Digital SLR maual focus screens

"Paul Furman" <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:4X18j.5741$fl7.3016@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> MaryL wrote:
>> "Dave" <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:J1Z6j.1255$sf.682@trndny04...
>>> Yesterday I was looking at a couple of digital SLR's to replace my 35mm
>>> SLR (a 'mart store). I was disappointed at the two I looked at because
>>> the manual focus screen is not like a film 35mm (split ring focus or
>>> micro prism), and the cameras don't seem to get the focus right unless
>>> there is fairly good contrast in the subject. My question is if anyone
>>> knows of a DSLR that has a really good manual focus screen - one that a
>>> manual 35mm film camera owner would love?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time and I'll wait to see what develops (ha! ha!)
>>>
>>> Dave (or is it just a picture?)
>>> --
>>> e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm
>>
>> I have been following this thread because it discusses one of the
>> features I would love to have. I have a Nikon 8800 and am considering a
>> Nikon d40x or d70 (if I can still find one). I have found that some
>> pictures are not in focus when I use the built-in telephoto, even when it
>> is not extended to any great length. Years ago, I had a film SLR with
>> split focus screen. I loved that. It was more difficult when I upgraded
>> to a film SLR with microprism screen (not quite the term that was used
>> then, if I remember correctly). I have astigmatism, and it was much
>> easier for me to bring the split images together than to work with the
>> prism. Of course, *neither* is necessary with digital as long as I am
>> satisfied with auto-focus. However -- as I said earlier -- I have had
>> instances when auto-focus simply does not seem to create a really sharp
>> image, especially if lighting conditions are poor.
>
> The problem is, if there isn't enough light to autofocus it's going to be
> tough manual focusing, even with focusing aids. Sometimes my Katseye
> screen is useful, sometime it just gets in the way. Because I have a lot
> of manual lenses I like the screen but it's not a universal cure.

That's a good point, and something I hadn't thought of. However, here's an
example with my current camera (which, overall, I like very much). I tried
to take some pictures of a raccoon that was on a bird feeder just outside my
kitchen window. The lighting was *less* than desirable -- it was dark
outside, but the racoon had set off the motion detector, so there was light
from ther outdoor flood light. When I tried to take pictures, I could
easily see that the racoon would be out of focus as soon as I tried to use
the telephoto -- and I was right, as shown by some test shots I took. I
could do "somewhat" better by repositioning the telephoto somewhat, but
these were pictures where I could see even without any aids that the
auto-focus was going to result in blurred images. Is there any way to
compensate for that with the dslr cameras (specifically the Nikon d40x or
d70)?

MaryL
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

MaryL wrote:

> "Paul Furman" <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:4X18j.5741$fl7.3016@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>MaryL wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:J1Z6j.1255$sf.682@trndny04...
>>>
>>>>Yesterday I was looking at a couple of digital SLR's to replace my 35mm
>>>>SLR (a 'mart store). I was disappointed at the two I looked at because
>>>>the manual focus screen is not like a film 35mm (split ring focus or
>>>>micro prism), and the cameras don't seem to get the focus right unless
>>>>there is fairly good contrast in the subject. My question is if anyone
>>>>knows of a DSLR that has a really good manual focus screen - one that a
>>>>manual 35mm film camera owner would love?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your time and I'll wait to see what develops (ha! ha!)
>>>>
>>>>Dave (or is it just a picture?)
>>>>--
>>>>e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm
>>>
>>>I have been following this thread because it discusses one of the
>>>features I would love to have. I have a Nikon 8800 and am considering a
>>>Nikon d40x or d70 (if I can still find one). I have found that some
>>>pictures are not in focus when I use the built-in telephoto, even when it
>>>is not extended to any great length. Years ago, I had a film SLR with
>>>split focus screen. I loved that. It was more difficult when I upgraded
>>>to a film SLR with microprism screen (not quite the term that was used
>>>then, if I remember correctly). I have astigmatism, and it was much
>>>easier for me to bring the split images together than to work with the
>>>prism. Of course, *neither* is necessary with digital as long as I am
>>>satisfied with auto-focus. However -- as I said earlier -- I have had
>>>instances when auto-focus simply does not seem to create a really sharp
>>>image, especially if lighting conditions are poor.
>>
>>The problem is, if there isn't enough light to autofocus it's going to be
>>tough manual focusing, even with focusing aids. Sometimes my Katseye
>>screen is useful, sometime it just gets in the way. Because I have a lot
>>of manual lenses I like the screen but it's not a universal cure.
>
>
> That's a good point, and something I hadn't thought of. However, here's an
> example with my current camera (which, overall, I like very much). I tried
> to take some pictures of a raccoon that was on a bird feeder just outside my
> kitchen window. The lighting was *less* than desirable -- it was dark
> outside, but the racoon had set off the motion detector, so there was light
> from ther outdoor flood light. When I tried to take pictures, I could
> easily see that the racoon would be out of focus as soon as I tried to use
> the telephoto -- and I was right, as shown by some test shots I took. I
> could do "somewhat" better by repositioning the telephoto somewhat, but
> these were pictures where I could see even without any aids that the
> auto-focus was going to result in blurred images. Is there any way to
> compensate for that with the dslr cameras (specifically the Nikon d40x or
> d70)?
>
> MaryL
>
>
MaryL, and all the others that have posted, thanks for the discussion.
I'm the one that asked the question way back when. The discussion
has been interesting, and somewhat helpful. I think that there are
some nuggets of insight that I can use:

1. Auto focus is a lot better than it used to be, but it is not
perfect and there are situations where it may be undesirable - such as
using focus as a creative element of the photo.

2. To use auto focus I will need to replace all of my lenses, which
will be costly. Now this is not to say that a camera like the D300
can't use the lenses, but auto focus won't work.

3. While automation can work very well in most situations, it is
largely a personal preference - like an automatic transmission vs. an
manual one. The automatic transmission may shift faster, and better,
but I like manual transmissions, manual cameras, and in their day,
manual turntables. I bear no ill will toward anyone using automatic
anything - it just isn't for me. For me, the ideal DSLR is the
digital version of old favorites such as the FM, K1000, F2, and F1.
Again, that is my preference - maybe not yours.

4. (most) DSLR's can have different focus screens, and the higher end
ones such as the D3 have a selection of them. The ones supplied don't
seem to be condusive to manual focus, but that can be changed.

5. Everyone seems to have a preference for focus screens. Some work
better than others in various situations. However, like many things,
it often comes down to what a person is used to.

Again, thanks for the discussion - it was helpful.

Dave,

--
e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

In article <Kgg8j.3756$W27.784@trndny09>, Dave <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com>
wrote:

> 1. Auto focus is a lot better than it used to be, but it is not
> perfect and there are situations where it may be undesirable - such as
> using focus as a creative element of the photo.

I have no problem using autofocus creatively. The subject is quite
often off-center. So I focus on the subject, hold the button, and
compose the shot.

> 2. To use auto focus I will need to replace all of my lenses, which
> will be costly. Now this is not to say that a camera like the D300
> can't use the lenses, but auto focus won't work.

I came into digital from the medium format world, so I had to start
over with lenses anyway.

> 3. While automation can work very well in most situations, it is
> largely a personal preference - like an automatic transmission vs. an
> manual one. The automatic transmission may shift faster, and better,
> but I like manual transmissions, manual cameras, and in their day,
> manual turntables. I bear no ill will toward anyone using automatic
> anything - it just isn't for me. For me, the ideal DSLR is the
> digital version of old favorites such as the FM, K1000, F2, and F1.
> Again, that is my preference - maybe not yours.

Hate to say it, but the automation is pretty impressive these days.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

MaryL wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:4X18j.5741$fl7.3016@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> MaryL wrote:
>>> "Dave" <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:J1Z6j.1255$sf.682@trndny04...
>>>> Yesterday I was looking at a couple of digital SLR's to replace my 35mm
>>>> SLR (a 'mart store). I was disappointed at the two I looked at because
>>>> the manual focus screen is not like a film 35mm (split ring focus or
>>>> micro prism), and the cameras don't seem to get the focus right unless
>>>> there is fairly good contrast in the subject. My question is if anyone
>>>> knows of a DSLR that has a really good manual focus screen - one that a
>>>> manual 35mm film camera owner would love?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time and I'll wait to see what develops (ha! ha!)
>>>>
>>>> Dave (or is it just a picture?)
>>>> --
>>>> e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm
>>> I have been following this thread because it discusses one of the
>>> features I would love to have. I have a Nikon 8800 and am considering a
>>> Nikon d40x or d70 (if I can still find one). I have found that some
>>> pictures are not in focus when I use the built-in telephoto, even when it
>>> is not extended to any great length. Years ago, I had a film SLR with
>>> split focus screen. I loved that. It was more difficult when I upgraded
>>> to a film SLR with microprism screen (not quite the term that was used
>>> then, if I remember correctly). I have astigmatism, and it was much
>>> easier for me to bring the split images together than to work with the
>>> prism. Of course, *neither* is necessary with digital as long as I am
>>> satisfied with auto-focus. However -- as I said earlier -- I have had
>>> instances when auto-focus simply does not seem to create a really sharp
>>> image, especially if lighting conditions are poor.
>>>
>> The problem is, if there isn't enough light to autofocus it's going to be
>> tough manual focusing, even with focusing aids. Sometimes my Katseye
>> screen is useful, sometime it just gets in the way. Because I have a lot
>> of manual lenses I like the screen but it's not a universal cure.
>
> That's a good point, and something I hadn't thought of. However, here's an
> example with my current camera (which, overall, I like very much). I tried
> to take some pictures of a raccoon that was on a bird feeder just outside my
> kitchen window. The lighting was *less* than desirable -- it was dark
> outside, but the racoon had set off the motion detector, so there was light
> from the outdoor flood light. When I tried to take pictures, I could
> easily see that the racoon would be out of focus as soon as I tried to use
> the telephoto -- and I was right, as shown by some test shots I took. I
> could do "somewhat" better by repositioning the telephoto somewhat, but
> these were pictures where I could see even without any aids that the
> auto-focus was going to result in blurred images. Is there any way to
> compensate for that with the dslr cameras (specifically the Nikon d40x or
> d70)?

For closer shots there is the AF assist light which is turned on by
default but I turn it off because it's pretty disconcerting to people.

My method when the focus aids don't work is to rock the focus back &
forth & land on the middle point.

There is also the AF confirm light which lights up in the viewfinder,
although when dim or contrast is low, it's pretty liberal about
confirmation.

One more option is to focus bracket... I don't tend to actually do this
much but the 'film' is free. I do for macros but could do so more often.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens