How important is autofocus for you?

[zCypher]

I have to say that much of the time, autofocus is not a big deal for me. I'm focusing manually and take my time, and my subjects are not moving around on me. I like to shoot landscapes, buildings, etc. It might just be that they've been easy subjects as I learn, but so far it's been stuff like that and it's been a lot of fun.

However the few times I've needed autofocus, I've found that my D5200 with kit lens is pretty lacking. Especially bad in low light. I don't have much of a background in photography to compare it to, I've had a number of cell phones and crappy point and shoot cameras, despite always having had at least a passive interest in photography.

I always enjoy reading about other cameras and whatever's out there. Even though it was a friend's Canon 60D that finally pushed me over the edge and made me get a DSLR, I've honestly never been super tempted by anything else out there, aside from the unsurprising itch to buy a bunch of cool stuff for the camera i have.

Once in a while I get a craving to pick up something like the RX100, which looks really awesome for those times where you just wish you had something pretty good in your pocket, but couldn't have your DSLR for whatever understandable reason. I've always kept my eye on mirrorless systems as I looked at those before deciding on my D5200. I picked up a Panasonic GX1 as a gift, and that was a pretty nice little camera.

Been looking at the Nikon 1 J4 and the Sony A6000, and the thing that seems to appeal to me a lot aside from the small size is the fast autofocus. The Nikon seems like a kind of nice upgrade for someone who isn't heavy into the technical nitty gritty of photography, whereas the Sony seems to be a pretty kickass system even if you're already into it, depending on your needs and preferences.

I could see myself having a system camera + something like RX100, since I still don't imagine anything pocketable entirely replacing the capabilities of a good DSLR or mirrorless system. While I do make good use of my D5200, there are definitely times where I could benefit by filling that gap. I enjoy capturing the moment, and I'm envious of some of the pics I see people taking which could only have been possible with fast autofocus.

So I'll say for me, autofocus hasn't been a huge priority so far, but it's probably going to be a significant consideration in my next purchase. What about you? How important is it to you in your photography life, and what kind of gear are you looking at that delivers on that front?

 

[corkyg]

For me it is essential - I don't have time to manually focus except when using myOES 5DII with stationary subjects,

 

[Berliner]

Get something with a constant fast aperture like f/2.8 for better autofocus results.

You can't really expect an f/5.6 lens to focus well in dark light, even though I've managed to use autofocus with an 18-55mm kit in moonlight, it will not always be there, also depending on your subject, of course.

Also the D5200 is not Nikons top AF system, but it should do very well, if you give it a good lens to work with.

 

[Syborg1211]

Get something with a constant fast aperture like f/2.8 for better autofocus results.

You can't really expect an f/5.6 lens to focus well in dark light, even though I've managed to use autofocus with an 18-55mm kit in moonlight, it will not always be there, also depending on your subject, of course.

Also the D5200 is not Nikons top AF system, but it should do very well, if you give it a good lens to work with.

^This. I'd suggest a prime lens like the very good and inexpensive 35mm f/1.8g. Much of the autofocus performance is based on the lens, not the camera since the lens contains the AF motor which determines a good amount of the speed.

To answer your OP, autofocus is super super super important to me since I'm always using wide apertures (<2.8) for my portrait clients. In landscapes, you use small apertures with deep depth of field so focus is pretty much a nonissue. At f/8 with focus set far away your depth of field is hundreds of feet if not more. When you go indoors, your camera is automatically opening up the aperture as big as possible and also the closer your subject the shallower your depth of field. These two things do make autofocus more critical.

 

[CuriousMike]

I tend to shoot a lot of moving stuff - kids, birds and dogs. AF is my #2 priority behind overall image quality.

Earlier this year when I wanted to upgrade my D5000 specifically for the purpose of better AF, I took into account a system change ( including A6000 ), a lens change and a body change.

My research led me to believe that the lens is #1, followed by body. Most everyone said that, at best, the A6000 would be on par to a good DSLR for AF speed.

I concluded that the D7100 + 70-200f4 was my best choice (economics taken into account.) The D7100 has Nikons best AF system in it, and the 70-200f4 is considered a super fast focusing lens with awesome optics. The fact I'm a Nikon biased also brought me back home; but the breadth of lens options for Nikon compared to anyone other than Canon is something that cannot be ignored.

 

[shortylickens]

i like a fast autofocus, particularly if it works well in low light.
Generally need an SLR for that kind of precision.

 

[zCypher]

Get something with a constant fast aperture like f/2.8 for better autofocus results.

You can't really expect an f/5.6 lens to focus well in dark light, even though I've managed to use autofocus with an 18-55mm kit in moonlight, it will not always be there, also depending on your subject, of course.

Also the D5200 is not Nikons top AF system, but it should do very well, if you give it a good lens to work with.

This is true, and I am indeed still using the kit lens, so that's definitely not taking full advantage of the body. I've taken some fun low light shots, but found that above ISO 1600, at least with this lens, unlikely to get any keepers (maybe I am just a pixel peeper?).

Shooting hand held at night has been a fun challenge.

 

[CuriousMike]

above ISO 1600, *snip* pixel peeper *snip*

It's a bad-habit that I fell into - I've looked at a lot of high-ISO photos from a lot of cameras and they universally (APSC to FF ) look poor at pixel-peeping levels.

Take a step back and look at the photo at screen res and judge it from that level.

 

[CuriousMike]

I would highly recommend the Nikon 35mm f1.8 - it could make you go "wow" for the first time.

 

[zCypher]

I tend to shoot a lot of moving stuff - kids, birds and dogs. AF is my #2 priority behind overall image quality.

Earlier this year when I wanted to upgrade my D5000 specifically for the purpose of better AF, I took into account a system change ( including A6000 ), a lens change and a body change.

My research led me to believe that the lens is #1, followed by body. Most everyone said that, at best, the A6000 would be on par to a good DSLR for AF speed.

I concluded that the D7100 + 70-200f4 was my best choice (economics taken into account.) The D7100 has Nikons best AF system in it, and the 70-200f4 is considered a super fast focusing lens with awesome optics. The fact I'm a Nikon biased also brought me back home; but the breadth of lens options for Nikon compared to anyone other than Canon is something that cannot be ignored.

The autofocus was one of the things I looked at when choosing my D5200 too, and it's also one of the big things that caught my eye now looking at the A6000. It's pretty impressive what they've managed to do in such a small package.

It seems like there's pretty much no way around having multiple lenses if you want the sharpness and image quality of a prime lens. I like the versatility of the kit lens, and it does still take some great shots, but I'm feeling the limitations now. I feel like to cover all my needs I'd have at least three separate lenses..

Are there any zooms that come even remotely close to a prime quality-wise?

 

[CuriousMike]

Prime "quality" means a couple things to me.
Sharpness, contrast and ability to control depth-of-field.

None of the zooms < $1200 that I know of will control depth-of-field ( at least to my expectations. )

I don't know of any zooms that meet all those criteria; I know the Nikon 16-85 was heralded for a long time, the 18-140 is sharp ( I bought it for that reason), the new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 (which you should look at; I believe it's a fast focuser).
The Sigma 17-50f2.8 and Tamron 17-50f2.8 are also ones I've read favorable reviews on.

I've recently been looking at picking up the Sigma 24-105 f4 or a used Nikon 24-120 to replace my 18-140 as a step up mid-range zoom.

 

[Syborg1211]

I have both the Nikon 16-85 and Sigma 17-50. Both are excellent lenses. The 16-85 is great for nature walks and even some portraiture because of its wide and medium tele ends. When I used my APS-C a lot, I would use the Sigma more often though because it's a constant aperture lens. Once you use a constant aperture lens it's pretty hard to use anything else, and f/2.8 is pretty good for low light.

Here's a shot taken with the Sigma:

 

[Rdmkr]

There's a sigma lens with 50-150mm range and f/2.8 aperture (slightly) below $1000 if I'm not mistaken. If I ever decide to spend that kind of money on a lens again, it's on my short list.

In fact, there's two: a cheap, light version without OS that is much less sharp and a more expensive, heavier version with OS that has prime lens sharpness.

see: http://www.dxomark.com/content/search/?SearchText=sigma+50-150mm

No wide angle capability, unfortunately, if you were looking for that.

 

[bigrash]

I use autofocus most of the time when I shoot. It's rare that I shoot in manual focus.

 

[jtvang125]

I'm more AF but just recently picked up two manual lenses to try out. A 135/2.8 and 24/2 for $20. Trying to squeeze in a few shots during my lunches but there's just not that much interesting things to shoot around here. Maybe this weekend if the weather permits.

On my old minolta AF lenses I find the 50/1.7 hunting slightly more than the 28-105/3.5-4.5 even in good light. Considering how old these are I was shocked at how fast the AF was on a good lock.

 

[zCypher]

thanks for all the feedback. one of my buddies has, I think, the D5100, whichever it is one that's very similar to mine, and he's been shooting with the 35mm 1.8 lately since he picked up a proper flash too, and some of those pics he's taking indeed are very good looking. I think I'll have to pick one up soon.

All this camera talk made me bring mine with me when I went out today. I was able to shoot this fat bastard:

took 5-6 shots trying to get the autofocus to do my bidding, but couldn't get it right, ended up focusing manually. There are a lot of options in there, I think I just haven't done my due diligence in trial and error for that.

Is there a good value prime wide-angle?

 

[jtvang125]

Nice shot but I think your WB is a little off.

 

[CuriousMike]

zCypher - What AF mode are you using?

You should definitely be using single-point autofocus mode, where YOU pick the focus spot.
The image you posted shows the tree was the focus spot.

 

[CuriousMike]

i.e., you want single-point AF - then use your d-pad to select the focus point you want.

You should NOT be in Auto.

 

[zCypher]

Nice shot but I think your WB is a little off.

better?

 

[zCypher]

zCypher - What AF mode are you using?

You should definitely be using single-point autofocus mode, where YOU pick the focus spot.
The image you posted shows the tree was the focus spot.

I had it set to "dynamic area AF (39 points)" before, although during this shot I did indeed have it set to auto-area AF.

I guess this squirrel wasn't a particularly difficult subject, but doesn't using a single point autofocus make it difficult to get what you want in focus if your subject is moving around?

 

[CuriousMike]

I had it set to "dynamic area AF (39 points)" before, although during this shot I did indeed have it set to auto-area AF.

I guess this squirrel wasn't a particularly difficult subject, but doesn't using a single point autofocus make it difficult to get what you want in focus if your subject is moving around?

I would highly, highly, highly recommend some time with single point.
Yes, moving objects are an issue (dynamic AF is supposed to help with that).
But I urge, urge, urge you to spend time in single point and see if you can get the swing of it.

I trust myself to get the AF point on the thing I want focused more than letting the camera GUESS what I want in focus.

 

[CuriousMike]

Also, you shot the squirrel at 55mm, 1/30 of a second.

The general "rule" is 1/focal length to stop shake(blur).
Your VR helped you in this case, and you must have auto-ISO on because it was boosted to 800.

Keep your shutter speed in mind if you want the sharpest photos.

 

[CuriousMike]

Also, for moving subjects, be sure to use AF-C ( continuous autofocus. )
Note that AF-C doesn't work well with "focus and re-compose".

 

[Imp]

I 99% shoot stationary objects and am mostly on auto, but I probably wouldn't miss it too much if there was an easy to use focus ring. My infrared camera is manual only with a si hueg focus ring and I got used to that pretty quickly -- even harder since so much detail is lost it can get hard to figure out if it's in focus or not.