Nikon 35mm SLR: manual focus vs. auto focus

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

 

A MF body has a nicer focusing screen for MF work and the MF lenses turn
more and with additional resistance. By nicer I am referring to the
microprisim screens vs what is basically ground glass for the AF bodies.
These features are desirable if you are into MF. If you do not need
the speed, MF is more accurate than AF. You can carefully pick the exact
point of focus where as the AF systems seem to get the focus point some
where inside of the DOF and go with it. The Nikon MF bodies are compact
and stoutly built. If you are into fast action shooting, the AF bodies
and lenses are great. But if you are more into things shot from a
tripod the MF system holds some advantages. I am sure that is why Nikon
still makes MF bodies. Not all of us are sports photo journalists. As
far as the MF lens speed being faster, f stop is independent of the
focusing method.

Perhaps if you were to mention what bodies/lenses you are considering...

 

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.

 

This was recently discussed here.

http://tinyurl.com/5d9hw

 

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

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)

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.

 

Image quality? No real improvement, although certain Nikon legends were

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.

 

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).

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.

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.

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

While I am certainly no guru, I'll chime in..........I carry a small
Nikon body as a spare. My FE2 (predecessor to the current FM3) has been
incredibly reliable. Traded my first one in on a F3 in the mid to late
'80s. Missed it so much I bought another shortly afterwards. Simple
functions, can always be counted on, and much smaller than an AF body
(especially the pro models).

I take it out sometimes just for the experience. A camera like that can
help you take better pictures because it makes you slow things down a
bit. You have to pay a little more attention to what you are doing. My
subjects tend to be stationary though, if you shoot things that are
moving on you (sports, wildlife, etc), I wouldn't bother with a MF
camera. You can do it of course but it is so much easier with AF.

Hope it helps,
Bill

 

I am trying to decide whether to go with a Nikon F4 / F5 or an MF Nikon prior to F4.

 

If you have bad eyesight,

Thank you very much for the answer! I do wear a pair of prescription
glasses. Do you know whether wearing glasses has any impact on manual
focus in particular and handling 35mm (versus digital where you do not
need to look into viewfinder) in general? Thank you once again!

 

Try manually focussing with an autofocus lens and autofocus camera. It's
not as easy to do as would be the case with a manual focus lens, using a
manual focus camera with a split prism screen.

 

I don't think he's talking about refractive correction, unless perhaps
yours is extreme. As we, ahem, get older, there are various sorts of
deterioration in vision. It's well known that close-up vision declines
as the lens becomes less flexible, but unfortunately the eye's focusing
slows down, as well. Perhaps the worst effect for focusing a camera is
increased flare susceptibility: bright lights in the field of view
tend to obscure details in dark areas more than they used to.

 

What lenses are you looking to use?

If you buy an F4 you will be able to make use of pretty much any Nikon
lenses, including pre-AI manual focus, G type and AF-S. With AF-S lenses
the F4 becomes a very good AF body (not so hot with ordinary AF lenses).

The F5 OTOH, is only able to use pre-AI lenses with a Nikon modification
to the mount. Otherwise it is probably the most adaptable Nikon body
around.

Of course it will cost a lot more than an F4.

 

So the rest of the world is wrong and Mr Spadaro is right.

What an idiot.

What a complete and utter idiot you have become.

What a complete and utterly prejudiced idiot you have become.

Has something been eating at your grey matter that you could bring
yourself to make such inane comments? You are the Godfather of brand
prejudice and as such, who can take anything you say seriously anymore?
Are you still pissed off about your Nikon scanner that broke and had to be
repaired?

 

I've finally pretty much made the switch from manual focus bodies to
AF. I still use a lot of my MF lenses. I made the switch because of
the electronic focus indicators, generally higher strobe sync and
ability to use matrix metering (or color matrix metering) with some
lenses.

I've used MF bodies for 45 years. If I were going to buy a "pre" F4
body it would have to be the FM3a for all the features (especially
strobe features). I should mention that I did not go this way because
of the difficulties I have in working with the FM3a viewfinder in low
light. Had I done that, I would also really miss the matrix metering.
Right now my favorite "manual focus" body is the F100. My decision is
entirely feature driven. When not traveling I use a F5, when traveling
I'm more likely to use a F100. I still use a F3 or F3HP with MD4, but
less and less.

For me, bulk can be a problem. When I really have to travel light and
still need a SLR, I rely on an F3 and 28 f2.8 AIS and 50mm f1.8 AIS
with maybe a 105mm f2.5 AIS, but not always carried. My life on my
last few trips has been greatly simplified by switching to the F100.
The high eye point and lighted VF with electronic focus confirmation
has made my post-work evening and low-light photography much more
reliable.

As others have pointed out, lens speed is entirely independent of the
body. Of the cameras mentioned, the IMO image quality will not differ
with camera body. Exposure accuracy may at times be attributed to the
features in the body. One reason I like my F100 is that it has feature
for exposure control not found on a F5 (at least ones that I find
convenient with non-CPU lenses). These are toggled exposure lock (an
option) and "instant" compensation controlled by the command dial (an
option).

If the F100 had color matrix metering (like the F5) .......

Hope this helps,

Regards,
Roger

 

In general, you would want a better screen that allowed easier focusing
manually. There are a few options to consider, such as high eyepoint
finders. The smaller manual focus bodies are not so good for that, though
the F3HP, and the F4 are well suited to manual focusing for eyeglasses
wearers. The other option is to not wear your eyeglasses, and use a
diopter lens on the finder. Any optics place could make one, or if your
eyesight is correctable in whole number increments, there are many Nikon
made diopters for most of the manual focus bodies.

Some people prefer to keep their glasses on while shooting, while others
like the diopter choice. My personal preference is to wear contact
lenses, and use a 0 diopter on my cameras. I should mention that my
eyesight without contact lenses is actually fairly good, and I have a
very weak strength prescription. I guess since you asked about Nikon, I
should mention that I use a Nikon FE for most of my 35 mm work. While the
eyepoint of the FE is not as good as for the F3 or F4, it is a much
smaller and more compact camera body.

I think the idea of digital, using just the LCD (like on a P&S), leads to
other problems. There is no way to hold a camera steady at bent arms
distance. Also, judging focus is questionable on an LCD, and I would
hesitate to recommend manually focusing using one like that.

Prices on the F4 are actually fairly low currently, with many good used
examples. Check the prices at KEH in Atlanta first <http://www.keh.com>,
since sometimes EBAY auctions go too high on prices. The F4 would also
allow autofocus lenses to be used, though only with a centre focus area
selection. The F3 is slightly smaller and lighter, and just a little less
expensive than an F4. Avoid the F3AF, since that early autofocus camera
has some weird lenses, and is not very ergonomic.

Ciao!

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

 

Both are very good camera bodies. The F5 will cost considerably more than
the F4 but that's to be expected. I have both cameras and it suites me to
use the F4 much more often than I use the F5. Although both bodies are
top-o-the-line, each has advantages in how they are used. Since Dallas has
already mentioned the lenses, I won't repeat what he said. IMO, you will not
go wrong with either camera body but you should be aware that some parts for
the F4 may not be readily available, if repairs are needed. But accessories
for the F4 are readily available and inexpensive. An F4e with a MF23 back is
a potent tool photographic tool and IMO, more user friendly than the F5.

nick

 

As I uderstand it, the F4 has no idea what to do with an AFS lense.
Indeed, it is less "hot" on account of AF not working at all

Also, G type lenses will only work in the Program modes; so no A,S, or M.

Cheers,

Proud F4s owner.