forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

A UHH topic last week compared autofocus and manual focus. I just read a Nikon tip at http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d800_d800e_tips/shooting_techniques_static_subjects/:

Press the button to magnify the view in the monitor by up to 23X for precise focusing with live view. This is particularly effective with manual focus.

This Nikon tip is apparently applicable at least to many static shots with a tripod.

My takeaway? Nikon thinks manual focus can readily outperform Nikon's flagship AF system. Even having known about live view and magnification of the camera's TTL image preview, I am surprised.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I do NOT believe that Nikon advocates manual focus will outperform A-F. There are definite situations where manual focus on high-mag Live View requires manual focus, such as astro-photography, where A-F will not work. Focus-stacking is another situation where M-F is more useful than A-F.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Nikon is merely stating the obvious - there are many situations where manual focus is preferred, and a magnified viewing image is a great aid.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I think you are reading too much in to it.
Nikon is just identifying another tool for the photographer to use.

MW

There are a small number of situations where this might be true. Such as low contrast, visually complex subject plus narrow DOF. MF might be more effective in choosing the exact image element that should be in sharpest focus. The rest of the time AF will do a better job

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Interesting take away. If true then it begs the questions why did they eliminate the split-screen manual focus aids of the SLRs of yore? And why would any manufacturer increase the cost of their cameras by adding expensive auto-focus systems that are generally inferior to manual focus?

Perhaps because of speed. Auto focus provides a speed advantage over manual focus and provides advantages with moving subjects. But manual is better for the most precise focus for example when shooting macro, or a still life, on a tripod, when precise focus given narrow DOF is needed.

FYI - Clicking the link results in "Page not found".

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Here is the corrected link (no period after URL): http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d800_d800e_tips/shooting_techniques_static_subjects

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I certainly wouldn't have the same takeaway given the detailed description of a process used for a fairly specific scenario.

There are application where MF is useful and there are many other applications where AF is not only useful, but "necessary".

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It sounds to me like Nikon is saying that particular technique works well if you are using manual focus, not that manual focus is better than AF.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

What a foolish statement! You obviously have no research laboratory experience, nor how to properly use Google.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMX8eHtToA
http://shinova.en.made-in-china.com/product/HolntIvdMOWZ/China-Motorized-Auto-Focus-Microscope-AN-800D-.html
http://www.labomed.com/LB-286.html
Several models listed here: http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/auto--focus-digital-microscope.html

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

forjava, that's an easy statement to make or interpret. I'll be honest, I'm not gonna waste time reading it.
I use a lot of LV on occasion, and it's only useful in a few situation on MF.
For one, much past 10x magnification it's pretty hard to actually discern very small increments in manual focus, especially with the high ratio movement of most lenses because of pixelation and even distance as well.
I've heard many tout how the AF confirmation as so great. Sure at f8 and above, MAYBE! It's useless with very shallow dof or fast long lenses.
And even on a tripod, at 23x on almost any subject it's especially useless. At 23x the camera would have to be cast into the concrete of a bridge abutment to hold it still enough to be of ANY value.
And at ANY distance, the detail is so small that good focus can't be gauged on a rear screen on LV, let alone if there is any movement, and at 23x there is going to be movement!!
Lastly, let's consider light levels, anything less than bright sun, and again, LV gets dubious.
Sure, I'm absolutely sure that in a DXO environment LV is always superior, but in the real world, LV actually has a huge number of mitigations.
YET, in most all of those same environments, AF is DEAD-ON as long as it's properly calibrated.
The problem with MF and live view and it's built-in limitations is that it requires human interaction, which is NEVER going to be as accurate as AF!!!! That's not my 2cents, it's my real world experience using both AF, MF and LV!! ;-)
SS

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

I have to agree with Mac on this one.
Craig