Manual Focus vs. Auto-Focus

[jimmyd]

Had my first sitting with a model tonight using my new 10D. Switched off between 28-105mm and 75-300mm lenses. I noticed I had much better results (re: soft focus) by manually focusing the lenses. I'm thinking the AF is the problem, assuming a problem actually exists.

Here's a sample, full-frame, untouched shot from the sitting using the 28-105, manually focused and it sure doesn't look soft to me. (Shot as a large jpg, not raw)

http://www.simplyjimmyd.com/images/pics/leela1694.jpg

[lightandlife]

The pic is too small to tell.

My impression is that the shoulder line or curve is sharper than face and the former is closer to the photographer. Hair is not as sharp as the shoulder.

[danphoto1]

The photo is small and hard to tell. What was the ISO setting and f stop. The camera may have been focusing on the sholder and because of the depth of the photo some other part might be slightly out of focus.The red squares show you where the camera is focusing. If you are taking a shot that where you can focus manually you will always get exactly what oy want. Also what lens? I don't really think that there is a serious auto focus issue as much as a lack of undrestanding how the auto works. I rember my first Rebel and a shot that I Camera nailed the cymbal stand and the drummer was soft because he was futher back. It was a lesson well learned and know I am very careful to see where I am focused in the frame and see if it is what I want.

[jimmyd]

That shot was with the 28-105 lens-- I think at 1/60 @ 3.5 using AF. (I usually go for minimum DOF when shooting portraits). I tend to agree that the focus was not precisely where it was intended which is probably why I'm getting better results manually focusing (on the eyes). Next time I put a pic up, I'll put it up bigger. Thanks for replying.