Is auto focus a meme? Why do great cameras like Leica use manual

>>3111555
If you have the urge to post something that is in the form of
>is [whatever] a meme?
Then it's a stupid question, you should feel bad, and you should seriously consider suicide.

>Is auto focus a meme

no

>Why do great cameras like Leica use manual focus only?

because you can focus on making small quality reliable lenses without having to build in focus motors and a focusing system in camera

>(also why does Leica only produce like a dozen lenses and none of them are more teli than 50mm?)

rangefinder framelines

>How do you have a zoom lens that only has 3 focal lengths?

it's like having three primes in one instead of a zoom that covers everything inbetween

delete this thread and then go outside and practice prefocusing

>>3111558
>delete this thread and then go outside and practice prefocusing


I have 2 manual focus only lenses. One in 35mm and one 50mm. 90% of the time is it faster just to put those lenses at f/8 then to use an auto focus lens

>>3111562
great

delete this thread

>>3111555
figure it out whether it is or it isn't for you, you dumb cunt

>>3111555
>Why do great cameras like Leica use manual focus only?
More like they're incapable of making good digital cameras with decent autofocus despite high prices.

>>3111562
Even at f/8 you're generally not faster or better than a decent AF system.

>>3111694
>Even at f/8 you're generally not faster or better than a decent AF system.

you are if you prefocus

>>3111555
>Is auto focus a meme?
It's going to be faster and more accurate than you 99% of the time, so you tell me.

>>3111694
I disagree. I often start out with auto focus on, and then get frustrated and turn it off because it is just faster to manually focus.

>>3111555
It's a comparatively ancient system built around manual focus. I guess they could make M-mount lenses that could autofocus, but it'd be a hack solution on cameras without EVFs.

The rangefinder system is made to work with specific focal lengths because of the selection of framelines built into the cameras, and for other focal lengths you need accessory finders.

AF isn't a meme, but it also isn't strictly necessary for a lot of situations.

>>3111750
>I don't know how to use autofocus.
Good post.

>>3111750

You must own a Fuji.

>>3111555
I don't think auto focus is a meme, but people have certainly become over reliant on AF, when at times manual focus would be better.

You wouldn't believe how many times I see on youtube some review of someone holding something to the camera and the person takes a huge chunk of time saying "uh let's see if the camera can focus on this" mother fucker just fucking manually focus it!! I don't need to see a minute of your camera hunting and AF software delaying to realize that the subject has gotten closer or farther

>>3111813

Most focus screens on modern cameras are a bitch to manually focus with at wide apertures. And everyone wants that bokeh, so thats all they shoot at.

>>3111555
>why do leica stick to mf
Af is tricky and expensive to implement and leica are small, you can't shit talk a feature that doesn't exist.

>why do leica not do tele
Because rangefinders are trash

Consider that Contax G1/2 are rangefinders and have AF. Yet, they are pretty small, so it is possible.

>>3111555
Later Leica models (M4+) have 28/90 50/75 and 35/135 framelines. There are enough lenses that match these framelines, so you can shoot tele with these cameras.

>>3111694
>>3111702
The more often you use a certain camera/lens combination, the better you get at guesstimating focus distance and the faster you become with actually hitting critical focus distance even at wider apertures. After some time you're about as fast as AF.

>>3111916
I'd say you're a mad poorfag to tease you here, but to be honest, some people prefer SLR and some prefer rangefinders.

>>3111942
>tease for being poorfag
Nah, I fell for the leica/bessa meme, then I was like "hey, I could view what my shot is actually going to be AND use an accurate focusing mechanism".

There is no good reason to get a rf in 2k17

>>3111961
Apart from the fact that I think calling someone a poorfag just because the personal dislike of a certain system is just stupid and not a valid argument. You never know what the other person shoots and many modern cameras are just as expensive as (film) leicas.
>There is no good reason to get a rf in 2k17
I still like shooting rangefinders and that's the only reason I own and use them.

>>3111961
>rf
>not accurate

Please, go on believing bullshit.

>>3112053
Focus shift of some lenses. RF doesn't account for it, becomes an issue at closer focusing distances.
Through the lens focus confirmation vs "theoretical focus" confirmation in RFs. Oh dear.

>>3111557
fpbp
I don't even understand why anyone bothered replying anything else in this thread

But this type of cancer seems prevalent in most hobby boards so at least it's not surprising

>>3112080
Are you talking about equivalent focal lengths? Personally, I prefer 35mm (equivalent) and from f/2 to f/2.8 it's only a stop, so not much difference in bokeh or speed.
Something tells me you're talking about fuji here.. the 27mm then is a pancake and personally, I'd go for it just because of the size.
On the other hand, I'd also prefer a manual lens over focus by wire anytime.

>>3112056
Both rely on light bouncing of mirrors. The only true way to be 100% sure you are in focus is using live view or shooting large format.

>>3112240
...the fuck? focusing on a rangefinder has nothing to do with mirrors.

>>3112240
large format ground glass positioning is as precise as SLR's focusing screens, be it 35mm or MF. If aligned properly with the final film/sensor plane distance, both show what the lens renders precisely.

>>3112245
The focusing patch is reflected into the center of the viewfinder using mirrors.

>>3112257
On a RANGEFINDER it is? You sure about that?

>>3112245
>>3112283
Of course it is. What do you think how the rangefinder image can be imposed into the finder image? I mean both "windows" face towards the subject, yet one image shows up in the other.

>>3112053
It's not that hard to knock the rangefinder out of calibration even on a Leica. After all, it's an indirect focusing system that depends completely on the mechanical precision of several cams and prisms.

>>3111942

The G series aren't rangefinders. They just have rangefinder aesthetics. They really are just viewfinders.

File: SLR_focus_crossection.png (17KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x338px

>>3112254
With a SLR you have the mirror + focusing screen + prism
With a AF SLR you have the mirror + AF sensor


With the LF you have the image directly on the ground glass that also happens to be the film plane.

The SLR needs to be calibrated to very high standards just like a RF.

>>3112321
How do you think they focus?

>>3112321
Their AF is based on a rangefinder mechanism, go read it up.

>>3112328
>>3112330

Infra red like a hundred other autofocus cameras from that generation. Doesn't make it a rangefinder, I suppose Ken Rockwell told you this? The viewfinder has no patch or rangefinder arrangement whatsoever. I suppose you think your Fuji X-PRO1 is a rangefinder also? Imagine being this deluded.

>>3112489
>Infra red like a hundred other autofocus cameras from that generation. Doesn't make it a rangefinder, I suppose Ken Rockwell told you this? The viewfinder has no patch or rangefinder arrangement whatsoever. I suppose you think your Fuji X-PRO1 is a rangefinder also? Imagine being this deluded.

but an xpro has a patch and rangefinder arrangement

>>3112489
> I suppose
> I suppose
That's your problem mate. If you have to "suppose" to prove your point, you don't have a point.
>The viewfinder has no patch or rangefinder arrangement whatsoever.
Doesn't have to have a rangefinder patch and how do you know these don't have a "rangefinder arrangement whatsoever"?
They use triangulation to determine the distance between the camera and the subject to focus.
Per definition, this is what a rangefinder does.
Fuji X are no rangefinder, as they don't use triangulation, but in later models (X-E2, X-Pro2), you can use a digital split image, which looks similar and also is similar in usage to a rangefinder patch.

>>3112502
phase detect autofocus is a form of triangulation, so the xpro technically is a rangefinder anyway, but it doesn't function anything like the typical photo-centric definition of the word.

Instead of finding the range optically, its finding it mathematically. Instead of presenting it on a physical scale through gear and cam interactions, it displays it digitally based on mathematical calculation.

All autofocus cameras that aren't restricted solely to contrast detect AF are in fact rangefinders.

Photographers on the other hand are autistic about semantics that are only correct within a given field.

>>3112644
put your name back on isi

>>3111555
It is.
>Shoot digital once in a while, mostly low light family occasions I don't want to waste good film on and of which the photos are just going to get e-mailed to aunts and uncles anyways
>Default setting is AF S
>See a nice shot
>Press button
>nothinghappens.jpg
>Family member sees me wanting to take a shot and does one of those horrible posed photo faces, wasting the semi-good shot as far as family snapshits are good
>tfw AF didn't get enough light to focus and just decided to not let me take the shot
>Have to switch to MF with a horrible 4mm wide 360° "focusing ring" that doesn't even directly drive the lens elements and focus without a prism or split image
>Half of the photos come out unsharp
>Go back to using mechanical film cameras, which actually do what I want, when I want

>>3112906
>have pen f
>have the ability to use peaking and zoom to focus
>have 2 manual only lenses

feels good man

>>3112914
>have m43 camera
>desperately try to justify your meme mistake

>>3113113
I prefer it to my crop cannon. It is so much smaller