Before proceeding, I want to declare openly that I am about to ask a question which some may interpret as unnecessarily raising controversy or attempting to troll the group or provoke some of its members. Please be assured that is absolutely not my intent, and it is my hope that we can have something resembling an intelligent discussion around the topic. There are some specific elements involved, and I don't want to shy away from those. But please do not interpret them as provocation.

The thoughts behind this discussion arose as I was getting ready to do the latest firmware update for my D850. It was released in April, but I somehow missed it until yesterday. It apparently provides for improved operation with certain lenses. And no...it does not add the "Eye Focus" capability that many have been anxiously awaiting.

So the question is this...and I haven't been able to find a delicate way to ask it...for those who treasure "Manual" photography, exactly what are the boundaries of thta method of operation? And for the purposes of this discussion, let's please set aside the question of whether "Auto ISO" is or is not part of "manual exposure." It's been discussed thoroughly elsewhere without resolution. I'm passionate around my position on that subject and realize that others are equally passionate around their own, different, position.

BUT...it seems that many (and I mean many everywhere, not just here) who would never consider following anything other than manual exposure management would also never consider anything other than automatic camera focus. And preferably automatic camera focus that can identify, lock in on, and focus on the eye of their subject, whether human or animal. Why is the manual choice preferred in the one case, but the automatic choice is lusted after in the other case?

Now just for full disclosure here. I proudly use autofocus essentially all the time, except for night sky photography and a few other cases where autofocus falls short. I was initially quite concerned when some of my newest cameras no longer had an autofocus assist light. (Trust me...I learned that it's OK.) Because of some vision problems relating either from glaucoma or occupational exposure to intense light (my doctor and I don't agree on which), I shamelessly depend on autofocus. And yes, I use Program exposure mode a lot of the time also. It's just too good and too convenient if I select the correct metering pattern, and I am pretty shameless about that also.

Why do we think there is such a disparity in the acceptance of automatic exposure vs. autofocus, especially since various forms of automatic exposure have been around longer than autofocus? I am really interested in the responses here, especially if we can keep the discussion civil and thoughtful.

It's a serious question and should be respected with varied options.
Auto vs manual.
With the advancement it technolgy today it's depressing to see how great the quality is with the cell phone cameras, the balance between light and shaded ares are balanced without having to set your capture and speed to balance everything.
When shooting film we used what was referred to as the 400 125 16 method.
ASA 400 speed 125 at F:16 in average sunlight.
Depending on what the point of focus was you could go up or down with the aperture, lighting adjust likewise, motion blurred or frozen.
If you were photographing a serious subject, we would take three frames, one up one down and the stating point.
It always seemed to work out, putting you in the ball park with little or no tweaking involed.
Here's something to also consider, that is using a different ASA setting, 200 ASA, then F:11 speed 100
Hope this helps.
Not to insult anyones intelligence, but remember when editing digital, always use Tiff, then revert back to jpeg when finished editing your image.

Auto vs Manual boils down to 3 things.

1. Manual is about creativity and mastery of equipment and auto is about "just get a photo!".

2. Many photographer feel that they are not doing a good job if they are using auto and having that judgement, they extend it to others, believing that those who do not use manual and its output which is RAW, are idiots.

3. There are occasions when auto is more appropriate to use than manual. That said, refer to #2

But we must not forget that there are half ways between this two.
Several in fact; Aperture priority, Shutter priority, Program mode, Auto ISO, TTL, Vibration reduction etc. all of which have a niche where they are the best for that time.

Auto vs Manual boils down to 3 things.

1. Manual is about creativity and mastery of equipment and auto is about "just get a photo!".

2. Many photographer feel that they are not doing a good job if they are using auto and having that judgement, they extend it to others, believing that those who do not use manual and its output which is RAW, are idiots.

3. There are occasions when auto is more appropriate to use than manual. That said, refer to #2

But we must not forget that there are half ways between this two.
Several in fact; Aperture priority, Shutter priority, Program mode, Auto ISO, TTL, Vibration reduction etc. all of which have a niche where they are the best for that time.