Is a follow-focus system useful for still photography?

Asked 8/16/2011

4 views

2 answers

0

I often use manual focus for stills in situations like low light or when I’m anticipating action near the camera against a distant background. Cinematographers commonly use follow-focus systems for manual focus control, but I rarely see still photographers using them. Are there situations where a follow-focus setup is actually beneficial for still photography, and what are the main pros and cons compared with using the lens focus ring or autofocus?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

9

"Real" follow-focus (he said, using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy) involves a separate focus puller in addition to the camera operator (whose job is primarily framing/composition). With a single operator (photographer), it's hard to manageboth the framing/composition and keeping an eye on the lens's focus scale. That, in itself, poses a bit of a practicality issue, since the working space is kind of cramped with a typical stills camera.

Yes, we did do something of the sort in the manual-focus days (with the photographer trying to maintain focus and framing at the same time, which required a bit of practice to develop the muscle memory required for each lens), but continuous autofocus has largely made this a solved problem in most instances. You can still do it, but it petty much requires either a replacement focusing screen or a small enough aperture to let DoF take care of minor discrepancies. A more standard approach with stills (especially in areas like runway fashion) is to prefocus the camera and wait for the model to hit the mark, so to speak.

What you will often see, though, is heavy use of focus memory in lenses that provide it (especially among sports photographers). Higher-end long lenses often provide a memory function that will allow you to preset focus points for quick recall when needed (so if you are shooting, say, a baseball game, you can have first base in memory and catch the play at first without having to wait for autofocus to home in on something). There are outboard systems available (usually at horrendous prices) that can add similar functionality to just about any lens -- they're designed for use in the SLR cine world, and while they're cheaper than high-end cine/video equipment, "cheaper" is definitely a relative term.

Originally by user2719. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user2719

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Usually, no. Follow-focus systems are mainly a video tool. In filmmaking, focus is often handled separately from framing, sometimes by a dedicated focus puller, which makes the setup practical. In still photography, one person usually has to compose, time the shot, and focus at once, so a follow-focus can actually make things less practical.

For stills, the lens’s own focus ring is usually enough when using manual focus. Modern autofocus also solves most situations where photographers once relied on manual-focus technique and muscle memory.

A possible exception is macro photography, where very small focus adjustments are critical. Even then, the benefit is limited, since still photographers usually don’t have the same need as videographers to isolate camera movement while pulling focus, and it doesn’t matter if your hand briefly touches the lens during focusing.

Main downsides for still photography: added bulk, slower operation, extra cost, and giving up autofocus advantages. So while it can be done, a follow-focus system is rarely useful for general still photography and is most relevant for DSLR/video rigs rather than standard photo shooting.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer