Don't use Focus & Recompose

[mrca]

Derrel, exactly, however, I can't trust the face recognition to nail an inch or so dof. I can't have it screw up on best image in the shoot. For amateurs who can accept an occasional acorn, that is fine, for someone expected and mandated to hit home runs every shoot, I don't think I trust the technology yet. You are absolutely right about the focus ability of the 850. Blew me away when I screwed on a 2-8 stop vari nd filter, cranked it to 8 stops and couldnt see out the view finder and it actually focused! But folks need to understand they can move the focus point and even on older cameras like the d700 those points not super sensitive usually focused just fine. I think folks more often have difficulty getting focus when they don't realize how auto focus works, it needs contrast so focusing on a uniform surface may cause it to hunt. It is why I am focusing just below the eye or on the lower eyelid/eye to pick up that contrast line.

 

[smoke665]

Responses need to be tailored to the camera in use and the level of the shooter...if you're blasting away with the camera and it's eye-detection and face-detection system doing the focusing for you, then you're not using the kind of gear which made focus-and-recompose necessary indoors or with anything less than an ultra-fast lens.

My last three Pentax bodies have had face detection, multiple movable focus points and a movable focus single point. Depending on if I'm on tripod or off, usually dictates whether I use the move feature or focus and recompose, as it's faster to use single point, lock focus on the eye, and recompose, then to use the 4 way to move the focus point/points around. I have used the face detect feature and continuous focus to track moving people, which actually works quite well. Probably better than I could ever do it manually. Unlike MRCA, I don't shoot a lot of wide open shots with narrow DOF ( I can/have, just not my usual thing), I like to have sufficient area in focus to cover minor discrepancies in the focal plane. If I did have a narrow DOF I'd likely use the move focus feature.

 

[Derrel]

The Nikon D700 was a professional-grade, full-frame camera with the very powerful,capable, Multi-CAM 3500 AF module, and 51 AF points...it's NOT the kind of camera that had a weak AF system...nor is it the type of camera that would lead most users to use focus-and-recompose. It was what? A $2,799 camera a decade ago?

New cameras that have face detection can easily spot the human eyes...are not the kind of cameras that require focus-and-recompose as a matter of regular use.

If a person has enough DOF to cover a focus error, then focus-and-rcompose can be used, but with wide-angle lenses, the sides of the picture area can be quite a bit farther away than the center of the frame, due to the long diagonal distance to the frame edges. SO, with wider f/stops, focus-and-recompose with short lenses at indoor distance can lead to pretty substantial distance errors. With a narrower-angle lens, indoors, the edges of the picture are are not quite so proportionally far away as is the central area of the picture, so focus-and-recompose leads to a smaller degree of error with tele-length lenses indoors. As 480sparky mentioned, there can also be some field curvature on some lenses, which can change the focus point (notable on some lenses like the 35/1.4 Ai-S and one of the Zeiss 35mm wides).

Focus-and-recompose has become less and less commonly used, and less frequently written about over the last ten years, as AF systems have become better, and have more AF points, and in general, simply autofocus better than cameras did 10 to 15 years ago.

 

[KmH]

Autofocus exists...why not let the camera handle it

As long as you're aware that in some situations AF is incapable of handling it.

 

[chuasam]

The Nikon D700 was a professional-grade, full-frame camera with the very powerful,capable, Multi-CAM 3500 AF module, and 51 AF points...it's NOT the kind of camera that had a weak AF system...nor is it the type of camera that would lead most users to use focus-and-recompose. It was what? A $2,799 camera a decade ago?

New cameras that have face detection can easily spot the human eyes...are not the kind of cameras that require focus-and-recompose as a matter of regular use.

If a person has enough DOF to cover a focus error, then focus-and-rcompose can be used, but with wide-angle lenses, the sides of the picture area can be quite a bit farther away than the center of the frame, due to the long diagonal distance to the frame edges. SO, with wider f/stops, focus-and-recompose with short lenses at indoor distance can lead to pretty substantial distance errors. With a narrower-angle lens, indoors, the edges of the picture are are not quite so proportionally far away as is the central area of the picture, so focus-and-recompose leads to a smaller degree of error with tele-length lenses indoors. As 480sparky mentioned, there can also be some field curvature on some lenses, which can change the focus point (notable on some lenses like the 35/1.4 Ai-S and one of the Zeiss 35mm wides).

Focus-and-recompose has become less and less commonly used, and less frequently written about over the last ten years, as AF systems have become better, and have more AF points, and in general, simply autofocus better than cameras did 10 to 15 years ago.

I had(? it's sitting around somewhere collecting dust I think) a D700...the AF was okay. I didn't like the way all the points were crowding in the centre and the edges were not covered.
the Multi-CAM 20k...now that is dreamy

 

[chuasam]

Autofocus exists...why not let the camera handle it

As long as you're aware that in some situations AF is incapable of handling it.

astro photography, and macro.
I put an old 105mm f/2.5 that was given to me on my D850...
yeah manual focus sucks on moving objects

even the act of breathing can throw my focus off.

 

[chuasam]

Derrel, exactly, however, I can't trust the face recognition to nail an inch or so dof. I can't have it screw up on best image in the shoot. For amateurs who can accept an occasional acorn, that is fine, for someone expected and mandated to hit home runs every shoot, I don't think I trust the technology yet. You are absolutely right about the focus ability of the 850. Blew me away when I screwed on a 2-8 stop vari nd filter, cranked it to 8 stops and couldnt see out the view finder and it actually focused! But folks need to understand they can move the focus point and even on older cameras like the d700 those points not super sensitive usually focused just fine. I think folks more often have difficulty getting focus when they don't realize how auto focus works, it needs contrast so focusing on a uniform surface may cause it to hunt. It is why I am focusing just below the eye or on the lower eyelid/eye to pick up that contrast line.

I usually aim for the limbal ring or the iris itself.

 

[mrca]

Chuasam, I spot just below the eye on skin and set exposure manually based on that as I grab focus. If using auto focus that is taken care of in the same operation. Adding about 2/3 stop to white skin, more to darker skin. Smoke, to give you an idea how much I live below 5.6, was redoing test shots with my gels for a chromazone chart. Folks who remember Dean Collins will know you start at f8 then take shots one stop apart to 16 or 22, then go the other way one stop at a time to 2.8. When I opened the f16 and 22 images I nearly fell out of my chair, there were dozens of specks on the sensor I didn't even know were there. How much? The guy doing the cleaning said it would take a bit longer to clean, he said he had to rent a back hoe. I'm sure he was kidding. But shooting at the other end almost all the time, I had no idea any was there. Oh, and I haven't used the d700 in at least 5 minutes. And hold your breath, roll your finger and shoot between the heart beats. One shot, one shot sharp. Yes, if you move or subject moves or both, can cost focus. With a pose that doesn't lend itself to stability, will chose a lens that gives that separation, ie 3d effect, without wide aperture creamy bokeh, at say 5.6 and gives a more forgiving dof. On those rare occasions the way I shoot, if I want detail in the bg, I may even open to, perish the thought, f8... and be there as Weegee said.

 

[chuasam]

Chuasam, I spot just below the eye on skin and set exposure manually based on that as I grab focus. If using auto focus that is taken care of in the same operation. Adding about 2/3 stop to white skin, more to darker skin. Smoke, to give you an idea how much I live below 5.6, was redoing test shots with my gels for a chromazone chart. Folks who remember Dean Collins will know you start at f8 then take shots one stop apart to 16 or 22, then go the other way one stop at a time to 2.8. When I opened the f16 and 22 images I nearly fell out of my chair, there were dozens of specks on the sensor I didn't even know were there. How much? The guy doing the cleaning said it would take a bit longer to clean, he said he had to rent a back hoe. I'm sure he was kidding. But shooting at the other end almost all the time, I had no idea any was there. Oh, and I haven't used the d700 in at least 5 minutes. And hold your breath, roll your finger and shoot between the heart beats. One shot, one shot sharp. Yes, if you move or subject moves or both, can cost focus. With a pose that doesn't lend itself to stability, will chose a lens that gives that separation, ie 3d effect, without wide aperture creamy bokeh, at say 5.6 and gives a more forgiving dof. On those rare occasions the way I shoot, if I want detail in the bg, I may even open to, perish the thought, f8... and be there as Weegee said.

I prefer dancing and bouncing and having the subject in constant motion. Often I have the sitter look away and then look at me only at the last minute so I can get an expression and eyes that are fresh.

I have an incident light meter and a spyder cube to make sure skin tones are preserved.

I used to shoot at 1.4 on my 105mm but I’m closing it down to 1.8 or 2.0

 

[mrca]

Here is a hand held manual focus shot I took a few minutes ago with my resident wood stork, Walter, (bald like Jeff Dunham's puppet). Talk about constant motion, I was within 8 feet and that's pushing his comfort zone. Stopped down to f/4.

The 3d pop here is the reason I use some manual focus lenses. The micro contrast of this lens is fantastic so tonal gradations are amazing in b&w especially when combined with 46 mp detail. Check out that eye, focus nailed manually and did focus and recompose minimally.

 

[AlanKlein]

I usually aim for the limbal ring or the iris itself.

You nailed the focus on the eyes. But I'm wondering why you chose such a narrow DOF. The tip of the nose and the back of the head including the ears are out of focus. It doesn't lend to a nice portrait shot.

 

[mrca]

Must be your monitor or the lower res, the original is tack sharp entire head and entire beak on my monitor so much so you can see all the fine detail in the beak and head. Purpose of the shot is to show that manual focus and focus and recompose can work. On my monitor, I can see the creases in the eye lids it is so sharp and in focus. Funny you should describe it that way as I like eyes in/ears out with shallow dof on human portraits. Take a look at the two head shots above, the second has eyes sharp ears out, the first looks a bit soft on the eyes but the ears are out. The purpose of limiting dof that way is to drive the viewer's attention to the subjects eyes, especially if they are stunning eyes and or eye makeup. Here's a closer crop with increased resolution.

 

[AlanKlein]

I wasn't referring to your picture.

 

[mrca]

Just compared the shot in LR and what I see on this site and there is a 20-30% loss of sharpness and detail on the same monitor. I converted to adobeRGB and used 200 ppi on the crop image?

 

[mrca]

Alan, the eyes in ears out is a style chuasam apparently also likes. But your comment made me aware of so much lost detail from the LR image and what I see on the site. Why? Is that expected?