Auto Focus or Manual?

Hello,
I got the opportunity last week to spend a day with a professional sports photographer - specialising in Cricket. (Some consider this a slow game but when there is action, it happens very quickly and unpredictably - for example, when a bowler appeals to the umpire to give the batter "out"). I am just an enthusiastic amateur of course but have always used the AI Servo mode on my 10D, (on the '*' button), in order to focus on moving players.
I was surprised that the professional guy always uses manual focus - what do you guys use - and why? I got the impression that the pros use manual focus all of the time but couldn't really figure out why - although this does give the freedom to focus anywhere in the frame and avoids having to recompose once the focus point has been found. However, unless you are a very quick focusser, the moment can easily be lost - it seem quicker to me to focus using the star button and then quickly recompose before hitting the shutter.

If anyone is interested, you can see what I made of the cricket day on ..

http://www.RydersOnlin​e.co.uk

There are some images from last year's cricket on there as well as from my day with Mr. Professional on 17 August.

Alan

Here's what I suppose is going on...

The pro is probably using fast glass. That allows him to set a default smaller aperture, giving an automatically greater depth of field. The greater DOF means he can set his focus at the hyperfocal point, and know that everything he shoots will be in focus. This works especially well with a prime lens - I've spent all day at a speedboat race and never touched the focus (with my old Minolta and a 300mm prime lens). With a fast zoom you can still use the smaller aperture and take advantage of the greater DOF, and once you get to know your lens well, it only takes a small focus adjustment to tweak the hyperfocal distance for a change in focal length on a zoom. Even on tighter shots and shallower DOF, once you know your lens intimately you have a feel for how close is close enough to be within your DOF for a particular f-stop, and it becomes nearly second nature to know how much to tweak the focus. If you open the aperture a bit, you know you just need to tighten your hyperfocal distance or accept a further-away start to your in-focus range.

I was one of two photographers for our fire department back in the mid-80s, and we'd use aperture priority, set to the smallest workable aperture, and use that for the whole incident. We only had manual-focus lenses back then, and once we set them to the hyperfocal distance we were able to shoot with the knowledge that most of the shots would be usable.

I'd suggest you give the hyperfocal distance technique a try - it delivers consistently good results, and once you know the DOF parameters for a given aperture it's really easy to focus once and forget it.

Thats great advice! Definatly something to try out.

Any links to hyperfocal zoom charts? I've seen them before...

-Johnny

Here's a good site that goes all around (and deep into) the issue:

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/custom.html

The problem with a large DOF for sports is you can lose the action in the background. The majority pros use AF with fast lenses so he is either an exception or is still in eighties mode. Using the back button for focus is a pain and the simplicity of AI Servo with just one button to think about means you miss less of the action shots.

Just look at the images in your local paper, or posted here and see the shallow DOF used for cricket shots. Notice how the player(s) stands out from the background. Shots with a large DOF have no impact for field sports, or just about any other sport.

This thread shows there is no one perfect method for every situation.

The unnamed pro probably uses manual focus so he can focus on the pitcher and batter at opposite sides of the frame and not worry about autofocus zeroing in on some background feature in the middle. However, very few photographers have the skill to follow a closeup of a moving subject as well as autofocus.

Glenhead wants to use small apertures and hyperfocal distance focusing. This is a great photojournalist technique where an overview of the entire scene is required. Unfortunately, it does not work very will with long telephoto lenses or in poor light conditons, especially for action where a fast shutter speed is required.

KennyG goes 100% autofocus, relying on modern technology and by the sounds of his descriptions uses a long lens with relatively shallow depth of field to isolate his subject. This produces the typical sports illustrated shot. He hates have autofocus assigned to the button on the camera back.

My favorite setup is to assign autofocus to the button on the back, set autofocus to continuous mode and use an USM or HSM lens that allows full time manual override. I do not find this inconvenient. If I want to focus manually I just turn the focus ring. If I want a quick/approximate hyperfocal setting I point the centre AF sensor at a point mid distance in the scene and hit the AF button once to focus in the middle of the action. If I want autofocus to follow the action I just hold the AF button down. It takes a little practice to get used to this, but once a reasonably coordinated person learns it becomes second nature. I even use it wearing thick gloves for ski racing shots.

Viva la CF 4-1 and CF 4-3!

I don't know about pro's or sports photography to be honest but I use manual focus a little more than AF. Reason is simply that I shoot alot of birds flying through trees and theres too many things to lose AF on. I just prefer to have more control and know where my focus is rather than where it might be. That said, whenever the details aren't too busy I use AF whenever I can know it will stay where I need it to be.

I can't say if this is the best way, it may just be that I'm a control freak lol. Maybe this other shooter is just the same. Theres either a method in madness or madness in the method

It depends, in baseball, photographers for example use a little bit of both. Like if you are focusing on the shortstop, Brad Mangin uses manual at times, because the player is just moving side to side, usually. Or say anticipation for a play on 2nd base, you can pre-focus and likely get the shot.

There is no right answer. Whatever gets you the shot ithat you feel comfortable using that gets you the best shot is what you should do.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that? The way I read it, it doesn't make sense. The aperture / shutter combination depends on set ISO speed and availiable light. NOT on the lens used.

Am I crazy, or doesn't the term "fast glass" refer to a wide maximum aperture?

You didn't mention which camera he was using. Perhaps his camera body didn't track the subjects fast enough for him.

I would agree with KennyG that most of the pros do use AF and the few that I have spoken that would hold true.

I do alot of bird photography and I really want to isolate the subject from the rest of the image. Stopping down the lens, manually focussing and praying that you got it right will result in too much of the image being "in focus" for my liking.

I can attest to the focussing on the 1DMKII being fast enough with good glass to hold focus on flying birds, moving cars, et all....

It depends on what sport you are photographing as well. Cricket is a fairly static sport, so if you want a picture of the batsman, you can pretty much focus and leave it. A lot of track and field is the same, you can prefocus on where the action will occur and it is much more accurate than autofocus (regardless of camera/lens combinations).

Other sports like football, rugby etc prefocussing is not really an option because the play can happen anywhere on the field and so autofocus is a definite must.

I think autofocus has made people lazy with their technique and they come to rely on it all the time. Pre-foccussing is still a very valid tequnique and I know is still extensively used by pro sports photographers the world over when the circumstances are right.

Alan

Now that I go back and read the "fast glass" comment, I see where the confusion comes in. In my early days of photography "with a purpose" (documenting fire scenes in the early to mid-80s) we used the term "fast glass" to refer to our big, expensive, long-focal-length lenses with bigger apertures. The lenses seemed to have more light gathering capability and obviously had better optics, allowing for a usable shot with a smaller aperture (hence greater DOF) than our smaller lenses. Theoretically, it's not supposed to make sense; in practice, that's how it worked, at least for what we were doing. We could put a 300mm f/8 lens on a camera, and have to use it at f/8 to get a hand-holdable shot; whereas the guy next to me using a 300mm f/4 could get the shot with the same film with the aperture set at f/11. We were by no means professionals, and frankly didn't really know for sure exactly what we were doing, but that's how it worked. I still apply the theory today, but apparently I don't explain it correctly. Sorry!

As a sidenote, a manual focussing screen (either the standard exchangeable Canon ones for the 1-series or the aftermarket ones for the prosumer cameras) would be very helpful with manual focusing.

My hit rate with fast (large aperture) manual focus M42 lenses on my 20D (without manual focusing screen) is considerably below that on my film M42 camera with focusing aid.

My assumption on the pro's behaviour is ... he always did it that way since he learned to shoot some time ago, and doesn't see compelling reasons to change it .

Glen, your comment left me puzzled as well. Theoretically, both a 300/4 and a 300/8 lens should give the same shutter speed and DOF at a certain setting. The 300/4 lens will be sharper at f/8, as it is already stopped down, while the other one is wide open. Maybe some lens manufacturers did not adhere as strictly to the standards as others?

Best regards,
Andy

Andy,
I had given some thought to a different focussing screen but do not believe that the 10D screen can be changed - anyone know if that is the case?
Thank you for all of the responses - something to think about there and plenty of food for thought and experimentation!

Alan