my left hand. I fired non stop on the right hand until the bird flew away in around 5 seconds.

Well, that's what I said...

You know, if this was as clear-cut as you described it, then Sigma shouldn't have even bothered putting an AF motor in their UWA lenses. Instead, it turns out that the notion of "acceptably" in focus depends on a lot of factors, and when one is riding really abysmal light and is at or near WO, then all kind of minimal faults of the lens (weak corner/corners/border/borders... to make an UWA is a difficult business, to make it a zoom is double difficult) all come to the fore, and focus becomes really critical.

So if my CDAF could focus precisely at the distance I intended, then I would have had the best possible result, providing that I chose that distance (thus the slice of reality which is in focus in front of and behind it) with some logic. I found out that it is not, and that its level of "acceptable" in-focus contrast is not acceptable to me.

[danielchtong]

You know, if this was as clear-cut as you described it, then Sigma shouldn't have even bothered putting an AF motor in their UWA lenses........So if my CDAF could focus precisely at the distance I intended, then I would have had the best possible result,... .

You have a Sigma 10-20mm. If it was a Sigma 10mm or in my case a Zenitar 16mm, it is clear cut that zone focusing is entirely reliable.
But it won't work for 20mm with narrower DoF where AF motor is still needed.
Play with zone focusing. It is cool and super convenient particularly when you are using the focal length of 10-15mm. AF is actually redundant.

[luftfluss]

That means it hunts within a range as set.

Yes, but depending on the camera/lens combo, the C.AF used in conjunction with the focus limited can be super fast.

Here's my seagull-in-flight, taken shortly after I acquired my A400/5.6

[danielchtong]

Yes, but depending on the camera/lens combo, the C.AF used in conjunction with the focus limited can be super fast.

Here's my seagull-in-flight, taken shortly after I acquired my A400/5.6

i. Yes. It can be superfast. But it cannot be faster than a MF lens doing the same thing as the camera would have fired regardless if it was in focus or not
ii. The shot was exquisitely right on. I would love to have the extra reach of A400mm 5.6. But I could not find one at all

[Racer X 69]

I never attempted small BIF. It is beyond difficult if not impossible

Yes, it is difficult. I missed it ever so slightly in this series of hand held shots while trying out a Sigma 135mm f2.8 Pantel lens on my old K10D. I had to bump the ISO higher than I wanted to with the K10D, but they still came out OK. All shots were cropped about 50%.



These little birds are very defensive over their food supply. They spread their tails and assume this posture with each other to chase away competitors. Since I had to stand fairly close to the feeder with the 135 lens the birds were attempting to intimidate me too.




This little guy was just waving goodbye.