Sharper Pictures With Manual Focus?

[BEEZY]

I have heard that you can get sharper pictures using manual focus if your eyes are good,. I was just wondering if anyone here has experienced/experimented with this, or if it's a false statement. Also, is there an adapter for my eyepiece (NIKON D80) that exist to allow me to determine image sharpness. Because i would really like attain as much sharpness in camera, as possible.


Nikon D80/ AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G/ Sigma DG 28-70mm
1:2.8-4/ Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor/ Nikon SB600 Flash
"Truth is the light illuminating my images"


"Better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing flawlessly." - Robert Schuller

[wulf]

With manual focus you take full control over the sharpest point of the picture; with auto focus, there is more chance that it will pick something nearish, which could affect the result if you have a narrow depth of field and there is an appreciable distance between the camera's choice and what you where thinking of.

I am not sure that manual focus guarantees a sharper result but it does mean you are forced to think more deliberately about focus and I use it most of the time (albeit without any choice on most of my lenses ).

Wulf

[PRH]

Auto focus is great most of the time, but manual focus should be in every DSLR users arsenal (see Wulf's comments for why). Even if your eyes aren't that great you can still use manual focus. There's a dial near the eyepiece (with the Canon's at least and I'm sure Nikon would be the same) where you can adjust the focus of the eyepiece to correct for near or far sightedness of the user. I use manual focus about 30% of the time and my shots come up sharp (shutter speed dependent of course )

[Elmo]

Generally speaking MF will give better focus. In reality for most shots it is not an issue. It only become an issue when one very specific, well defined object must be the prime focus area, This might be the eyes in a portait. The one place MF always seems a must is for macros.

[inkista]

Actually, I've found just the opposite. After twenty years with my OM-10, I confidently expected MF to get me more accurate focus when I first got my XT, but side-by-side comparisons and testing led me to believe that the AF was actually more accurate by a hair or three.

I blame the matte focus screen. It makes it far more difficult to accurately judge tack-sharp focus than the old split-circle focus screens. And mastering your autofocus points will take care of the major issue of having the camera focus where you want.

If you want the higher accuracy of manual focus from the old film days (especially for narrow DoF photography like macro shooting), you may need to swap out the focus screen for one with aids to help you achieve pinpoint accuracy. The Katzeye, and the Haoda are the best-known third-party suppliers of these screens; but Nikon and Canon do make swappable focus screens (usually for the higher end camera bodies) that can help, too.

With macro photography, though, I tend to find that I'm focusing not with the camera's focus system but by varying my distance from the subject: I do this tiny little rocking back and forth.

[PRH]

The other thing to remember is that the lens itself is the limiting factor on how sharp an image is going to be. Regardless if you use AF or MF with or without changing the focus screen (thanks inkista, I've always wanted to know where to get them...thumbs-up), your images are only going to be as sharp as the optics are going to allow.

If you want super-sharp images then stick with primes. I notice you have a 50mm F/1.4, this lens is going to give you the sharpest images at the expense of flexibility of focal length of course.

[GEli]

Originally Posted by PRH

The other thing to remember is that the lens itself is the limiting factor on how sharp an image is going to be. Regardless if you use AF or MF with or without changing the focus screen (thanks inkista, I've always wanted to know where to get them...thumbs-up), your images are only going to be as sharp as the optics are going to allow.

If you want super-sharp images then stick with primes. I notice you have a 50mm F/1.4, this lens is going to give you the sharpest images at the expense of flexibility of focal length of course.

Yes, but that's assuming perfect focus. Even being slightly off with your focussing will remove any sharpness advantage a superior lense will give you over a crappy lense.

I trust my AF far more than my eyes when using a matte focus screen. With a proper split-prism focus screen it's a different story, but otherwise you're probably better off sticking to used-defined AF points (none of this auto-AF-point nonsense).

[PRH]

Originally Posted by GEli

Yes, but that's assuming perfect focus.

That's exactly what I'm assuming. When you as the photographer have gotten perfect focus (AF or MF), in the end it's the lens that dictates how sharp the image is. (the quality of the sensor also comes into it...but that's a whole other story!)

Originally Posted by GEli

...you're probably better off sticking to used-defined AF points (none of this auto-AF-point nonsense).

TOTALLY agree when using AF!

[navy.wife_2004]

I have trouble getting the 'great' focus I want in MF or AF. So I'm not gonna have a good answer for you, haha.

[sandman935]

I can't really trust my eyes on a manual focus. If the camera had a focusing prism type screen like the older film SLRs used to have, I might. So... I use autofocus.