Manual focussing with 5d Mark III without focusing screen?

Hi,

I'm using 5d mark II with some Zeiss lenses and eg-s focusing screen for better manual focusing.

I'm considering to replace my 5d Mark II with 5d Mark III for better high ISO, better view finder, better liveview and of course auto focus for sport photography (and more fps).

But there is one drawback for me: no EG-S focusing screen ... I don't want to modify it to make it possible to put the eg-s focusing screen into 5d Mark III.

Because of better view finder of 5d Mark III maybe it's good enough for manual focusing without live view?

Or is really only the 1dx the best solution (best AF, best fps, best ISO, EG-S, and so...) ?

First I want to know how about the MF with 5d III? What's your experience / opinion?

Thanks!

Heya,

Modern SLR's really are not built with manual focus in mind. The precision matte screens make it a lot easier to manage viewfinder manual focus. So if you cannot get a focus screen for the viewfinder that helps with manual focus, it will simply be more difficult via viewfinder. LiveView however is still very easy and accurate for manual focus lenses, unless that's not an option for you.

Seeing as the 5D3's price is probably half made up of it's autofocus system, it just seems like a poor choice for a manual focus setup anyways. If you already have the 5D2, I would just keep it setup for manual lenses. Or entertain trading the 5D2 straight up for a 6D, if you want better iSO performance, but maintain really good manual focus options (EG-S). If you want a 5D3 for action photography, that's completely different.

Very best,

Apfelbeisser wrote in post #16991108
Hi,

I'm using 5d mark II with some Zeiss lenses and eg-s focusing screen for better manual focusing.

I'm considering to replace my 5d Mark II with 5d Mark III for better high ISO, better view finder, better liveview and of course auto focus for sport photography (and more fps).

But there is one drawback for me: no EG-S focusing screen ... I don't want to modify it to make it possible to put the eg-s focusing screen into 5d Mark III.

Because of better view finder of 5d Mark III maybe it's good enough for manual focusing without live view?

Or is really only the 1dx the best solution (best AF, best fps, best ISO, EG-S, and so...) ?

First I want to know how about the MF with 5d III? What's your experience / opinion?

Thanks!

If your main style of photography is to manual focus, I wouldn't get the 5d3. I had major problems with my 5d2 and manual focus until I got a new screen. Still with the new screen it wasn't that great, but much better than with a stock screen. With the inability to change the screen in the 5d3, I'd skip by it.

If you want a great manual focus camera that takes your Canon lenses, I'd look into the A7R camera. With it's focus peaking and very bright viewfinder, it's pure pleasure to manually focus.

I have to agree that it seems to defeat the point of buying a 5DIII, if you are going to focus manually, the AF system is so versatile and accurate it locks on fast and hangs on like a limpet, it just doesn't miss (I might on occasion, but it doesn't).

I am not saying this because I have never focused manually, I grew up doing so and always swore blind that AF was never going to be as good at focusing as I was. When Canon went to the EOS system I stuck with my old FD SLR outfit, preferring to focus manually and not seeing any reason to change to the new AF oriented system. When I eventually went digital in 2004, I had no option as everything was AF based, so I switched to EOS with a 20D, then a year later the new 5D (the original one). These taught me that, much of the time, AF was now at least as good as me and could just snap into focus at a tap of the button. Sure, the 5D had flawed AF on the outer points in low light, but the centre point with assists was great. Outside of its comfort zone, using outer points in low light, I would often find myself tweaking the focus manually however. I believe the 5DII has essentially the same AF system as the mkI.

Since getting the mkIII (almost two years ago) I have never felt the inclination to focus manually once, it just nails focus time after time. I know that this isn't quite an answer to your question, and doesn't help where your Zeiss lenses are concerned, but the mkIII has made me an AF convert.

However, you did mention using the AF for sports, so I assume you have some AF lenses. My suggestion would be to keep the mkII for using with the MF lenses you have and use the mkIII for sports, where it really shines with its AF.

I realise that there is a very large amount of personal preference involved in such things though, so this is more of a comment based on my experience with the MkIII, and I don't have experience using the MF screens in the DSLRs. (I do know the difference a good MF screen and long throw focus ring makes to focusing manually, but I left that behind when I went digital).