Why I really does hate Focus-by-Wire

Meh.

First world problem.

I can (and do) swing both ways.

Jack Tingle said:

Meh.

First world problem.

I can (and do) swing both ways.

Click to expand...

I say....

Hoxton Bridge said:

mzx said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

If you are using manual focus 9 out of 10 times, then buy yourself a fully manual focus camera that uses fully mechanical lenses like a Leica M. Expensive, yes, but if it's that important to you, it's no more than other hobbies I could mention.

Click to expand...

Sometimes i really do need AF, specifically when i shoot portraits. And 1 out of 10 is not a little amount. It's 10% and 10% from 100 thousands of photos is 10 thousands. So i still need AF to be good and reliable.

Click to expand...

If you are taking that many photos, especially if it is a professional activity, then buy two systems. It seems the only solution to me. Otherwise, you just have to live with the compromises.

If I were you I would invest in a Leica M and the lenses you need, and a Canon R5 or a Fuji GFX for portraits and be done with it. If you are that concerned you ought to see the price as reasonable.

Click to expand...

I would scratch Leica from that list. If someone is shooting manual focus for 90% of shots, then either they're shooting macro, video or have a bit of OCD. Leica is plagued with parallax error and cannot shoot macro, never mind the price.

A DSLR system would be better.

Swordman said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

mzx said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

If you are using manual focus 9 out of 10 times, then buy yourself a fully manual focus camera that uses fully mechanical lenses like a Leica M. Expensive, yes, but if it's that important to you, it's no more than other hobbies I could mention.

Click to expand...

Sometimes i really do need AF, specifically when i shoot portraits. And 1 out of 10 is not a little amount. It's 10% and 10% from 100 thousands of photos is 10 thousands. So i still need AF to be good and reliable.

Click to expand...

If you are taking that many photos, especially if it is a professional activity, then buy two systems. It seems the only solution to me. Otherwise, you just have to live with the compromises.

If I were you I would invest in a Leica M and the lenses you need, and a Canon R5 or a Fuji GFX for portraits and be done with it. If you are that concerned you ought to see the price as reasonable.

Click to expand...

I would scratch Leica from that list. If someone is shooting manual focus for 90% of shots, then either they're shooting macro, video or have a bit of OCD. Leica is plagued with parallax error and cannot shoot macro, never mind the price.

A DSLR system would be better.

Click to expand...

I shoot manual for 100% of my shots and I have never shot anything macro, nor do I intend to. There are plenty of users that do not automatically use DSLRs or EVF-based mirrorless. Perhaps ask the OP before chipping in with assumptions.

This is not really my area of expertise, but let me state what I think the reasons are for the spread of FBW.

In recent years focus motors have moved from "normal" geared ring motors (e.g. Canon's USM) to stepper motors (Canon's STM) and linear motors (Canon's Nano). I think that the reason for this is that stepper and linear motors are capable of much faster changes in direction than geared motors and this is needed for mirrorless and Liveview CDAF and hybrid CDAF/PDAF focusing. I think that they also give smoother focusing for video. Almost all mirrorless lenses use either stepper or linear motors.

I believe that it is virtually impossible to use a linear motor in conjunction with a manual focusing ring and difficult to use a stepper motor. So, the vast majority of new lenses are going to be FBW.

So, trying to persuade optical engineers to abandon FBW is probably pretty useless, but persuading them that FBW has to be improved to get as close to manual ring focusing as possible might be fruitful.

For what it is worth, I did a check on motor types used in new lenses announced in the last few years with the following results:

Sony E and FE - all of the ones I checked have linear motors

Fujifilm - mostly stepper motors

Olympus/Panasonic - were 100% linear but now mostly stepper

Canon - almost all RF lenses are stepper or linear (Nano USM). The recent RF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 were the only two exceptions that I found and these seem to be modified EF lenses.

Nikon - all Z lenses were stepper

Sigma - all their Sony E/FE mount lenses seem to be stepper. Other are a mixture of stepper and ring, and that includes some of the Art series lenses.

Tamron - same as Sigma - all lenses for Sony use stepper motors.

Hoxton Bridge said:

Swordman said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

mzx said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

If you are using manual focus 9 out of 10 times, then buy yourself a fully manual focus camera that uses fully mechanical lenses like a Leica M. Expensive, yes, but if it's that important to you, it's no more than other hobbies I could mention.

Click to expand...

Sometimes i really do need AF, specifically when i shoot portraits. And 1 out of 10 is not a little amount. It's 10% and 10% from 100 thousands of photos is 10 thousands. So i still need AF to be good and reliable.

Click to expand...

If you are taking that many photos, especially if it is a professional activity, then buy two systems. It seems the only solution to me. Otherwise, you just have to live with the compromises.

If I were you I would invest in a Leica M and the lenses you need, and a Canon R5 or a Fuji GFX for portraits and be done with it. If you are that concerned you ought to see the price as reasonable.

Click to expand...

I would scratch Leica from that list. If someone is shooting manual focus for 90% of shots, then either they're shooting macro, video or have a bit of OCD. Leica is plagued with parallax error and cannot shoot macro, never mind the price.

A DSLR system would be better.

Click to expand...

I shoot manual for 100% of my shots and I have never shot anything macro, nor do I intend to. There are plenty of users that do not automatically use DSLRs or EVF-based mirrorless. Perhaps ask the OP before chipping in with assumptions.

Click to expand...

Wow, it looks like I touched a nerve there, lol.

Ironically, it's you who needs to ask the OP whether your suggestion of Leica M fits his needs of mechanical focus AND autofocus in one lens.

Chris R-UK said:

So, trying to persuade optical engineers to abandon FBW is probably pretty useless

Click to expand...

The problem is exist and at least problem must be discussed. Not everything with FBW is as good as marketers trying to make us think

Chris R-UK said:

I shoot manual for 100% of my shots and I have never shot anything macro, nor do I intend to

Click to expand...

Neither did I. Some people need to realize that there's a lot of people out of their social circle and not everybody live the same way. If you'd go to communities where art photography is dominating like flickr, 500px or even tumblr (not to mention instagram art communities like @photocinematica) - manual shooting there is essential and i'd even say prime, rather then using AF. And btw art photography was always considered as most important genre of photography even though being like 1% of an industry - if you would look to top 100 list of best photographers of all time - 9 out of 10 would be art photographers. AF is a commercial industry's tool and despite commercial photography being 99% of photography market, still there's place for an art photography and art photography is still most influental photography worldwide.

Yep, I hit for both teams.

Why just today, I took out my old 55mm, f/1.9 Minolta and my shiny new 25mm, f/1.8 Meike and went walkies with my E-M10 II. Both manual.

The Meike has too loose an aperture ring (no clicks) and correctible chromatic aberration. It's a bit of a pain to use, but I only take it out at dusk. It was a cheap date.

The Minolta, ca. 1978 or so is pretty close to perfect. The SR-T100 it fits is in a bag in a closet, but the lens is still going strong with an adapter*. Nice controls, no, zero, nada, nil aberrations of any kind. Weighs a freaking ton, though.

Most of the time, I just mount the 40-150mm zoom and wander around. Fully automatic.

*Pet peeve. If I have to enter the lens focal length for the IBIS, why doesn't it show up in EXIF. Come on OMDS, do we have to hold your hand?

mzx said:

mzx said:

So, trying to persuade optical engineers to abandon FBW is probably pretty useless

Click to expand...

The problem is exist and at least problem must be discussed. Not everything with FBW is as good as marketers trying to make us think

Click to expand...

You cut off the second half of my sentence which said pretty much what you are saying.

Please do not quote me out of context.

mzx said:

mzx said:

I shoot manual for 100% of my shots and I have never shot anything macro, nor do I intend to

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I never wrote this. Please identify the person who did, to whom you are presumably replying.

mzx said:

Neither did I. Some people need to realize that there's a lot of people out of their social circle and not everybody live the same way. If you'd go to communities where art photography is dominating like flickr, 500px or even tumblr (not to mention instagram art communities like @photocinematica) - manual shooting there is essential and i'd even say prime, rather then using AF. And btw art photography was always considered as most important genre of photography even though being like 1% of an industry - if you would look to top 100 list of best photographers of all time - 9 out of 10 would be art photographers. AF is a commercial industry's tool and despite commercial photography being 99% of photography market, still there's place for an art photography and art photography is still most influental photography worldwide.

Click to expand...

--
Chris R

Swordman said:

buy some nikkor d lenses

Click to expand...

Any lenses from classic mounts are non-FBW, EF/FX/A, so Nikon G is good as well. Btw it's possible to use Nikon G on Z cameras via adapter with AF and predictable result (almost as good as with native mount), same for EF lenses and R cameras, which is really good and make situation much less bad. But still it's not a best situation. If you want to go all new in 2021 - you wouldn't found any non-FBW lens aside from Sigma's Arts. At least we have Sigma, and even with polymeric that's a solution, but still - polymeric glass makes an IQ much less creamy and cinematic. So perfect solution - is to have 135GM and 135 Zeiss Apo simultaneously, the only thing which is not perfect in this option - would be the price. While i'd just take GM glass and AF motors (GM almost twice as fast as a Sigma) in Sigma's body, with classic mechanical focus ring. Ehhh, dreams, dreams.

mzx said:

pretty much what you are saying

Click to expand...

No. You meant to improve FBW i meant that FBW is non-suitable for a big part of professional usage at all. There's literally nothing to improve - just non-FBW lenses with mechanical focus ring is the only solution sometimes, and notice - there's a lot of people in the thread who are completely agree with me, manual shooters are the big part of the industry, and many people combines manual and auto focusing. That's the existing problem and people in this thread are confirming that. While all the vendors' marketers are praising FBW and telling us how good it is - I used it for many years on my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, and i can't say that i liked it, and to be honest I started to really despise FBW. I think that FBW is the main problem on photography market today for many. Manual shooting was always very important part of the photography, and i really don't like where's it all going.

To clarify what i really hate about FBW:

- very bad response

It's look on videos that it's all good, and if you would try it you wouldn't notice any problem. The problems comes later. To activate FBW system you need to rotate the ring, while FBW not react to slight rotations (to prevent accidental turning FBW on from random touches). So prior to focus you need to rotate focus ring slightly to activate FBW. It's not active every time. And when you rotate it enough to activate FBW - it's starting to get a signal and shifting focus too far or too close, because to start FBW you need to make pretty big move. So instant micro adjustments, like with every normal mechanical focus lens, is basically not possible while micro adjustments is the most important part of manual focusing process and micro adjustments is what manual focusing is all about. And even after FBW is activated it's going back to standby mode in a two seconds if focus ring is idle. So its an eternal pain.

- very big increments

Even when FBW is already turned on it have very big increments. It's barely noticable on close distances with focal length shorter than 100mm but with 100+mm lenses and focusing distance 100+ metres it's becomes really annoying. You literally can't make precise adjustment, it's becoming +10/-10cm with most slight rotation of the ring, while with classic - mechanical focus rings there's no limits in micro adjustments, it can be still even few millimetres long on such distances.

- annoying scale indicator

Necessary remark: i used only Sony's FBW, but on Sony's FBW scale indicator is so annoying. It's big, it's unaesthetic, it's moving jaggedly, with very short spurts, man I DO HATE FBW

- it's not realiable

Due to the reasons written above it's not persistent. On good old mechanical focus ring you slightly touch the ring and you're already know the outcome result. While with FBW it's always basically a lottery- where focus would like to move today. Meh!

mzx said:

And even if go with Sigma - it use polymeric aspherical elements, which makes lens sharper and cheaper but bokeh much less creamy and cinematic, like on 100% glass lenses.

Click to expand...

I can't see how bokeh can have anything to do with lens material and aspherical has been a way of life for the last 15 years or more. Please back up these claims. Next, you be telling us they also have less microcontrast

Chris R-UK said:

This is not really my area of expertise, but let me state what I think the reasons are for the spread of FBW.

In recent years focus motors have moved from "normal" geared ring motors (e.g. Canon's USM) to stepper motors (Canon's STM) and linear motors (Canon's Nano). I think that the reason for this is that stepper and linear motors are capable of much faster changes in direction than geared motors and this is needed for mirrorless and Liveview CDAF and hybrid CDAF/PDAF focusing. I think that they also give smoother focusing for video. Almost all mirrorless lenses use either stepper or linear motors.

I believe that it is virtually impossible to use a linear motor in conjunction with a manual focusing ring and difficult to use a stepper motor. So, the vast majority of new lenses are going to be FBW.

So, trying to persuade optical engineers to abandon FBW is probably pretty useless, but persuading them that FBW has to be improved to get as close to manual ring focusing as possible might be fruitful.

For what it is worth, I did a check on motor types used in new lenses announced in the last few years with the following results:

Sony E and FE - all of the ones I checked have linear motors

Fujifilm - mostly stepper motors

Olympus/Panasonic - were 100% linear but now mostly stepper

Canon - almost all RF lenses are stepper or linear (Nano USM). The recent RF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 were the only two exceptions that I found and these seem to be modified EF lenses.

Nikon - all Z lenses were stepper

Sigma - all their Sony E/FE mount lenses seem to be stepper. Other are a mixture of stepper and ring, and that includes some of the Art series lenses.

Tamron - same as Sigma - all lenses for Sony use stepper motors.

Click to expand...

Yes, FBW could be improved, and if they fix the problem I hate most, I would be OK with FBW.

Let me explain. And lets pick astrophotography. Stars need perfect focus. Close focus is not good enough. If stars are out of focus they get fatter and dimmer.

In using a good manual focus lens, I will use focus magnify and adjust for the smallest diameter on the dimmest star I can see. As I get real close to perfect focus, I will very gently rock focus back and forth by the tiniest movements I can make, barely touching the focus ring. With a good manual focus lens this works well. Some manual focus lenses, and most AF lenses with mechaical focusing, this experience may not be as good.

Now with FBW, I find that this fine rocking that I want to do just doesn't work as well. Some even have a bit of hysterisis which mean as you change direction, the focus direction may not change as fast and it travels in the same direction just a tiny amount before reversing and going the other direction.

Now you don't have to be focusing on stars to have this problem. But it is easiest to explain with stars.

And by the way, focus peaking is not nearly as accurate, and I don't use it at all.

Swordman said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

Swordman said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

mzx said:

Hoxton Bridge said:

If you are using manual focus 9 out of 10 times, then buy yourself a fully manual focus camera that uses fully mechanical lenses like a Leica M. Expensive, yes, but if it's that important to you, it's no more than other hobbies I could mention.

Click to expand...

Sometimes i really do need AF, specifically when i shoot portraits. And 1 out of 10 is not a little amount. It's 10% and 10% from 100 thousands of photos is 10 thousands. So i still need AF to be good and reliable.

Click to expand...

If you are taking that many photos, especially if it is a professional activity, then buy two systems. It seems the only solution to me. Otherwise, you just have to live with the compromises.

If I were you I would invest in a Leica M and the lenses you need, and a Canon R5 or a Fuji GFX for portraits and be done with it. If you are that concerned you ought to see the price as reasonable.

Click to expand...

I would scratch Leica from that list. If someone is shooting manual focus for 90% of shots, then either they're shooting macro, video or have a bit of OCD. Leica is plagued with parallax error and cannot shoot macro, never mind the price.

A DSLR system would be better.

Click to expand...

I shoot manual for 100% of my shots and I have never shot anything macro, nor do I intend to. There are plenty of users that do not automatically use DSLRs or EVF-based mirrorless. Perhaps ask the OP before chipping in with assumptions.

Click to expand...

Wow, it looks like I touched a nerve there, lol.

Ironically, it's you who needs to ask the OP whether your suggestion of Leica M fits his needs of mechanical focus AND autofocus in one lens.

Click to expand...

I think not, on both counts.

mzx said:

And even if go with Sigma - it use polymeric aspherical elements, which makes lens sharper and cheaper but bokeh much less creamy and cinematic, like on 100% glass lenses. So we don't have a good opportunities right now, aside from good old DSLR glass lenses (via adapters). Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji even Tamron and Samyang - all of them are using FBW right now. That is what is really sad part of photography in 2021.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by Focus-by-wire you call FBW.
I am used to FBW to mean "Fly By Wire" wherein movement of components by mechanical linkages or hydraulics are replaced by electric powered electrical motors which are computer controlled.
.
Are you claiming that the lens manufacturers you cited above, Nikon in particular are using what you call FBW exclusively?

mzx said:

FBW was discussed a lot and many times here and on the other forums. Though i still think we need to spend a bit more time on this topic. Due to as all we know all vendors managers and engineers are reading forums a lot, so i think we need to give a clear signal to all of them - that a lot of us hate and despise the FBW.

It's as that clear - FBW makes work for people who use manual focusing a lot (and I for an example use it in 9 times out of 10) harder. It's can't keep smooth focus movement, it's have too big increments so it's barely usable for people who used to manual shooting with proper manual focus rings, physically attached to a motor.

Nothing can express my disappointment when i need to choose lenses in 2021. I want to go full-throttle onto mirrorless but what i have to choose from? Native FBW lenses? Tamron producing FBW lenses now also. The only corporation that produces good old mechanical focus rings is Sigma with Art line-up.

And even if go with Sigma - it use polymeric aspherical elements, which makes lens sharper and cheaper but bokeh much less creamy and cinematic, like on 100% glass lenses. So we don't have a good opportunities right now, aside from good old DSLR glass lenses (via adapters). Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji even Tamron and Samyang - all of them are using FBW right now. That is what is really sad part of photography in 2021.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in general, but the issue is not FBW, it is poor implementations of it.

I recommend you try the FBW on the Sony FE 90mm Macro f2.8. It is amazingly accurate and has never let me down. The ability to set a focus distance in MF, then shift the ring to AF for the full range, then shift back to MF and be at the exact focus distance is very impressive.

That's funny.

I think we know what focus by wire is. It's not run by steam.

lft said:

Pocket Lint said:

Swordman said:

Pocket Lint said:

I love focus by wire. Coming from dSLR cameras and lenses, I enjoy Manually focusing with my new Fuji camera and lenses with focus by wire. Why? Because it had tons of focus aids that make it more accurate, faster and fun!

Click to expand...

You should try the Zeiss Loxia lenses on Sony E mount - focusing aids with mechanical focus - for feel it blows all focus by wire lenses into the weeds.

Click to expand...

Why do I get this feeling that this blows all focus by wire lenses into the weeds is an overstatement and I’ll be pretty disappointed in doing so? Maybe because focus by wire is already very good and I can focus on my subject with ease and enjoyment. We really are NITPICKING to the highest degree here.

Click to expand...

It's not an overstatement.

Click to expand...

Whenever the statement blows into the weeds is made [never with substantiation that one] I get suspicious