Manual focus

[David-M]

I'm thinking of buying an E-620 as my first digital SLR. I used a film SLR (Pentax ME Super) for 20+ years, with manual focus lenses. I have also had a few years of digital point-and-shoot (Canon A95) which I let auto-focus with variable results.

I'm thinking that I would probably prefer to manual focus with the E-620, and have been trying out the lenses. I understand that the manual focus ring has no direct connection to the focus mechanism, but is just a switch which controls the electronics for focussing.

Maybe it is just me, but I found manual focussing to be rather more difficult than on my old Pentax or some Canon SLRs. With these, the image just snapped into focus - it was very obvious. With the Olympus, the viewfinder seemed dull, and correct focus was barely distinguishable from "nearly focussed", especially indoors.

Am I just being picky here? Do people have trouble with manual focussing these lenses? Or does everyone rely on autofocus?

Cheers

David

 

[The Big One]

Manual focusing the 620 (and pretty much all of the E-xxx line) is very hard. Some people can do it, but I sure can't. Definitely nothing like the film SLR days 8-(

Also, I agree that the focus by wire lenses don't feel right for MF. The SWD ones (including Sigma HSM) are much nicer, but honestly IMHO the best solution for manual focusing is to get a legacy lens with an adaptor. You can get really nice glass for next to nothing, there are a couple of OM 50mm lenses on the 'other forum' buy / sell right now for $30 or something. I have an old Nikkor 50/1.4 and have gotten some beautiful portraits from that (although, given the focusing difficulties, my focus hit rate is abysmal).

Just get a legacy lens (or an adaptor for your existing lenses) and enjoy! Use AF with the kit lenses.

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

 

[Landscapephoto99]

As an E620 fanboy I hate to admit this but manual focus is not one of its strong points. Even the E5xx series can be outfitted wtih a split screen focusi which is great for manual lenses but not the E620. In every other way it is a great camera with some nice choice of lenses.

Or you could wait until June when the next iteration of the E6xx series is expected out to see if they have corrected that shortcoming. And added video, even better IQ, etc.

 

[Claus A]

Well, the VF is small and the focusing screen is not made for manual focus.

Some hints:

• adjust the VF (diopter control) so that you can see that the thin black lines on the screen are made up of two lines
• put the camera on a tripod and use a test target for fine tuning: switch between LV w/ magnification and OVF view, focus and adjust the diopter control again
• you can use the moire effect to focus correctly with some targets (but be aware that correct focus may be achieved just before - or after - moire patterns show, depending on the VF).
• practice...

Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

 

[sarang675498]

I agree all the problems you mention are very real. I wanted to add just one thing that took me a while to figure out.

On focus-by-wire lenses, it seems that the focusing depends not just on how much you turn the ring but also on with what velocity and probably also on with how much acceleration you turn the ring. I played around a bit and found that a certain speed seems to work best for the fine adjustments and the improvement in sharpness is, in most cases, noticeable in the viewfinder.

This dependence on velocity has been very annoying for me. I think it is a flaw in the rotary encoder for the focus ring that they overlooked and decided to call a 'feature'.

-Sarang

 

[wjlonien]

Hello David,

I'm thinking of buying an E-620 as my first digital SLR.

A very good choice IMHO. I bought the E-520 DZ kit, and are very happy with it. But the E-620 has two things which I find great: the closeable LCD if you don't need it, and the micro adjustments for certain lenses which may front- or backfocus.

I used a film SLR (Pentax ME Super) for 20+ years, with manual focus lenses.

Nice. For me it was a Canon A1 with the 28, 50, and 135mm combo.

I'm thinking that I would probably prefer to manual focus with the E-620, and have been trying out the lenses. I understand that the manual focus ring has no direct connection to the focus mechanism, but is just a switch which controls the electronics for focussing.

Right. I find this behaviour of the kit lenses very annoying.

Maybe it is just me, but I found manual focussing to be rather more difficult than on my old Pentax or some Canon SLRs. With these, the image just snapped into focus - it was very obvious. With the Olympus, the viewfinder seemed dull, and correct focus was barely distinguishable from "nearly focussed", especially indoors.

Right. A bigger viewfinder like the one of the E-30 would certainly be better for that, but the prisms of the old ones were definitely better in that regard.

Am I just being picky here? Do people have trouble with manual focussing these lenses? Or does everyone rely on autofocus?

With the kit lenses, I mostly use AF, since in normal situations it's mostly more accurate than me. I bought an old manual OM Zuiko 1.8 50mm as a low light portrait lens tho, and that one has a really nice manual focus ring - feels like in the old days.

A bit of practicing is needed, and for non-moving targets I sometimes use LV. But the more I'm using it, I find that LV only confirms that I focused correctly through the view finder.

With the kit lenses, I played around with manual focus only, with the OM lens, I use it for our kid which never sits still. And that manual lens cost me 36€, and here in Germany I paid the same for a (non-AF confirm) adapter. You can get them all cheaper via the usual online markets.

HTH,
Wolfgang
--
using free and open source software,
and an open camera system (Olympus 4/3rds)

 

[jfinite]

It's not just you, but if you practice, and shoot multiple shots of the same scene, you increase your hit rate substantially. Oh, and longer lenses are of course easier to see true focus with.

Oh yeah, and you can use lots of different manual focus legacy lenses on your DSLR with the proper adapter. They usually go for $20-40 on ebay.
--



http://www.pbase.com/jfinite

 

[Baladam]

I don't have E-620 , but have other 4 cameras (in my plan). I like taking macros and using manual lenses a lot, and (I think) I have tried every possible form for better/faster manual focusing like live view, adapters with AF confirmation etc.

Surely you will get used to using your camera manually better by time as it needs some practice, but to my experience, best results come in two ways usually :
(1) Get an Eyepiece magnifier (1.5x, 2x magnification makes big difference)

(2) Change the focusing screen (there is one brand quite good in the market, diagonal split microprism...will give probably same effect as in your film Pentax)

3) And, if you intend to use old legacy lenses, additonally get an adapter with a programmable AF confirmation chip, because it also helps to keep record of the focal length of the lens in Exif data , in case you want to know which photo is taken with which legacy lens in future.

Happy shootings.

 

[Laszlo13]

as per the thread I started, about making a mistake with the e-30

Well now that I've used the e-30 a bit more, especially with my Minolta manual focus lenses, I have to say the viewfinder works much better in the e-620 with manual focusing. Actually - let me way that you can actually manually focus on the e-30, while with the e-620 you're just in the ballpark. And as I'm finding out and others have suggested, it's not really the size of the viewfinder per se, but the focusing screen. On the e-620, the ground glass is nice and bright - but it's tolerance at depicting what's out of focus as being in focus is much higher. So you'll find that as you turn the focusing ring, there's quite a bit of play where things still look to be in focus in the viewfinder.

Note however, this is only an issue where depth of field is minimal - when you use a slower aperture - it's not much of an issue. Also note that the live view focusing, with the ability to zoom in with one button click (on both cameras) works great for very very precise focus.

I've started to miss manual focusing - and have started to buy used manual lenses. Being an old Minolta user I'm sticking with their lenses because they're good, less expensive, and compact (for the MD line anyway). I'm amazed at the prices for OM glasses these days on eBay. Also, the minolta adapter is basically wafer thin, I love how it fits on the camera. The downside to the 4/3 cameras though is that the focal length multiplier is 2.

 

[OM 6Ti Plus]

as per the thread I started, about making a mistake with the e-30

snip to the bit I am responding to

I've started to miss manual focusing - and have started to buy used manual lenses. Being an old Minolta user I'm sticking with their lenses because they're good, less expensive, and compact (for the MD line anyway). I'm amazed at the prices for OM glasses these days on eBay. Also, the minolta adapter is basically wafer thin, I love how it fits on the camera. The downside to the 4/3 cameras though is that the focal length multiplier is 2.

I am glad I built up my OM glass - to use on OM1/4Ti - while the prices were depressed because Oly had no DSLR line and not many Canon users had found the OM wide-angles.

Doesn't the Sony A-series use the Minolta mount in some of its iterations and wouldn't one of those give you back the 1x multiplier for the shorter focal lengths?

After the 5D Mk II had been out for some time I picked up a 5D body for about the same price as a used E-3 and regained the use of my shorter focal length OM glass. It's a 12Mp databack for the OM glass, I don't have any Canon glass - there's little point in buying long focal length lenses to put on the 5D it makes more sense to use 4/3 for that precisely because of the multiplier and, as yet, I don't feel I am missing shots with manual focusing and need to invest in any Canon AF lenses at the shorter focal lengths.

regards,

Mike

 

[mlackey]

Am I just being picky here? Do people have trouble with manual focussing these lenses? Or does everyone rely on autofocus?

(1) No
(2) Yes
(3) Don't know about everybody else

I've been an OM owner since 1984, and it ain't like it used to be. I miss the big, bright viewfinders and excellent focusing screens. Maybe with more cash you can buy a camera with a viewfinder comparable to an OM-1, don't know. But it's not hopeless. Manual focus with an E620 takes more care and patience, and is more difficult with focus by wire, but when you get it right.. the results can make your eyes explode!

Before you plunk down a stack of hard-earned dollar bills, check out other models and/or brands. My advice is to buy more than you think you will ever need, maybe twice what you think you need, I think it is cheaper in the long run. Make sure you get what YOU want the first time.

Mike

 

[Laszlo13]

Doesn't the Sony A-series use the Minolta mount in some of its iterations and wouldn't one of those give you back the 1x multiplier for the shorter focal lengths?

After the 5D Mk II had been out for some time I picked up a 5D body for about the same price as a used E-3 and regained the use of my shorter focal length OM glass. It's a 12Mp databack for the OM glass, I don't have any Canon glass - there's little point in buying long focal length lenses to put on the 5D it makes more sense to use 4/3 for that precisely because of the multiplier and, as yet, I don't feel I am missing shots with manual focusing and need to invest in any Canon AF lenses at the shorter focal lengths.

regards,

Mike

Interesting idea Mike, using full frame with just manual focus glass. Unfortunately no such luck with Minolta, due to the short flange back distance, Oly is the only DSLR that allows their usage, without any sort of lens based adapters. I'm also hoping that someone other than Leica will come out with a full frame mirrorless camera (and suspect that's what Canon is working on).

 

[Laszlo13]

Quick example, just got the lens today (and camera yesterday). I can definitely focus quickly and easily with this camera. On the other hand I'm just a bit disappointed with the lens, after all the great reviews I've read about it - the bouquet is pretty rough, but in some cases produces a swirly artistic effect. This is wide open, at 1.8, as you can see the lens is a bit soft.

 

[luisflorit]

I'm thinking of buying an E-620 as my first digital SLR. I used a film SLR (Pentax ME Super) for 20+ years, with manual focus lenses. I have also had a few years of digital point-and-shoot (Canon A95) which I let auto-focus with variable results.

I'm thinking that I would probably prefer to manual focus with the E-620, and have been trying out the lenses. I understand that the manual focus ring has no direct connection to the focus mechanism, but is just a switch which controls the electronics for focussing.

Maybe it is just me, but I found manual focussing to be rather more difficult than on my old Pentax or some Canon SLRs. With these, the image just snapped into focus - it was very obvious. With the Olympus, the viewfinder seemed dull, and correct focus was barely distinguishable from "nearly focussed", especially indoors.

Am I just being picky here? Do people have trouble with manual focussing these lenses? Or does everyone rely on autofocus?

No, David, you're not being picky. Even with the big E3 OVF manual focus is not reliable, at least if your DOF is not large enough. For example, if you do MF birding with the E3, you'll get the vast majority of your shots "nearly focused", exactly as you said.

Of course, if you just do landscapes, MF is good enough... on any camera: just focus a bit beyond hyperfocal distance and you're done.

Now, good electronic viewfinders (EVF) are much better for MF, like the one in the G1, since they allow you to zoom. This one of the reasons I would love an E5 with EVF.

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://w3.impa.br/~luis/photos



Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250
Nikn CeePee4500; Cann SDee500

 

[OM 6Ti Plus]

Quick example, just got the lens today (and camera yesterday). I can definitely focus quickly and easily with this camera. On the other hand I'm just a bit disappointed with the lens, after all the great reviews I've read about it - the bouquet is pretty rough, but in some cases produces a swirly artistic effect. This is wide open, at 1.8, as you can see the lens is a bit soft.

Laszlo,

I find with my OM glass that, in bright light, they tend to look softer on the 4/3 sensor wide open than on the 5D. It may be internal reflections, lighter coatings or that the 4/3 metering doesn't register the totality of the light entering through the lens. Try dialling in some exposure compensation and checking for blown highlights, keep going down in 1/3 increments until the highlights are clean. Alternatively try stopping down to F2 or F2.8 when it will magically sharpen up - at least I find that with the majority of my OM lenses.

As an aside, the camera's Date and Time seems to need some adjusting

regards,

Mike

 

[Klarno]

Now that I've got your attention

Modern SLR camera viewfinder screens are designed to shoot as telecentric an image as possible, to in order to produce the brightest viewfinder image possible (namely with slow zoom lenses), and they actually show a little more depth of field than the actual image will have. You can get good results with an alternative focusing screen, but not really worth it. It affects your metering, particularly in center-weight or spot mode. I've heard the Katz Eye split prism screens are good, better than the rubbish you get on ebay, but you also pay for it. What's more, the viewfinder optical path isn't really calibrated to any wonderful tolerance anymore. It may well be longer or shorter than the path to the AF sensor and the image sensor, leading to an out-of-focus image.

When I manual focus a lens with live view, it's much easier to discern what's in focus (you get the option of live view magnification, or what I do, just determine correct focus according to aliasing artifacts on sharp edges). And this isn't an alien concept to photography. It's what twin lens reflex and Hasselblad photographers have been doing for decades (well, they have the same kind of focusing screens as 35mm manual focus photographers have, but no matter). Plus, it's absolutely accurate, because you're seeing the lens' image on the actual image sensor.

--
http://www.photoklarno.com

 

[Laszlo13]

Hi Mike

Laszlo,

I find with my OM glass that, in bright light, they tend to look softer on the 4/3 sensor wide open than on the 5D. It may be internal reflections, lighter coatings or that the 4/3 metering doesn't register the totality of the light entering through the lens. Try dialling in some exposure compensation and checking for blown highlights, keep going down in 1/3 increments until the highlights are clean. Alternatively try stopping down to F2 or F2.8 when it will magically sharpen up - at least I find that with the majority of my OM lenses.

Thanks for the tip. Indeed it could be reflections. I converted the konica 40mm pancake to an Oly mount, and it worked much better when I added a black baffle with an opening covering only the 4/3 senson image circle. On the other hand, my Minolta 50mm 1.7 is beautiful even wide open as is, and both the 35mm and 50mm offer even better contrast than the Konica without additional baffles. I'm not worried about the softness though, and like the more film like effect of older lenses.

As an aside, the camera's Date and Time seems to need some adjusting

Oops, I dove right into using the camera, without setting it.

Best regards as well, Laszlo

 

[Laszlo13]

Now that I've got your attention

Modern SLR camera viewfinder screens are designed to shoot as telecentric an image as possible, to in order to produce the brightest viewfinder image possible (namely with slow zoom lenses), and they actually show a little more depth of field than the actual image will have. You can get good results with an alternative focusing screen, but not really worth it. It affects your metering, particularly in center-weight or spot mode. I've heard the Katz Eye split prism screens are good, better than the rubbish you get on ebay, but you also pay for it. What's more, the viewfinder optical path isn't really calibrated to any wonderful tolerance anymore. It may well be longer or shorter than the path to the AF sensor and the image sensor, leading to an out-of-focus image.

Very true - but via experimentation I can vouch that the e-30 is indeed better than the e-620 in this respect (the focusing screen seems to be more sensitive in showing what's in focus). I was also wondering how the screens can show more depth of field than what's on the image, but it certainly seems to be the case. As for the calibration - I was testing this on the e-30, and indeed it is just slightly off.

When I manual focus a lens with live view, it's much easier to discern what's in focus (you get the option of live view magnification, or what I do, just determine correct focus according to aliasing artifacts on sharp edges). And this isn't an alien concept to photography. It's what twin lens reflex and Hasselblad photographers have been doing for decades (well, they have the same kind of focusing screens as 35mm manual focus photographers have, but no matter). Plus, it's absolutely accurate, because you're seeing the lens' image on the actual image sensor.

Also very true, hence why I was really impressed with the e-p2. I think evf will be the future. Plus you see the correct brigthness, white balance, and depth of field of the picture about to be taken. I try to resist lookin at the my LCD after each shot. It's kind of funny watching people do this, especially in busy touristy places. In the meantime the lcd for us certainly can be used for this - and I do often use it, both for manual focusing, and autofocusing. (I did own an old Hasselblad that I regrettably sold to fund my first DSLR). But sometimes a viewfinder is simply better - and vice versa.

--
http://www.photoklarno.com

 

[luisflorit]

Now that I've got your attention

Modern SLR camera viewfinder screens are designed to shoot as telecentric an image as possible, to in order to produce the brightest viewfinder image possible (namely with slow zoom lenses), and they actually show a little more depth of field than the actual image will have. You can get good results with an alternative focusing screen, but not really worth it. It affects your metering, particularly in center-weight or spot mode. I've heard the Katz Eye split prism screens are good, better than the rubbish you get on ebay, but you also pay for it. What's more, the viewfinder optical path isn't really calibrated to any wonderful tolerance anymore. It may well be longer or shorter than the path to the AF sensor and the image sensor, leading to an out-of-focus image.

When I manual focus a lens with live view, it's much easier to discern what's in focus (you get the option of live view magnification, or what I do, just determine correct focus according to aliasing artifacts on sharp edges). And this isn't an alien concept to photography. It's what twin lens reflex and Hasselblad photographers have been doing for decades (well, they have the same kind of focusing screens as 35mm manual focus photographers have, but no matter). Plus, it's absolutely accurate, because you're seeing the lens' image on the actual image sensor.

Very interesting. I always attributed the inaccuracy just to the small image. So you're saying there are even more reasons, and even if you shoot wide open.

Therefore, I would say that OVFs are dead, not manual focus. But that I already knew.

L.

--
My gallery: http://w3.impa.br/~luis/photos



Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250
Nikn CeePee4500; Cann SDee500