Manual vs AF
- Thread starter TedG954
- Start date
I have gotten old and as a result, my vision has been slowly fading. I find for general shooting, I'll use AF. For closeup stuff, I try to manually focus. In those cases, I must remove my glasses to get a good look at my subject. I'm sure I'm due for a new vision check, but budget says not for another year (unless I get enough for a new camera then vision tests get postponed).
I certainly understand your dilemma. I can remember the very first time I wore glasses. I thought, "Wow! What have I been missing!"
Been there and done that Ted. I've worn mine for over 50 years and have gone from normal lenses to bi-focals to Progressive lenses. All help for a while, but all tend to fade some after a year. I can still get a fair focus without the glasses when my eye is right up against the viewfinder. Maybe one day I can afford a camera with live view.
I'm in the same boat as Mike. I wear progressive lenses, too, but every year, my vision seems to dim just a little. I use a rubber cup eyepiece on my viewfinder, which seems to help quite a bit. For focusing, I rely on AF when shooting in general, but switch to MF for macro and detailed work.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Think I am going to get Lasik o fix my old eyes. As far as AF vs M I use AF and only adjust it on macro. I was also reading an article photo magazine about manual exposure. They had a pretty interesting take on it. Shoot A or P and let the camera take e of the other. We always know if we need stop action or depth of field so set for it. Look in the view finder gives you the other setting so you can see it is ok. Changing scenes or clouds etc can change the exposure faster then you can and you might get the shot by using one of the auto setting. also leave my camera on P so I can grap it and shoot without bothering to set anything. Never know when that once in a lifetime shot comes in front of you.
Its hard to state auto Vs Manual focusing ! Manual will always be more accurate since its you thats setting the focus in the first place. Trouble is... Its simply not always that conveinent 
It would be difficult indeed trying to keep a GP bike in focus as it shoots past. Of course there is always the prefocus way of doing things which can indeed pay dividends when done with care. As in most things with photography, its just another tool or option we have at our fingertips
It would be difficult indeed trying to keep a GP bike in focus as it shoots past. Of course there is always the prefocus way of doing things which can indeed pay dividends when done with care. As in most things with photography, its just another tool or option we have at our fingertips I'm about as manual as manual could be but I'll say this - any camera made after about 2009 is going to have an excellent AF system so the question then becomes how fast is the AF.
I use manual focus because I do not have any AF lenses but I am seriously thinking about going to a Nikon body with built in AF motor and getting a AF 24 or 28.
I use manual focus because I do not have any AF lenses but I am seriously thinking about going to a Nikon body with built in AF motor and getting a AF 24 or 28.
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
When I shoot macro I use manual. Weddings and portraits AF. Also, when I shoot lightning and fireworks I use manual.
Same here, my 300s rarely gets it wrong.
AC016
Senior Member
Obviously, we are spoilt with AF. I am not sure how people did it before AF, but using MF on a moving subject is no easy task. I am just getting the hang of using a 50mm F1.8 D on my D5100. It's a great lens wide open. Thankfully, i have a little white dot that appears in my viewfinder when things are in focus - i ahve to manually focus of course. I have been having great fun with it and am getting good at pointing, focusing and shooting quite fast. But, as i said before, i am so spoilt when i go back to AF with my 18-55.