Phase, contrast, or manual focus for wildlife photography?

[Nicks Pics]

Do you use Phase detection, contrast detection, or manual focus for wildlife photography for shooting birds and other wildlife? (if you do shoot wildlife, or sports would be comparable)

Iv'e read about it some, but info doesn't seem very consistent on whether contrast or phase is more accurate, faster, and dependable. Or is manual really best because it's manual?

Thanks any advise appreciated!

[Manfred M]

Phase detect.

That tends to be the standard technology used in a DSLR when shooting through a viewfinder. I find modern lenses built for autofocus have such a short throw, that they are a pain to focus manually on a moving subject, even on cameras with focus assistance. Contrast detect has gotten better (only available when using LiveView on my DSLRs), but when I compare the phase detect on my D800 versus the contrast detect on my Panasonic GX7, the D800 is much faster and more accurate.

[chauncey]

I might suggest that trying to use manual focusing on a rapidly moving object would be a neat trick.

[Geoff F]

Yes, but sometimes when birds (other wildlife as well) are sitting amongst branches or other foliage etc, using manual focus helps to prevent false autofocus problems.

[Manfred M]

Yes, but sometimes when birds (other wildlife as well) are sitting amongst branches or other foliage etc, using manual focus helps to prevent false autofocus problems.

I find single point focusing works even better. The complex matrix modes can never quite understand that you are trying for the bird, not the twig or branch in front of it or behind it.

[Downrigger]

Manual is a big help for smallish stationary subjects in the presence of lots of false subjects (vegetation) and it's hard to get the spot on and edge in or near the subject with confidence. For moving subjects - false subjects tend to be less an issue and single point does OK, but sometimes grabs the branches or cloud bank in the background.

[inkista]

+1 Phase detect because that's what my dSLR does through the viewfinder, and speed is more important than smoothness.

Also +1 on single-point.

I might suggest that trying to use manual focusing on a rapidly moving object would be a neat trick.

Agreed.

I've tried to do it (let's just say a 350D/XT+75-300 III+1.4x tc combo means you can manually focus faster than you can autofocus). It involved a LOT of swearing, missed shots, and near-zero keeper rate with my skillset.

[Nicks Pics]

Helpful replies, thanks folks

I am actually using a superzoom, but the reason I'm asking about phase and manual is that these features are available on some some cameras of this type.

Manfred mentioned single point focusing-is that where you select a certain area on your screen where the camera will focus?
In a quick test with my camera, I found that my continuous focus function could catch small subject with the least tries, as compared to my center focus and select area function. (these are different focus modes, not focus types )


Maybe an accurate AF could sometimes help with a shot like this I got the other day, but it's a tough situation with the ground right behind the bird

Nice to hear what you guys think, thanks!

[inkista]

That's really very good for a bridge cam (Fuji SL1000) with a 1200mm equiv. superzoom lens. (BTW, you only have contrast-detection AF on that camera). But yeah, single point is when you tell the camera to use only one of the AF points. Where it's placed (typically in the center) can be changed, but you can also place the point over your subject, acquire focus, then lock it (either with a shutter half press, or another button), reframe, and then take the shot. You can also consider prefocusing at a place where your subject is going to be, and then take the shot when it gets there.

If you have enough sunshine and shutter speed, you could possibly also stop down (use a smaller aperture), to increase your depth of field, but with a 1/2.3" format sensor, you may have to keep your iso down.

I also shoot micro four-thirds and have a G3--which only does contrast-detection, and for perched or walking birds, it's pretty good.



I typically a single AF area, and make it as small as possible, so I can be more specific about what's in focus.

But for BIF, the G3/45-200 combo simply doesn't cut it, AF-speed-wise, and I have to go dSLR and phase detection.

[Nicks Pics]

The general agreement seems to be that phase detection is more accurate/faster and preferable for wildlife photography, with the help of manual in certain situations. Thanks everyone for your experience!

[Manfred M]

The general agreement seems to be that phase detection is more accurate/faster and preferable for wildlife photography, with the help of manual in certain situations. Thanks everyone for your experience!

While that may be true, DSLRs are the only cameras with that form of autofocus. Any cameras with electronic viewfinders (mirror less, super-zoom, etc.) are only available as contrast detect. Your choice of camera is going to drive the autofocus implementation.

[Nicks Pics]

Yes, it may be that DSLRs are the usual cameras to have phase detection, but there are a few exceptions: Fujifilm is somewhat innovative with bridge cameras, such as with the fujfilm HS50

[Manfred M]

Yes, it may be that DSLRs are the usual cameras to have phase detection, but there are a few exceptions: Fujifilm is somewhat innovative with bridge cameras, such as with the fujfilm HS50

Yes, there are unique solutions out there; but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I remember that certain models Polaroid cameras that used sound pulses to measure distance. The technology worked reasonably well, except when people tried to shoot from behind a closed window...

[Nicks Pics]

That sound like a rather unusual technology for a digital camera to use, but then, I'm not very technoloically knowledgeable

[dje]

Yes, there are unique solutions out there; but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I remember that certain models Polaroid cameras that used sound pulses to measure distance. The technology worked reasonably well, except when people tried to shoot from behind a closed window...

Another interesting one is Canon's "dual pixel" technology employed in the 70D which allows phase detection with the main sensor over quite a wide area of the sensor. The 70D is of course still a DSLR with a separate AF sensor but the new technology allows much faster phase detection AF in Live View mode.

Dave

[Manfred M]

That sound like a rather unusual technology for a digital camera to use, but then, I'm not very technoloically knowledgeable

This was not a digital camera; rather an instant film camera. I was referring to the SX-70 One-Step Sonar (1978 I believe).

[Nicks Pics]

Would an ultra sonic focus scare an animal subject away as soon as you point

The HS50 I mentionedthough I've not owned it, is said to automaticly switch between contrast and phase detection.

[Black Pearl]

It might switch automatically but its not 'real' phase detect more it uses some of the pixels on the sensor to 'act' like a phase system. It might work in some circumstances but it can't match a dedicated AF sensor with a dedicated processor running it.

[Black Pearl]

As to the ultrasonic system in the old Polaroids then the range was very limited as the focus steps were very limited- once beyond the range it would simply default to infinity.

[benm]

The general agreement seems to be that phase detection is more accurate/faster and preferable for wildlife photography, with the help of manual in certain situations. Thanks everyone for your experience!

Phase detect is faster but not more accurate than contrast detect. But it is a moot point for most DSLRs. To use contrast detect you need to use live view and that means holding the camera out in front of you. That doesn't work so well when you have a 300 or 500 mm lens attached.