Focus peaking - worth having?

I currently have two camera bodies that I use with adapted legacy lenses, the Olympus Pen E-PL6 and the Sony Alpha NEX-5N.

Both have tilt screens and magnified view, and the Sony also has focus peaking. I use the peaking feature on the Sony routinely, so the focusing experience is different on the two cameras.

However, looking back on results, where the same lenses have been used on both cameras, I do not see any advantage in terms of accurate focus in using the peaking. My recollection is that peaking works better with some lenses than others, but I suspect that the lenses with better peaking are also easier to focus in magnified view.

Anybody else have a view on this?

Brian Chichester said:

I currently have two camera bodies that I use with adapted legacy lenses, the Olympus Pen E-PL6 and the Sony Alpha NEX-5N.

Both have tilt screens and magnified view, and the Sony also has focus peaking. I use the peaking feature on the Sony routinely, so the focusing experience is different on the two cameras.

However, looking back on results, where the same lenses have been used on both cameras, I do not see any advantage in terms of accurate focus in using the peaking. My recollection is that peaking works better with some lenses than others, but I suspect that the lenses with better peaking are also easier to focus in magnified view.

Anybody else have a view on this?

Click to expand...

I don't think it does much for the accuracy if you're magnifying, but I find it can help considerably with the speed of focusing.

I only had my Sony A6000 for a year, and I too questioned whether focus peaking actually worked for legacy lenses. It often highlighted areas that would be impossible to be in focus if the subject was in focus. Yes, it seemed to only work when I was not magnifying and focusing. I never did take the time to figure out if it was working.

If they have made it work, and under magnification, it would be a hugely positive tool.

Focus Peaking works by detecting contrast. If the lens that is attached to the camera isn't very sharp, like many old 50mm F1.4 lenses at F1.4, peaking accuracy is not going to be very good. Likewise if the lens attached has unique rendering, such as a Trioplan, with hard edged bubble bokeh, the camera will sometimes detect the edges of the bubble bokeh as "in focus". Peaking accuracy will depend on the lens used, the camera's peaking algorithm, and the subject itself. Personally, I don't use peaking unless I'm shooting at F8, where there is plenty of room for error. Otherwise, magnification is the way to go, albeit it being the slower way.

Most of my experience was with an extremely sharp and contrasty 400/2.8, but good to know.

Very much a personal thing. I just use magnification now on my milc’s and find it the fastest way to manually focus - whatever the lens is.

I now turn off peaking because, for me, it just gets in the way

Brian Chichester said:

I currently have two camera bodies that I use with adapted legacy lenses, the Olympus Pen E-PL6 and the Sony Alpha NEX-5N.

Both have tilt screens and magnified view, and the Sony also has focus peaking. I use the peaking feature on the Sony routinely, so the focusing experience is different on the two cameras.

However, looking back on results, where the same lenses have been used on both cameras, I do not see any advantage in terms of accurate focus in using the peaking. My recollection is that peaking works better with some lenses than others, but I suspect that the lenses with better peaking are also easier to focus in magnified view.

Anybody else have a view on this?

Click to expand...

Focus peaking isn't more accurate than magnified live view, but it is faster to use, and also can improve accuracy using magnified live view.

The problem is that most people aren't using peaking correctly. Peaking simply highlights edges that have sufficient contrast -- sort of like a manual version of CDAF. However, the highlighting nearly always covers a range of depths within the depth of field (DoF). The key to accurate peaking focus is estimating the exact point of focus within the DoF. It's fast and easy to do this, but there is a learning curve... and you need to know this is something to be learned. BTW, the point of exact focus is NOT the depth midpoint, but essentially the log midpoint of the depths highlighted.

All focus peaking systems are not the same. Sony focus peaking is not the best one either. But it does allow strength adjustment and optional colour for the peaks.

The criticism I have is that with a high-contrasty (wide?) lens the Sony Peaking seems more like an “ink blot” with all the substantial dof peaks shown so that the actual point of focus is very hard to find. At the other end of the scale a telephoto lens that might be lacking in contrast may provide very faint or no peaks even when the lens is in focus. This has its own issues and I have termed it “hunt the flicker” - this can mean that the actual peaked point is potentially more accurate even if sometimes verging on impossible to find. Furthermore there is no guarantee that the point of focus you are seeking to find will have enough focus to fire a peaking flicker. In cases like that it is usually quicker to simply focus by eye using magnified screen or lcd. As this thread has noted.

It is hardly surprising that many get to the point where they reject focus peaking as a tool in itself. But Sony FP can be adjusted and I think that it “is necessary” to adjust its strength to make the FP more useful. But I think that this is making a virtue out of that necessity. Supply the adjustment process and then make it essential that you adjust it to suit the lens type.

Other FP types also allow strength adjustments but I suggest that they also scale the strength of their peaking flickers to the magnification strength evf/lcd in use. This means that the adjustment is more “to taste” than an absolute necessity. I have also found that the strength adjustment is counter-intuitive - stronger gives less peaks and vice versa. Presumably relating to the contrast level of the lens on a sensitivity scale.

One of the issues that we have is that focus peaking was one of the must-have features that all manufacturers just had to provide. And in time they all introduced their own FP firmware. But all FP is not the same and some implementations are better than others.

Because the manufacturers are not all that interested in supporting MF lenses (especially legacy ones) there seems to have been no further improvement in the technology of the focus peaking systems offered - once it is first implemented that is all that the user is going to get. There are also no reviews or tests on the web of focus peaking systems as far as I know.

I preferred Ricoh (probably still do) but their cameras are not longer my mainstream and the GR which had it is a lousy camera to use for manual focus - I wonder whether present GRIII users actually use it as it was a wonderful tool on the GXR which was my serious introduction to MF lenses. I still use it on my GR (original) in AF as it is a good way of visualising dof as well as the actual point of focus is fairly easy to detect.

In any case I am quite happy with Panasonic FP - I don’t know whether Panasonic which has arguably put the most effort into their advanced CDAF system (as opposed to PDAF) has latched their FP to their advanced CDAF - maybe, maybe not, as it might not be relevant, but both are based on contrast detect. With Panasonic the FP on screen magnification seems scaled to provide a clear detailed image right up to their highest magnification.

On the other hand the resolution of the Olympus evf drops noticeably just as soon as FP is switched on and by the time the evf is at full magnification the peaked image is looking quite mushy - even if the FP is still effective enough to be “close” the clear image is lost and eye-focusing gets more marginal.

I hasten to note that both Sony and Olympus evf units are excellent for eye-based focus without using FP. Part of the Olympus issue must revolve around the need for high resolution screens. The “perfect” Ricoh systems also work well fully magnified on their hi-res screens however when. Ricoh ported their Mode1 FP to the decidedly low-res lcd of the Pentax Q resulted in when using.anything over 2x screen magnification the peaking drowned out the clear image.

But advice that FP is just another tool for focusing purposes is good. I tend to use FP both with AF (when it is allowed) and MF to aid a quick focus and also to give an indication of dof.

The dof “bit” is the clue as focus peaked is more contrast detected dof than precise point of focus. Sometime FP is close enough, but it is usually a good idea to check via magnified screen for a more precise point of focus if that is critical to the image (probably is).

Only Ricoh Mode2 which is uniquely a completely different type of FP is able to give you variable degree of in-focus by the sharpness of edge outlines. The parts of the whole image that are in-focus are very distinct and easily seen, whilst the other parts grow wider/softer and less distinct as they are further out of focus. With some practice a user can get very quick MF results indeed. Helped by the fact that default can be set to magnified outline FP and a soft press of the shutter button will toggle full screen “composition view” in the capture colour scheme. This is magic as it allows a very natural switch between focus assist and image composition via the shutter button. Furthermore magnified screen is just another easy-find instant toggle key as well.

It is very obviously the GXR-M was made from the ground up as an excellent camera for MF purposes (it has no AF functionality at all). Unlike most cameras we buy which are intended to support AF lenses and MF capability as is useful for those lenses - but FP for MF assist is more lip service than a feature to be worth upgrading and improving.

Brian Chichester said:

I currently have two camera bodies that I use with adapted legacy lenses, the Olympus Pen E-PL6 and the Sony Alpha NEX-5N.

Both have tilt screens and magnified view, and the Sony also has focus peaking. I use the peaking feature on the Sony routinely, so the focusing experience is different on the two cameras.

However, looking back on results, where the same lenses have been used on both cameras, I do not see any advantage in terms of accurate focus in using the peaking. My recollection is that peaking works better with some lenses than others, but I suspect that the lenses with better peaking are also easier to focus in magnified view.

Anybody else have a view on this?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want a camera without it. I despised it at the begging, because I thought it'd show me the place of focus, not a region of focus where I have to get trained to see in the scene what it means. It paints anything in the DOF but only for things with contra-sty detail.

I'd say it's an acquired taste, and extends what you can do beyond the simpler EVF focusing, and magnify. Let me put an analogy, which may or may not help, you call it.

1) Normal view - revolver

2) Magnify - sniper rifle

3) Focus peaking - hand granade

If I have time, I like to open up a couple of stops, focus with peaking, and close down again for the shot.

This is easier with Nikkors than with other lenses, because of the rabbit's ears and well defined clicks.

Don Cox

I don't use it at all, but rely on magnified view.

I use it when shooting video and I don't have time to punch in for focusing. It's not perfect, but if you dial the sensitivity before you need to use it, does the job and allows easy focus checking at a glance.

The usability and accuracy of peaking depends on many factors, including the camera settings, the lens used and the skill and experience of who's using it.

I find peaking can be very accurate in many cases, but I've also learned several "tricks" which can greatly help accuracy, one of which is learning to see the "peaking band" and moving it until it's centered on your subject. I also use pretty high contrast lenses, which allows me to use moire patterns in the viewfinder for focusing, sometimes in addition to peaking, sometimes with peaking turned off.

Rol Lei Nut said:

The usability and accuracy of peaking depends on many factors, including the camera settings, the lens used and the skill and experience of who's using it.

I find peaking can be very accurate in many cases, but I've also learned several "tricks" which can greatly help accuracy, one of which is learning to see the "peaking band" and moving it until it's centered on your subject. I also use pretty high contrast lenses, which allows me to use moire patterns in the viewfinder for focusing, sometimes in addition to peaking, sometimes with peaking turned off.

Click to expand...

I have never see this, but part of the challenge is that one would need to record video from the EVF or LCD to show how to use it. The peaking is never in the final image, so it's hard to "show it" to someone else except side by side. I find moire + peaking to be very good, once one can read the band in 3D (ie. the 3D scene, as the peaking will evolve depending on the angles of the objects). While the band moves back and forth,the yellow will climb or expand based on the angles and features of the objects in the scene. One cannot see the band itself, but as it paints the 3D scene, which at first was quite confusing

Rol Lei Nut said:

The usability and accuracy of peaking depends on many factors, including the camera settings, the lens used and the skill and experience of who's using it.

I find peaking can be very accurate in many cases, but I've also learned several "tricks" which can greatly help accuracy, one of which is learning to see the "peaking band" and moving it until it's centered on your subject.

Click to expand...

I agree with the comments and note that perhaps focus peaking gets the nod as focus finder when the reality is that it can be a very good dof finder. But a lot depends on which focus peaking system is in use and also the resolution of the lens. A good system can show likely dof which will contract and recede depending upon the aperture set and can wash back and forth as the focus is adjusted.

That is: don’t necessarily think that peaked highlights are the beginning and the end of the MF exercise.

It reminds me of traps for young players in producing double entry accounts - not only do you have to follow correct procedures but you have to back check by an alternate method for proof. How many times I have said (correctly) that figure presented to me by a young clerk or accountant are “wrong” and when asked “why” say they are not what I expected them to be. Although this leaves me open to “creative accountant” jokes there is some truth when the final presented results don’t match what you know are the obvious facts on the ground. Of course if they don’t appear “right” then you have to prove why they are radically different - it was/is usually easy to find.

Forgive the digression - but I see focus peaked as only the first step in recognising “focused” and this needs to match up with what the eyes believe that they are seeing.

Experience can help judging just where the desired point of focus might lie and I tend to prefer it combined with a confirming magnified screen in order to be able to select the most precise point of focus.

Focus peaking can get a slap or two because dof peaked might make points of best focus harder to see. This is where some experience in using it helps. I can still make errors even though I have been using various FP systems for quite a few years now.

Rol Lei Nut said:

I also use pretty high contrast lenses, which allows me to use moire patterns in the viewfinder for focusing, sometimes in addition to peaking, sometimes with peaking turned off.

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell said:

Rol Lei Nut said:

The usability and accuracy of peaking depends on many factors, including the camera settings, the lens used and the skill and experience of who's using it.

I find peaking can be very accurate in many cases, but I've also learned several "tricks" which can greatly help accuracy, one of which is learning to see the "peaking band" and moving it until it's centered on your subject.

Click to expand...

I agree with the comments and note that perhaps focus peaking gets the nod as focus finder when the reality is that it can be a very good dof finder. But a lot depends on which focus peaking system is in use and also the resolution of the lens. A good system can show likely dof which will contract and recede depending upon the aperture set and can wash back and forth as the focus is adjusted.

That is: don’t necessarily think that peaked highlights are the beginning and the end of the MF exercise.

It reminds me of traps for young players in producing double entry accounts - not only do you have to follow correct procedures but you have to back check by an alternate method for proof. How many times I have said (correctly) that figure presented to me by a young clerk or accountant are “wrong” and when asked “why” say they are not what I expected them to be. Although this leaves me open to “creative accountant” jokes there is some truth when the final presented results don’t match what you know are the obvious facts on the ground. Of course if they don’t appear “right” then you have to prove why they are radically different - it was/is usually easy to find.

Forgive the digression - but I see focus peaked as only the first step in recognising “focused” and this needs to match up with what the eyes believe that they are seeing.

Click to expand...

There's more than one situation. I was trying to get a shot from above, and had to use peaking while focusing with the height (to see the peak intensity in the legos). My hand is extended to remove myself from the scene, and as high as I can. Other than Peaking, the only other resource would be luck, or bringing a chair or ladder.

Tom Caldwell said:

Experience can help judging just where the desired point of focus might lie and I tend to prefer it combined with a confirming magnified screen in order to be able to select the most precise point of focus.

Click to expand...

Peaking excels when you can't see the screen well or don't have time to adjust fine focus. But I do agree that is trains you to understand the DOF, for each particular lens. This is one advantage of having very very few lenses to one may know very very well.

Peaking my also excel for anyone that can't see well. Like bethoven could compose the 5th Symphony when he was almost deaf, peaking can help you when you can't clearly see.

Tom Caldwell said:

Focus peaking can get a slap or two because dof peaked might make points of best focus harder to see. This is where some experience in using it helps. I can still make errors even though I have been using various FP systems for quite a few years now.

Tom Caldwell said:

I also use pretty high contrast lenses, which allows me to use moire patterns in the viewfinder for focusing, sometimes in addition to peaking, sometimes with peaking turned off.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Same experience here. Focus peaking gets confusing if you have a cluttered scene, with lots of colors, shadows and bright spots.

I find magnification gives me spot on MF.

rich_cx139 said:

Very much a personal thing. I just use magnification now on my milc’s and find it the fastest way to manually focus - whatever the lens is.

I now turn off peaking because, for me, it just gets in the way

Click to expand...

Agreed. Just like anything photographic, no matter how much we get provided with automatic camera gear it is still a grain fed fallible human computer at the control station.

Obviously if there is an excess of focus peaks then jiggling the dof effect back and forth helps work out where the best focus is without seeing the image clearly. Sometimes (especially with Sony) I find the peaks very hard to find and only with some magnification and patience the best focal point can be found - that level of focal peaking can be slow to use and I can understand that some would just give up and rely on eye focus via magnification.

Basically the focus peaking is most likely just the harnessing of the camera CDAF system and making it viewable.

If it is telling tales out of court one might wonder if this is why I found the Sony CDAF focus system on the A7R so lacking? And why their system used to alternate between “ink blot” and “hunt the flicker” types of focus peaking. It may have improved since.

Sony and others seem to have basically given up on CDAF and now rely on their own PDAF for undoubted fast and effective AF. Panasonic gets its share of rocks and sticks thrown at it for insisting on persevering with CDAF (S-AF is frighteningly quick but C-AF is renowned for having its moments). However even if Panasonic focus peaking can also have its issues I have found it to be more useful than I remember my Sony gear system of FP.

If Panasonic arguably have the best CDAF system of algorithms in the business then maybe hitching their focus peaking to them can be the reason why their focus peaking might be more successful.

Not that Olympus or Leica or others that still use CDAF (on at least some of their gear) are necessarily bad AF systems - it just seems that only Panasonic gets ”stick” for continuing to rely on CDAF alone.

Tom Caldwell said:

Agreed. Just like anything photographic, no matter how much we get provided with automatic camera gear it is still a grain fed fallible human computer at the control station.

Obviously if there is an excess of focus peaks then jiggling the dof effect back and forth helps work out where the best focus is without seeing the image clearly. Sometimes (especially with Sony) I find the peaks very hard to find and only with some magnification and patience the best focal point can be found - that level of focal peaking can be slow to use and I can understand that some would just give up and rely on eye focus via magnification.

Click to expand...

I don’t know many other systems, but the Sony peaking cannot be the best. It really needs you to kind of be a robin the Matrix. I got used to it, after noticing I should not think of anything peaked as “in focus” but rather at the overall scene (in 3D) showing a DOF. It’s quite crude, and fails in low light.

Tom Caldwell said:

Basically the focus peaking is most likely just the harnessing of the camera CDAF system and making it viewable.

Click to expand...

That’s a good guess. I never asked myself the question.

Tom Caldwell said:

If it is telling tales out of court one might wonder if this is why I found the Sony CDAF focus system on the A7R so lacking? And why their system used to alternate between “ink blot” and “hunt the flicker” types of focus peaking. It may have improved since.

Click to expand...

Still flickery when I move or the object moves.

Tom Caldwell said:

Sony and others seem to have basically given up on CDAF and now rely on their own PDAF for undoubted fast and effective AF. Panasonic gets its share of rocks and sticks thrown at it for insisting on persevering with CDAF (S-AF is frighteningly quick but C-AF is renowned for having its moments). However even if Panasonic focus peaking can also have its issues I have found it to be more useful than I remember my Sony gear system of FP.

If Panasonic arguably have the best CDAF system of algorithms in the business then maybe hitching their focus peaking to them can be the reason why their focus peaking might be more successful.

Not that Olympus or Leica or others that still use CDAF (on at least some of their gear) are necessarily bad AF systems - it just seems that only Panasonic gets ”stick” for continuing to rely on CDAF alone.

Click to expand...

Overall, it’s a good aid. The biggest disadvantage is it blocks the scene when peaking too much...all contrasty detail becomes a yellow/red blotch

Tom Caldwell said:

--
Tom Caldwell

Click to expand...

fferreres said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Agreed. Just like anything photographic, no matter how much we get provided with automatic camera gear it is still a grain fed fallible human computer at the control station.

Obviously if there is an excess of focus peaks then jiggling the dof effect back and forth helps work out where the best focus is without seeing the image clearly. Sometimes (especially with Sony) I find the peaks very hard to find and only with some magnification and patience the best focal point can be found - that level of focal peaking can be slow to use and I can understand that some would just give up and rely on eye focus via magnification.

Click to expand...

I don’t know many other systems, but the Sony peaking cannot be the best. It really needs you to kind of be a robin the Matrix. I got used to it, after noticing I should not think of anything peaked as “in focus” but rather at the overall scene (in 3D) showing a DOF. It’s quite crude, and fails in low light.

fferreres said:

Basically the focus peaking is most likely just the harnessing of the camera CDAF system and making it viewable.

Click to expand...

That’s a good guess. I never asked myself the question.

fferreres said:

If it is telling tales out of court one might wonder if this is why I found the Sony CDAF focus system on the A7R so lacking? And why their system used to alternate between “ink blot” and “hunt the flicker” types of focus peaking. It may have improved since.

Click to expand...

Still flickery when I move or the object moves.

fferreres said:

Sony and others seem to have basically given up on CDAF and now rely on their own PDAF for undoubted fast and effective AF. Panasonic gets its share of rocks and sticks thrown at it for insisting on persevering with CDAF (S-AF is frighteningly quick but C-AF is renowned for having its moments). However even if Panasonic focus peaking can also have its issues I have found it to be more useful than I remember my Sony gear system of FP.

If Panasonic arguably have the best CDAF system of algorithms in the business then maybe hitching their focus peaking to them can be the reason why their focus peaking might be more successful.

Not that Olympus or Leica or others that still use CDAF (on at least some of their gear) are necessarily bad AF systems - it just seems that only Panasonic gets ”stick” for continuing to rely on CDAF alone.

Click to expand...

Overall, it’s a good aid. The biggest disadvantage is it blocks the scene when peaking too much...all contrasty detail becomes a yellow/red blotch

Click to expand...

I call that “the ink blot”.